Imprimatur, Liber cui titulus [A Full View of the Doctrines and Practices of the Ancient Church, relating to the Eucharist, etc.] H. Maurice, Reverndissimo in Christo P. D. Wilhelmo Archiepiscopo Cant. à Sacris. Octob. 6. 1687. A FULL VIEW OF THE Doctrines and Practices OF THE Ancient Church Relating to the EUCHARIST. Wholly different from those of The Present ROMAN CHURCH, And inconsistent with the Belief of TRANSUBSTANTIATION. BEING A sufficient Confutation of Consensus Veterum, Nubes Testium, and other Late Collections of the Fathers, pretending the contrary. Rectum est Index sui & Obliqui. LONDON, Printed for Richard Chiswell at the Rose and Crown in St. Paul's Churchyard. MDCLXXXVIII. A PREFACE to the READER. THAT which is here offered to thy Perusal, was occasioned by some late Pamphlets * Succession of Church and Sacraments. Consensus Veterum. Nubes Testium. , that appeared, much about the same time, in Print, pretending by a Heap of Testimonies from the Fathers to prove, as in some other Doctrines, so particularly in that of the Corporal Presence and Transubstantiation, That the Ancient Church, and the present Roman, are at a good Agreement. It is very hard for Us to believe this, and scarce credible that they themselves did so, when we see so much Unsincerity in their Allegations; such Deceit and contrived disguising the Sense of the Fathers, in their Translations; such late, uncertain, and supposititious Writings cited by them, under the Venerable Names of Ancient Authors: When the way that Procrustes took, of stretching Limbs, or chopping them off, to make all agree to his Bed who were to be laid in it, is used to make the Ancient and the Present Church to agree, a Consent thus procured can occasion but a short and a sorry Triumph. Yet those Performances have been cried up, and they are looked upon as Storehouses and Repositories, whence any Champion of theirs who enters the Lists, may be furnished from the Fathers, either with what is necessary for his own Defence, or the assailing of an Adversary. The Representer, since that, made great use of them, in a brisk Attaque he made upon the Dublin Letter, tho' the Success, I believe, did not answer his Expectation. The Convert of Putney's Performance (who in his Consensus Veterum made the largest Show of Fathers on behalf of Transubstantiation) has had a particular Consideration given it, by his worthy Answerer * Veteres Vindicati. : And so all the other Testimonies in the rest of them, that are of any seeming strength and moment, have received Answers to them from other Hands; particularly from the Learned Author of The Doctrine of the Trinity and Transubstantiation compared, Part 1. If any thing, after all, seems to be wanting on our Part, it is this; That as our Adversaries have made a Show of Fathers (for I can give it no better name) pretended to countenance their Doctrines of the Corporal Presence and Transubstantiation; so we also ought to have our Collection of Testimonies from the Ancients, made faithfully and impartially, wherein their true Sense in these Matters may be clearly seen and viewed, and thereby their Dissent from this Church appear plainly, in those things that either constitute this Doctrine, or are necessary Consequents of it. And this is that which I have undertaken in the following Papers; wherein as the Usefulness of the Design has encouraged me to take some Pains, so I shall think them well bestowed, if the Reader will bring an honest and unprejudiced Mind to the Perusal of them, and suffer himself to be determined in his Opinions concerning this Controversy, according to the Evidence of Truth here offered for his Conviction. If the Differences (which the annexed Contents of the Chapters give an Account of) are of such a Nature, and stand at such a wide Distance, that it's impossible ever to bring Transubstantiation to shake Hands with them as Friends; and if the two Churches, the Ancient and the Present Roman, are really divided and disagreeing, as I pretend to have demonstrated, in those Points, it will then I hope hereafter be ridiculous, to talk confidently of a Consent of Fathers, and of a Cloud of Witnesses on their Side. But if I am herein mistaken, I am so little tender of my Reputation, compared with Truth, that I hearty desire to be confuted and made a Convert; for I am conscious to my self of no false Fathers I have cited for true ones; of no disguising or perverting their Sense, by an Ill Translation of their Words; (which I have therefore set down in their own Language) of no imposing upon the Reader a Sense of my own making, contrary to what I believe that they intended. I have but one Request more to make to the unknown Author of a Book entitled, Reason and Authority, etc. who mentioning the Defence of the Dublin Letter * Pag. 119. (for which I have some reason to be concerned) says, That the Authorities of the Fathers there urged are, as he conceives, in the Sense of them, either mistaken or misapplied, and that he shall endeavour to reconcile them to other Expressions of the Fathers, and to (that which he calls) the Catholic Doctrine of Transubstantiation. I humbly desire, when he is about this Reconciling Work, and his Hand is in, that he would go on to reconcile also the Differences urged in the following Papers. Which if he shall do to any purpose, I promise to return the Compliments he has passed upon that Defender with Interest, and to alter my present Opinion of him, upon his Performances in that Book. Farewell. THE CONTENTS OF THE CHAPTERS. BEING A Summary of the DIFFERENCES betwixt the FAITH and PRACTICES of the Two Churches. CHAP. I. The First Difference. The Roman Church asserts perpetual Miracles in the Eucharist: The Ancient Church owns none but those of God's Grace, working Changes in us, not in the Substance of the Elements. Page 1 CHAP. II. The Second Difference. They differ in determining what that Thing is which Christ calls My Body; which the Ancient Church says is Bread, but the Roman Church denies it. Page 7 CHAP. III. The Third Difference. The Roman Church believes, That Accidents subsist in the Eucharist without any Subject: This the Fathers deny. Page 12 CHAP. IV, The Fourth Difference. The Roman Church uses the Word Species, to signify those self-subsisting Accidents: the Fathers never take Species in this Sense. Page 16 CHAP. V The Fifth Difference. The Fathers differ from this Church about the Properties of Bodies; as, 1. They assert, That every organised Body, even that of Christ, is visible and palpable. Page 21 2. That every Body possesses a Place, and is commensurate to it, and cannot be in more Places than one, nor be entire in one Part, nor exist after the manner of a Spirit. All which Transubstantiation denies. Page 22 3. That it is impossible for one to dwell in himself, or partake of ones self; this inferring Penetration of Dimensions, and that a greater Body may be contained in a lesser; which the Fathers deny. Page 29 CHAP. VI The Sixth Difference. The Roman Church teaches us to disbelieve the Report of our Senses, which tell us, That Bread and Wine remain in the Eucharist: The Fathers urge this Evidence, even with relation to Christ's true Body. Page 31 Object. The Fathers call upon us not to believe our Senses in the Case of the Eucharist. Answ. 1. The Father's appeal to our Senses in this Case. Page 39 2. They call upon Men not to regard their Information, in Matters wherein none question the Truth of their Information. ibid. 3. The true Reason why the Fathers call us off from listening to our Senses, is, to make us regard and attend to things beyond their Information. Page 40 A Place of S. Cyril of Jerusalem, and another of S. chrysostom, explained. Page 42 CHAP. VII. The Seventh Difference. When the Fathers call the Eucharist Christ's Body and Blood, the Roman Church understands it of Christ's Natural Body; but the Fathers mean it commonly of the Bread and Wine. Several Observables from the Fathers, to explain and prove this; as, 1 Obs. They tell us of their studiously concealing the Mysteries from some Persons. Page 44 2 Obs. The Fathers, in their manner of speaking concerning Christ's Body, point at another thing than his Natural Body. Page 46 3 Obs. They speak of Christ's Body with Terms of Restriction and Diminution. Page 48 4 Obs. They give us Reasons why it is called Christ's Body, (which none do for calling things by their Proper Names) from its Resemblance and Representation. Page 49 5 Obs. What they call Christ's Body, they say is without Life or Sense. Page 51 6 Obs. They speak of Divisions and Parts of it, not to be affirmed of his Natural Body. Page 52 7 Obs. They speak of making Christ's Body, differently from the Sense of the Roman Church. Page 54 They affirm, 1. That whatsoever is made, was not before it was made. Page 55 2. That Bread is made his Body, and that it is made of Bread and Wine Page 55, 56 They call it sometimes Mystical Bread, sometimes Christ's Mystical Body. Page 57 8 Obs. They speak of Christ's Body as sanctified and sacrificed in the Eucharist, which is only true of his Typical Body. Page 58 The Natural Body of Christ cannot be sanctified nor sacrificed properly. Page 59 CHAP. VIII. The Eighth Difference. When the Father's mention a Change and Conversion in the Eucharist, the Roman Church understands such a Change as abolishes the Substance of Bread and Wine: The Fathers never understand it so. Page 62 Several Assertions of the Fathers to explain this. 1 Assert. They distinguish between the Conversion of a thing, and its abolishing. ibid. 2 Assert. When they speak of a Conversion into what was before, they suppose an Accession and Augmentation of that into which the Change is made. Page 63 3 Assert. The Father's use the same Terms of Conversion, Passing into, Becoming another thing, etc. in other Cases besides that of the Eucharist, wherein all confess no Change of Substances is made. Page 65 Some Axioms of the Fathers to this purpose. ibid. Their Instances of such Changes given, in Nature, in Regeneration, in Christ's Incarnation, our Resurrection, in Baptism, wherein the Change, however expressed, can be only in Qualities. Page 65, 66, 67 4 Assert. The Fathers, by a Change in the Eucharist, mean either a Change into a Sacrament, or that of Efficacy and Virtue, by infusing and adding Grace. Page 69, 70 5 Assert. They express as fully, and in the same mann●r, our substantial Change into Christ's Body, as of the Bread into Christ's Body. Page 72 CHAP. IX. The Ninth Difference. The Roman Church asserts a substantial Presence of Christ's Natural Body in the Eucharist, which the Fathers deny. Page 74 Several Positions of the Fathers to this purpose. 1 Pos. The Father's look upon Christ's Body as absent from Earth since his Ascension; tho' in another sense he is present still. ibid. 2 Pos. They distinguish the presence of Christ's Body from the Sacrament of it, which they make to be a memorial of him as gone away. Page 77, 78 3 Pos. Whatsoever presence of Christ the Fathers speak of in the Eucharist, they acknowledge the same in Baptism, and as fully. Page 79, 80 They speak of those Waters as turned into Blood, of our being Baptised in Blood, and yet neither they, nor any else, dreamed of Transubstantiation. Page 82 4 Pos. They so consider the presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist, as can no way agree to his glorified Body. Page 83 5 Pos. According to them, the Presence of Christ's Body to us now, is a presence to our Faith, a presence of Union, Efficacy and Grace. Page 85 What foul play the Romanists have used with an Author that denied this. Page 90 An Account of a late Learned Dissertation concerning Christ's Body and Blood, occasioned by a doubt proposed to S. Austin. Page 91 CHAP. X. The Tenth Difference. The Fathers assert positively, that the substance of Bread and Wine remain after Consecration, which the R. Church denies. Page 93 Proved by their asserting, that Christ offered the same oblation with Melchisedek. Page 101 Fraction in the Eucharist can only agree to the Bread. Page 103 CHAP. XI. The Eleventh Difference. The Fathers make the Bread and Wine to be the Sacrament, Sign, Figure, Type, Antitype, Image, etc. of Christ's Body and Blood, which Transubstantiation contradicts. Page 105 Instances of the particulars. Their calling it a Sacrament. ibid. Signs. 106. Types. 107. Antitypes. ibid. A Figure. 108. Image. 110. Further Remarks of the Father's confirming the Argument, as 1 Remark. They say an Image, Figure, &c. cannot be the thing itself. Page 111 2 Rem. That an Image, Type, etc. must visibly demonstrate that, of which it is an Image, Type, etc. Page 112 3 Rem. They make the Elements to be the Signs, Symbols, etc. of Christ as absent. Page 113 Some Passages out of the old Liturgy in Bertrams time. Page 114 The Doctrine of the Christians of St. Thomas in the East-Indies, confirming the same. Page 115 CHAP. XII. The Twelfth Difference. The Fathers assert that Christ's Body is not eaten Corporally and Carnally, but only spiritually. Whereas the Rom. Church teaches a Corporal Eating of Christ's Body. Page 116 Berengarius' Recantation supposes this in the most literal sense. ibid. Tho' this sense was opposed afterwards. 117. Yet all Rom. agree that Christ's Natural Body is taken into ours. 118. How long they assert it makes its stay there. ibid. Horrid Cases how resolved. 119. What the Fathers call understanding things Carnally. 120. That they opposed the literal and carnal eating of Christ's Body. Page 121, 122, 123. Considerations proving they did not so understand it. 1 Consid. They say we partake of Christ's Body in Baptism, which can be only spiritually. Page 125 2 Consid. They distinguish eating Christ's true Body from the Sacramental. Page 126 3 Consid. They assert, that the Fathers under the Old Test. did eat the same spiritual meat with us, because they eaten it by Faith. Page 127 4 Consid. They represent Christ's Body as dead, and that so it must be taken: Ergo spiritually. Page 128 Two remarkable say of S. Austin to prove all this. Page 130 CHAP. XIII. The Thirteenth Difference. The Fathers assert, that the Faithful only eat Christ's Body and drink his Blood, not the wicked: the Ro. Church extends it to both. Page 131 The Church of Rome will have not only the wicked but bruit Creatures to eat it. Page 132 The Cautions of the Mass suppose this. ibid. The Fathers will not allow the wicked to partake of Christ's Body. Page 133 Two remarkable Testimonies of St. Austin. Page 136 CHAP. XIV. The Fourteenth Difference. The different practices and usages of the two Churches, argue their different opinions about the Eucharist. Page 137 Eight Instances of their differing practices given. 1 Instance. The Ancient Church excluded Catechumens' Penitents, etc. from being present at the Mysteries, enjoining all present to communicate. ibid. In the Ro. Ch. any may be Spectators, tho' none receive but the Priest. Page 139 2 Inst. The old practice was to give the Communion in both kinds. Page 140 Transubstantiation made this practice cease. 141. New devices for security against profaning Christ's Blood. Page 142 No reason why the Fathers have not been as cautious in this as the Ro. Church, but their different belief. Page 143 3 Inst. The Elevation of the Host that all may adore it, the Roman practice. Page 145 This not used in the first Ages at all; when used afterwards, not for Adoration. Page 145, 146 4. Inst. The Rom. Church allows not the people to receive the Sacrament with their Hands, but all is put by the Priest into their Mouths, contrary to the Ancient Practice. Page 147 5 Inst. The Anc. Church used Glass Cups for the Wine; which would be criminal now. Page 148 6 Inst. They mixed of old the Consecr. Wine with Ink, which would now be abhorred. Page 149 7 Inst. In the Reservation of the Eucharist: Three differences herein considered. 1 Difference. The Anc. Church took no care to reserve what was not received in the Eucharist: but the Ro. Church reserves all. 151, etc. 2 Differ. What had been publicly received, the Anc. Church allowed liberty to reserve privately. 156. The present Ch. in no case allows such private reservation. 157. 3. Differ. They put what was so reserved to such uses of old, as the Ro. Church would think profane. Page 157, 158, etc. 8 Inst. The infinite solicitous caution to prevent accidents in the administration of the Sacrament; their frights and strange expiations when they happen, all unknown, and strangers to the Ancient Church. 160, etc. Which is proved positively, from the continued practice of Communicating Infants, till Transubstantiation abolished it. Page 165 This still a practice in the Eastern Churches, that submit not to the Roman Church. Page 167 CHAP. XV. The Fifteenth Difference. About their Prayers in two particulars. 1. That the old Prayers in the Canon of the Mass, agree not with the Faith of the now Ro. Church. Page 168 2. That their New Prayers to the Sacrament have no Example in the Anc. Church. Page 175 CHAP. XVI. The Sixteenth Difference. That our ancient Saxon Church differed from the present Rom. Church in the Article of the corporal presence. Page 182, etc. The Saxon Easter-Sermon produced as a Testimony against them. Page 183, 184, etc. Two Epistles of Elfric the Abbot, declare against that Doctrine. Page 187, 188. A Remarkable Testimony also of Rabanus Archbishop of Mentz alleged. Page 189 CHAP. XVII. The Conclusion of the whole. Showing, that Heathens and Jews reproached not the Ancient Christians about the Eucharist. 191. Transubstantiation occasioned new Calumnies from both. 194. The Jew's Conversion seems to be hopeless, whilst this is believed by them to be the common Faith of Christians. 195. That the Jews have better explained Christ's words of Institution; agreed better with the Ancient Church in understanding the Sacrament in a figurative sense; and have confuted Transubstantiation by unanswerable Arguments, proved by Instances, from p. 196. to the end. Faults Escaped. PAge 5. line 16. marg. r. Serm. 5. p. 10. l. 7. marg. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, p. 39 l. 11. r. supposes, p. 53. l. 2. marg. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, p. 68 l. 26. marg. r. Serm. 5, p. 69. l. 10. r. thou art wholly changed in the inward Man, Ibid. l. 12. marg. r. totus in interiore homine mutatus es, p. 73. l. 6. marg. r. qui, p. 98. l. 5. à fine r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, p. 149. l. 26. r. Paten, p. 152. l. 10. r. Evagrius, p. 171. l. 23. r. that of Abel. CHAP. I. The First Difference. The Church of Rome is forced to assert a continued Series of Miracles to justify her Doctrine of Transubstantiation. But the Fathers never mention any Miracles in the Eucharist, save only the Effects of God's powerful Grace, working great Changes in us, and advancing the Elements in the use of them thereunto, without changing their Nature and Substance. TO give the Reader a View of what Wonders are to be believed, according to what the Trent Council has decreed concerning Transubstantiation, we need go no further than to the Trent Catechism * Ad Parcchons, part. 2. num. 25. , which tells us, there are three most wonderful things, which the Catholic Faith without any doubting, believes and confesses are effected in this Sacrament, by the Words of Consecration. 1. That the true Body of Christ, that same Body which was born of the Virgin, and sits at the Right-hand of the Father, is contained in this Sacrament. 2. That no Substance of the Elements remains in it, tho' nothing may seem more strange and remote from our Senses. 3. What is easily collected from both, That the Accidents, which are seen with our Eyes, or are perceived by our other Senses, are without any Subject (in which they subsist) in a strange manner, not to be explained. So that all the Accidents of Bread and Wine may be seen, which yet inhere in no Substance, but subsist by themselves, since the Substance of the Bread and Wine are so changed into the very Body and Blood of our Lord, that the Substance of Bread and Wine cease wholly to be. But others of the Romish Writers have made a larger and more particular Enumeration of the Miracles wrought in the Eucharist, which not Created Power can effect, but God's Omnipotency alone. I'll give them in the Words of the Jesuit Pererius * In Joan. c. 6. Disp. 16. num. 48. , who reckons these Nine distinct Miracles. 1. The same Christ remaining in Heaven, not departing thence, and without any local mutation, is really and corporally in the Sacrament of the Eucharist. 2. Nor is he thus there only in one consecrated Host, but is together in all Hosts consecrated throughout the whole Earth. 3. Tho' the Body of Christ in the Sacrament has all its Quantity and Colour, and other sensible Qualities; yet as it is in the Sacrament, it is neither there visibly nor quantitatively * Quantum ad situm, & extensionem ejus ad locum. as to its situs, and extension unto Place. 4. Tho' the Body of Christ be in itself greater than a Consecrated Host, yet according to the (Esse) Being it has there, it is whole in that Host; nor only whole in the whole consecrated Host, but also whole in every part thereof. 5. If those Accidents of the Consecrated Host be corrupted, and it should happen that of them Worms or any other Animal be generated, there is a great Miracle in their Generation: For either the Materia prima is created anew, out of which the substantial Form of those Animals is produced, as many Divines now think; or, according to S. Thomas, which seems to be a greater Miracle, The Quantity that was of the Consecrated Host, supplies the place of the Materia prima, and in it is produced the substantial Form of those Animals which are generated from thence. 6. The very Conversion of Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, which is properly called by Divines Transubstantiation, is a great Miracle; for such a Transmutation is found in no other thing, and is besides all the Order and Course of Nature, and can be made by no Created Power, but by God's Omnipotency alone. 7. The Manner by which such Transubstantiation is made, is not without a Miracle; for it is made by the Words of Consecration, pronounced rightly, and, as it ought, by a Priest. Therefore, as naturally supposing the last disposition in Matter to produce the Form of Fire, the Form of Fire is infallibly produced in that Matter: So the Words of Consecration being pronounced by the Priest, Christ himself is infallibly in that Consecrated Host. 8. After Consecration, the whole Substance of Bread and Wine ceasing to be, yet their Accidents do not cease, but remain: Neither do they remain inhering in any other Subject, but (per se existunt) exist by themselves, which is truly besides and above the Nature of Accidents, whose esse (as the Schools say) is inesse, because they can neither be produced nor remain naturally without a Subject. 9 Lastly, Those Accidents of the Consecrated Host, tho' without the Substance of Bread and Wine, yet have the same natural Virtue which Bread and Wine had before Consecration; viz. the Virtue of nourishing, increasing, and strengthening the Body of the Person that receives it; when yet Nutrition is made by conversion of the Substance of the Food into the Substance of the Living Creature. By reason of which Miracles (he says) the Church sings thus in the Hymn for Corpus-Christi day. Quod non capis, Quod non vides, Animosa firmat fides, praeter rerum ordinem: Etsi sensus deficit, Ad firmandum cor sincerum Sola fides sufficit: Praestat fides supplementum sensuum defectui. That is, What never yet was understood, Nor ever seen by any Creature, A confident Belief makes good, Tho' cross to all the Laws of Nature. Tho' Sense will not be brought t'allow it, A Heart sincere may be secure, And, waving all its Scruples, sure, Since Faith alone's enough to do it; For Faith supplies the Senses want, And makes good Measure, where that's scant. As for the Fathers, they are so far from consenting to this heap of Miracles in the Eucharist, that we have reason to think, as to some of them, they never entered into their thoughts, nor never troubled themselves about them; and, for the most of them, tho' they are direct Consequences of Transubstantiation, yet they are opposed and contradicted by the Fathers, as shall be shown in Particulars afterwards: Here it shall suffice to say in general, That the Fathers give us this as a Character of the old Heretics, to urge God's Omnipotency to countenance and give a colour to their Figments and absurd Opinions. Thus Gr. Nazianzen says of the Apollinarians, * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Orat. 51. That being pressed with these Reasonings, they fly to this, That to God it is possible. And Tertullian, when Praxeas also urged God's Omnipotency, gives this excellent † Contr. Praxeam, c. 10. Si tam abruptè in praesumptionibus nostris hâc sententiâ utamur, quidvis de Deo confingere poterimus; quasi fecerit, quia facere potuerit. Non autem quia omnia potest facere, ideo credendum est illum fecisse, etiam quod non fecerit; sed an fecerit, requirendum. Answer to him. If we may so abruptly use this Sentence, (viz. That to God all things are easy) in our Presumptions, we may then feign any thing we please of God; as if he had done a thing, because he was able to do it. But because (God) can do all things, we are not to believe he has done that which he has not done; but we are to inquire, whether he has done it or no. Thus Gr. Nyssen * Gr. Nyssen in Hexaemeron. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. asserts, That the Will of God is the Measure of his Power. And Clemens of Alexandria † Stromat. l. 4. propè finem. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. , That God who is Omnipotent, will effect nothing that is absurd. And Origen ‖ L. 5. contr. Cel●. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. , When we say, That God can do all things, we know how to understand all things, not of such things as cannot exist, and are unintelligible. Obj. If any object, That the Fathers often bring in Instances of Gods miraculous Power (as St. Ambrose does in the Red Sea and the River Jordan, and in the miraculous Conception of our Saviour, etc.) to create Faith in Men as to the great Change that is wrought in the Eucharist. Ans. I answer, True indeed: But than it is to be remembered, (what shall hereafter be more fully declared) that the Change there is not terminated upon the Substance of the Elements, nor is God's Power shown upon them, to alter their Nature from what they were before, so as to destroy them; but it is an addition of Grace to their Nature, and an advancement of them to produce wonderful Effects upon us in the use of them. So that now the Element of Water in Baptism is no more a common thing, but is employed by God to wash away our Sins, to cleanse our Souls, and to regenerate and renew us: And in the Eucharist the Bread and Wine, which in themselves are the Food of our Bodies, are advanced to be a Means to communicate the Body and Blood of Christ to us, for the nourishing and refreshing our Souls, and to make us Partakers of the saving Effects of his Death and Passion; which are only Miracles of God's Grace. And the Fathers urge the forementioned Miracles in Nature, to assure us of these Wonders of Divine Grace. And this they do not only in the case of the Eucharist, but of Baptism also; where yet none assert any Conversion of the Substance of Water into any other thing. Thus S. Ambrose * De in qui initiantur, c. 9 ad finem. Si ergo superveniens Spiritus S. in Virginem conceptionem operatus esf, & generationis munus implevit: Non utique dubitandum est, quod superveniens in fontem, vel super eum qui baptismum consequitur, veritatem regenerationis operetur. : Mary conceived by the Holy Ghost, without the intervention of any Man, as S. Matthew tells us; She was found with Child of the Holy Ghost. If then the Holy Spirit coming upon the Virgin made her to conceive, etc. we need not question but that the same Spirit coming upon the Water of Baptism, or on him that is baptised, does produce true Regeneration. And P. Leo Mag. † De Nativit. Dom. Ser. 4. Christus dedit aquae, quod dedit-Matri: Virtus enim Altissimi & obumbratio Spiritus S. quae fecit ut Maria pareret Salvatorem, eadem facit ut regeneret unda credentem. Christ gave to the Water, what he gave to his Mother; for the Power of the most High, and the Overshadowing of the H. Spirit, which caused Mary to bring forth our Saviour, the same causes the Water to regenerate a Believer. Excepting therefore these Wonders of God's Grace, the Fathers knew no other Miracles in the Sacraments; and these Wonders are common to both the Sacraments, and not peculiar to one of them only. This even Card. Cajetan * In 3. part. q. 75. art. 1. Non est disputandum de divina potentia, ubi de Sacramentis tractatur. Ibid. art. 2. Stultum est ponere in hoc argumento, quicquid Deus potest facere. was so sensible of, that he tells us, We must not dispute concerning God's Power when we treat of Sacraments. And again, It is a fcolish thing to assert in this Argument, whatsoever God can do. He was not ignorant of what S. Austin had said long before † Lib. 3. de Trin. c. 10. Quia haec hominibus nota sunt, quia per homines fiunt, honorem tanquam religiosa possunt habere, stuporem tanquam mira non possunt. , who speaking of Signs taken to signify other things, and instancing in the Bread taken and consumed in the Sacrament, adds, But because these things are known to men, as being made by men, they may have Honour given them for their relation to Religion; but cannot raise Astonishment, as Miracles or Wonders. Which he could never have said, if he had believed the Wonders and Miracles of Transubstantiation. I'll conclude this Head with another Saying of his * Lib. 3. cont. Julian. c. 3. Haec sunt sententiarum portenta vestrarum, haec inopinata mysteria Dogmatum novorum, haec paradoxa Pelagianorum haereticorum mirabiliora quàm Stoicorum Philosophorum.— Mira sunt quae dicitis, nova sunt quae dicitis, falsa sunt quae dicitis. Mira stupemus, nova cavemus, falsa convincimus. , which may be as well applied to the absurd Paradoxes and Miracles which the Roman Church advances in this Case of the Eucharist, as ever it was to those he there confutes about Baptism. These are the Prodigies of your Opinions; these are the uncouth Mysteries of New Dogmas; these are the Paradoxes of Pelagian Heretics, more wonderful than those of the Stoic Philosophers.— The things you say are Wonderful, the things you say are New, the things you say are False. We are amazed at your Wonders, we are cautious against your Novelties, and we confute your Falsities. But this Difference being more general, we go on to more particular ones. CHAP. II. The Second Difference. The Church of Rome differs from the Fathers, in determining what that thing is which Christ calls MY BODY. THE Trent Catechism (a) Ad Paroch part. 2.37. §. Haec vero. Si panis substantia remaneret, nullo modo dici videretur, Hoc est Corpus meum. , tho' it does not determine what the word [THIS] refers too, (only telling us, that it must demonstrate the whole Substance of the thing present) yet it expressly denies, that it refers to the Substance of Bread; for it adds, If the Substance of Bread remained, it seems no way possible to be said that, THIS IS MY BODY. So Bellarmine confesses (b) De Euchar. l. 1. c. 1. sec. Nonus. , that this Proposition, This Bread is my Body, must be taken figuratively, that the Bread is the Body of Christ by way of signification, or else it is plainly absurd and impossible. And he acknowledges (c) Ib. lib. 2. cap. 9 §. Observandum. , that this Proposition, The Wine is the Lord's Blood, teaches, that Wine is Blood by similitude and likeness. And elsewhere (d) Lib. 3. cap. 19 , It cannot be a true Proposition, in which the Subject is supposed to be Bread, and the Predicate the Body of Christ; for Bread and Christ's Body are res diversissimae, things most different. And a little after, If we might affirm disparata de disparatis, different things of one another, you might as well affirm and say, that something is nothing, and nothing something; that Light is Darkness, and Darkness Light; that Christ is Belial, and Belial Christ; neither does our Faith oblige us to defend those things that evidently imply a Contradiction. So also Vasquez (e) Disp. 180. cap. 9 n. 91. Si pronomen; Hoc in illis verbis demonstraret panem, fatemur etiam fore, ut nulla conversio virtute illorum ●●eri possit, quia panis, de quo enunciatur, manere debet. , If the Pronoun [THIS] in Christ's Words pointed at the Bread, than we confess it would follow, that no Conversion could be made by virtue of these Words, because the Bread, of which it is affirmed (sc. that it is Christ's Body) ought to remain. Now that which the present Roman Church dare not affirm, because if it be taken properly, it is untrue, absurd, impossible, as implying a Contradiction, we shall now show that the Fathers plainly affirm it, who yet could not be ignorant of this Absurdity. From whence it necessarily follows, that they took the whole words [THIS IS MY BODY] figuratively, as the Protestants do, since they cannot be taken otherwise, if Bread be affirmed to be Christ's Body, as the Romanists confess. Now that the Fathers affirmed that Bread is Christ's Body, is certain by these following Testimonies. S. Irenaeus (f) Adu. Haeres. l. 5. c. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. . Our Lord confessed the Cup which is of the Creature to be his Blood; and the Bread which is of the Creature, he confirmed it to be his Body. Clement of Alexandria (g) Paedag. lib. 2. c. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. . Our Lord blessed the Wine, saying, Take, drink, this is my Blood, the Blood of the Grape. For the Holy River of Gladness (so he calls the Wine) does allegorically signify the Word (i. e. the Blood of the Word) shed for many for the remission of Sins. Tertullian (h) Adu. Judaeos', c. 21. Panem corpus suum appellans. . Calling Bread his Body. Speaking of Christ. And against Martion (i) Idem adv. Martion. lib. 3. cap. 19 Panem corpus suum appellans, ut & hinc eum intelligas corporis sui figuram pani dedisse, etc. he says the same; Calling Bread his Body, that thou mayst know that he gave to Bread the Figure of his Body, etc. And in the next Book (k) Lib. 4. advers. Marc. c. 40. Acceptum panem & distributum Discipulis, corpus suum illum fecit, Hoc est corpus meum dicendo, id est, figura corporis mei. . The Bread that he took and distributed to his Disciples, he made it his Body, saying, This is my Body, that is, the Figure of my Body. S. Cyprian (l) Epist. 76. ad Magnum. Quando Dominus corpus suum panem vocat de multorum granorum adunatione congestum, etc. , When our Lord called the Bread, which is made up of many united Grains, his Body, etc. Tatianus Syrus (m) Harmon. in Bibl. Patrum, 1624. Tom. 7. Accepto pane, deinde vini chalice, corpus esse suum ac sanguinem testatus, etc. . Christ taking the Bread, and after that the Cup of Wine, testified that they were his Body and Blood, etc. Origen (n) Hom. 35. in Matth. Pa●● isce quem Dominus corpus suum esse fatetur. . That Bread which our Lord confessed to be his Body. Eusebius (o) Demonstr. Evang. lib. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. . Christ appointed them (or delivered to them) to make use of Bread for a Symbol of his Body. Cyril of Jerusalem (p) Catech. Mystag. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . When Christ affirms, and says of the Bread,; This is my Body, who will dare to doubt further of it? S. Jerome (q) Epist, ad Hedibiam, Nos audiamus panem quem fregit Dominus, deditque discipulis suis, esse corpus Salvatoris, etc. . Let us hear, that the Bread which our Lord broke and gave to his Disciples, is the Body of our Saviour. Which he explains further elsewhere (r) Comm. in 26. Matt. Quomodo in praefiguratione ejus Melchisedek— pan●m & vinum offerens fecerat, ipse quoque veritatem sui corporis & sanguinis repraesentaret. , That as Melchisedek prefiguring him had done, when he offered Bread and Wine, so he also represented the Truth of his Body and Blood. S. Chrysostom (s) In 1 Cor. Hom. 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. . What is the Bread? The Body of Christ. What do they become that receive it? The Body of Christ. Not many Bodies, but one Body. S. Austin (t) Serm. ad recens. baptizat. apud Fulgentium, Bedam, etc. Quod fides vestra postulat instruenda, Panis est corpus Christi, Calix sanguis Christi. What your Faith is to be instructed in, is, That the Bread is the Body of Christ, and the Cup the Blood of Christ. And elsewhere (u) Contr. Adimantum, c. 12. Non dubitavit Dominus dicere, Hoc est corpus meum, cum daret signum corporis sui. Our Lord doubted not to affirm, This is my Body, when he gave the Sign of his Body. Gaudentius (x) In Exod. tract. 2. Cùm panem consecratum & vinum discipulis suis porrigeret Dominus, sic ait, Hoc est corpus meam. . When our Lord reached the Consecrated Bread and Wine to his Disciples, he said thus, This is my Body. Cyril of Alexandria (y) In J●an. 20.26, 27. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. . Christ, when he had broken the Bread, as it is written, distributed it, saying, This is my Body. Theophilus Antioch. (z) Com. in Matth. 26. , or the Author under his Name upon the Gospels, soeaks just S. Cyprian's Language. When Jesus said, This is my Body, he called the Bread his Body, which is made up of many Grains, by which he would represent the People, etc. Theodoret (a) In Dialog. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. . In the delivery of the Mysteries, he called the Bread his Body, and that which is mixed (Wine and Water in the Cup) Blood.— And afterwards, He honoured the visible Symbols with the appellation of his Body and Blood, etc. Facundus Hermian. (b) In Defence 3. capit. lib. 9 c. ult. Ipse Dominus benedictum panem & calicem quem discipulis tradidit, corpus & sanguinem suum vocavit. . Our Lord himself called the Blessed Bread and Cup which he delivered to the Disciples, his Body and Blood. Maxentius (c) Dialog. 2. c. 13. Sed & panis ille quem universa Ecclesia in memoriam Dominicae passionis participate, corpus ejus. speaking of the Church, that is called Christ's Body, adds, Also the Bread which the whole Church partakes of, in memory of the Lord's Passion, is his Body. Isidore of Sevil (d) Originum lib. 6. cap. 19 Hoc, eo jubente, corpus Christi & sanguinem dicimus, quod dum fit ex fructibus terrae, sanctificatur & fit Sacramentum, operante invisibiliter Spiritu Dei. says, We call this, by his Command, the Body and Blood of Christ, which being made of the Fruits of the Earth, is sanctified and made a Sacrament, by the invisible Operation of the Spirit of God. Bede (e) Comm. in Marc. 14.— Quia panis corpus confirmat, vinum vero sanguinem operatur in carne, hic ad corpus Christi mysticè, illud refertur ad sanguinem. . Christ said to his Disciples, This is my Body, etc. because Bread strengthens the Body, and Wine produces Blood in the Flesh; This relates mystically to Christ's Body, and That to his Blood. The Seventh General Council at Constantinople (f) Extat in Conc. Nicen. 2. Art 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. , after reciting the Words of the Institution, This is my Body, after his taking, and blessing, and breaking it, adds, Behold the Image of his Life-giving Body made preciously and honourably. And afterwards, It pleased him that the Bread of the Sacrament, being the true Figure of his natural Flesh, should be made a Divine Body, being sanctified by the coming of the Holy Ghost upon it, etc. Druthmarus (g) Comm. in Matth. 26. Hoc est corpus meum; id est, in Sacramento— Quia inter omnes vitae alimonias cibus panis & vinum valent ad confirmandam & recreandam nostram infirmitatem, recte per haec duo mysterium sui Sacramenti confirmare placuit. Vinum namque & laetificat & sanguinem auget; & idcirco non inconvenienter sanguis Christi per hoc figuratur, quoniam quicquid nobis ab ipso venit laetificat laetitiâ verâ, & anget omne bonum nostrum. . This is my Body, that is to say, in a Sacrament— Because among all things that are the Food of Life, Bread and Wine serve to strengthen and refresh our Weaknesses, it is with great Reason that he would in these two things establish the Mystery of his Sacrament. For Wine both cheers us and increases Blood, and therefore very fitly the Blood of Christ is figured by it; because whatsoever comes to us from him, cheers us with true Joy, and increaseth all Good in us. Rabanus Maurus (h) Comm. in Matth. 26. Quia panis confirmat corpus, ideo corpus ille Christi congruenter nuncupatur, vinum autem quia sanguinem operatur in carne, ideo ad sanguinem Christi refertur. explaining the Words of Institution, says, Because Bread strengthens the Body, therefore it is fitly called the Body of Christ; and Wine, because it produces Blood in our Flesh, is therefore referred to the Blood of Christ. In the Churches (i) Ludolphi Aethiop. Hist. l. 3. c. 5 n. 56. Hic panis est corpus meum. they use this Phrase, (which the Church of Rome is so shy of) This Bread is my Body. Bertram (k) De Corp. & Sang. Dom. pag. 40. late Eng. & Lat. Translation. Non putamus ullum fidelium dubitare, panem illum fuisse corpus Christi effectum, quod Discipulis donans dicit, Hoc est corpus meum, etc. . I am confident, no Christian doubts, but that Bread was made the Body of Christ, which he gave to his Discples, saying, This is my Body, etc. And he there shows, that this is made by the same change, whereby the Manna and the Water of the Rock in the Wilderness were turned into his Body and Blood. To conclude this Head; It is plain, that there is a general Consent of Fathers on the Protestant Side in this Particular, That the Bread and Wine are Christ's Body and Blood. And it is the more remarkable, because they give us this Sense, when they are explaining Christ's Words, and in their Commentaries upon the Gospels where the Words of Institution are recorded. CHAP. III. The Third Difference. The Church of Rome believes, That Accidents in the Eucharist subsist without a Subject; but the Fathers say the contrary, That Accidents cannot subsist without a Subject, and yet never except the Eucharist. THe Catechism of the Trent Council * Ad Parochos, part. 2. de Euchar. n. 25. says, That the Accidents which are either seen with cur Eyes, or perceived by our other Senses, are without any Subject, by a wonderful manner, and such as cannot be explained. They grant that we may see all the Accidents of Bread and Wine, but that they inhere in no Substance, but sustain themselves.— And afterwards † Ibid. n. 44. §. Tertium restat. discourse thus: The Species of Bread and Wine subsist in this Sacrament, without any Subject in which they are: For since the Body and Blood of Christ is truly in this Sacrament, so that no Substance of Bread and Wine remains, because those Accidents cannot be inherent in the Body and Blood of Christ, it remains, that the Accidents sustain themselves, above all Order of Nature, being upheld by nothing else besides. And this (they say) was the perpetual constant Doctrine of the Catholic Church. How false this Assertion is, we shall now show from the Testimonies of the Fathers. Irenaeus (a) Lib. 2. c. 14. Non potest intelligi aqua sine humectatione, neque ignis sine calore, neque lapis sine duritia. Unita enim sunt invicem haec; alterum ab altero separari non potest, sed semper coexistere. . We cannot understand Water without Moisture, nor Fire without Heat, nor a Stone without Hardness. For these are united one to another, one cannot be separated from the other, but must always coexist. Athanasius (b) Orat. 5. contra Arianos. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. , (or the Author against the Arians in his Works) asserts, That every Quality is in a Substance. Isidore Peleusiota (c) Lib. 2. Epist 72. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. says, That Quality cannot be without Substance. Methedius (d) Apud Photium Codic. 232. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. . Quality cannot be separated, as to its Subsistence, from Matter. And a little before he says, This is the most impossible of all things. S. Basil * Epist 43. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. If by your reasoning you can distinguish Figure from a Body, yet Nature admits no such Difference, but one must be understood in conjunction with the other. Greg. Nazianzen (e) Orat. 37. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. proves the Holy Ghost not to be a Quality, because than it must be in a Subject. For, says he, either it does subsist by itself, or is of the same kind with those which are called Accidents, which are in another. This would be ill reasoning, if Transubstantiation were true; for the Holy Ghost might be a Quality, and yet be in no Subject, as well as the Colour and Taste of Bread may be in the Eucharist, without Bread or any other Substance in which it is. Gr. Nyssen (f) De Opificio Homin. c. 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. affirms, That as that is not a Body to which Colour, and Figure, and Solidness, and Space, and Heaviness, and other Properties are wanting; so, as he adds, where those aforesaid do concur, they produce a Bodily Subsistence. S. Austin (g) Soliloq. lib. 2. c. 12. Monstruosum enim & à veritate alienissimum est, ut id quod non esset, nisi in ipso (sc. subjecto) esset, etiam, cùm ipsum non fuerit, posse esse. . It is monstrous, and at the furthest distance from Truth, that what would not be at all unless it were in a Subject, yet should be able to exist when the Subject ceases to be. This is a Saying with a witness to confute Transubstantiation, where there is the Appearance and Figure, Taste and Weight of Bread, and yet no Substance of Bread is there. Again he says (h) Ibid. cap 13. Omne quod in subjecto est, si semper manet, ipsum etiam subjectum maneat semper necesse est. , Every thing that is in a Subject, and always remains, it is necessary that the Subject also should always remain. Again * De Immortal. Anim. cap. 5. Mutato subjecto, omne quod in subjecto est necessario mutari. Et cap. 8. Quod per se non est, si deseratur ab eo per quod est, profectò non erit. elsewhere. When the Subject is changed, every thing that is in the Subject is necessarily changed. And again: That which exists not by itself, if it be forsaken of that by which it exists, undoubtedly will not be at all. Also in another place (i) Epist. 57 ad Dardanum. Tolle ipsa corpora qualitatibus corporum, non erit ubi sint, & ideo necesse est ut non sint. . Take away Bodies from their Qualities, and there will nothing remain where (those Qualities) should be; and therefore it follows necessarily, that they will not be at all. Cyril of Alexandria (k) In Joan. lib. 4. cap. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. teaches the same copiously. He calls it Madness to affirm, That the Essence of the Son consists in Subjection to the Father. For, says he, how can Subjection be conceived to subsist by itself, without existing in any thing else? And afterwards: If there be no Subject, and nothing praeexists in which those things are wont to be done, how can they exist by themselves, which are understood and defined in the Order of Accidents? And elsewhere he says (l) Thesaur. assert. 31. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. , To be Unbegotten, is predicated of the Divine Essence, as inseparable from it; just as Colour is always predicated of every Body. And in another place (m) Ibid. assert. 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. disputing about the Eternity of the Son, and how proceeding from the Father he is not separated from him, he instances in Accidents that are inseparable from their Subjects. We see, says he, Heat inseparably proceeding from Fire; but it is the Fruit of the very Essence of Fire, proceeding inseparably from it; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as also Splendour is the Fruit of Light. For Light cannot subsist without Splendour, nor Fire without Heat; For what is begotten of them, does always adhere to such Substances. Again, in his Dialogues (n) De Trinitate, Dial. 2. p. 451. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. of the Trinity, he asks, Whether Black and White, if they be not in their Subjects, can subsist of themselves? And the Answer is, They cannot. Claud. Mamertus (o) De Statu Animae, l. 3. c. 3. In rebus corporeis subjectum est corpus, & colour corporis in subjecto: In incorporeis animus & disciplina, quae i●a sibi nexa sunt, ut nec sine colore corpus, nec sine disciplina rationalis sit animus— Utrum nam probare valeamus manere quod in subjecto est, ipso intereunte subjecto? . In corporeal things, the Body is the Subject, and the Colour of the Body in the Subject: In incorporeal matters, the Soul and Discipline are Instances; which are so connected, that the Body cannot be without Colour, nor the Rational Soul without Discipline— Can we ever prove, that what is in the Subject abides, when the Subject itself perishes? Isidore Hispal. (p) Originum lib. 2. cap. 26. Quantitas, qualitas, & situs, sine subjecto esse non possunt. . Quantity, Quality, and Situation, can none of 'em be without a Subject. Bertram (q) Contra Graec. l. 2. c. 7. in Tom. 2. Spicilegii D. Acherii. proves against the Greeks, That the Holy Ghost was not in Jesus Christ as in his Subject; because, says he, the Holy Ghost is not an Accident that cannot subsist without its Subject. These Testimonies of the Fathers may suffice to show how they differ from the Church of Rome, in this Point, of Accidents being without a Subject, which to them is so necessary a Doctrine, that Transubstantiation cannot be believed without it; and if the Fathers had believed Transubstantiation, it is incredible that they should deny this Doctrine, without so much as once excepting the Case of the Eucharist: None can imagine how their Memory and Reflection should be so short, especially when (as we have heard) they form their Arguments to prove the Eternity of the Son of God, and the Personality of the Holy Ghost, from the inseparability of Accidents from their Subject. Nay, one of them says (r) Orat. 5. contra Arianos, inter Athanasii Opera. , That if God himself had Accidents, they would exist in his Substance. When therefore P. Innocent (s) De Mist. Missae, l. 4. c. 11. Est enim hic colour & sapor & quantitas & qualitas, cùm nihil alterutro sit coloratum aut sapidum, quantum aut quale. asserts, That in the Eucharist there is Colour and Taste, and Quantity and Quality, and yet nothing coloured or tasteful, nothing of which Quantity or Quality are Affections: This is plainly to confound the Nature of all things, and to turn Accidents into Substances. So that if, for instance, the Host should fall into the Mire, and contract Dirt and Filth, this Filth sticks in nothing, or else Accidents are the Subject of it; for it is confessed on all hands, That Christ's Body cannot be soiled or made filthy. Not to insist upon the Nonsense of his Assertion, which is just as if one should talk of an Eclipse without either Sun or Moon, or of an Horse's Lameness without a Leg, concerning which only Lameness can be affirmed. CHAP. IU. The Fourth Difference. The Church of Rome has brought in the Word SPECIES, to signify those Accidents without any Subject: But the Fathers never take it in this Sense. I Need only refer the Reader, for the first part of this Assertion, to the Thirteenth Session of the Council of Trent, Can●n 2. & 3. where the Word Species is so used: And to what we heard before out of their Catechism, of the Species of Bread and Wine subsisting without any Subject in which they are. Every one knows this is their Customary Word, to express Appearances of things by, when nothing real is under them to support them But now we shall see this to be a strange and foreign usage of this Word, which the Fathers know nothing of in their Sense; but in stead of denoting Accidents (by the Word Species) which are in no Subject, they use it commonly for the Substance, the Nature, the Matter of a thing, the Subject itself that appears: Not for Appearances without a Subject. S. Ambrose often uses this Word Species, but never in the Sense of the Romanists: For which take these Instances. S. Ambrose says (a) Serm. 21. Dominum rogatum ad Nuptias aquae substantiam in vini speciem commutasse. , That at the Marriage (of Cana) our Lord being requested, did change the Substance of Water into the Species of Wine. That is, not into the Appearance of Wine, but into real Wine that he changed it. And in another place * Serm. 22. Speciem magis necessariam Nuptiis praestitit. , He provided for the Marriage a more necessary Species: i. e. Wine, more agreeable to a Marriage-Feast than Water. In another Book (b) Officior. lib. 2. cap. 28. Hic numerus captivorum, hic ordo praestantior est quam species poculorum. , speaking of Holy Vessels which he broke for the Redemption of Captives, he says, This Number and Order of Captives far excels the Species of Cups. i.e. all sorts of them. Again elsewhere (c) De iis qui initiant. cap. 9 Gravior est ferri species quam aquarum liquor. . The Species of Iron is heavier than the Liquor of Water: i. e. the Substance of Iron. S. Austin (d) In Joan. tract. 11. Omnes in Moyse baptizati sunt in nube & in mari. Si ergo figura maris tantum valuit, species baptismi quantum valebit? . They were all baptised into Moses in the Cloud and in the Sea. If therefore the Figure of the Sea availed so much, how much will the Species of Baptism avail? In another place (e) Serm. ad Infants. Ut sit species visibilis panis, multa grana in unum consperguntur. . To make the visible Species of Bread, many Grains are mixed together into one. Again (f) Lib. 3. de Trinit. cap. 4. Quod cùm per manus hominum ad illam visibilem speciem perducitur, non sanctificatur ut sit tam magnum Sacramentum, nisi operante invisibiliter Spiritu Dei, etc. , speaking of the Bread in the Sacrament, he says, When by men's Hands it is brought to that visible Species (i. e. to the Substance of Bread) it is not sanctified so as to become so great a Sacrament, without the invisible Operation of the Spirit of God. So elsewhere (g) In Joan. tract. 26. Omnes eundem spiritualem potum biberunt; aliud illi, aliud nos; sed specie visibili quidem, tamen hoc idem significante virtute spirituali. . They all drank of the same spiritual Drink; they one thing, and we another; but tho' another as to the visible Species, yet as to the Spiritual Virtue signifying this same thing. Where the Visible Species, it's plain, denotes Water to the Jews, and Wine to us, not the Accidents only. And in another Tractate (h) Tract. 45. in Joan. Videte, fide manente, signa variata. Ibi petra Christus, nobis Christus quod in altari Dei ponitur; & illi pro magno Sacramento ejusdem Christi biberunt aquam profluentem de petra, nos quid bibamus norunt fideles: si speciem visibilem intendas, aliud est, si intelligibilem significationem, eundem potum spiritualem biberunt. to the same sense, speaking of the Jews. Behold the Signs are varied, Faith remaining the same. To them the Rock was Christ; to us, that which is placed on the Altar is Christ: They drank the Water flowing from the Rock, for a great Sacrament of the same Christ; what we drink, the Faithful know. If you regard the Visible Species, it is another thing; but if the intelligible Signification, they drank the same spiritual Drink. And so in another Book (i) Lib. 3. de Trinit. cap. 10. Cùm autem suscipitur, aliquando in Angelo demonstratur, aliquando in ea Specie quae non est quod Angelus, quamvis per Angelum disposita ministretur. , speaking of things assumed to signify matters to us, he says, When it is assumed, sometimes it is shown in an Angel, sometimes in that Species which is not what an Angel is, tho' it is ordered and disposed by an Angel's Ministry. And his next Instance of such things is, ipsum Corpus, a Body itself. So Gaudentius (k) In Exod. tract. 2. Rectè etiam vini specie tum sanguis ejus exprimitur, quia cùm ipse in Evangelio dicit, Ego sum Vitis vera, satis declarat sanguinem suum esse omne vinum quod in figura passionis ejus offertur. . Also by the Species of Wine his Blood is then rightly expressed; for when he says in the Gospel, I am the true Vine, he fully declares, That all the Wine that is offered for a Figure of his Passion, is his Blood. Arnobius jun. (l) In Psal. 104. Succurrit, non solum cis speciem frumenti, sed & vini & olei administrans. . Our Lord succours them, not only by affording them the Species of Corn, but also of Wine and Oil. Where the Word Species, to be sure, relates to the Substance and the thing itself, not to the Accidents of Corn, and Wine, and Oil. Sedulius (m) Lib. 2. Operis Paschal. speaking of the Offerings of the Wise Men that came to Christ, says, Ipsae etiam ut possent Species ostendere Christum; Aurea nascenti fuderunt munera Regi, Thura dedere Deo, Myrrham tribuere Sepulchre. That is, They point to Christ even by the Gifts they bring; Gold they present unto him as a King, Incense as God, Myrrh for his Burying. The things they present are, you see, his Species. Salvian's words are plain (n) Lib. 1. de Gub. Dei. p. 21. Edit. Baluz. Add medicatas aquas veldatas vel immutatas, Speciem servantes, Naturam relinquentes. . Add, says he, those healed Waters either given or changed, which preserved their Species, and relinquished their Nature. Here Species is taken for the Substance remaining, and Nature for the Qualities of the Water that were changed. Walafridus Strabo (o) De Rebus Eccles. cap. 16. Corporis & sanguinis sui Sacramenta panis & vini substantia Discipulis tradidit— Nihil ergo congruentiùs his Speciebus ad significandam capitis & membrorum unitatem, potuit inveniri. showing how Christ in the Last Supper delivered to his Disciples the Sacraments of his Body and Blood in the Substance of Bread and Wine, adds, Nothing more agreeable than these Species could be found, to signify the Unity of the Head and Members. Rupertus Abbas (p) De Offic. lib. 2. cap. 9 In illum in quo fides non est, praeter visibiles Species panis & vini, nihil de Sacrificio pervenit. . Nothing of the Sacrifice enters into him that has no Faith, besides the visible Species of Bread and Wine. No one ever thought, but that the Wicked partaked as much of the outward Elements as the Faithful; but he says a little before, That when the Priest distributes the Sacrifice to be eaten by the Faithful, the Bread and Wine is consumed and passes away. Therefore by the visible Species he means the Bread and Wine, which the Wicked only partake of. It has been largely proved by Salmasius (q) Simplicius Verinus de Transubst. p. 230, etc. , That in the Civil Law and the Theodosian Code, the word Species is used for things there spoke of; as, Species annonariae, for all sorts of Corn; Species publicae, for Goods brought to the several Ports; Species vini, frumenti, olei, for Wine, Corn, and Oil; and not the Accidents of them. It is not to be expected that any thing should be cited out of Greek Authors, whose this Word is not; and yet it is observable, That even among them the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that answers to the Latin Word Species, is taken in the Sense of the Latin Fathers, and not in that of the present Church of Rome. To give only two Instances. The Author under the Name of Dionysius the Areopagite (r) Eccles. Hierarch. cap. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. , speaking of Christ's Incarnation, uses the Phrase of Assuming our Species; which his Scoliast, Maximus, thus explains; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 When he had assumed our Species or Nature; not merely an Appearance of our Nature. Theophylact (s) In Marc. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Because,. says he, Bread and Wine are things familiar to us, and we could not endure, but should abhor to see Flesh and Blood set before us; therefore Christ, the Lover of Men, condescending to us, preserves the Species of Bread and Wine, (that is, the Elements themselves) but he changes them into the Vritue of his Flesh and Blood. To conclude this Head, Bertram (t) Lib. de Corp. & Sang. Christi. Secundùm Speciem visibilem, secundùm visibilem Creaturam, & secundùm creaturarum substantiam. , following the Sense of the Ancients, uses these Phrases indifferently; according to the visible Species, and according to the visible Creature, or according to the Substance of the Creatures. Which are Modes of Speech which the present Roman Church will not allow of in the Eucharist: For they tell us their plain Belief, what Species are, in a Sequence on Corpus-Christi day, which explains it thus: Sub diversis Speciebus, Signis tantum, & non rebus, Latent res eximiae. Admirable things lie hid under the different Species, which are only Signs, and not Things. CHAP. V The Fifth Difference. The Fathers differ from the Roman Church, in their Assertions about the Nature and Properties of Bodies. EVery one knows what the Sentiments of the Roman Church are herein, and what they must necessarily assert believing Transubstantiation: That a Body that is Organical, as Christ's is, may be invisible and impalpable; commensurate to no Space: That it may possess one Place, so as to be in more at the same time: That it may be entire in one Part and in one Point, and may exist after the manner of a Spirit. See Bellarmine de Eucharist. lib. 1. cap. 2. reg. 3. & lib. 3. c. 7. The Council of Trent says (a) Sess. 13. cap. 3. Totus Christus & integer sub specie panis, & sub qualibet ejus speciei parte existit. , Whole and entire Christ is in the Eucharist, under the Species of Bread, and under every part of the Species of Bread. I shall now show, That the Fathers assert quite contrary to all these Maxims of the Roman Church, giving us a different Account of the Nature and Properties of Bodies; and in the Particulars forenamed, make no difference betwixt Christ's Body and ours. 1 Assertion. They assert, That every Organised Body, not excepting the Body of Christ, is visible and palpable. Tertullian (b) De Resurrect. c. 35. Corpus hominis non aliud intelligam quam— quod videtur, quod tenetur. . I understand nothing by the Body of a Man, etc. but what is seen and felt. Methodius (c) Apud Photium Cod. 234. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. . God is Incorporeal, and therefore Invisible. Eustathius Antioch. (d) De Engastrimytho. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. . If he was Invisible, without doubt he was Incorporeal. Speaking of Samuel raised at Endor. Didymus (e) Caten. in Joan. 4.24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. . If a thing be Invisible, it presently follows, that it is Incorporeal. Greg. Nazianzen (f) Orat. 34. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉;— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉;— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. . If God be a Body, what kind of Body, and how?— an impalpable and invisible one?— This is not the Nature of Bodies. And he cries out, (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) O strange Licence! to imagine thus. Greg. Nyssen (g) De Opific. hom. cap. 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. says, That is not a Body, that wants Colour, Figure, Solidness, Space, Weight, and the rest of its Attributes. S. Austin (h) De Verb. Domini, Ser. 60. Semper quidem Divinitate nobiscum est, sed nisi corporaliter abiret à nobis, semper ejus corpus carnaliter videremus. , speaking of our Lord, says, He is always with us by his Divinity; but if he were not corporally absent from us, we should always carnally see his Body. Ephrem Antioch. (i) Apud Photium, Cod. 229. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. . No Man of any sense can say, That the Nature of that which is palpable and impalpable, of that which is visible and that which is invisible, is the same. Although the Valentinians in Eulogius (k) Ibid. Cod. 230. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. say, That the Nature of that which is visible, and that which is invisible, is the same. And so did the Manichees. Ibid. Vigilius (l) Lib. 4. contr. Eutych. Necesse erit ut caro, sicut & verbum; si unius cum co est naturae, increata sit & invisibilis, etc. Sed carnem his conditionibus subjacere impossibile est. , speaking of the Lord's Body, says, It is necessary the Flesh, as well as the Word, if they be of one Nature, be uncreated and invisible— But it is impossible that Flesh should be the Subject of such Conditions. Titus Bostrensis (m) Contr. M●nich. l. 2. Omne quod sub aspectum cadit, cum sit corpus, natura oppositum est inaspectabili & incorporeo, etc. . Every thing that falls under our Sight, seeing it is a Body, is in Nature opposite to that which is invisible and incorporeal. Damascen (n) De Fide Orth. lib. 1. c. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . How can that be a Body, &c, which is impalpable and invisible?; Gregory the Great (o) Moral. lib. 14. c. 33. Erit itaque subtilis, quia & incorruptibilis; erit palpabilis, quia non amittet essentiam veracis naturae. , speaking of a glorified Body, says, It will therefore be a subtle Body, because it will be incorruptible; and it will be palpable, because it shall not lose the Essence of its true Nature. Cyril of Alex. in his Explication of the third Anathema of the Ephesine Council (p) Tom. 3 Concil. Labbe. p. 817. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. . He is not a Stranger to that Body which he has united to himself, which we say is capable to be felt, and to be seen. In fine, The Church of Rome makes Christ's Body invisible tho' it be present; the Fathers never make it so, but because it is absent. So Ammonius (q) Eaten. in Joan. 16.10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. . He was taken up into Heaven, and became invisible unto Men. And the Author imperfecti Operis in Matthaeum (r) Homil. 53. Si sit praesens, non creditur, sed videtur; cùm autem absens fuerit, non videtur, sed creditur, dum timetur. . When he is present, he is not believed, but seen; but when he is absent, he is not seen, but believed, whilst he is feared. 2 Assertion. The Fathers assert, That every Body is quantum, and as it ahs Quantity, possesses a Place or Space, and is commensurate to it: That a Body cannot be in more than one Place, nor be entire in one Part, nor exist after the manner of a Spirit. All which are false, if Transubstantiation be true. S. Basil (s) Contr. Eunom. l. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. makes that to be incorporeal, whose Essence cannot be divided three ways (or has not three Dimensions). Greg. Nyssen (t) De Opific. Hom. c. 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. says, That if you take Quantity, Solidness, and other Properties from the Subject, the whole Nature of the Body is dissolved, etc. S. Austin says so much upon this Argument, that I must only mention some few Testimonies out of a great Heap that might be collected. He says (u) Lib. 4. de Orig. Animae, c. 11. Corpus est quicquid majoribus & minoribus suis partibus, majora & minora spatia locorum continentibus, constat. , A Body is that which consists of greater and lesser Parts, containing greater and lesser Spaces of Place. Again (x) Epist. 3. ad Volusian. Quorum nullum potest esse ubique totum, quoniam per innumerabiles partes aliud alibi habeat necesse est: & quantumcumque sit corpus seu quantulumcunque corpusculum loci occupet spatium, eundemque locum sic impleat, ut in nulla ejus parte sit totum.— Non sic Deus dicitur implere mundum, velut aqua, velut aer, ut minore sui parte minorem mundi impleat partem, & majore majorem. Novit ubique totus esse, & nullo contineri loco. , distinguishing Bodies into gross and subtle ones, he says, Both are Bodies, none of which can be every where whole and entire, because by reason of its innumerable Parts, it must have another Place elsewhere; and how great or little soever a Body is, it possesses a Space of Place, and so fills that Place, that it is not whole in any part of it. And a little after: God is not thus said to fill the World, in the same manner as Water or Air does, so that by a lesser part of himself he fills a lesser part of the World, and by a greater part a greater. So that, according to him, none but God and Spirits can have such an Existence. So in his Epistle to Euodius (y) Epist. 101. Nullum esse quantulumcunque corpusculum, quod non pro suo modo loci occupet spatium; nec in eo quod occupat ubique sit totum, sed minus sit in parte quàm in toto. . There is no Body so little, which after its manner does not possess a local Space; neither is it whole every where in that Space it possesses, but less in a part of that Space than in the whole. And again (z) Contra Epist. Manichaei, cap. 16. Nec omnino potest esse aliquod corpus sive coeleste, sive terrestre, sive aereum, sive humidum, quod non minus sit in parte quàm in toto, neque ullo modo possit in loco hujus partis habere aliam partem, sed aliud hic, aliud alibi per spatia quaelibet locorum distantia & dividua, etc. . There can be no Body, either Celestial or Terrestrial, Aereal or Aqueous, that is not less in a part than in the whole; nor can it any ways have another part in the place of this part, but must have one here, another elsewhere, throughout the several distant and divided Spaces of Place, etc. But the Nature of the Soul is not found to be extended to the Spaces of Place by any Bulkiness. Animae vero natura nullo modo invenitur locorum spatiis aliquâ mole distendi. He says the same in another Epistle (a) Ad Dardanum Epist. 57 Spatia locorum tolle corporibus, nusquam erunt; & quia nusquam erunt, nec erunt. , and adds, Take away local Extent from Bodies, and they will be no where; and if they are not where, they will not be at all. In the same Epistle, speaking of the Divine Persons, that nothing hinders why they may not be every where simul, argues thus: For they are not Bodies, Non enim corpora sunt, quorum amplior sit in tribus quam in singulis magnitudo, nec loca suis molibus tenent, ut distantibus spatiis simul esse non possint. whose Magnitude is larger in Three than in One; nor do they possess Places by their Bulk, so as not to be able to be in distant Spaces at once, (which is the Nature, he acknowledges, of Bodies). He says also of Christ, Ubique totum praesentem esse non dubites tanquam Deum, & in eodem Templo Dei esse tanquam inhabitantem Deum, & in loco aliquo coeli, propter veri corporis modum. We are not to doubt that whole Christ is every where present as God, and is in the same Temple of God, as an inhabiting Deity, and in one certain place of Heaven, by reason of the Nature of his true Body. Elsewhere (b) De Civit. Dei, l. 22. c. 29. Deus totus in coelo est, totus in terra, non alternis temporibus sed utrumque simul, quod nulla natura corporalis potest. . God is whole in Heaven, and whole on Earth; not at different times successively, but both together; which not Corporeal Nature is capable of. Again (c) Epist. 6. ad Italicam. Omne quod oculis corporeis conspici potest, in loco aliquo sit necesse est, neque ubique sit totum, sed minore sui parte minorem locum occupet, & majore majorem. . Every thing that may be seen with Bodily Eyes, must of necessity be in some Place; nor can it be whole every where, but must possess a lesser Place by a lesser Part of itself, and a greater Place by a greater Part. He repeats almost the same, in his Twenty eighth Epistle. And in another Book (d) Cont. Epist. Manichaei, c. 16. Aeris partes suos quoque implent locos, nec fieri potest ut aer quo impletur haec domus, simul secum in eadem domo habere possit etiam illum aerem quem vicini habent. . The Parts of Air also fill their Places; nor is it possible that the Air that fills this House, should together with it have the Air that is in a Neighbour's House. Again elsewhere (e) De Immort. Animae, c. 16. Moles omnis quae occupat locum, non est in singulis suis partibus tota, sed in omnibus, quare aliqua pars ejus alibi est, & alibi alia. . Every thing of Bulk that possesses a Place, is not whole in its single Parts, but whole in all its Parts; therefore one Part of it is in this Place, and another in another. In another Tract (f) Tract. 31. in Joan. Homo secundùm corpus in loco est, & de loco migrat, & cum ad alium locum venerit, in eo loco unde venit non est: Deus autem implet omnia & ubique totus est, non secundùm spatia tenetur locis. Erat tamen Christus secundùm visibilem carnem in terra, secundùm invifibilem Majestatem in coelo & in terra. . Man, as to his Body, is in a Place, and passes from one Place to another; and when he comes to another Place, he is no longer in that Place from whence he came. But God fills all things, and is every where whole, not confined to Places according to Spaces. Christ, according to his visible Flesh, was on Earth; according to his invisible Majesty, in Heaven and Earth. To name but two or three more out of S. Austin, who seems to speak Prophetically (g) De Vnit. Eccles. c. 10. His dictis mox ascendit in coelum, praemunire voluit aures nostras adversus eos, qui procedentibus temporibus exsurrecturos esse praedixerat, & dicturos, Ecce hic Christus, ecce illic. Quibus nec crederemus admonuit. Nec ulla nobis excusatio est, si crediderimus contra vocem Pastoris nostri tam claram, tam apertam, tam manifestam, etc. . Having said thus, he ascended into Heaven, and would precaution us against those that he foretold would arise in succeeding Ages, and say, Lo here is Christ, or lo there; whom he warned us not to believe: And we shall have no Excuse if we shall believe them against this so clear, open, and manifest Voice of our Pastor, etc. And in his Book against Faustus (h) Lib. 20. cap. 11. Secundùm praesentiam corporalem simul & in Sole, & in Luna, & in Cruse esse non posset. , he says, That Christ, according to his Corporal Presence, cannot be at the same time in the Sun, and in the Moon, and on the Cross. Lastly, in another Tract (i) Tract. 30. in Joan. Sursum est Dominus, sed etiam hic est veritas Dominus. Corpus enim Domini in quo resurrexit uno loco esse oportet (the Printed Copies absurdly read potest) veritas ejus ubique diffusa est. . Our Lord is above, yet also Truth the Lord is here: For the Body of our Lord in which he arose, must be in one Place; his Truth is diffused every where. Neither do the rest of the Fathers differ from his Doctrine, but give their full Consent to it. Anastasius Nicaenus (k) In Collect. adv. Severianos' in Bibl. Patr. Tom. 4. Impossibile est cogitare corpus sine loco, & sine aliis extra quae esse non potest, etc. . It is impossible to imagine a Body without a Place, and other things without which it cannot be, etc. Didymus Alexandr. (l) De Spiritu S. lib. 1. Ipse Spiritus S. si unus de creaturis esset, saltem circumscriptam haberet substantiam, sicut universae quae factae sunt— Spiritus autem, cùm in pluribus sit, non habet substantiam circumscriptam. proves the Holy Ghost to be God, because he is in more Places than one. The Holy Ghost himself, if he were one of the Creatures, would at least have a circumscribed (or bounded) Substance, as all things have that are made— But the Holy Spirit, seeing he is in more than one, has not a bounded Substance. And afterwards he says, That the Holy Ghost was present with the Apostles, tho' dispersed to the ends of the Earth; and adds, Angelica virtus ab hoc prorsus aliena. The Power of Angels is altogether a Stranger to this. Theodoret (m) In Genes. qu. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. makes this a Consequence from Angels being of a determinate Substance, That then they require a Place to be in: For only the Divinity, says he, as being undetermined, is not in a Place. And elsewhere (n) Dialog. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. , speaking of Christ's Body after the Resurrection, he says, Still it is a Body, having its former Circumscription. Cyril of Alexandria (o) De S. Trinit. Dial. 2. , disputing against those that thought the Son was begotten of the Substance of the Father, by a division of his Substance, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says, If the Divine Nature did admit of Section and Division, than you conceive of it as a Body; and if so, than it must be in a Place, and in Magnitude and Quantity; and if endued with Quantity, it could not avoid being circumscribed. Fulgentius (p) Ad Trasimund. lib. 2. c. 7. Quod aliquo circumscribitur fine, necesse est ut loco teneatur aut tempore. also. That which is circumscribed by any End (or Bound), must be contained in a Place, or in Time. And again (q) Ib. c. 18. Si verum est corpus Christi, loco utique oportet contineri. (The printed Copies read potest contineri, without Sense.) , speaking of Christ's Body: If the Body of Christ be a true one, it must be contained in a Place. S. Greg. Nazianzen (r) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Orat. 34. makes it impossible for one Body to be in divers. So does Damascen (s) De Fide Orth. l. 1. c. 4. make it impossible that one Body should pass through another, unless there be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that which divides, and that which is divided. Claud. Mamertus (t) De Statu Animae, l. 2. c. 3. Nihil illocale corporeum: omne illocale incorporeum quoque est. . Nothing illocal is corporeal: every thing illocal is also incorporeal. And again (u) Ibid. lib. 1. c. 18. Hinc patet omne corpus totum simul tangi non posse, nec in uno loco esse quamlibet minimum totum posse.— Illic non habet inferiora sua ubi habet superiora sua, nec illic dextra ubi sinistra, nec anteriora illic ubi posteriora. . It is plain, that no Body can be touched wholly together, nor can the least Whole you can imagine, be in one Place, (that is, in one Point.) And he instances in a Grain of Poppy, or the least part of it, That it has not its lower Parts there where it has its upper Parts, nor its right-hand Parts there where its lefthand Parts are, nor its Parts before there where it has its Parts behind. S. Hilary (x) In Psal. 124. Spiritus namque est omnia penetrans & continens. Non enim secundùm nos corporalis est, ut cùm alicubi adsit, absit aliunde, etc. speaking of Christ as God, says, He is a Spirit penetrating and containing all things. For according to us he is not corporeal, so that when he is present in one Place, he should be absent from another, etc. And elsewhere (y) Lib. 8. de Trinitate. Homo, aut aliquid ei simile, cùm alicubi erit, tum alibi non erit; quia illud quod est illic continetur ubi fuerit, infirma ad id natura ejus, ut ubique sit, qui insistens alicubi sit. . A Man, or any thing like him, when he is in a Place any where, cannot then be elsewhere; because that which is there, is contained where it is; and he that is placed any where, his Nature is uncapable to be every where. So also Nazianzen (z) Orat. 51. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. . A Vessel of the capacity of one Measure, will not contain two Measures; nor the Place that will hold one Body, can receive two or more Bodies into it. Again (a) Paulo post. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. a little after. This is the Nature of Intellectual Being's, that incorporeally and indivisibly they mingle with one another, and with Bodies. And elsewhere (b) Orat. 37. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. he proves the Deity of the Holy Ghost, because he penetrates all intellectual, pure, and most subtle Spirits (as the Angels, and also Apostles and Prophets) at the same time, when they are not in the same places, but dispersed severally; which shows, that the Holy Spirit is uncircumscribed. S. Basil uses the same Argument (c) De Spir. S. cap. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. to prove the same. Every one of the other Powers we believe to be in a circumscribed Place; for the Angel that was present to Cornelius, was not in the same place that he was in when he was present to Philip; nor the Angel that talked with Zacharias at the Atar, did at the same time fulfil his Station in Heaven. But the Spirit, we believe, could at the same time act both in Abaccuk, and in Daniel when he was in Babylon, etc. For the Spirit of the Lord filled the Universe. Which is an ill Argument, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if Christ's Body could be in more Places at the same time. Arnobius (d) Lib. 6. contra Gentes. In simulachris Dii habitant, singuline in singulis toti, an partiliter atque in membra divisi? Nam neque unus Deus in compluribus potis est uno tempore inesse simulachris, neque rursus in parts sectione interveniente divisus. Constituamus enim decem millia simulachrorum toto esse in orbe Vulcani: nunquid esse ut dixi, decem omnibus in millibus potis est unus uno in tempore? Non opinor. Qua causa? Quia quae sunt privata singulariaque naturâ multa fieri nequeunt, simplicitatis suae integritate servata.— Si hoc fuerit sumptum, posse unum in omnibus eodem tempore permanere, aut Deorum unusquisque dicendus ita ipsum semet ab ipso se dividere, ut & ipse sit & alter, non aliquo discrimine separatus, sed & ipse idem & alius; quod quoniam recusar & respuit aspernaturque natura, aut innumeros dicendum est confitendumque esse Vulcanos, si in cunctis volumus eum degere atque inesse simulachris, aut crit in nullo, quia esse divisus natura prohibetur in plurimis. disputing against the Heathens, who said that their Gods did inhabit their Statues, whom yet they believed to be finite and bounded, urges them thus. The Gods that inhabit in Statues, are they single Gods that are in single Statues whole, or divided into several parts? For one God (finite as theirs were) cannot be in many Statues at the same time, nor again exist divided into Parts, by being cut asunder. For let us suppose that there are ten thousand Statues of Vulcan all the World over: can one at one time be in all those ten thousand Statues? I think not. If you ask, Why so? Even because those things that are of a particular and singular Nature, cannot be made many, retaining the entireness of their simplicity. Again:— If this be supposed, that one Deity can dwell in them all at one time, than you must either say of every God, that he can divide himself from himself, so as to be the same, and another too, not separated by any difference, but that he shall be the very same, and yet another; which because Nature refuses and rejects, you must say and confess, That there are innumerable Vulcan's, if we will suppose him to be and to dwell in all his Statues; or else that he is in none of them, because Nature prohibits his division among many. All this would be very ill Reasoning, if he believed that which the Church of Rome does, That all this which he disputes against, is done in the Eucharist. S. Ambrose (e) Lib. de Spir. S. c. 7. Cùm omnis creatura certis suae naturae sit circumscripta limitibus, etc. quomodo quis audeat creaturam appellare Spiritum S. qui non habeat circumscriptam determinatamque virtutem? quia & in omnibus & ubique semper est, quod utique Divinitatis & Dominationis est proprium.— De quo hoc Angelo Scriptura dicit? de qua Dominatione? de qua Potestate? Cujus invenimus Angeli virtutem per plurimos effe diffusam?— Quis ergo dubitet quin divinum sit, quod infunditur simul pluribus nec videtur; corporeum autem quod videtur à singulis & tenetur? . Since every Creature is bounded within certain Limits of its Nature, etc. how dare any one call the Holy Ghost a Creature, who has not a limited and determined Virtue? For he is always in all things, and in all places, which is the Property of the Divinity, and of Supreme Rule. And afterwards mentioning that place of the Psalmist, Whither shall I go from thy Spirit? he adds, Of what Angel does the Scripture say thus? of what Principality? of what Power? What Angels Virtue do we find diffused among many?— Who can doubt then that to be Divine, that is at once infused into more, and is not seen; and that to be Corporeal, which is seen of every one, and held by them? No●●a●ian (f) Lib. de Trinitate. Si homo tantummodo Christus, quomodo adest ubique invocaturis? cùm haec non hominis natura est sed Dei, ut adesse in omni loco possit. also proves the Deity of Christ, by his Presence in every place. If Christ be only Man, how is be every where present with those that call upon him? seeing this is not the Nature of Man, but of God, to be present in every place. Author Quaest. ad Antioch. (g) Quaest. 26. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. denies that Angels can be present in many places at once, and adds, That its God's Property only to be found in two places, and in the whole World at the same moment of time. In consequence of this Doctrine of theirs about Bodies, the Fathers in the last place assert, 3 Assertion. That is it impossible for one to dwell in himself, or to partake of, and have ones own Body in himself; because whatsoever contains, must be greater than that which is contained in it; and there would be a Penetration of Dimensions, which they deny. Cyril of Alex. (h) De Trin. Dialog. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. lays it down as a Rule, that Nothing can partake of itself. And elsewhere (i) Ibid. Dial. 5. & 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. . Seeing nothing can partake of itself, but this is with relation to another, it is altogether necessary to affirm, That that which partakes should be different in nature from that which is partaked of. And again (k) Idem in Joan. lib. 2. c. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. he says, That to partake of ones self, is absurd so much as to imagine it. S. Chrysostom (l) Hom. 10. in Joan. citat. à Theodoret. Dial. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. says, He that dwells in the Tabernacle, and the Tabernacle itself, are not the same; but one thing dwells in another thing; for nothing dwells in itself. Gelasius Caesarien. (m) Citat. à Theodoret. Dial. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. . The Word was made Flesh, not being itself changed, but dwelling in us. The Tabernacle is one thing, and the Word is another; the Temple is one thing, and God that dwells in it another. See also the like Saying in Methodius, cited by Photius his Bibliotheca. Cod. 234. pag. 920. ult. Edit. In a word, the Fathers oppose all Penetration of Dimensions in Bodies, and say (n) Author. Libr. cui tit. Celebres Opiniones de Anima, c. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. , That it is impossible for one Body to penetrate another Body. And the same Author says (o) Ibid. cap. ult. Sic dici posset in milii grano coelum contineri. , That if this were possible, you might then say, That Heaven itself might be contained in a Grain of Millet. The Fathers argue against Martion, upon this Rule, That whatsoever contains another thing, is greater than that which is contained in it. So does Epiphanius (p) Haeres. 42. sec. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. . So does Tertullian (q) Contr. Martion. l. 1. c. 15. . Irenaeus (r) Adu. Haer. l. 2. c. 1. has the same Rule, and laughs at Marcion's God upon that account. Greg. Nyssen (s) De Vita Mosis. proves that the Deity has no Bounds, by this Argument, That otherwise what contains would be greater than the Deity contained therein. Theophylus Antioch. (t) Ad Autolycum, l. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. says, This is the Property of the Almighty and True God, not only to be every where, but to inspect and hear all things. Neither is he contained in a Place, for else the containing Place would be greater than himself; for that which contains, is greater than that which is contained in it. I will conclude this Chapter with the remarkable Words of Fulgentius (u) De Fide ad Petr. c. 3. Unaquaeque res ita permaner, sicut à Deo accepit ut esset, alia quidem sic, alia autem sic. Neque enim sic datum est corporibus ut sint, sicut spiritus acceperunt, etc. . Every thing so remains, as it has received of God that it should be, one on this manner, and another on that. For it is not given to Bodies to exist after such a manner as is granted unto Spirits, etc. CHAP. 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 Judgement to what they inform us herein. But the Fathers teach the contrary, That we may securely rely 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 Heretics, 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 men's Eyes, to what their Ears had heard, and their Hands had handled, without any suspicion of their being deceived. Thus Irenaeus (a) Lib. 3. adv. Haeres. c. 20. Hoc autem & illis occurrit, qui dicunt eum putatiuè 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 exhorts 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) Id. lib. 5. cap. 1. citante Theodoreto, Dial. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. . 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, does? Again (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 risen again in the Substance of our Flesh, and shown 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 Martion (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 Martion 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, clothed without a Garment, craving Food without Hunger, eating without Teeth, speaking without a Tongue, so that his Speech was a Phantasm to men's Ears by the Image only of a Voice. Then he instances in Christ's showing his Hands and Feet to his Disciples after his Resurrection: Behold, says he, it is I myself; 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, etc. according to Marcion's Interpretation, Behold, he cousin's, and deceives, and circumvents all men's Eyes, all men's Senses, all their Approaches and Touches. Thou therefore shouldst not have brought down Christ from Heaven, but from some Society of Jugglers, etc. Again (e) Idem. adv. Martion. 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 falsely acted; such as his meeting Persons, his touching them, his Conversation, and even his Miracles themselves, etc. And when Martion 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) 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) 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 testify it, viz. Sight, Touch, and Hearing. And again (h) Ibid. c. 11. Jam Deum tuum honoras fallaciae titulo, si aliud se esse sciebat, quam quod homines fecerat opinari. , Thou now honour'st 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 Martion (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, watered 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) Ibid. c. 43. Cur autem inspectui eorum manus & pedes suos offered, quae membra ex offibus constant, si ossa non habebat? Cur adjecit, & scitote quod ego sum, quem scilicet corporeum retro noverant? . Why does 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 myself, to wit, whom they had known before to have had a Body? May not we ask, agreeably to this Reasoning of Tertullian, Why does 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) De Anima, cap. 17. , where on set purpose he opposes the Academics, 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, etc. 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, etc. — 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 falsely saw Satan thrown down from Heaven, or falsely heard his Father's Voice testifying concerning him, or was deceived when he touched Peter 's Wife's 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. Recite 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) 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) 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, etc. 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, etc. So also S. Hillary (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, etc. videte manus & pedes meos, quoniam ipse ego sum, palpate & videte, quoniam spiritus carnem & ossa non habet, sicut me videtis habere. He 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, shown him in the habit of false Flesh, (as the Romanists make Christ's Body to be shown in habitu falsi panis) not remembering what was said after his Resurrection to the Apostles that thought they saw a Spirit; Why are ye troubled, etc. Behold my Hands and my Feet, that it is I myself; for a Spirit has not Flesh and Bones, as ye see me have. Epiphanius (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, than what is sensibly done to the Bread in the Eucharist, proves the Truth of Bread remaining, and not only the Appearance of it. He asks Martion (q) Ibid. Refut. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. , 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) Ibid. Refut. 10. & 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 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, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he 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) Ibid. Refut. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. , the Woman that touched Christ and was healed, she did not touch Air, but something Humane that might be touched. Again (t) Ib. Refut. 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. . 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) Refut. 65. from that of his kneeling down and praying, That all this was done 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because his Disciples saw him, and he was found to his Disciples under their Touch. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So also concerning Christ's Crucifixion, he observes (x) Ibid. Refut. 71. , That the piercing his Hands and Feet with Nails, and handling of them to do it, could not be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an imagination or show. But if the Church of Rome say true, he is out; for it is only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and a Phantôme, when I chew and fasten my Teeth in the Host, there being no Substance that I by't. He afterwards (y) Ibid. Refut. 77. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. challenges Martion 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) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. bulky, and really acting it? Here 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 show and appearance? Epiphanius also elsewhere (a) Haeres. 64. sec. 36. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. says, when Christ shown to them Moses and Elias in the Mount, He did not present an Image or a Phantôme, as intending to deceive his Apostles; but showed what they were really. Athanasius (b) Orat. 2. the 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; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so removing all suspicion of a Phantôme or Ghostly Appearance. S. chrysostom (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) Hom. 29. in Joan. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. , 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 falsely. 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) Hom. 13. in Ep. ad Ephes. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. wherein Deception does consist, viz. when a thing does 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) Hom. 7. in 1 ad Cor. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. , 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. S. Austin (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 does 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) Contra Faustum, l. 14. c. 10. Qui nisi Daemons, 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) 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, etc. . This, which is like Magic, 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 show, imaginary, and fallacious. For he cannot be truly raised, who did not truly die: And if so, than he shown 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) 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 Fantastical 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. Ans. 1. It is certain, that the Father's 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) Serm. ad recen. Baptizat. apud Fulgentium, Bedam, etc. 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, etc. . This which you see upon God's Altar, you were shown 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, etc. 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) Catech. Mystag. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. , speaking of holy Chrism. Take heed you do not think, says he, this to be mere simple Ointment. Sense indeed reaches no further than that; but then comparing Chrism with the Eucharist, (which is not to be looked upon as common Bread after Consecration) he adds, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. We are to look upon this Holy Ointment not as bare and common Ointment, after Consecration; but as the Grace of Christ, etc. So also he says of Baptism (n) Idem Catech. Illum. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. , Come not to the Font as to simple and mere Water, but to the Spiritual Grace that is given together with the Water. And a little 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) Diatypos. c. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. . We are not to consider our Baptism with sensitive, but with Intellectual Eyes. Or, as S. Austin says (p) Serm. 2. in Append. Sermon. 40. à Sirmondo Editor. Non debetis aquas illas oculis aestimare, sed ment. , You ought not to make an Estimate of those Waters with your Eyes, but with your Mind. Thus also S. Ambrose (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, etc. Non ergo solis corporis tui oculis credas. Magis videtur quod non videtur, quia istud temporale, illud aeternum aspicitur, quod oculis non comprehenditur, animo autem & ment cernitur. , speaking of Baptism. As to what thou hast seen, to wit, the Waters, and not those alone, but Levites there ministering, and the Bishop ask 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, etc. 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) In Joan. Hom. 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. , 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. chrysostom, 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) Hom. 89. in Matth. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. ; 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) De Doctr. Christ. l. 2. c. 1. De signis disserens, hoc dico, ne quis in eyes 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 Signs, that is, that they signify. For a Sign is a thing, which, besides what appears affecting the Senses, does of itself make somewhat else to come into our thoughts. So also Origen (u) In Joan. tom. 18. ad finem. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 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. chrysostom, in the place forecited, whose Words deserve to be set down at large (x) In 1 Cor. Hom. 7. Edit. Savil. Tom. 3. p. 280. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. . 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 merely believe what we see, but see one thing and believe another, he goes on thus. I and an Infidel are diversely 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 Judgement is made of them, and proceeds to speak of the Sacraments. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. The Infidel hearing of the Laver (of Baptism) esteems it simply Water; but I do not look merely 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, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 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 Skill hears an absent Person speak, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 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) Catech. 4. Mystag. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. , 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 although 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. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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. chrysostom, (Homil. 83. in Matth.) where he bids us, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. 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, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. 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, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This 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, but 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 does but remember that Baptism is as much concerned in this Discourse of S. chrysostom, 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 merely 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. CHAP. VII. The Seventh Difference. When the Fathers call the Eucharist Christ's Body and Blood, the Roman Church understands it of Christ's natural Body given there. But the Fathers do not so; but understand it most commonly of the Elements of Bread and Wine, even when they call them the Body of Christ, and give us the reasons why they so call them. INeed not tell you, how the Romish Writers catch at every place of the Fathers, where they meet with the mention of Christ's Body and Blood: all their Citations are full of little else but Testimonies of this kind. But if they had a mind to understand their sense, and did not merely listen to the sound of their words, they would quickly see them interpret themselves, so that there could be no mistake, nor countenance given hereby to Transubstantiation, or any presence of Christ but what is spiritual. Which by a few Observations out of them will appear. 1. Observe. The Fathers give us warning of it, and tell us, That they studiously conceal and hid the Mysteries from some persons, both out of the Church, and in it. Therefore their mere expressions concerning it, are not sufficient to inform us of their meaning. Thus Cyril of Jerusalem (a) Catech. Illum. 6. pag. 149. Edit. 4. Paris. 1608. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. tells us, That we do not speak openly of the mysteries among the Catechumen, but often speak many things covertly, that the faithful that are acquainted with the matter, may understand it, and they that are unacquainted may not be hurt. S. Austin (b) In Psal. 103. Quid est quod occultum est, & non publicum in Ecclesia● Sacramentum Baptismi, Sacramentum Eucharistiae. Opera nostra bona vident & Pagani, Sacramenta vero occultantur illis. in like manner. What is it that is hidden and not public in the Church? The Sacrament of Baptism, and the Sacrament of the Eucharist. The very Pagans see our good works, but the Sacraments are hid from them. S. chrysostom (c) In 1 Cor. 15. Hom. 40. (upon those words, why are they then Baptised for the dead) says, I have a mind to speak it openly, but I dare not, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because of them that are not initiated. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For they make our Exposition more difficult, compelling us either not to speak plainly, or to declare to them things that ought to be concealed. Upon this account they concealed what was apt to be despised (whether they did well or no in this I shall not here question) scarce vouchsafing to name the visible Elements, but mentioning them with more glorious Titles, such as could not be disregarded. Thus they called Baptism by the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, illumination; and they called the Eucharist, the Sacrifice, quod norunt fideles, which the faithful know, (thus concealing it) or the Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ. They call the Lords Table an Altar, and the Ministers Priests, tho' all these are to be understood in a figurative and improper sense. Thus S. Austin says (d) De verb. Dom. Serm. 53. Penè quidem Sacramentum omnes corpus ejus dicunt. , Almost all call the Sacrament the Body of Christ. Which very phrase shows, that the Sacrament is not in substance Christ's natural Body. For who would phrase it so, almost all call it, in giving a proper name to a thing? ex. gr. would any say, that almost all call a House a House, or a Man a Man? but to say, that almost all call Kings Gods, tells you, that however for certain Reasons, Kings are called Gods, yet they are not really and properly so. The same Father (e) De Trinit. l. 3. c. 4.— Sed illud tantum quod ex fructibus terrae acceptum & prece mystica consecratum, ritè sumimus ad salutem spiritualem, etc. speaking of several things, whereby Christ may be signified and set forth, either by words written, or spoken, etc. he says, We do not call these the Body and Blood of Christ, but that only, which being taken from the fruits of the earth, is rightly received by us to our spiritual health, etc. If the other things had been called so, any one would have understood it must be improperly so called, and so must this too, as his following words tell us, Non sanctificatur ut sit tam magnum Sacramentum, nisi operante invisibiliter Spiritu Dei. that even this is not sanctified to become so great a Sacrament, but by the invisible operation of the Spirit of God. So Isidore of Sevil (f) Orig. Lib. 6. cap. 19 Eo (sc. Christo) jubente, corpus Christi & sanguinem dicimus, quod dum fit ex fructibus terrae, sanctificatur, & fit Sacramentum, operante invisibiliter Spiritu Dei. gives the same account, By the command of Christ, we call the Body and Blood of Christ, that which being made of the fruits of the earth, is sanctified and made a Sacrament by the invisible operation of the spirit of God. 2. Observe. The Fathers ofttimes in their very manner of speaking concerning the Body and Blood of Christ, point at another thing than his Natural Body; so that we need no Commentary upon their words to explain them, for they carry at first hearing our sense and meaning in them, and not that of the Romanists. To give a few instances. S. Cyprian (g) Epist. 63. ad Caecilium. Cùm dicat Christus, ego sum vitis vera, sanguis Christi non aqua est utique sed vinum— Quomodo nec Corpus Domini potest esse farina sola, aut aqua sola, nisi utrumque adunatum fuerit & copulatum, & panis unius compagine folldatum. discoursing against those that Consecated and drank only Water in the Sacrament, says, When Christ says, I am the true Vine, the Blood of Christ its plain is not Water but Wine.— So neither can the Lords Body be flour alone, or water alone, unless both of them be united, and coupled and kneaded tegether into one Loaf. Where no Body can doubt of S. Cyprian's meaning, that by Christ's Body he understands not his natural Body, but the Sacrament of it. And so the Council of Carthage, (h) Pandect. Canon. p. 565. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. decreed against the Armenians (who made use of Wine only in the Eucharist) That nothing shall be offered, but the Body and Blood of Christ, as the Lord himself delivered it, (the phrase carries its sense in the face of it, if they had said no more, but they add) that is, Bread and Wine mixed with Water. What can be more plain than that of Theodoret (i) Dialog. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. , when he says, That our Saviour changed the names, and on his Body he put the name of the sign (or symbol) and on the sign the name of his Body? A little before he shows how. You know, says he, that God called his Body Bread, and elsewhere he called his flesh Wheat (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉), except a Corn of Wheat fall to the Earth and die, Matth. 12. But in the delivery of the mysteries, he called Bread his Body, and that which is mixed (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) Blood. Is it not clear, that neither in one case, nor the other, these say are to be understood properly, but figuratively? Especially when Theodoret, before all I now have cited, makes this comparison. As after Consecration, Ib. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. we call the mystical fruit of the Vine the Lord's blood; so he (Jacob) called the Blood of the true Vine, the Blood of the Grape. Both the one and the other must be figuratively understood. When S. Cyprian in the forecited Epistle (k) Epist. 63. Hoc quis veretur, ne per saporem vini redoleat sanguinem Christi. says, that some might make it an Objection, that by partaking of the Communion early in the Morning, they might be discovered to the Heathen Persecutors by the smell of the Wine, he expresses it thus, One fears this, lest by tasting Wine he should smell of Christ's Blood. S. Jerome has such another saying, which cannot well be mistaken to express any other sense but ours, when speaking of Virgins (l) Epist. ad Eustochium. Ebrietati sacrilegium copulantes aiunt, absit ut ego me abstineam à sanguine Christi. that were reproved for drinking Wine to excess, he says, they made this excuse, (joining sucrilege to their drunkenness) and said God forbidden that I should abstain from the Blood of Christ. Either they said nothing to the purpose, or they took that which they called the Blood of Christ, for Wine properly. Thus also S. chrysostom (m) Epist. 1. ad Innocent. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. speaking of the rudeness of the Soldiers in the Church, says, that in the tumult, the most holy Blood of Christ was shed upon the Soldier's Cleths. Which could be nothing but Sacramental Wine. Leo the Great, speaking of the Manichees, that for fear of the Laws came to the Communion of the Catholics, and directing how to discover them, he says (n) Serm. 4. the Quadrages. Ita in Sacramentorum communione se temperant, ut interdum tutiùs lateant; o'er indigno Christi Corpus accipiunt, sanguinem autem redemptionis nostrae haurire omninò declinant. , They so behave themselves in the Communion of the Sacraments, that they may sometime be more safely concealed; with an unworthy mouth they take the Body of Christ, but altogether decline drinking the Blood of our redemption. In the sense both of Leo and the Manichees, the Body and Blood here must be taken figuratively; for such bad men as they, in the sense of the Ancients, could not eat, or any way receive Christ's Body in a proper sense, but being understood of the Type of it, viz. of the Sacramental Bread, that they would receive; but not the Type of his Blood; viz. the Wine, because, as S. Austin (o) De Heres. 46. Vinum non bibunt, dicentes fel esse principum tenebrarum. observes, they drink no Wine, saying, it is the Gall of the Prince of darkness. They had no more prejudice against the Blood than the Body of Christ, only they took it to be Wine, which they abhorred. 3. Observe. The Fathers speak of Christ's Body and Blood in the Eucharist, with such terms of restriction and diminution, which plainly tell us, that they understood it not of his substantial and natural Body, but in a figurative sense. Thus Origen (p) Contr. Celsum l 8. p. 399. Edit. Cantabr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. says, That Bread in the Eucharist is made by Prayer a certain holy Body. And S. Austin (q) In Psal. 33. conc. 2. Accepit in manus quod norunt fideles & ipse se portabat quodammodo, cùm diceret hoc est Corpus meum. , Christ took in his hands what the faithful understand, and after a sort, carried himself when he said, This is my Body. Bede (r) In Psal. 33. Christus quodammodo ferebatur in manibus suis. upon the same Psalm, has the same term of restriction, Christ after a sort, was carried in his own hands. S. Austin elsewhere (s) Epist. 23. ad Bonifac. Secundum quendam modum Sacramentum Corporis Christi, Corpus Christi est; Sacramentum sanguinis Christ's, sanguis Christi est. , In a certain sense, the Sacrament of the Body of Christ is Christ's Body; and the Sacrament of the Blood of Christ, is Christ's Blood. Just as at Easter we say, this day Christ risen, because it is a memorial of it. S. chrysostom (t) Epist. ad Caesarium. Dignus habitus est Dominici Corporis appellatione. says of the Consecrated Bread, That it has no longer the name of Bread (tho' the nature of it remains) but is counted worthy to be called the Lord's Body. Theodoret in like manner (u) Dialog. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. , He honoured the visible Symbols with the appellation of 〈◊〉 Body and Blood. Facundus Hermian. (x) In defence 3. capit. l. 9— Non quod propriè Corpus cjus sit panis, & poculum sanguis, etc. is most express. We call, says he, the Sacrament of his Body and Blood, which is in the Consecrated Bread and Cup, his Body and Blood; not that properly the Bread is his Body, and the Cup his Blood, etc. So also is S. chrysostom (y) In Gal. 5.17. Vol. 3. Savil. p. 755. in another place; where he shows, that the word Flesh; is not always taken for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the nature and substance of the Body (which is the only proper sense) and he gives other instances which are improper; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as that flesh signifies a depraved will. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And adds two other improper senses, in these words. By the name of Flesh, the Scripture is wont also to call the mysteries; he adds also, that it calls the Church so, when it calls it the Body of Christ. The very phrase of being wont to call, shows, that of which it is affirmed to be improperly so called, as the phrase of being thought worthy of the name (as we heard before) argues the name not properly to agree to it. 4. Observe. The Fathers, knowing, that the Eucharist was not in a proper sense Christ's Body, give us several reasons why it is called his Body. But no body uses to give a reason why he calls a thing by its proper name. I shall not name all the reasons here, but reserve some to another place; when we consider the Sacrament, as a Sign, Figure, Type, Memorial, etc. 1. One reason they give is from its likeness and resemblance, either in respect of what it consists of, or from the likeness of its effects. S. Austin's saying is remarkable (z) Epist. 23. Si Sacramenta quandam similitudinem earum rerum non haberent quarum Sacramenta sunt, omninò Sacramenta non essent. Ex hac autem similitudine plerunque etiam ip●arum rerum nomina accipiunt. , If the Sacraments had not a resemblance of those things of which they are Sacraments, they would not be Sacraments at all: But from this resemblance they take commonly the name even of the things themselves which they resemble. Bede also gives (a) In Cap. 6. Epist. ad Roman. Lib. 4. cap. 4. Fortê dicis, speciem sanguinis non video. Sed habet similitudinem. Sicut enim mortis similitudinem sumpsisti, ita etiam similitudinem pretiosi sanguinis bibis, etc. the same reason in his Commentary on the Romans. The Author of the Book of Sacraments under S. Ambrose his name, speaks thus. Thou mayst say perhaps, I do not see the substance of Blood. Well, but it has its likeness. For as thou hast received the likeness of his death, so thou drinkest the likeness of his precious Blood. S. Cyprian (b) Epist. 76. ad Magnum. Quando Dominus Corpus suum panem vocat, de multorum granorum adunatione congestum, populum nostrum quem portabat indicat adunatum: & quando sanguinem suum vinum appellat de botris atque acinis plurimis expressum atque in unum coactum, gregem item nostrum significat commixtione adunatae multitudinis copulatam. . When Christ called Bread, made up of many united grains of Corn, his Body, he shown the unity of Christian people whom he bore; and when he called Wine pressed out of many Grapes, and put together his Blood, he signified also the uniting of a multitude of the Christian flock together. So Rabanus Maurus (c) De Instit. Cleric. c. 31. Propterea Dominus noster Corpus & sanguinem suum in eyes rebus commendavit, quae ad unum aliquid rediguntur ex multis five granis five acinis, & Sanctorum Charitatis unitatem significaret. . Therefore our Lord commended his Body and Blood in those things, which consisting of many Grains or Grapes, are brought together into one, whereby he might signify the unity of the Charity of Saints. Others again from the likeness of its effects. Thus Isidore of Sevil (d) De Offic. Eccles. l. 1. cap. 18. Panis quia confirmat Corpus, ideo Corpus Christi nuncupatur; vinum autem quia sanguinem operatur in carne, ideo ad sanguinem Christi refertur. . Bread, because it strengthens the Body, is therefore called the Body of Christ; and Wine, because it produces Blood in the Flesh, is therefore referred to the Blood of Christ. The same reason is also given by Rabanus Maurus, in his Commentary upon the 26 Chap. of S. Matthew. 2 Reason. Another reason, why they call the Eucharist Christ's Body, is, because it supplies the place, is instead of it, is its representative, its pledge and pawn. Tertullian (e) Lib. 6. de Orat. Corpus ejus in pane censetur, Hoc est corpus meum. . His Body is reputed to be in the Bread, This is my Body. S. Austin (f) Tract. 45. in Joan. Videte, fide manente, signa variata. Ibi Petra Christus, nobis Christus quod in altari Dei ponitur. . See how the signs are varied, Faith remaining the same. There (in the Wilderness) the rock was Christ, to us that which is placed on God's Altar is Christ. Again elsewhere more fully (g) De Civit. Dei, l. 18. c. 48. Quodammodo omnia significantia videntur rerum quas significant sustinere personas, sicut dictum est ab Apostolo, Petra erat Christus, quoniam Petra illa de qua hoc dictum est, significabat utique Christum. . All things intended to signify, seem in a sort to sustain the persons of those things which they signify, as the Apostle says, The Rock was Christ, because that Rock of which this is spoken, did signify Christ. Cyril of Jerusalem (h) Catech. Mystag. 4.— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. says, Wherefore with all assurance, let us receive it (viz. The Bread and Wine) as the Body and Blood of Christ; for in the type of Bread his Body is given thee, and in the type of Wine his Blood. Proclus of Constantinople (i) Orat. 18.— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. . Instead of the Manger let us venerate the Altar; instead of the Infant let us embrace the Bread that is blessed by the Infant, (viz. Christ.) Victor Antiochen. (k) In Marc. 14. Citante Bulingero adv. Casaub. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. When the Lord said, this is my Body, this is my Blood, it was fit that they who set forth the Bread, should, after giving of thanks, reckon it to be his Body, and partake of it, and account the Cup to be instead of his Blood. The Author of the Commentaries attributed to S. Jerome (l) In 1 Cor. 11. Ultimam nobis commemorationem five memoriam dereliquit, quemadmodum si quis peregrè proficiscens, aliquod pignus ei quem diligit derelinquat, ut quotiescunque illud viderit, possit ejus beneficia & amicitias memorare. . Christ left to us his last remembrance, just as if a person taking a Journey from home, should leave some pledge to one whom he loves, that as oft as he looked upon it, he might call to mind his kindnesses and friendships. So also Amalarius (m) De Offic. Eccles. l. 3. c. 25. Edit. Hittorpii, p. 425. Christus, inclinato capite, emisit spiritum. Sacerdos inclinat se, & hoc quod vice Christi immolatum est, deo Patri commendat. . Christ bowing his head gave up the Ghost. The Priest bows himself, and commends to God the Father this which is offered as a Sacrifice in the place of Christ. 5. Observe. That altho', for the Reasons given, the Fathers call the Sacrament Christ's Body, yet they plainly say, that what is distributed in the Eucharist is without any life or sense, which cannot be said of Christ's natural Body. Epiphanius (n) In Anchorat. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. . We see what our Saviour took in his hands (viz. Bread) and having given thanks said, This is mine, and that; and yet we see, that it is not equal to it nor like it, not to the incarnate Image, not to the invisible Deity, not to the Lineaments of members; for this (the Bread) is of a round form, and insensible as to any power. Theophilus of Alexandria (o) Epist. Paschal. 2. Non recogitat a juas in Baptismate mysticas adventu Sp. Sancticonsecrari, panemque Dominicum, quo Salvatoris Corpus ostenditur, & quen, frangimus in Sanctificationen, nostri, & S. calicem, quae in mensa Ecclesiae collocantur, & utique inanima sunt, per invocationem & adventum Spiritûs S. sanctificari. , discoursing against Origen, who did not believe that the H. Ghost did operate upon things inanimate, says, He (Origen) does not remember, that the mystical waters in Baptism are consecrated by the coming of the H. Ghost, and that the Lords Bread, whereby the Body of our Saviour is shown, and which we break for our sanctification, and the H. Cup, which are all placed upon the Table of the Church, and are indeed without life, yet are Sanctified by the Invocation and advent of the H. Ghost. S. Jerome (p) Epist. ad Theoph. Alex. Ut discant qui ignorant cruditi testimoniis Scripturarum, qua debeant veneratione Sancta suscipere & Altaris servitio deservire; sacrosque calices & sancta velamina, & caetera quae ad cultum pertinent Dominicae Passionis, non quasi inanima & sensu carentia Sanctimoniam non habere, sed ex consortio corporis & sanguinis Domini, eadem qua Corpus ejus & Sanguis Majestate veneranda. commending the foresaid work, and admiring at the profit the Churches would reap thereby, says, They they who are ignorant, being instructed by Scripture-Testimonies, may learn, with what veneration they ought to meddle with holy things, and serve at the Altar; and that the H. Chalices and H. Veils, and the rest of the things that appertain to the Celebration of our Lord's Passion, are not to be looked upon as having no sanctity, as being without life and sense, but by reason that they accompany the Body and Blood of our Lord, are to be venerated with the same majestic regard, that his Body and Blood is. 6. Observe. That the Fathers speak of Divisions and parts of the Eucharist, which cannot be truly said of the natural Body of Christ, which the Rom. Church confesses to be impassable, but only of the Sacramental Bread and Wine. Cyprian (q) Lib. de Lapsis. Quidam alius & ipse maculatus, sacrificio à Sacerdote celebrato, partem cum caeteris ausus est latenter accipere, sanctum Domini edere & contrectare non potuit. . Another who was also defiled, the Sacrifice being Celebrated by the Priest, was so bold, as privily to take a part of it with others, but he could not eat and handle the Holy (Body) of the Lord. Clemens Alexandr. (r) Strom. l. 1.— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. . When the Bishop, according to custom had divided the Eucharist, they suffered every one of the people to take a portion of it. Origen (s) Hom. 13. in Exodum. Cùm suscipitis Corpus Domini, cum omni cautela & veneratione servatis, ne ex eo parum quid decidat, ne consecratimuneris aliquid dilabatur, etc. (if they be his genuine words) says, When ye receive the Lords Body, ye keep it with all caution and veneration, lest any little portion of it should fall down, lest any thing of the consecrated gift should slip down to the ground, etc. S. Basil (t) Epist. 289. ad Caesariam. showing, that they that have received the Communion in the Church may reserve it, and Communicate themselves at home with their own hand, and that the practice was thus in Alexandria and Egypt; adds, that when the Priest has distributed the Sacrifice, he that receives it whole, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and takes daily a part of that which was so given him, aught to believe that he rightly receives it.— It is the same in virtue, whether a person receive a single part from the Priest, or many parts together. S. Ambrose agrees with it, (u) Epist. 1. ad Justum. Etsi parum sumas, etsi plurimum haurias, eadem perfecta est omnibus mensura redemptionis. speaking of the Blood of Christ. Whether thou takest, says he, a little, or drinkest a larger draught, there is the same perfect measure of redemption to all. So also S. Austin (x) Epist. 59 ad Paulin.— Ad. distribuendum comminuitur. speaking of that upon the Lord's Table which is blessed and sanctified, (which is Bread) he says of it, that it is broken into little parts to be distributed. Which cannot be said of Christ's proper Body. And elsewhere (y) Epist. 86. ad Casulanum. De agni immaculati corpore partem sumere. his phrase concerning communicating is, to take a part from the body of the immaculate Lamb. Also in another place, he says (z) De Verb. dom. serm. 33. In accipiendo novimus quid cogitemus, Modicum accipimus & in cord saginamur. , In receiving we know what we think. We receive a little portion, and are fatted at heart. Cyril of Alexandria (a) In Joan. 6.57. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. says, The least part of the Consecrated Bread (which he calls the Eulogy) mingles the whole Body into itself, and fills it with its own energy, and thus both Christ is in us, and we again are in him. Eusebius (b) Eccles. Hist. l. 6. c. 36.— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. tells the story of the Presbyter, that when Serapion was a dying, sent him, by a Boy, a little bit of the Eucharist. And Prosper (c) Dimidium temporis. c. 6.— Brevem portiunculam Corporis Dominici. has a like story of a possessed Woman, that received a short and small portion of our Lord's Body. And P. Pius I, in an Epistle attributed to him (and made use of by Bellarmine (d) De Euchar. l. 2. cap. 5. Si quid de sanguine Domini stillaverit in terram. ) speaks of some of the Blood of Christ dropping and distilling on the ground, and directs what is to be done in that case. 7. Observe. The Fathers speak of making the Body of Christ in the Eucharist, in a sense quite different from that of the Romanists. S. Jerome frequently uses the phrase of making Christ's Body, and speaking of the Presbyters that succeeded to the Apostles, in one Epistle (e) Epist. 1. ad Heliodor. Qui Christi Corpus Sacro ore conficiunt. he says, they make the Body of Christ with their Holy Mouth. And in another Epistle (f) Ad Evagrium. Ad quorum preces Christi Corpus sanguisque conficitur. says of them, That upon their Prayers the Body and Blood of Christ is made. Also in a third Epistle (g) Ad Fabiolam. Sequester Dei & hominum, & carnes agni sacro ore conficiens. he describes a Priest to be one that mediates betwixt God and Men, and one that makes the flesh of the Lamb with his holy mouth. Here now they of the Church of Rome take care to advance the Priesthood, tho' even with words of Blasphemy. One cries out (h) Stella Clericorum. Qui creavit me sine me, creature mediante me. , He that created me without me, is created by my means. So also Biel (i) In Canon. Missae, Lect. 4. Qui creavit me (si fas est dicere) dedit mihi creare se, & qui creavit me sine me, creature mediante me. . He that created me (if I may be bold to say it) has given me power to create himself, and he that created me without me, is created by my means. Biel also (in the same Lecture) makes a comparison between the Priests and the Bl. Virgin, and makes them to carry it from her in this matter. She by pronouncing eight words, Illa prolatis octo verbulis, Ecce Ancilla Domini, fiat mihi secundùm Verbum tuum, semel concepit Dei filium & mundi Redemptorem. Isti à Domino consecrati, quinque Verbis eundem Dei Virginisque filium advocant quotidie corporaliter. Attendite, O Sacerdotes, in quo gradu & dignitate sitis constituti. Behold the Handmaid of the Lord, etc. Conceived once the Son of God and the Redeemer of the World. They (viz. the Priests) being consecrated by the Lord, by speaking five words, do call the same Son of God, and the Virgin, bodily before them every day. And then cries out. Consider, O Priests, in what high degree and dignity you are placed. But now the Fathers they sufficiently explain themselves, that this of making Christ's Body, cannot be understood of the natural and proper Body of Christ. For First, They lay it down as a Rule, that whatsoever is made, was not before it was made. Thus Athenagoras (k) De resurrect. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. says, That which is already is not made, but that which is not. Tertullian in like manner says (l) Lib. contr. Hermog. cap. 19 Nihil quod fieri habet sine initio est, quin initium sit illi dum incipit fieri. Nothing that has a fieri, is without a beginning, but it gins to be while it gins to be made. Athanasius (m) Contr. Arian. Orat. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. It is the property of Creatures and works, that they are said to exist out of nonentity, and not to be before they are made. Greg. Nyssen (n) Contr. Eunom. l. 9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. . If he made it, he made that which was not at all. S. Hilary (o) De Trin. l. 12. Omne quod fit, antequam fiat non fuit. . Every thing that is made, was not before it was made. S. Ambrose (p) De Incarn. l. 3. Quod fit incipit. . That which is made gins to be. S. Austin (q) De moribus Manich. c. 7. Facere enim est quod omninò non erat. . To make is true of that which was not at all. Cyril Alexand. (r) Thesaur. Assert. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. . It cannot be, that what already exists, should be brought into being, but what does not exist. Vigilius also (s) Lib. 3. cont. Eutychen. Fieri, ejus soleat esse proprium, qui nunquam ante substiterat. . To be made, is the usual property of him, who never subsisted before. Cassianus also (t) Lib. 7. the incarn. c. 2. Quae orta jam fuerint, redire in id rursum non queant ut nouâ creatione generentur. . Things already sprung up, cannot return into that state; that they should be generated by a new creation. These say do very ill accord with the Doctrine of the Roman Church (u) Catechis. ad Paroch. de Eucharist. n. 39 Sine ulla Domini nostri mutatione; neque enim Christus aut generatur, aut mutatur, aut augescit. , which teaches, that the Conversion in the Eucharist is made, without any change in our Lord; for neither is Christ generated, or is changed, or increased. Secondly, They so speak of making Christ's Body, that it cannot be understood of any other than his typical and mystical Body. For the Fathers say, That Bread is made his Body. Tertullian (x) Cont. Ma●c. l. 4. c. 40. Acceptum panem & distributum discipulis, Corpus suum illum fecit, hoc est Corpus meum dicendo. . Christ when he had taken Bread, and distributed it to his Disciples, made it his Body, saying, This is my Body. Eusebius (y) Demonst. Evang. lib. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. . Christ commanded his Disciples (speaking of the Symbols of the Divine Oeconomy delivered to them, i. e. Bread and Wine) to make the image of his Body. Cyril of Jerus. (z) Catech. Mystag. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. . When the Invocation is over, the Bread is made the Body of Christ, and the Wine the Blood of Christ. Greg. Nyssen (a) Orat. in Christi Baptisma. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. says, At first the Bread is common Bread, but after the mystery has consecrated it, it is called and is made the Body of Christ. S. Austin (b) Serm. de diversis, 87. Non omnis panis, sed accipiens benedictionem Christi, fit Corpus Christi. Canon Miss. Quam oblationem tu Deus in omnibus, quaesumus, benedictam, adscriptam, ratam, rationabilem, acceptamque facere digneris, ut nobis Corpus & sanguis fiat dilectissimi tui filii Domini nostri J. Christi, etc. . Not all Bread, but only that which receives Christ's blessing, is made the Body of Christ. Canon of the Mass. Which Oblation, O Almighty God, we beseech thee vouchsafe to make blessed, allowable, firm, rational, and acceptable, that it may be made to us the Body and Blood of thy most dear Son our Lord Jesus Christ, etc. Also the Fathers say still more expressly, that the Body and Blood of Christ, is made of Bread and Wine. Thus the Author of the Book of Sacraments under S. Ambrose's name (c) Lib. 4. de Sacram. c. 4. Tu fortè dicis, meus panis est usitatus: sed panis iste panis est ante verba Sacramentorum, ubi accesserit consecratio de pane fit caro Christi. . Perhaps thou wilt say, My Bread is usual Bread: but tho' that Bread be Bread before the Sacramental words, yet upon Consecration, of Bread is made the Flesh of Christ. Gaudentius (d) In Exod. trac. 2. Ipse naturarum Creator & Dominus, qui producit de terra panem, de pane rursus, qui poorest & promisit, efficit proprium corpus, & qui de aqua vinum fecit, & de vino sanguinem suum. . The Creator and Lord of nature himself, who produces Bread out of the Earth, of Bread again (seeing he is oble, and has promised it) he makes his own Body; and he that of Water made Wine, made also of Wine his Blood. Now all this can be meant of nothing else, but what we heard out of Eusebius before, of the Image of his Body, which he commanded his Disciples to make. S. Jerome also explains it of the Sacramental Bread and Wine, upon those words of the Prophet (e) In Jerem. 31.12. De quo conficitur panis Domini, & sanguinis ejus impletur typus, & benedictio Sanctificationis ostenditur. , They shall flow together to the goodness of the Lord, for Wheat, and for Wine and Oil. He adds, Of which the Lord's Bread is made, and the type of his Blood is fulfilled, and the blessing of sanctification is shown. And in another place (f) In cap. 9 Zachar. De hoc tritico efficitur ille panis qui de Coelo descendit & confortat cor hominis. Of this Wheat the Bread that descended from Heaven is made, and which strengthens the heart of man. Which must be understood of the Bread received in the Eucharist. So Tertullian (g) Antea citat. Corpus suum illum (sc. panem) fecit, hoc est Corpus meum dicendo, id est, Figura Corporis mei. explains himself. He made Bread his Body, saying, This is my Body, That is, the Figure of my Body. And Leo Magn. (h) Epist. 88 Nec licet Presbyteris nisi eo (sc. Episcopo) jubente, Sacramentum Corporis & sanguinis Christi conficere. . Neither may the Presbyters, without the Bishop's Command, make the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ. S. Chrysostom (i) Hom. 29. in Genes. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. speaking of Wine, says, By this the matter of the good things for our Salvation is perfected. Where by those good things, he plainly means the Wine in the Eucharist. It is also very observable, that the Fathers sometimes call this the mystical Bread and Wine, and sometimes the mystical Body and Blood of Christ. Thus S. Austin (k) Contr. Faust. l. 20. c. 13. Noster panis & calix certâ consecratione, mysticus fit nobis, non nascitur. says, Our Bread and Cup is made mystical to us, by a certain consecration, and does not grow so. S. Chrysostom (l) De r●surrect. mort. Hom. 33. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. thus. The mystical Body and Blood is not made without the grace of the spirit. When S. Ambrose (m) Lib de iis qui initiant. c. 9 Hoc quod conficimus Corpus ex Virgine est. Sacramentum illud quod accipis sermon● Christi conficitur. Vera utique caro Christi quae crucifixa est, quae sepulta est. Verè ergo car●is illius Sacramentum est. had said, This Body which we make is of the Virgin. He explains this phrase by another before it, viz. That Sacrament which thou receivest is made by the Word of Christ. And also by another saying of his that follows. It was true Flesh of Christ that was Crucified and buried; it is therefore truly the Sacrament of his Flesh. Where you see he distinguishes these two, the Flesh of Christ Crucified, and that in the Sacrament, which is only mystically so. Hesychius (n) In Levit. lib. 6.— Corpore mystico non vescetur. speaking of Jews, Pagans, and Heretics, says, that the Soul in Society with them may not eat of the mystical Body, that is, of the Eucharist. And elsewhere (o) Id. ibid. lib. 2. Christus bibens ipse, & Apostolis bibere dans sanguinem intelligibilem. speaking of the Cup in the Sacrament, uses this phrase, Christ drinking himself and giving to the Apostles the intelligible Blood to drink. Where intelligible Blood is the mystical Blood in the Eucharist, according to his constant use of that word. Procopius of Gaza (p) In Esa. cap. 3. upon those words of the Prophet, of Gods taking away the Staff of Bread and stay of Water; and telling us, that Christ's Flesh is meat indeed, and his Blood drink indeed, which they that have not, have not the strength of Bread and Water; he adds, there is another enlivening Bread also taken from the Jews, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. where he means the Eucharist, distinguishing it from Christ's proper Flesh and Blood. S. Ambrose (q) De benedict. Patriarch. c. 9 Hunc panem dedit (Jesus) Apostolis, ut dividerent populo credentium, hodieque dat nobis eum, quem ipse quotidie sacerdos consecrat suis verbis. Hic panis factus est esca Sanctorum. Possumus & ipsum Dominum accipere, qui carnem suam nobis dedit, sicut ipse ait, Ego sum panis vitae. makes the same distinction, where speaking of the Benediction of Asser, that his Bread was fat, etc. and that Asser signifies riches; he adds, Jesus gave this Bread to the Apostles, that they should divide it among believing people, and he now gives it to us, being that which the Priest daily Consecrates with his words. This Bread is made the food of Saints. We may also understand thereby the Lord himself, who gave his Flesh to us, as he says, I am the Bread of Life. What can be more clear, than that he distinguishes here between the Eucharistical Bread (which he calls the Saints food) and Christ himself the Bread of Life? 8. Observe. The Fathers speak of Christ's Body sanctified and sacrificed in the Eucharist; which cannot be understood of any thing, but his representative and Typical Body. S. Austin (r) Epist. 59 Quod in Domini mensa est— — benedicirur & sanctificatur. speaking of that which is upon the Lord's Table (which the Church of Rome will have to be Christ's Natural Body) says, that it is blessed and sanctified. And Gaudentius (s) In Exod. tract. 19 Per singulas Ecclesiarum domos in mysterio panis & vini reficit immolatus, vivificat creditus, consecrantes sanctificat consecratus. , speaking of Christ, whom he compares to the Paschal Lamb, says, Through all the Houses of the Churches, in the mystery of Bread and Wine, being sacrificed he refreshes, being believed on he quickens, being consecrated he sanctifies them that consecrate. This can be only true in representation, which is said of Christ's being sacrificed and sanctified (or consecrated) by us; for the proper and natural Body of Christ can neither be sanctified in a proper sense, nor sacrificed by us, as I shall now show. 1. Not sanctified properly. For this in the sense of the Fathers, is Dedication to God; and tho' we may dedicate ourselves to God, yet not the Son of God to him. Origen (t) In Levit. hom. 11. Sanctificare aliquid, hoc est, vovere Deo. . To sanctify a thing, that is, to vow it to God. Cyril Alexandr. (u) Com. in Esaiam. Edit. gr. lat. p. 178. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. . That which is said to be sanctified does not partake of all holiness, but it rather signifies that which is devoted to God in honour of him. Now Christ is certainly partaker of all Holiness. Jobius * Apud Photium, cod. 222. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. . We say a place, or Bread, or Wine is sanctified, which are set apart for God, and are not put to any common use. Hesychius (x) In Levit. l. 7. Quod sanctificatur & offertur, eo quod offertur Sanctificari incipit, ergo prius non erat sanctum. . That which is sanctified and offered, because it is offered it gins to be sanctified, therefore that it was not holy before. This cannot be affirmed of Christ's proper Body, which was never other than holy, but may of the Typical Bread which was common before. 2. Not sacrificed properly. Therefore Gaudentius (y) In Exod. tract. 19 Labores Passionis, etc. in figura corporis & sanguinis offerimus. in the forecited Tract, says, We offer the Labours, etc. Of the Passion, in the Figure of the Body and Blood. S. Austin (z) Epist. 23. ad Bonifac. Nun semel immolatus est Christus in seipso, & tamen in Sacramento omni die populis immolatur? . Was not Christ offered once in himself, and yet every day in the Sacrament he is offered for the people? He opposes, you see these two, to be Sacrificed in himself, (and that is but once) and to be offered in the Sacrament, and that may be every day. Also elsewhere (a) In Psal. 21. Praefat. in secundam expos. Quotiens Pascha celebratur, nunquid totiens Christus moritur? Sed tamen anniversaria recordatio, quafis repraesentat quod olim factum est, & sic nos facit moneri tanquam videamus in cruse pendentem Dominum. . Does Christ die so often as Easter is celebrated? Yet this Anniversary remembrance, does as it were represent what was done of old, and so admonishes us as if we saw our Lord hanging on the Cross. And in the second Exposition itself, he says (b) In secunda expos. Psal. 21. Coenam suam dedit, Passionem suam dedit. . He gave us his Supper, and he gave us his Passion, viz. By representation. S. Chrysostom (c) Hom. 83. in Matth. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. says the same; The mystery (viz. the Eucharist) is the Passion and the Cross. Which he explains thus elsewhere (d) Hom. 17. in Epist. ad Hebr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. . We always offer the same Sacrifice, or rather make a remembrance of (his) Sacrifice. So Eulogius of Alexandria (e) Apud Photium cod. 280. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. , speaking of the tremendous mystery of Christ's Body, says, It is not the offering of different Sacrifices, but the remembrance of that one Sacrifice once offered. Theodoret also fully (f) In Epist. ad Hebr. 8.4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. tells us, That it is manifest to those that are skilled in divine matters, that we do not offer any other Sacrifice, but make a remembrance of that one saving one. S. Austin's words are also remarkable (g) De civet. Dei, l. 17. cap. 5. in fine. Manducare panem in N. Testamento est Sacrificium Christianorum. To eat Bread in the N. Testament is the Sacrifice of Christians. Eusebius (h) Demonstr. Evan. l. 1. c. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. speaking of Christ's Sacrifice offered for our Salvation, adds. He commanded us to offer to God continually the remembrance instead of the Sacrifice. What can be more plain? S. Ambrose says (i) De Offic. l. 1. cap. 48. that Christ is offered here, but it is (in imagine) in an image, and he opposes this to his offering himself (in veritate) in truth. S. Austin (k) Quaestion 83. quaest. 61 Ipse etiam Sacerdos noster qui seipsum obtulit holocaustum pro peccatis nostris, & ejus Sacrificii similitudinem celebrandam in suae Passionis memoriam commendavit. says, Our Priest who offered himself an holocaust for our sins, also commended the similitude of his Sacrifice to be celebrated in memory of his passion. And elsewhere (l) Contr. Faustum, l. 20. c. 21. Hujus Sacrificii caro & sanguis— Post ascensum Christi per Sacramentum memoriae celebratur. . The Flesh and Blood of this Sacrifice— after Christ's Ascension, is celebrated by the Sacrament of remembrance. Lastly, Fulgentius (m) De fide ad Petrum, c. 16. Sacrificium panis & vini. calls the Sacrifice, which the H. Catholic Church ceases not to offer through the whole World, the Sacrifice of Bread and Wine; and says, that in this Sacrifice, — Gratiarum actio atque commemoratio est carnis Christi quam pro nobis obtulit. there is a thanksgiving and a commemcration of the Flesh of Christ which he offered for us. For want of apprehending things thus, they of the Church of Rome are tempted to utter words bordering upon Blasphemy; and with Corn. à Lapide, * Comm. in Heb. 7. v. 7. Add Sacerdotem quatenus gerit personam Christi Sacrificantis, quodam modo majorem esse Christo ipso sacrificato. In omni enim Sacrificio sacerdos major est sua victima quam offered. to make their Sacrificing Priest greater than Christ the Sacrifice. CHAP. VIII. The Eighth Difference. The Church of Rome in all Say of the Fathers-that mention a Change and Conversion in the Eucharist, understand it of such a Change as abolishes the Substance of Bread and Wine, the Accidents only remaining: But the Fathers never use these Phrases in this Sense. IT is acknowledged by us, That the Fathers speak frequently of a Change of the Bread and Wine, and their passing into, and being converted into Christ's Body and Blood. It is needless therefore to cite their Testimonies to this purpose; but I shall evidently prove, that they do not understand this Change and Conversion in the Sense of Transubstantiation. To give some Order to their Testimonies, I shall not cite them in a heap, but as Proofs of several Assertions of theirs, which overthrow the Change by Transubstantiation. 1 Assertion. The Fathers make a difference betwixt the Change or Conversion of a Thing, and its Abolition. When they affirm the one, they at the same time deny the other. But Transubstantiation supposes the Elements, as to the Matter and Substance of them, to perish and to be destroyed, when they are said to be changed. You cannot well imagine that the Fathers, if they thought of Miracles wrought in the Sacrament, yet should ever dream of any such as had no agreement with all the Miracles that God ever wrought before. They well knew, (and our Adversaries do not deny it) that in all other Supernatural Changes, there was only the introducing of a new Form, the Materia substrata (the common Matter) remaining. So it was when Moses' Rod was turned into a Serpent, when the Waters were turned into Blood, Lot's Wife into a Pillar of Salt, the Wine in Cana of Galilee changed into Water; in all these, neither the old Matter was lost, nor new Matter created. The Fathers therefore laugh at any such Change where the Things changed utterly perish. Tertullian (n) De Resurrect. Carn. c. 55. Quasi demutari, sit in totum & de pristino perire. charges it as a great Absurdity against the Marcionites, that, according to them, To be changed, was to perish whelly, and as to what they were before. He has many smart Say against them, for denying the same Bodies to appear and rise at the Resurrection; and urges that of 1 Cor. 15. showing that there will be a Change, not a Destruction of our Flesh. For, says he, Aliud est demutatio, aliud perditio. Peribit autem demutata, si non ipsa permanserit in demutatione quae exhibita fuerit in resurrectione. A Change is one thing, and Destruction is another. But it will perish in the Change, if that Flesh do not remain in the Change which shall be exhibited at the Resurrection. — As therefore that which is destreyed, — Quomodò ergo quod perditum est, mutatum non est, ita quod mutatum est perditum non est. Perisse enim, est in totum non esse quod fuerit; mutatum esse, aliter esse est. Sed porrò dum aliter est, id ipsum potest esse; habet enim esse quod non perit; mutationem enim passum est, non perditionem. is not changed; so that which is changed, is not destroyed. For, to perish, is wholly not to be what it had been; but to be changed, is to be otherwise than it was. Moreover, by being otherwise, the thing may still be; for it has a Being which perishes not; for it only suffered a Change, not a Destruction. Gelasius (o) De duabus Naturis. also disputing against the Eutychians, who thought that the Humanity was converted into the Divinity, so that nothing of the other remained, (just as with them the Bread is converted into Christ's Body, Nec videatur glorificata nostra conditio unione Deitatis, sed potius esse consumpta, si non eadem subsistit in gloria, sed solâ existente Deitate, humanitas illic esse jam destitit, etc. nothing of its Substance remaining) says thus: Neither does our Condition by the Union of the Deity seem to be glorified, but rather to be consumed, if it does not subsist the same in Glory, but the Deity existing alone, the Humanity now ceases to be there, etc. — By this way, — Per hoc non sublimata, sed abolita potius invenitur. it will not be found to be sublimated, but abolished. The thing is so clear against Transubstantiation, that Scotus (p) In 4. dist. 11. art. 1. sec. ad propositum. Dico proprie loquendo, quod transubstantiatio non est mutatio. confesses it. I say, properly speaking, That Transubstantiation is not a Change. 2 Assertion. When the Fathers speak of converting a thing into another thing that was before, they suppose an Accession and an Augmentation made to that, into which the Conversion is made. Just as it is in Nourishment of our Bodies, the Food converted into them, makes an Increase of them. Cyril. of Alexandr. (q) Epist. 1. ad Succensum. arguing against those Heretics who thought the glorified Body of Christ was converted into his Divinity, he says, Thus we derogate from the Divinity, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. as if it were made, and as receiving something into itself, which is not proper to its Nature. And he makes this Conversion to be impossible upon this account. Gelasius (r) De duabus Naturis.— Accesserit, accreveritque Deitati. uses the same Phrases, of Accession and Increase to the Deity, and that by the transfusion of the Humanity added to it, — transfusione humanitatis adjectae velut aucta videatur. the Divinity would seem to be increased. Thus the later Greeks thought it was in Christ's Body, into which the Bread was changed. Damascen (s) Epist. ad Zachariam, & in Hom. de Corp. & Sang. Domini. , speaking of the Body of Christ which we partake of: I declare, says he, it cannot be said, — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. there are two Bodies of Jesus Christ, there being but one alone. For, as the Child, as soon as it is born, is complete, but receives his growth from eating and drinking; and tho' he grows thereby, yet cannot be said to have two Bodies, but only one; so, by greater reason, the Bread and Wine, by the Descent of the Holy Spirit, are made one only Body, and not two, by the Augmentation of the Body of Christ. Theophylact (t) In cap. 6. Joan. expresses it thus: The Bread is changed (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) into the Flesh of Christ by the ineffable Words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the mystical Benediction, and coming of the Holy Spirit upon it. No Man ought to be troubled in being obliged to believe that Bread becomes Flesh: For when our Lord was conversant in Flesh, and received his Nourishment from Bread, this Bread he did eat was changed into his Body, being made like to his holy Flesh, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and contributed to augment and sustain it after a humane manner: And thus now is the Bread changed into our Lord's Flesh. See more Testimonies of the following Greeks in Monsieur Claude's Catholic Doctrine of the Eucharist, in answer to Monsieur Arnaud, Lib. 3. cap. 13. pag. 228, 229. in Fol. 3 Assertion, (and the most remarkable) is this. The Father's use the same Terms of passing into, being changed, converted, becoming another thing, etc. in other Cases besides the Eucharist, wherein all agree there is no Change of Substances made. Therefore there is no Argument can be drawn from such Expressions in favour of Transubstantiation, no not when the Word Nature or Substance is expressed in the Change. Tertullian (u) De Resur. Carn c. 55. Si transfigurationem & conversionem in transi●um substantiae cujusque defends, ergo & Saul in alium virum conversus de corpore suo excessit, etc. has dashed this out of countenance, when he says to Martion, If thou defendest a Transfiguration and Conversion as far as the passing of the Substance of a thing into another, than Saul, who was turned into another Man, went out of his Body, etc. — Again, It's possible to be changed, says he, Ibid. Ita & in resurrectionis eventum mutari, converti, reformari licebit, cum salute substantiae. to be converted and reform into what shall happen at the Resurrection, and yet the Substance be preserved. But this will more fully appear, by the Axioms the Fathers lay down, and by the Instances they give. Their Axioms are such as these. Cyril. of Alexandr. (x) Thesaur. Assert. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. . For a thing to be made, does not always signify a change of Nature. Cyril. of Jerus. (y) Catech. Mystag. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. . Whatsoever the Holy Spirit touches, that is always sanctified and changed. S. Jerome (z) In cap. 43. Ezekiel. Per ignem Spiritus sancti omnia quae cogitamus, loquimur ac facimus in spiritualem substantiam convertuntur. . By the Fire of the Holy Spirit, all that we think, speak, and act, are changed into a Spiritual Substance. If these Say be strictly scanned, they will amount to no more than a producing new Virtues and Qualities, which were not before. Their Instances also show the same. 1. Of Miraculous Changes in Nature. S. Ambrose (a) In Hexem. l. 3. c. 2. Discant naturam posse converti, quando petra aquas fluxit, & ferrum aquae supernatavit. . Let them learn, that Nature may be converted, when the Rock flowed out Waters, and Iron swum above Water. Again (b) Lib. de iis qui initiant. c. 9 Nun claret naturam vel maritimorum fluctuum vel fluvialis cursus esse mutatam?— Misit Moyses lignum in aquam & amaritudinem suam aquarum natura deposuit.— Mifit etiam Elisaeus lignum in aquam, & ferrum natavit; utique & hoc praeter naturam factum esse cognoscimus. , speaking of Changes in the Red Sea and Jordan, when the Waters stood on an heap; Is it not clear, says he, that the Nature of the Sea-waves and the River's Current was changed?— Moses threw Wood into the Water, and the Nature of the Waters lost its Bitterness.— Elisha also threw Wood into the Water, and Iron swum; and this we know was done besides Nature. Epiphanius (c) Haeres. 64. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. says, The Hand of Moses was changed into Snow. S. chrysostom (d) In Psal. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. (speaking of the Babylonian Furnace) says, The Elements forgetting their proper Nature, were changed to become profitable to them; and the very Beasts were no longer Beasts, nor the Furnace a Furnace. 2. Of the Change by the Fall. S. Austin says (e) In Psal. 68 Conc. 1. Per iniquitatem homo lapsus est à substantâ in qua factus est. , By Sin Man fell from the Substance in which he was made. 3. Of the Change by Regeneration. Gr. Nyssen (f) In Cantic. Hom. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. says, That by the Discipline of Christ Men are changed into a Nature that is more Divine. And again (g) In Cantic. Hom. 9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. . Having divested themselves of Flesh and Blood, and being changed into a Spiritual Nature. Macarius (h) Hom. 44. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. says, Our Souls must be altered and changed from their present Condition, into another Condition, and into a Divine Nature. Cyril of Alexandria (i) De S. Trin. Dial. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. speaks of Regeneration as that which transmutes and changes us into the Son of God. 4. Of the Change in the Incarnation of Christ, and the Resurrection. Gr. Nyssen (k) Contr. Eunom. l. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. , speaking of Christ, whom he calls our First-fruits, says, That by his mixing with God, he is changed into a Divine Nature. And again (l) Ibid. l. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. he uses this Phrase of Christ's Flesh, That this is also changed into the Deity. Chrysologus (m) Serm. 45 Deus in hominem convertitur. of the Incarnation; God is changed into Man. The Author under the Name of Eusebius Emissenus (n) Hom. de Pasch. 3. Quid est Virga in Serpentem? Deus in hominem commutatus. asks, What is the Rod turned into a Serpent? He answers, God changed into Man. Tertullian (o) Demutati in atomo crimus in Angelicam substantiam. Contr. Marc. l. 3. c. ult. , speaking of the Resurrection; We shall be changed in a moment into an Angelical Substance. S. Hilary's (p) In Psal. 138. Demutatio terrenorum corporum in spiritualem aethereamque naturam. Phrase of it is, A Change of Earthly Bodies into a Spiritual and Ethereal Nature. Macarius (q) Hom. 34. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. speaking of the Saints; They are all changed into a Divine Nature. Chrysologus (r) Serm. 45. Veniat, veniat ut carnem reparet, animam innovet, ipsam naturam in coelestem commutet substantiam. , speaking of Christ; Let him come, let him come, to repair our Flesh, make our Souls new, change our Nature into a Celestial Substance. Cyril of Alexand. says (s) Orat. in Resurr. Christi. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. At the Resurrection there will be another kind of Life, and a Change of our very Nature. S. Austin (t) Serm. 12. de 40. à Sirmond. Edit. Caro mortalis convertitur in corpus Angeli.— Ille qui potens fuit mutare aquam in vinum, potens est mutare foenum in aurum, & de carne facere Angelum. Si de sordibus fecit hominem, de homine non faciet Angelum? says, Our mertal Fesh is converted into the Body of an Angel.— He that could change Water into Wine, is able to change Hay (so he calls our Bodies that are Grass) into Gold, and of Flesh make an Angel. If he made of Filth a Man, can he not make of Man an Angel? And elsewhere (u) Cont. Adimant. c. 12. Cùm induerit incorruptionem & immortalitatem, jam non caro & sanguis erit, sed in corpus coeleste mutabitur. , speaking of our Bodies; When it shall put on Incorruption and Immortality, now it will be no longer Flesh and Blood, but be changed into a celestial Body. Cassian. (x) De Incarn. l. 3. c. 3. Natura carnis in spiritualem est translata substantiam. (speaking of Christ's Flesh after the Resurrection;) The Nature of his Flesh is changed into a spiritual Substance. 5. Of the Change in Baptism. S. chrysostom (y) In Acta, Hom. 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. . Verily the Power of Baptism is great, etc. it does not suffer Men to be any longer Men. Nazianzen (z) Ocat. 40. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. . I am changed into Christ in Baptism. Cyril of Alexandr. (a) In Joan. 3.5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. . By the energy of the Spirit the sensible Water is changed into a kind of divine and unspeakable Power. Again (b) Idem Epist. ad Letorum. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. , That they are transelemented by Regeneration, through the Grace of the Laver of Baptism. S. Austin (c) Cont. Crescon. lib. 4. c. 54. Uno die tria, alio quinque millia credentium in suum corpus conversa suscepit. , speaking of Baptised Converts to Christianity. It received on one day Three, on another Five thousand Believers converted into his Body. Again (d) In Joan. tract. 11. Unde rubet Baptismus nisi sanguine Christi consecratus? elsewhere he asks, How comes Baptism to be red, but by being consecrated with the Blood of Christ? Leo the Great (e) Scrm. 14. the Passione. Susceptus à Christo, & Christum suscipiens, non idem est post Lavacrum qui ante baptismum feit, sed corpus regenerati sit caro crucifixi; haec commutatio dextrae est excelsi, etc. . He that is received by Christ, and receives Christ, is not the same Man after as before Baptism; but the Body of the Regenerate Person becomes the Flesh of Christ crucified; this is a Change by the Right hand of the most High, etc. And again (f) De Nativ. Dom. Serm. 4. Christus dedit aquae quod dedit matri: virtus enim altissimi & obumbratio Spiritus S. quae fecit ut Maria pareret Salvatorem, eadem facit ut regeneret unda credentem. . Christ gave to the Water, what he gave to his Mother: For the Virtue of the most High, and the Overshadowing of the Holy Ghost, which made Mary to bring forth a Saviour, the same makes the Water to regenerate a Believer. [Where we may also note by the way, That the mention of God's Omnipotence in the Case of Sacraments, does not infer a substantial Change made there, since it does not do it in Baptism; and yet the Omnipotency of God is seen in working Changes there.] Zeno Verenens. (g) Ad Neoph. post Baptism. Serm. 2. Aqua nostra suscipit mortuos & evomit vivos, ex animalibus veros homines factos, ex hominious in Angelos transituros. . Our Water receives the Dead and vomits forth the Living, being made true Men of mere Animals, such as are to pass from being Men into Angels, etc. He says this of Baptism, which is not like common Water, which receives the Living to the bottom, and vomits forth the Dead. Author sub nomine Eusebii Emisseni (h) Hom. 2. de Epiphan. Mutantur subitò aquae, homines postmodum mu●aturae. . The Waters are suddenly changed, which are afterwards to change Men, viz. that are baptised in them. Again (i) Id. Hom. 3. de Epiph. Homo per aquam baptismi, licet à foris idem esse videatur intus tamen alter efficitur— persona non contingitur, & natura mutatur. . A Man by the Water of Baptism, tho' outwardly he seems the same, yet inwardly he is made another Man— The Person is not touched, and Nature is changed. Again (k) Idem Hom. 5. de Pasch. In exteriore nihil additum est, & totum in interiore mutatum est.— In illam primae originis dignitatem nativo candore mutatur, ac per aquam Baptismi, vel per ignem Spiritus S. aeterni illius panis corpus efficitur. . Nothing is added to what is outward, and he is wholly changed in what is inward.— He is changed by a native Whiteness into the Dignity of his first Original; and by the Water of Baptism, or by the Fire of the Holy Spirit, is made the Body of that eternal Bread. 4 Assertion. The Change in the Eucharist which the Fathers so often mention, is either a Change into a Sacrament, or a Change of Efficacy and Virtue, by infusion and addition of Grace. What can be plainer (as to the first) than that of Isidore of Sevil (l) De Offic. Eccles. l. 1. c. 18. Haec duo sent visibilia, sanctificata autem per Spiritum S. in Sacramentum divini corporis transeunt. ? Speaking of the Bread and Wine, he says, These two are visible; but being sanctified by the Holy Spirit, they pass into a Sacrament of his divine Body. As for the Change of Virtue and Efficacy, take these following Testimonies, among many others. Theodot us (m) Epitome. ad fin. Operum Clem. Alex. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. . The Bread and Oil are sanctified by the Power of the Name, not being the same they were according to appearance when taken, but are changed powerfully into a Spiritual Virtue. The like he says of the Water in Baptism, That it not only retains the less (that is, the Substance of Water) but also has Sanctification added to it. Epiphanius also (n) In Compendio de Fide Eccles. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. speaks the same. Here in Christ the virtue of Bread and force of Water are strengthened; not that the Bread is thus powerful to us, but the Virtue of the Bread (which Christ puts into it). For Bread is indeed an Aliment, but there is in it a Virtue to enliven us. Cyril of Alexandr. (o) Apud Victor. Antioch. Com. MS. in Marc. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. . God condescending to our Infirmities, endues the Oblations set before us with a Virtue of Life, and changes them into the Efficacy of his Flesh. And in the forecited place of his Comment upon John (p) In Joan. 6.57. he says, The least particle of the Eucharist mixing itself with our whole Body, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fills it with its own Efficacy, etc. Theodoret (q) Dialog. 1. tells those that partake of the Divine Mysteries, That they must not consider the Nature of the Things seen, but upon the change of Names, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 believe the change made by Grace. And he adds, That Christ honoured the visible Symbols with the Name of his Body and Blood, — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. not changing the Nature (or Substance) of them, but adding Grace to Nature. Theophylact (r) In cap 14. Marc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. also says the same; Our Lord preserves the Substance (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Theodoret) of Bread and Wine, but changes them into the Virtue of his Flesh and Blood. Greg. Nyssen (s) Orat. in Bapt. Christi. , speaking of the Privileges which Consecration advances things to, instances first in the Water of Baptism, and the great and marvellous Efficacy thereof; and proceeds to that of an Altar, which is at first but a common Stone, but after Dedication becomes an Holy Altar, which the Priests only touch with Veneration: And then adds the Instance of the Eucharist, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which at first is common Bread, but after the Mystery has consecrated it, it is called and becomes the Body of Christ. So the mystical Oil, and so the Wine before the Benediction, are things of little worth; but after the Sanctification of the Spirit, each of them operates excellently. So Ammonius (t) Catena in Joan. 3.5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. — Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. says, The sensible Water is transelemented into a Divine Virtue (for the Fathers make Changes in Baptism as well as the Eucharist) and sanctifies those in whom it is. Nay, he affirms, That the Water differs only from the Spirit in our manner of Conception, for it is the same in Energy. Cyril of Jerusalem (u) Catech. Mystag. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. calling the Flesh and Bread in the Feast of Idols defiled, by the Invocation of impure Devils, he illustrates it thus. As the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist, before the Invocation of the adored Trinity, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is bare Bread and Wine; but after Invocation, the Bread is made the Body of Christ, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Wine the Blood of Christ; so also in the same manner those Meats of the Pomp of Satan, in their own Nature being simple things, yet by the Invocation of Devils they become impure. That's the Change here, That those Meats are in Quality (not in Substance) made impure; and so (if the Comparison hold) the Change in the other is, That they are Hallowed Bread and Wine, in Use and Efficacy different from what they were before. The Author under Cyprian's Name (x) De Vnct. Chrysmat. Inest Veritas signo, & Spiritus Sacramento. , speaking of Chrysin, says, Truth is in the Sign, and the Spirit in the Sacrament. Thus S. Ambrose (y) De iis qui init. c. 9 in fine understands the Body of Christ for that Divine Substance and Presence of the Spirit (which is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Christ's Body). In illo Sacramento Christus est, quia corpus est Christi. Non ergo corporalis esca, sed spiritalis est. Corpus enim Dei corpus est Spiritale. Corpus Christi, corpus est divini Spiritus, quia Spiritus Christi (sc. est.) Christ is in that Sacrament, because it is the Body of Christ. It is not therefore Corporeal but Spiritual Food: For the Body of God is a Spiritual Body. The Body of Christ is the Body of the Divine Spirit (not his natural Body) because it is the Spirit of Christ. Here Corpus Dei is Corpus Spiritale, that is, Substantia Spiritalis, & Spiritus. The Author under his Name (z) De Sacram. lib. 4. cap. 4. Quomodo potest qui panis est, corpus esse Christi? Consecratione.— Ergo ut tibi respondeam, Non erat corpus Christi ante consecrationem; sed post consecrationem, dico tibi, quod corpus est Christi. Ipse dixit, & factum est; ipse mandavit, & creatum est. Tu ipse eras vetus creatura; posteaquam consecratus es nova creatura esse coepisti, etc. . How can that which is Bread be the Body of Christ? By Consecration.— To answer thee therefore, It was not the Body of Christ before Consecration; but after Consecration, I tell thee, it is the Body of Christ. He said it, and it was done; he commanded, and it was created. Thou thyself wast an old Creature; but after thou wast consecrated, thou beganst to be a new Creature, etc. So that, according to this Author, as in Regeneration by Baptism Man changes his Nature, so does the Consecrated Bread in the Eucharist change its Nature. Therefore it is no substantial Change, because the other confessedly is not so. Druthmarus (a) Comm. in Matth. 26. , speaking of a Person taking a long Journey, and leaving a Pledge behind him to remember him by, — Ita Deus praecipit agi à nobis, transferens spiritualiter panem in corpus, vinum in sanguinem, ut per haec duo memoremus quae fecit pro nobis de corpore suo, etc. he adds, Thus also God has commanded us to do, spiritually changing the Bread into his Body, and the Wine into his Blood, that by these two things we may remember what he hath done for us with his Body and Blood, etc. 5 Assertion. The Fathers express in the same manner, and as fully, our substantial Change into Christ's Body, as of the Bread into Christ's Body. Yet none will from such Expressions assert the former; and there is the same reason not to do the latter. Gr. Nyssen (b) Orat. Catech. cap. 37. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. . As a little Leaven, according to the Apostle, likens the whole Mass to itself; so the Body (of Christ) put to death by God, coming into our Body, does change and convert the whole into itself. And again, — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. a little after. His immortal Body being in him that receives it, changes the whole into its own Nature. Cryil of Alexandria (c) In Joan. lib. 4. cap. 3. says, He that receives me by a participation of my Flesh, shall have Life in himself, — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. being wholly transelemented into me. P. Leo Magn. (d) De Nat. Dom. Serm. 10. Christi caro de utero virginis sumpta, nos sumus. . We are the Flesh of Christ, taken from the Womb of the Virgin. And elsewhere (e) Id. de Passion. Serm. 14. Non aliud agit Participatio corporis & sanguinis Christi, quàm ut in id quod sumimus transeamus.— Ipsum per omnia spiritu & carne gestemus. . The Participation of the Body and Blood of Christ intends nothing else but that we should pass into that which we receive.— That we may carry him in all things both in Spirit and Flesh. (Not as Bellarmine and others pervert the Sense, reading gustemus.) Again, in another place (f) Epist. 23. In illa mysticâ distributione spiritualis alimoniae, hoc impertitur, hoc sumitur, ut accipientes virtutem coelestis cibi in carnem ipsius, quia caro noitra factus est, transeamus. . In that mystical Distribution of Spiritual Food, this is bestowed on us, this is taken, that receiving the Virtue of the Celestial Meat, we should pass into his Flesh, who was made our Flesh. See more Testimonies to this sense inthe Chapter following, Position 3. CHAP. IX. The Ninth Difference. The Fathers differ from the Church of Rome, in their Belief of Christ's Presence in the Eucharist. The Church of Rome asserts the substantial Presence of Christ's Natural Body there; but the Fathers deny it. THe former is the Assertion of the Roman Church in the Trent Council, in which an Anathema is pronounced (g) Conc. Trid. Sess. 13. cap. 6. Can. 1. against such as deny, That in the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist is contained truly, really, and Substantially the Body and Blood of Christ,— but shall say, That he is in it only as in a Sign, or Figure, or Virtue. And the Catechism ad Parochos (h) Part. 2. the Eucharist. n. 25. says, That the True Body of our Lord Christ, the same that was born of the Virgin, and sits in the Heavens at the Right-hand of the Father, is contained in this Sacrament. I will now show, that the Fathers advance such Positions as plainly contradict this Doctrine. 1 Position. The Fathers ever since Christ's departure and Ascension into Heaven, look upon his Body as absent from Earth, tho' in another sense he is still present. All those Testimonies before produced under the Fifth Difference, concerning Bodies being commensurate to Space, and not being in more places than one, and saying this of Christ's Body as well as of other Bodies, are a Proof of this Position; but besides those, I will here add some further direct Proofs of it. S. Ambrose thus (i) Com. in Luc. 24. Ascend nobis, ut te sequamur mentibus, quem oculis videre non possumus, etc. — Ergo non supra terram, nec in terra, nec secundùm carnem quaerere te debemus, si volumus invenire. Nunc enim secundùm carnem non novimus Christum. — Maria quia quaerebat in terra, tangere non potuit; Stephanus tetigit, quia quasivit in coelo. Stephanus inter Judaeos vidit absentem. . Ascend (speaking to Christ) that we may follow thee with our Minds, whom we cannot see with our Eyes. S. Paul has taught us how we should follow thee, and where we may find thee. Seek those things that are above, where Christ sits, etc.— Therefore we ought not to seek thee upon Earth, nor in the Earth, nor according to the Flesh, if we would find thee. — Marry could not touch him, because she sought him on Earth: Stephen touched him, because he sought him in Heaven. Stephen among the Jews saw him absent. S. Austin is so copious in this Argument, and his Testimonies so many, that a good Choice of them is only necessary. Thus he says (k) Serm. 140. de Tempore. Ideo Dominus noster absentavit se corpore ab omni Ecclesia, & ascendit in coelum, ut fides aedificetur: si enim non nosti nisi quod vides, ubi est fides? . Therefore our Lord absented himself from every Church, and ascended into Heaven, that our Faith may be edified; for if thou knowest nothing but what thou seest, where is Faith? Again (l) Serm. 60. de Verb. Dom. Semper quidem Divinitate nobiscum est, sed nisi corporaliter abiret à nobis, semper ejus corpus carnaliter videremus, & nunquam spiritualiter crederemus. . Christ is always with us by his Divinity; but unless he were corporally absent from us, we should always carndly see his Body, and should never spiritually believe. This is a clear Testimony, that Christ is absent as to his Natural Body; and that if it were not so, he would be visible to us still. Again (m) Tract. 50. in Joannem. Loquebatur de praesentia corporis sui: nam secundùm Majestatem suam, secundùm Providentiam, secundùm ineffabilem & invisibilem Gratiam, impletur quod ab eo dictum est, Ecce ego vobiscum omnibus diebus, etc. Secundùm carnem vero quam assumpsit, secundùm id quod de Virgine natus est, etc. non semper habebitis me vobiscum. , expounding those words, The Poor ye have always with you, but me ye have not always; He spoke this, says he, concerning the Presence of his Body: For according to his Majesty, according to his Providence, according to his unspeakable and invisible Grace, that is fulfilled which he said, Behold I am always with you, etc. But according to the Flesh which he assumed, according to what was born of the Virgin, etc. (directly contrary to the Trent Catechism) ye shall not have me always with you. And in another place (n) Serm. 120. de diversis. Secundùm praesentiam pulchritudinis & divinitatis suae semper cum patre est; secundùm praesentiam corporalem jam supra coelos ad dextram patris est; secundùm praesentiam vero fidei in omnibus Christianis est. . According to the beautiful Presence of his Divinity, he is always with the Father; according to his corporal Presence he is now above the Heavens, at the right hand of the Father (he forgot to add, and in the Holy Sacrament) but according to the Presence of Faith, so he is in all Christians. What can be more plain than another Saying of his (o) Serm. 74. de diversis. Credimus in eum jam sedentem ad dextram patris; sed tamen quamdiu sumus in corpore peregrinamur ab co; nec cum dubitantibus, vel negantibus & dicentibus, Vbi est Deus tuus, valemus oftendere. ? We believe on him who sits now at the right hand of the Father; but yet whilst we are in the Body, we are absent as in a strange Country from him; nor can we show him to those that doubt, to those that deny him, and say, Where is thy God? If S. Austin had believed, as the Roman Church does, the Corporal Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, he could have pointed to him upon the Altar, if any had asked, Where is thy God? Cyril of Alexandria (p) In Joan. 9.5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. says, Tho' Christ be absent from the World as to his Flesh, yet he is present to those that are in him, and to the whole Universe, by his Divine and Ineffable Nature; neither is he absent from any Creature, nor distant from any, but is every where present to all, and fills the whole Universe. And elsewhere (q) In Joan. 17.12. , speaking of the Disciples, who thought it a great loss to them, that being taken up to Heaven, he would now be absent according to his Flesh; he says, They ought not only to have respected and looked to his Fleshly Presence, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but to have understood, that tho' he was separated from their Society according to the Flesh, nor could be seen by their bodily Eyes, yet that he was present and assistant always by the Power of his Divinity. Fulgentius (r) Ad Trasimund. l. 2. c. 17. Unus idemque secundùm humanam substantiam, absens coelo cùm esset in terra, & derelinquens terram cum ascendisset in coelum. Secundùm Divinam vero immensamque substantiam nec coelum dimittens, cùm de coelo descendir, nec terram deserens cùm ad coelum ascendit. . One and the same (Christ) according to his Humane Substance, was absent from Heaven when he was upon Earth, and left Earth when he ascended up to Heaven; but according to his Divine and Immense Substance, neither left Heaven when he descended from Heaven, nor forsook Earth when he ascended into Heaven. Again (s) Id. ibid. c. 18. Quomodo corporaliter ascendit in coelum, & in suis fidelibus praedicatur effe in terra, si non est in illo divinitatis immensitas quae coelum implere possit & terram? . How did he corporally ascend into Heaven, and yet is said to be in the Faithful on Earth, unless the Immensity of the Divinity be in him, which can fill Heaven and Earth? Yes, a Romanist would have told him of another way, That even his Body could be present in Heaven and Earth, after the manner of a Spirit. Vigilius Taps. (t) Contr. Eutych. l. 1. Hoc crat ire ad patrem & recedere à nobis, auferre de mundo naturam quam susceperat à nobis.— Nam vide miraculum, vide utriusque proprietatis mysterium, Dei filius secundùm humanitutem suam recessit à nobis, secundùm divinitatem suam ait nobis, Ecce vobiscum sum omniòus diebus, etc.— Quos reliquit & à quibus decessit humanitate sua, non reliquit nec deseruit divinitate sua. . This was to go to the Father and recede from us, to take from the World the Nature that he had taken from us.— For see the Miracle, see the Mystery of both (Natures) distinct (not a Word of the Mystery of a Body being in more places than one); The Son of God according to his Humanity departed from us; according to his Divinity he says to us, Behold I am with you always, etc.— Those whom he left and departed from by his Humanity, he did not leave nor forsake by his Divinity. Again (u) Id. ibid. l. 4. Quando in terra fuit, non erat utique in coelo, & nunc quia in coelo est non est utique in terra, etc.— Quia verbum ubique est, caro autem ejus ubique non est, apparet unum eundemque Christum utriusque esse naturae, & esse quidem ubique secundùm naturam divinitatis suae, & loco contineri secundùm naturam humanitatis suae. — Haec est Fides & Confessio Catholica, quam Apostoli tradiderunt, Martyrs roborarunt, & Fideles nunc usque custodiunt. . When Christ was on Earth, he was not in Heaven; and now because he is in Heaven, he surely is not on Earth, etc.— Because the Word is every where, but his Flesh is not every where, it appears plainly, that one and the same Christ is of both Natures, and that he is every where according to the Nature of his Divinity, and contained in a Place according to the Nature of his Humanity (which would be a bad Argument, if his Body were in Heaven and in the Eucharist at the same time). And then he concludes, This is the Catholic Faith and Confession, which the Apostles delivered, the Martyrs confirmed, and the Faithful now still keep and preserve. Leo Magn. (x) Serm. 2. de Ascens. Dom. Christus coram. Discipulis elevatus in coelum, corporalis praesentiae modum fecit. . Christ being raised up to Heaven in sight of his Disciples, he put an end to his bodily Presence. (So he explains it, that he was to remain at the Right-hand of his Father, till he should come again to judge the Quick and Dead.) Bede (y) Com. in Marc. 13. Christus ad Patrem post resurrectionem victor ascendens, Ecclesiam corporaliter reliquit, quam tamen nunquam divinae praesidio praesentiae destituit, manens in illa omnibus diebus usque ad consummationem seculi. . Christ ascending after his Resurrection into Heaven as a Conqueror, left the Church as to his bodily Presence, which yet he never left destitute of the security of his Divine Presence, remaining in the Church always to the end of the World. This may abundantly suffice to prove the First Position. 2 Position. The Fathers distinguish the Presence of Christ's Body from the Sacrament of it, which they make to be a Memorial and Pledge of Christ, as gone away and absent. S. chrysostom (z) In 1 Cor. 11.29. , expounding those words, He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgement; and ask how that Table, which is the Cause of so many good things, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and flows with Life, should be made Cordemnation to any, resolves it thus; That this happens not from its own Nature, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but from the Purpose of him that approaches this Table. For, says he, as Christ's Presence, which brought those great and unspeakable Blessings to us, did condemn those the more that did not receive it; so also the Mysteries-make way for greater Punishments to these that unworhily partake of them. A remarkable Testimony, because we see he distinguishes the Presence of Christ, from the Sacrament of it; compares the one with the other, and because of the Relation that the Mysteries have to Christ, and that both are intended to convey great Blessings, therefore they both, when unworthily treated, occasion greater Punishments. S. Austin (a) Contr. Faust. l. 20. c. 21. Hujus sacrificii caro & sanguis ante adventum Christi per victimas similitudinum promittebatur, in passione Christi per ipsam veritatem reddebatur, post ascensum Christi per Sacramentum memoriae celebratur. . The Flesh and Blood of this Sacrifice, before Christ's coming, was promised by Victims of Resemblance, in the Passion of Christ it was exhibited in the Truth itself; after Christ's Ascension it is celebrated by the Sacrament of Remembrance. Where you see, the Sacrament of Remembrance is opposed to the Exhibition of the Truth. Author Comm. in Epistolas Pauli (inter Hieronymi Opera) (b) In 1 Cor. 11. Hoc est, benedicens etiam passurus, ultimam nobis commemorationem five memoriam dereliquit. Quemadmodum si quis peregrè proficiscens, aliquod pignus ei quem diligit derelinquat, ut quotiescunque illud viderit, possit ejus beneficia & amicitias memorari; quod ille si perfecte dilexit, sine ingenti desiderio non possit videre, vel fletu. , upon those words, He took Bread, and after he had given thanks, he broke it: That is, says he, blessing us even when he was about to suffer, he left his last Memorial with us. Just as if one travelling into another Country, should leave a Pledge with him whom he loved, that whensoever he looked upon it, he might call to mind his Favours and Friendship; which such a Person, if he perfectly loved him, could not behold without a great passion or weeping. It will be very hard to reconcile this Pledge of Absence with such a constant Presence of his Body as the Church of Rome teaches, even there where we are required to look upon that Pledge, and remember our absent Friend. Sedulius has the same Exposition of the Place, almost in the same words. Primasius also confirms it (c) In 1 Cor. 11. , upon those words, The same night that our Lord was betrayed, he took Bread. He left, says he, Ultimam nobis commemorationem reliquit.— Salvator Deus exemplum dedit, ut quotiescunque hoc facimus, in ment habeamus, quod Christus pro nobis omnibus mortuus est. Ideo nobis dicitur Corpus Christi, ut cùm hoc recordati fuerimus, non simus ingrati gratiae ejus: quemadmodum si quis moriens relinquat ei quem diligit aliquod pignus, quod ille post mortem ejus, quandocunque viderit, nunquid potest lacrymas continere, si eum perfectè dilexerit? , upon those words, The same night that our Lord was betrayed, he took Bread. He left, says he, to us his last Memorial.— God our Saviour gave us an Example, that as often as we do this, we may call to mind that Christ has died for us all. Therefore we call it Christ's Body, that when we remember this, we may not be unthankful for his Grace. As if one that was a dying should leave some Pledge to one whom he loved, which he, after his death, when ever he looked upon, could not contain his Tears, if he perfectly loved him. Bede (d) In Proverb. lib. 1. c. 3. Sicut in medio Paradisi, lignum vitae positum testatur Moses, ita per Sapientiam Dei, viz. Christi, vivificatur Ecclesia, cujus & nunc Sacramentis carnis & sanguinis pignus vitae accipit, & in futuro praesenti beatificabitur aspectu. has also given us the same Account. As, says he, Moses witnesss that the Tree of Life was placed in the midst of Paradise, so by the Wisdom of God, to wit, of Christ, the Church has Life given it, in whose Sacraments of his Flesh and Blood she now receives the Pledge of Life, and hereafter shall be made happy in a present Sight of him. Where you see he distinguishes this Pledge from his present Aspect hereafter. Gaudentius (e) In Exod. tract. 2. Vere illud est haereditarium munus Testamenti ejus novi, quod-quod nobis ea nocte qua tradebatur crucifigendus, tanquam pignus suae praesentiae dereliquit Hoc illud est viaticum nostri itineris, quo in hac via vitae alimur ac nutrimur, donec ad ipsum pergamus de hoc seculo recedentes. calls the Eucharist that hereditary Gift of his New Testament, which on the night that he was delivered to be crucified, he left with us as a Pledge of his Presence. This is the Prevision of our Journey, by which we are fed and nourished in this way of Life, till removing from this World, we go to him. Still we see it is a Pledge of Absence. 3 Position. Whatsoever Presence of Christ the Fathers speak of in the Eucharist, they acknowledge the same in Baptism, and in as full Expressions. So that if we will follow the Fathers, we may as well assert a Substantial Presence of Christ's Body in Baptism, as in the Eucharist. But this on all hands is denied. Gaudentius (f) Tract. 2. in Exod. in fine.— Quem Sacramentis suis inesse credimus. in the Place last cited, speaking of our Lord Jesus, says, We believe him to be in his Sacraments. He had spoke of both Sacraments before, and his words may well be understood of both. I am sure other Fathers give their full consent to it. S. Basil (g) De Baptism. lib. 1. cap. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. speaking of the Excellency of Christ's Baptism, and the supereminent Glory of it, says, That Christ the Son of God has determined it, That one greater than the Temple, and greater than Solomon is here. So Gr. Nazianzen (h) Orat. 40. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. . Behold, one greater than the Temple is here, to them that perfectly consider. S. Ambrose (i) Apol. David. c. 12. Christ, in tuis te invenio Sacramentis. , speaking of Baptism, says, O Christ, I find thee in thy Sacraments. And again (k) De his qui initiant. c. 2. Crede illic esse Divinitatis praesentiam. . Believe that there is the Presence of the Divinity. So afterwards (l) Ibid. cap. 5. Crede adesse Dominum Jesum invocatum precibus Sacerdotum. . Believe that the Lord Jesus is present, being invoked by the Prayers of the Priests. S. Austin (m) In Joan. tract. 50. Habes Christum in praesenti per fidem, in praesenti per signum Christi, in praesenti per baptismatis Sacramentum, in praesenti per altaris cibum & potum. , upon those words, The poor ye have always with you, but me ye have not always; discourses thus concerning having Christ now. Now thou hast Christ by Faith, now thou hast him by the Sign of Christ, now by the Sacrament of Baptism, now by the Meat and Drink of the Altar. Here you see he makes no difference of having Christ at present these several ways he mentions. S. chrysostom (n) Hom. 51. in Matth. Lat. Graec. Savil. Hom. 50. pag. 322. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. . As when thou art baptised, it is not he (viz. the Priest) that baptises thee, but it is God that holds thy Head by his invisible Power, and neither Angel, nor Archangel, nor any other, dare approach and touch thee, etc. The same Father * Id. Epist. ad Colos. Hom. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. thus speaks of one to be baptised, Thou shalt presently embrace our Lord himself, be mingled with his Body, be incorporated into that Body which is seated above, whither the Devil cannot approach. So the Author of the Commentaries upon S. Mark (o) Inter Opera Chrysost. Hom. 14. Vos qui accepturi estis Baptismum, primum tenete pedes Salvatoris, lavate lachrymis, crine tergite, etc. speaks to those that are to be baptised, as if Christ were present. You that are to receive Baptism, first lay fast hold on the Feet of your Saviour, wash them with your Tears, wipe them with your Hair, etc. Marcus the Hermit (p) De Baptism. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. speaking of a baptised Person, says, Upon his Baptism he has Christ lying hid in him. S. chrysostom again (q) In Gal. 3. v. 27. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. . If Christ be the Son of God, and thou hast put him on (viz. in Baptism) having the Son in thyself, and being made like to him, thou art brought into one Kindred and Nature. Again elsewhere (r) In Ephes. 5. v. 30. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. , speaking of Christ's partaking of our Flesh and Blood, he says, He communicated with us, not we with him: How then are we of his Flesh and of his Bones? He means this; That as he was begotten by the Holy Ghost without the concurrence of Man, so are we regenerate in Baptism. — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. — As therefore the Son of God was of our Nature, so are we also of his Substance; and as he had us in himself, so also we have him in ourselves. And all this is by Baptism. Cyril of Alexandr. (s) Tom. 6. in Collectan. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. says of the Soul, That it is conjoined perfectly to Christ by holy Baptism. And tho' every one knows that Union supposes Presence and Nearness, yet this is never made an Argument that Christ is present corporally in Baptism. No more can such like Phrases, used by him concerning the Eucharist, be urged as a Proof of it. S. Hilary (t) Lib. 8. de Trinit. Nos verè Verbum cibo Dominico sumimus, quomodo non naturaliter manere in nobis existimandus est? etc.— Nos sub Mysterio verè carnem corporis sui sumimus, & per hoc unum erimus, quia Pater in illo est & ille in nobis.— Ut cùm ille in Patre per naturam Divinitatis esset, nos contra in eo per corporalem Nativitatem, & ille rursum in nobis per Sacramentorum inesse mysterium crederetur. speaks many things of our real Union with Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist. We truly receive the Word in the Lord's Food; how is he not then to be thought naturally to dwell in us?— We under the Mystery do truly take the Flesh of his Body, and thereby shall be one, because the Father is in him, and be in us.— So that since he was in the Father by the Nature of the Divinity, we on the contrary in him by Corporal Nativity, and he might be believed again to be in us by the Mystery of the Sacraments. But than it is observable, that he does not say these great things only of the Eucharist, that by partaking of it we have a natural Union with Christ; but he says we have the same by Faith, by Regeneration, and by Baptism (u) Ibid. Quomodo non naturalem in his intelligis unitatem, qui per naturam unius fidei unum sunt?— Cessat in his assensûs unitas, qui unum sunt in ejusdem regeneratione naturae.— Quid hic animorum concordia faciet cum per id unum sint, quod uno Christo per naturam unius Baptismi induantur? . How dost thou not understand a natural Unity in those, who are one by the nature of one Faith?— Again, The Unity of Consent has no place in those, who are one in the Regeneration of the same Nature.— Again, What should Agreement of Wills do here, when they are one by this, that they are clothed with one Christ, by the Nature of one Baptism? I'll add but one Testimony more, out of Fulgentius (x) De Bapt. Aethiop. cap. ult. Nec cuiquam aliquatenus ambigendum est, tunc unumquemque fidelium corporis sanguinisque Dominici participem fieri quando in Baptismate membrum Christi efficitur. ; but it is very home. Neither need any one at all doubt, that then every Believer is made Partaker of our Lord's Body and Blood, when he is made a Member of Christ in Baptism. And yet even this does not infer a Substantial Presence of Christ in Baptism. To make this Position still more full and cogent, let me add, That the Fathers so speak of the Waters of Baptism, as if they were turned into Blood, and we died in that Blood, and baptised in Blood; and yet all these neither prove the Presence of Christ's natural Body, nor Transubstantiation there. To name a few Testimonies. S. Jerom (y) In Esa. 1. Baptizemini in sanguine meo per lavacrum regenerationis. upon those words, Wash ye, make ye clean, says, Be ye baptised in my Blood by the Laver of Regeneration. Again (z) Baptizatus est in sanguine agni quem legebat. In Esa. 43. he says of the Eunuch, He was baptised in the Blood of the Lamb whom he read of in the Prophet. So S. Austin (a) In Joan. tract. 11. Unde rubet Baptismus, nisi sanguine Christi consecratus? . Whence comes Baptism to be red, but because it is consecrated with Christ's Blood? Prosper (b) De Promise part. 2. Baptismo sanguine Christi tinguntur. . They are died in the Blood of Christ in Baptism. S. chrysostom (c) Catech. ad illuminand. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. speaking to those that were to receive Baptism. You shall be clothed with the Purple Garment died in the Lord's Blood. Julius Firmicus (d) De Error. Prof. Relig. c. 28. Quaere fontes ingenuos, quaere puros liquores, ut illic te post multas maculas cum Spiritu S. Christi sanguis incandidet. . Seek for the Noble Fountains, inquire for the pure Waters, that there, after thy many Stains, the Blood of Christ with the Holy Spirit may make thee White. Caesarius (e) Hom. 5. Paschal. Ingreditur anima vitales undas, velut rubras sanguine Christi consecratas. , or the Author of the Paschal Homily. The Soul enters the Waters of Life, that are red as it were, being consecrated by the Blood of Christ. Isidore of Sevil (f) In Exod. c. 19 Quid Mare rubrum, nisi Baptismum Christi sanguine consecratum? . What is the Red Sea, but Baptism consecrated by the Blood of Christ? And again (g) De vocat. Gent. c. 23. Verus Israel ingreditur Mare rubrum, baptismum scilicet Christi cruore signatum. . The true Israel enters the Red Sea, to wit, Baptism, signed with the Blood of Christ. And Primasius (h) In 1 Cor. 10. Mare rubrum significat Baptismum Christi sanguine decoratum. . The Red Sea signifies Baptism, graced with the Blood of Christ. 4. Position. The Fathers so consider the Presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist, as can no way agree to the Presence of his natural and glorified Body there. The Fathers (as I have before proved, see Chap. 7. Observe. 4. Reason 2.) look upon the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist as the Representative Body of Christ; and thus Christ's Body is indeed present by that which is its Proxy or Pledge: But this Presence in a proper sense is Absence, and does suppose it. I shall therefore here only insist upon one Consideration of Christ's Body there, which can only agree to his Representative Body, but not to the Natural and Glorified Body of Christ. Viz. The Presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist, which the Fathers speak of, is of his Body as crucified, and slain, and dead. Now this cannot agree to his Natural Body, which, by our Adversaries Confession is impassable and invulnerable now it is glorified, and cannot admit any separation of Parts, which Crucifixion does suppose, nor die any more. It is plain by the words of Institution, that the Body of Christ there spoken of, is his broken Body, such as Crucifixon caused, and his Blood is considered as shed and poured out of his Veins, and separated from his Body, which our Adversaries that speak of his Presence in the Sacrament do not believe. But the Fathers did believe this, and say so; for which at the present, in stead of all, I need cite only S. chrysostom (i) Hom. 21. in Act. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. , whose Phrase for the Eucharist is, While this Death is perfected, this tremendous Sacrifice, these ineffable Mysteries. Again (k) Homil. de Prodit. Judae. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. . Christ lies before us slain. In another place (l) In Epist. ad Ephes. Hom. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. . While the Sacrifice is brought forth, and Christ the Lord's Sheep is slain. And elsewhere (m) Ad. Popul. Antioch. hom. 15.— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. . What dost thou, O Man? Thou swearest upon the Holy Table, and there thou killest thy Brother, where Christ lies slain. Again (n) Lib. 3. de Sacerdotio. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. he expresses it thus rhetorically: When thou seest the Lord slain and lying, and the Priest standing by the Sacrifice and praying, and all the People purple-dyed in that precious Blood, etc. Again in another place (o) In Coemeter. apple. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. , speaking of the Priest standing before the Holy Table, etc. he adds, When thou seest the Sheep (viz. Christ). slain and divided, etc. So also elsewhere (p) De Poenit. in Encoen. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; . O wonderful! The Mystical Table being prepared, the Lamb of God slain for thee, etc. his Blood emptied into the Cup out of his immaculate Side, for thy Purification, dost thou not fear? This slaying and dividing the Body of Christ, this emptying the Blood out of his Veins, he speaks of, cannot be understood of any thing, but of his Representative Body. Neither can another Saying of his have any other sense (q) Hom. 51. in Matth. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. ; where telling us how Christ has given us leave to be filled with his holy Flesh, he adds, He has proposed himself before us slain. So that if we eat his Flesh, it must be his dead Body; for so he is set before us to be eaten: But that's impossible. But all this is easily understood in our way, or rather as he himself has explained it, when he says (r) Hom. 83. in Matth. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. , The Mystery is the Passion and Cross of Christ. With which agrees that of S. Austin (s) In Psal. 21. Coenam suam dedit, passionem suam dedit. . He gave his Supper, he gave his Passion. Or, as he says in another place (t) Super Evang. lib. 2. qu. 38.— Tamen passiones Domini in Sacramentis corporis & sanguinis ejus suavitate lambunt devotissimâ. , comparing the Gentiles to those Dogs that licked Lazarus' Sores; Yet, says he, they lick the Passions of our Lord in the Sacraments of his Body and Blood with a devout Sweetness. The Reader will meet with further Testimonies to this purpose afterwards, under the Head of Eating Christ's Body and drinking his Blood, which, according to the Fathers, is to be done mystically and spiritually (considered as slain), and therefore his Presence must be such too: For his Body is present just as it is eaten. The Sum of all is this, That according to the Fathers, Christ is considered in the Sacrament as dead and slain, and therefore can be only present there typically and by representation: For so Card. Perron himself confesses (u) De locis Augustin. cap. 3. Sacramentum non est realiter corpus Christi in actuali occisi, mortui & inanimati statu constitutum, nec eâ ratione illud continet, sed eatenus tantum repraesentat, etc. , The Sacrament is not really the Body of Christ, put in the actual state of one slain, dead, and without Life; nor does it contain it so, but in that respect does only represent it. 5 Position. That according to the Fathers, the Presence of Christ's Body to us now, is a Presence to our Faith and Minds, a Presence of Union, of Efficacy and Grace. This is S. Austin's constant Doctrine. I have cited a place out of him before, where reckoning up the several Presences of Christ (x) Serm. 120. de diversis. , the Presence of his Divinity, so he is with his Father; his Corporal Presence, so, he says, — Secundùm praesentiam corporalem jam supra coelos ad dextram patris est. he is now above the Heavens, at the Right Hand of the Father; and he knows but one more, — Secundùm vero praesentiam fidei in omnibus Christianis est. , which is the Presence of Faith, by which he is in all Christians. Thus also elsewhere (y) Serm. 12. de diversis. In coelo quidem Christus est, sed etiam in cord credentium. . Christ is in Heaven, but he is also in the Hearts of Believers. And again (z) In Evang. Joan. tract. 50.— Audeant & teneant. Respondet, Quem tenebo? absentem? Quomodo in coelum manum mittam, ut ibi sedentem teneam? Fidem mitte, & tenuisti: parents tui tenuerunt carnem, tu tene cord, quoniam Christus absens etiam praesens est, nisi praesens esset à nobis teneri non posset, etc.— Corpus enim suum intulit coelo, majestatem non abstulit mundo. , exhorting the Jews to hear and take hold on Christ, he brings one in ask, Whom shall I lay hold of? one that is absent? etc. He answers, Send forth thy Faith, and thou hast hold of him. Thy Fathers laid hold of him in his Flesh, do thou hold him in thy Heart, because Christ who is absent, is also present; for if he were not present, he could not be held by us. But still all is to be done by Faith, for the Reason he gives; He brought his Body into Heaven, but his Majesty (i. e. his Divinity) was not withdrawn from the World. And afterwards (a) Ibid. propè finem. Secundùm praesentiam majestatis semper habemus Christum: secundùm praesentiam carnis rectè dictum est discipulis, Me autem non semper habebitis. Habuit illum Ecclesia secundùm praesentiam carnis paucis diebus: modo fide tenet, oculis non videt. . According to the Presence of his Majesty, we always have Christ; according to the Presence of his Flesh, it was rightly said to his Disciples, Me ye have not always. The Church had him a few days according to his Fleshly Presence; now it holds him by Faith, and sees him not. So again (b) In Eu. Joan. tract. 106. Non rectè intelliguntur— nisi hi quos in se credentes servare jam coeperat praesentia corporali, & quos relicturus fuerat absentia corporali, ut eos cum patre servaret praesentia spiritali. , speaking of those whom he kept when he was with them, he says, These Words can be rightly understood of none but those who believing on him, were begun to be kept by him by his Corporal Presence, and whom he was about to leave by his Bodily Absence, that he might keep them, together with his Father, by his Spiritual Presence. Lastly, S. Austin says (c) Expos. in Epist. Joan. tract. 1. Dominus consolans nos qui ipsum jam in coelo sedentem manu contrectare non possumus, sed fide contingere, ait illi, Quia vidisti & credidisti, beati qui non viderunt & credunt. , Our Lord comforting us, who now that he sits in Heaven cannot handle him, but only touch him by Faith, says to Thomas, Because thou hast seen, thou hast believed; blessed are they that have not seen and believe. S. Cyril of Alexandria agrees perfectly with this Doctrine (d) In Joan. 13.33. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. , and knows no other Presence of Christ now, but what is Spiritual and Divine, since he ascended to the Father, and left the World. For they that judge aright, and are of a confirmed Faith, must be persuaded, that tho' Christ he absent from us in the Flesh, having undertaken a long Journey to God and the Father, that yet he compasses all things by his Divine Power, and is present to them that love him, etc. And again (e) Ibid. in v. 36. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. . It seemed to them intolerable, to be separated from Christ, tho' he was always present with them by the Power and Efficacy of the Spirit. Elsewhere (f) In Joan. 14.27. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. he lays it down as a Rule, That Christ's Spirit dwelling in the Saints, supplies the Presence and Power of Christ in his absence. And many more Places I might name out of him. Their Sense is well expressed in that short Saying of the Author under S. Cyprian's (g) De Vnct. Chrysmat. Inest veritas signo, & Spiritus Sacramento. Name, which I'll again repeat. Truth is in the Sign, and the Spirit in the Sacrament. S. Ambrose (h) De Spir. Sanct. l. 1. c. 10. propè finem. knows of no other Presence of Christ now, but what makes the Father to be present with him too, and that is the Presence of the Spirit and of Grace. His Words are very remarkable. The Spirit then so comes, Sic ergo venit Spiritus, quemadmodum venit Pater: dixit enim Filius, Ego & Pater veniemus & mansionem apud eum faciemus. Nunquid corporaliter Pater venit? Sic ergo Spiritus venit, in quo cum venit, & Patris & Filii plena praesentia est.— Paulò post, Probavimus igitur unam praesentiam esse, unam gratiam esse, Patris, Filii, & Spiritus Sancti, quae tam coelestis & divina est, ut pro ea gratias agat Patri Filius, etc. as the Father comes: For the Son said, I and my Father will come, and make our abode with him. What? does the Father come corporally? (And the same may be asked too of the Son, by what follows.) The Spirit so comes, as that in him when he comes is the full Presence of the Father and the Son.— A little after, We have therefore proved, that there is one Presence, and that there is one Grace (which explains what the Presence is) of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, which is so Celestial and Divine, that the Son gives thanks to the Father for it, etc. Bede (i) Hom. aest. de temp. feria 6. Pasch. observing how many times Christ appeared to his Disciples after his Resurrection, says, Hac ergo frequentia corporalis suae manifestationis ostendere vosuit Dominus, ut diximus, in omni loco, se bonorum desideriis divinitùs esse praesentem. Apparuit namque ad monumentum lugentibus, aderit & nobis absentiae ejus recordatione salubriter contristatis. Apparuit in fractione panis his, qui se peregrinum esse putantes ad hospitium vocaverunt, aderit & nobis cùm peregrinis & pauperibus quaecunque possumus bona libenter impendimus. Aderit & nobis in fractione panis, cùm Sacramenta corporis ejus, videlicet panis vivi, casta & simplici conscientia sumimus. He designed to show by these frequent Appearances, that he would be spiritually or divinely present in all Places at the Desire of the Faithful. He appeared to the Women that wept at the Sepulchre; he will be likewise present with us, when we grieve at the remembrance of his absence. He appeared, whilst they broke Bread, to those who, taking him for a Stranger, gave him entertainment; he will be likewise with us whilst we liberally receive the Poor and Strangers: He will be likewise with us in the Fraction of Bread, when we receive the Sacraments of his Body, which is the Living Bread, with a pure and chaste Heart. All this speaks only the Presence of his Divinity, and no other. For, as Alcuinus (k) In Joan. lib. 6. cap. 35. Et idem ipse Christus & homo & Deus. Ergo ibat per id quod homo erat, & manebat per id quod Deus erat. Ibat per id quod in uno loco erat, & manebat per id quod ubique Deus erat. says, The same Christ who is Man, is likewise God; he left them as to his Manhood, but remained with them as to his Godhead. He went away, with reference to that, by which he is but in one place, (N. B.) yet tarried with them by his Divinity, which is every where. All Liturgies, when the Eucharist is celebrated, call aloud, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Sursum corda, Lift up your Hearts. The meaning of which we are told by S. Austin (l) De bono Persev. l. 2. c. 13. Quod ergo in Sacramentis fidelium dicitur, ut sursum corda habeamus ad Dominum, munus est Domini— ut ascendat & quae sursum sunt sapiat, ubi Christus est in dextra Dei sedens, non quae super terram, etc. . What therefore is said in the Sacraments of the Faithful, that we should lift up our Hearts to the Lord, it is a Gift of the Lord. And he explains it, That by the Divine Aid the Soul is helped to ascend, and set its Affections upon things above, where Christ is sitting at God's right Hand, and not upon things on the Earth. S. Jerom's Words (m) Ad Hedybiam qu. 2. Ascendamus cum Domino coenaculum magnum stratum & mundatum, & accipiamus ab eo sursum calicem N. Testamenti, ibique cum eo Pascha celebrantes inebriemur ab eo vino sobrietatis. are very emphatical. Let us, with our Lord, ascend the great upper Room prepared and made clean, and receive from him above the Cup of the New Testament, and there celebrating the Passover with him, be inebriated by him with the Wine of Sobriety. All you see is above, and our Presence too with him there. S. chrysostom (n) Hom. 24. in 1 Cor. 10. speaking how we ought to approach to the tremendous Sacrifice with Concord and ardent Charity, says, From thence we become Eagles, and so fly to Heaven itself: For, where the Carcase is, thither will the Eagles come. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. He calls his Body the Carcase, because of his Death; and he calls them Eagles, showing, that he who comes to this Body ought to be sublime, and have nothing common with Earth, nor be drawn downward and creep, but continually fly upward, and look to the Sun of Righteousness, and to have the Eye of his Mind quicksighted: For this is a Table for Eagles, not for Jackdaws. Gr. Nazianzen (o) Orat. 28. contr. Maxim. speaking of his Adversaries, says, Will they drive me from the Altars? I know another Altar, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whose Types the things now seen are, upon which no Axe has been lift up, no Iron Tool or other Instrument has been heard; but is wholly a Work of the Mind, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.— and an Ascent by Contemplation. Before this will I present myself, on this will I offer acceptable things, Sacrifice, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Oblation, and Holocausts, so much more excellent than the things now offered, as Truth excels a Shadow. If Christ's Body were corporally present, it is not conceivable, what better Oblation than that we could present, no more than of what other Oblation this should be only a Type and Shadow. Oecumenius (p) In Heb. 10. v. 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. upon those words, Let us draw near with a true heart, in full assurance of Faith, says thus: Seeing there remains nothing visible, neither the Temple, that is Heaven, nor the High Priest, that is Christ, nor the Sacrifice, that is his Body; it remains that we have need of Faith. I shown before, that the Fathers never make Christ's Body invisible, but only from its distance and absence: And so it must be understood here, that he and his Body, the Priest and the Sacrifice are invisible, being both in Heaven, at that distance which makes Heaven itself and its Inhabitants invisible to us; and therefore he recommends Faith, which can only make them present to us. Author imperfecti Operis in Matthaeum (q) Hom. 11. Si ergo vasa sanctificata, ad privatos usus transferre sic periculosum est, in quibus non est verum corpus Christi, sed mysterium corporis ejus continetur; quanto magis vasa corporis nostri, quae sibi Deus ad habitaculum praeparavit, non debemus locum dare Diabolo agendi in eis quod vult. , (among the Works of chrysostom in Latin) has this Saying: If therefore it be so dangerous a thing, to turn the Sanctified Vessels to private Uses, in which is not the true Body of Christ, but only the Mystery of his Body is contained therein; how much more as to the Vessels of our Body, which God has prepared for himself to dwell in, we ought not to give place to the Devil to act in them what he pleases. One may trust an Adversary as to his Opinion of what makes against him; These Words were looked upon as so considerable an Objection, that an Attempt to corrupt them was practised long ago. The Learned Archbishop Usher (in the Preface of his Answer to the Jesuits Challenge) has observed, That those words [in quibus non est verum corpus Christi, sed mysterium corporis ejus continetur] were left out wholly, in an Edition at Antwerp, 1537. and at Paris, 1543. and in another at Paris, apud Audoenum Parvum, 1557. Dr. James (in his Corruption of True Fathers, p. 53.) says, Those words are found in all the ancient Copies at Oxford, as Archbishop Usher says they were extant in the ancienter Editions, as in 1487. And I myself have seen one Paris Edition, even in the Year 1536. (apud Claud. Chevallonium) where those words are extant. So that I conclude, That the Antwerp Edition first mentioned (apud Joan. Steelfium, 1537.) was the first that made the Alteration. But then I further observe, That in the large Paris Edition in Latin of S. chrysostom, 1588. which I have by me, those words are inserted indeed in the Text, but enclosed within two Brakets, with this Note in the Margin, [Haec in quibusdam exemplaribus desunt,] which is very fine work, when they themselves had omitted them in the forenamed Prints. They have played the same Prank with the same Author, in another of his Homilies, (viz. Hom. 19) whose Words were not favourable to the Real Presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist. The words are these. Perhaps thou wilt object, Sed forte dices, quomodo dicere illum possum, non esse Christianum, quem video Christum confitentem, altar habentem, Sacrificium panis & vini offerentem, baptizantem, etc. How can I say that he is not a Christian, whom I see confessing Christ, having an Altar, offering the Sacrifice of Bread and Wine, baptising, etc. In the Paris Edition apud Audoenum Parvum, An. 1557. as Dr. James Notes, those words, [Sacrificium panis & vini] are changed into these, [Sacrificium corporis & sanguinis Christi.] The Paris Edition of 1588. (before mentioned) tho' it had more Conscience than to insert this Change into the Text, yet so far complied with the Cheat, as to put in the Margin [alias, Sacrificium corporis & sanguinis Christi.] If this Trade had gone on successfully, they might have had in time a Consent of Fathers on their side; but it can never be without it. I will conclude this Particular with one Observation more, of what the Reader may find at large discoursed of, in a late Learned Dissertation of Monsieur Allix (r) Dissert. de Sanguine D. N. Jesus Christi ad Epist. 146. S. Augustini. Utrum nunc corpus Domini ossa & sanguinem habeat. , upon occasion of an Epistle of S. Austin to Consentius, who enquired of him, Whether now the Body of Christ has Bones and Blood? The very reading of that 146th Epistle of S. Austin, wherein he plainly, in his Answer to that Question, betrays his doubting of it, as well as in other of his Works; his distinguishing betwixt Christ's having a true Body after his Resurrection, and his having Flesh and Blood; the Testimonies there of other of the Ancients, especially of Origen and his Followers, that seem plainly to make both the glorified Body of Christ, and also of Believers, to be of another Composition than that of proper Flesh and Blood; these, I say, are a Demonstration, that the Ancient Fathers did not believe any Presence of true Flesh and Blood to be now in the Eucharist. Neither do I think the Answer given to this Dissertation by Monsieur Boileau, Dean of Sens (s) Disquisit. Theolog. de Sangu. Corporis Christi post resurrectionem. , to be a satisfactory one in this Particular. For tho' I should grant (which yet I see not sufficiently cleared by him) that generally the Fathers, and S. Austin also, did believe, that Christ had a Body, after the Resurrection, of the same Substance, tho' differing in Qualities, from what he had before; yet there are Three things that he has by no means said any thing material to, in his Answer. 1. That he has given no Account of S. Austin's studious declining to determine any thing in particular about the Blood of Christ, when he had never so fair an occasion to do it; but waves this always, even where he seems, as he does in his Retractations, to determine for his having palpable Flesh and Bones. 2. Why S. Austin should ever at all doubt or hesitate about this Matter of Christ's Blood after his Resurrection, is unconceivable, if he, with the rest of the Fathers, had such a constant Belief of its Presence in the Eucharist, as the Romanists affirm. 3. That tho' the Fathers use the Argument of the Eucharist to prove the Truth of Christ's Body, yet none ever urged Origen or his Followers with an Argument from thence, to confute their Opinions, differing from the pretended common Sentiments about the Body and Blood of Christ, by what lay so plainly before them, of his Body and Blood being in the Eucharist, if they had believed it. But I refer the Reader to Monsieur Allix his Dissertation, beforenamed, wherein he may find abundant Satisfaction in these Matters; and also will see how sadly the Romanists are put to it, to answer the Difficulties about the Blood of Christ, which they pretend to show in so many Churches, and is produced in such Quantities, that may well cause a new Doubt, Whether if his Resurrection-Body have any Blood in it, we must not suppose it to be of a new Creation, since what was in his Body when he died, cannot suffice to furnish more Blood, if so much, as their Vials and Glasses are filled withal. CHAP. X. The Tenth Difference. The Fathers assert positively, that the substance of the Elements remain after Consecration; that Bread and Wine are taken, eaten and drunk in the Sacrament: which all that believe Transubstantiation must deny. WE have seen before that the Fathers say plainly, that it was Bread which Christ called his Body, when he blessed it. Now we shall see, that the Fathers are as positive, that after Consecration, and the change made by it, yet still the Bread and Wine remains. I begin with that famous Testimony of S. chrysostom against the Apollinarians; produced first by P. Martyr; by some of our Adversaries charged upon him as his Forgery, because it was so full against them; by others shifted off to another John of Constantinople, and denied to be S. Chrysostome's; but vindicated for his, See Append. to the Defence of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England, p. 142, 143, etc. by the Learned Bigotius, who had transcribed it out of the Florentine Library of S. Mark's Monastery, and prepared it for the Press, in his Edition of Palladius; then suppressed by some Doctors of the Sorbonne, and the printed leaves taken out of the Book; but now lately recovered and published to their shame● A passage of which (the subject of this great contest) I shall here set down. Christ is both God and Man: God, Deus & homo Christus: Deus propter impassibilitatem, Homo propter Passionem. Unus Filius, unus Dominus, idem ipse proculdubus unitarum naturarum unam dominationem, unam potestatem possidens, etiamsi non consubstantiales existunt, & unaquaeque in commixtam proprietatis conservat agnitionem, propter hec quod inconfusa sunt, [duo] dico. Sicut enim antequam sanctificetur Panis, Panem nominamus, divina autem illum Sanctificante gratiâ, mediante sacerdote, liberatus est quidem appellatione panis, dignus autem habitus est dominici corporis appellatione, etiamsi natura panis in ipso permansit, & non duo corpora, sed unum corpus filii praedicatur. Sic & hic Divinâ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, id est, inundante corporis naturâ, unum filium, unam personam, utraque haec fecerunt. Agnoscondum tamen inconfusam & indivisibilem rationem, non in unâ solùm natura, sed in dimbus perfectis. for that he is impassable, Man for that he suffered. One Son, one Lord, he the same without doubt, having one Dominion, one power of two united natures: not that these (natures) are consubstantial, seeing each of them does retain without confusion its own properties, and being two are inconfused in him. For as (in the Eucharist) before the Bread is consecrated, we call it Bread, but when the grace of God by the Priest has consecrated it, it has no longer the name of Bread, but is counted worthy to be called the Lords Body, altho' the nature of Bread remains in it, and we do not say there are two Bodies, but one Body of the Son. So here, the divine nature being joined to the (humane) Body, they both together make one Son, one Person; but yet they must be acknowledged to remain without confusion, and after an indivisible manner, not in one nature only, but in two perfect natures. Another remarkable Testimony, is in Theodoret's Dialogues; some part of which I hope the Reader will not think it tedious to be inserted here, since by observing the thread of his Discourse, he will see his undoubted sense to be, that the substance of the Bread and Wine remain in the Eucharist, and the change is by addition not annihilation; and I will add his Greek where it is needful. Orthodoxus. Dial. 1 Do you not know that God called his Body Bread? Erannistes. I know it. Orth. Elsewhere also he calleth his Flesh Wheat. Eran. I know that also. Unless a Corn of Wheat fall into the ground and die, etc. Orth. But in the delivery of the mysteries, he called the Bread his Body, and that which is mixed (viz. Wine and Water in the Cup) Blood. Eran. He did so call them. Orth. But that which is his Body by nature (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) is also to be called his Body, and his Blood (viz. by nature) Blood. Eran. It is confessed. Orth. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But our Saviour changed the names, and on his Body he imposed the name of the symbol (or sign) and on the symbol he put the name of his body; And so having called himself a Vine, he called the Symbol Blood. Eran. Very right. But I have a mind to know the reason of this change of names. Orth. The scope is manifest to those that are initiated in Divine things. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For he would have those that participate the divine mysteries, not to attend to the nature of those things that are seen, but upon the changing of the names, to believe the change that is made by grace. For he that called his Body, that is so by nature, Wheat and Bread, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and again termed himself a Vine, he honoured the visible Symbols with the appellation of his Body and Blood, not altering nature, but to nature adding grace. Proceed we now to the next Dialogue. Orth. Dial. 2 The mystical Symbols offered to God by the Priests, pray tell me what are they signs of? Eran. Of the Lord's Body and Blood. Orth. Of his Body truly or not truly such? Era. Of that which is truly (his Body). Orth. Very right. For there must be an original of an Image (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) for Painters imitate nature, and draw the Images of visible things. Era. True. Orth. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If then the divine mysteries are Antitypes of a true Body, than the Lords Body is a true Body still, not changed into the nature of the Deity, but filled with Divine Glory. Era. You have seasonably brought in the Discourse of the Divine Mysteries; for thereby I will show that the Lords Body is changed into another Nature. Answer therefore my Question. Orth. I will. Era. What call you the Gift that is offered before the Priest's Invocation? Orth. I may not openly declare it, for perhaps some here present may not be initiated. Era. Answer then Enigmatically. Orth. I call it the food that is made of a certain grain. Era. How call you the other Symbol? Orth. By a common name that signifies a kind of drink. Era. But how do you call it after Consecration? Orth. The Body of Christ, and the Blood of Christ. Era. And do you believe you partake the Body and Blood of Christ? Orth. Yes, I believe it. Era. As then the Symbols of Christ's Body and Blood are one thing before the Priest's Invocation, but after the Invocation, are changed and become another thing; so the Lords Body, after his Assumption, is changed into a Divine Essence. Orth. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You are caught in a Net of your own weaving. For after sanctification, the mystical Symbols do not departed from their own nature; for they remain still in their former substance, and figure and form, and may be seen and touched just as before. But they are understood to be that which they are made, and are believed and venerated, as being those things they are believed to be. How shamefully Mr. Sclater has attempted to pervert these last words of Theodoret, he has been told sufficiently by his Answerer. The next Testimony is of Gelasius (t) De duambus naturis in Christo. Certè Sacramenta quae sumimus, corporis & sanguinis Christi, divina res est, propter quod & per eadem divinae efficimur consortes naturae; & tamen esse non definit substantia vel natura panis & vini; & certè Imago & similitudo corporis & sanguinis Christi in actione mysteriorum celebrantur. Satis ergo nobis evidenter ostenditur, hoc nobis in ipso Christo Domino sentiendum, quod in ejus imagine profitemur, celebramus & sumimus; ut sicut in hanc, sc. in Divinam transeunt Spiritu S. perficiente substantiam, permanente ramen in suae proprietate naturae, sic illud ipsum mysterium principale, cujus nobis efficientiam Virtutemque veraciter repraesentant, ex quibus constat propriè permanentibus, unum Christum, quia integrum verumque permanere. Bishop of Rome. The Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Christ which we take, are surely a divine thing; for which reason we become by them partakers of the Divine nature; and yet the substance or nature of Bread and Wine does not cease to be; and indeed the Image and likeness of the Body and Blood of Christ are celebrated in the action of the mysteries: therefore it appears plainly enough to us, that we ought to think that of our Lord, which we profess and celebrate and receive in his image; that as they (viz. the Elements) pass into that Divine substance, the H. Spirit effecting it, their nature still remaining in its own property; so that principal mystery whose efficiency and virtue these (the Elements) truly represent to us, remains one entire and true Christ; those things of which he is compounded (viz. the two natures) remaining in their properties. Ephrem Antiochenus (u) Apud Photii Biblioth. cod. 229. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. treating of the two Natures (which he calls palpable and impalpable, visible and invisible) united in Christ, adds, Thus the Body of Christ which is received by the faithful, does not departed from its sensible substance, and yet remains unseparated from the intellectual grace. So Baptism becoming wholly spiritual and one, it preserves its own sensible substance, I mean Water, and does not lose what it is made to be. Our Adversaries, to testify the respect they have for the Fathers, when they do not speak as they would have them, they try to make them speak so as no Body shall understand their true sense. And as the Putney Convert did by Theodoret, so the Jesuit Andr. Schottus (not for want of skill, but honesty) has dealt with this of Ephrem, making it, by his translation, obscure, or rather unintelligible nonsense. For the first words [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] he translates [sensibilis essentiae non cognoscitur, it is not known of a sensible nature,] and the other expression about Baptism [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] he turns it thus. [Hocque substantiae sensibilis proprium est per aquam, inquam, servat. And this is the property of sensible substance, it keeps, I say, by Water.] A good Man cannot take more pains to find out Truth than this Man does that it may be lost. The next Testimony, is of Facundus, (x) Lib. 9 defence. 3. capit. cap. 5. Sacramentum adoptionis suscipere dignatus est Christus, & quando circumcisus est & quando baptizatus est: & potest Sacramentum adoptionis adoptio nuncupari, sicut Sacramentum corporis & sanguinis ejus quod est in pane & poculo consecrato, corpus ejus & sanguinem dicimus; non quod propriè corpus ejus sit panis, & poculum sanguis, sed quod in se mysterium corporis sanguinisque contineant. Hinc & ipse Dominus benedictum panem & calicem, quem discipulis tradidit, corpus & sanguinem suum vocavit. the African Bishop. Christ vouchsafed to receive the Sacrament of Adoption, both when he was Circumcised and when he was Baptised: and the Sacrament of Adoption may be called Adoption, just as we call the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, which is in the Consecrated Bread and Cup, his Body and Blood. Not that properly Bread is his Body, and the Cup his Blood, but because they contain in them the mystery of his Body and Blood. Hence it is, that our Lord himself called the Bread and Cup he blessed, and gave to his Disciples, his Body and Blood. Nothing can be more positive than these five Testimonies, that the Bread and Wine remain in their substance after Consecration. And I cannot but here add the remarkable Confession of an Adversary, concerning two of them. For thus Card. Alan (y) De Euchar. Sacram. l. 1. c. 35. De duobus, Gelasio & Theodoreto, facilè mihi persuadeo, eos solos esse ex omni Antiquitate, qui inclinaverunt in communem posteà multorum errorem, ut ita defenderent veram conversionem panis, ut materiam Elementi, sicut in caeteris naturalibus transmutationibus fieri videbant, relictam esse concederent, etc. says, Concerning these two, Gelasius and Theodoret, I readily persuade myself, that they are the only persons in all Antiquity (tho' I have already produced three more of their mind) who inclined to that, which was afterwards a common error, so to defend the true Conversion of Bread, that they granted the matter of the Element to remain, as they saw it did in all other natural transmutations. But we will try whether the rest of the Fathers did not also speak the same thing. Justin Martyr (z) Dial. cum Tryph. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. speaking of the oblation of fine Flour for those that were cleansed from Leprosy, says, It was a type of the Bread of the Eucharist, which our Lord J. Christ commanded us to make in memory of his passion. What we make (as was showed, cap. 8. observ. 7.) can be only Bread, not Christ's Body in a proper sense. Again (a) Apol. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— telling us of the Bishops praying and giving thanks over the Elements, he adds, that the Deacons give to every one present leave to take of the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist. That this was his sense appears further, by another Character he gives of it in the same place, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when he calls it Food by which our Flesh and Blood by a change are nourished. What he says in another place (b) Dial. cum Tryph. p. 345. Edit. Paris. 1615. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. of Christians remembering their Lord's Passion by their dry and wet food, can agree only to Bread and Wine, which therefore must be supposed to remain. S. Irenaeus (c) L. 5. adv. haeres. c. 2. Ex quibus augetur & consistit carnis nostrae substantia. asserts with Justin, that the Bread and Cup of the Eucharist is that, by which the substance of our Flesh is nourished and consists. In another place (d) Ibid. l. 4. c. 34. Carnem quae à corpore Domini & sanguine alitur. Quemadmodum qui est à terra panis, percipiens invocationem Domini, jam non communis panis est, sed Eucharistia ex duabus rebus constans, terrena & coelesti, etc. he not only says, that our Flesh is nourished by the Body and Blood of our Lord, but adds, As the Bread that is from the Earth, perceiving the Lord's Invocation, is not now common Bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two things, an Earthly and an Heavenly, etc. Tho' not common Bread, yet Bread still, because else it would consist only of one thing, viz. Christ's Body, and no earthly thing besides. Origen (e) Comm. in Matth. 15. v. 15. p. 254. Edit. Huet.— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. . If every thing that enters into the mouth geese into the Belly and is cast into the draught, than also the food that is sanctified by the word of God and Prayer, as to the material part of it (which can be nothing but Bread) goes into the Belly, etc. but in respect of the Prayer that is superadded— it becomes profitable, etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nor is it the matter of the Bread, but the word that is said over it that profits him that eats it not unworthily of the Lord. Cyprian (f) Epist. ad Caecilium, l. 2. Ep. 3. alias 63. Invenimus calicem mixtum fuisse quem Dominus obtulit, & vinum fuisse quod sanguinem suum dixit. . We have found that it was a mixed Cup which our Lord offered, and that it was Wine which he called his Blood. Macarius (g) Homil. 27. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In the Church is offered Bread and Wine, the Antitype of his Flesh and Blood, and they that are partakers of the visible Bread, do spiritually eat the Flesh of the Lord. Epiphanius (h) In Compend. fidei. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. in a place I before cited, speaking of the Eucharist, says, that the Bread is food, but the virtue that is in it, is for begetting Life. It does not cease to be food, tho' the quickening power is all from the grace and spirit of God in it. S Ambrose (i) De Benedict. Patriarch. c. 9 Hunc panem dedit Apostolis, ut dividerent populo credentium, hodiéque dat nobis eum, quum ipse quotidiè sacerdos consecrat suis verbis. Hic panis factus est esca Sanctorum. speaking of the Benediction of Assur, Her Bread is fat, etc. says, Christ gave this Bread to the Apostles, to divide it among believing people, and now he gives it to us, whenas the Priest daily Consecrates with his words. This Bread is made to be the food of Saints. S. Austin (k) L. 3. de Trin. c. 4. Corpus Christi & sanguinem dicimus illud tantum, quod ex frugibus terrae acceptum & prece mysticâ consecratum, rite sumimus ad salutem spiritualem in memoriam pro nobis Dominicae Passionis; quod cùm per manus hominum ad illam visibilem speciem perducitur, non sanctificatur ut sit tam magnum Sacramentum nisi operante invisibiliter Spiritu Dei. . We only call that the Body and Blood of Christ, which being taken from the fruits of the Earth, and Consecrated by mystical Prayer, we rightly receive to our spiritual health in memory of our Lord's Passion. Which, when it is by the hands of men brought to that visible substance, is not sanctified to become so great a Sacrament, unless the spirit of God invisibly operate. Again (l) Idem Ibid. c. 10. Panis ad hoc factus in accipiendo Sacramento consumitur. . Bread made for this purpose is consumed in receiving the Sacrament. But it is neither received nor consumed till it be Consecrated, nor then but when eaten. And again elsewhere (m) Serm. 9 the divers. cap. 7. Eucharistia panis noster quotidianus est; sed sic accipiamus illum, ut non solum ventre sed & ment reficiamur. The Eucharist is our daily Bread; but let us so receive it, that we may not only have refreshment for our bellies, but for our minds. Upon this account it is, that looking upon the Sacrament as a refreshing food to our Bodies (as S. Austin here speaks) the Ancients believed, that by partaking of the Eucharist, they Broke their Fasts; this appears beyond all question in what Tertullian (n) Lib. de Orat. c. 14. ad finem. Stationum diebus non putant plerique sacrificiorum orationibus interveniendum, quod statio solvenda sit accepto corpore Dominico. says; who in resolving a doubt that troubled some minds, what they should do, when it happened that by a private vow they undertook a strict Fast (which obliged them not to take any refreshment till Evening) and this fell out upon a station day (which was usually Wednesdays and Fridays) when the Fast was ended at three a Clock by receiving the Communion. Most think, says he, that on the station days they ought not to be present at the Prayers of the Sacrifices (when the Eucharist was administered) because the Fast was broken upon receiving the Lords Body. Tertullian excepts not against this reason, but grants it, and finds out such an expedient as would be counted ridiculous in the Roman Church (where this of the Sacraments breaking the Fast is not believed) which is, to be present, and to take the Sacrament, and reserve it to be eaten at night. By receiving the Lords Body, Accepto corpore Dominico & reservato, ucrumque salvum est, & participatio Sacrificii & executio officii. says he, and reserving it, both is salved, both the partaking of the Sacrifice (i. e. of the Eucharist given at three a Clock) and the execution of their duty (he means of fasting till Evening, according to their Vow, and eating the Sacrament then, and not before.) But to proceed with our Testimonies. Hesychius (o) In Levit. l. 2. c. 8. Propterea carnes cum panibus comedi praecipiens, ut nos intelligeremus illud ab eo mysterium dici, quod simul panis & caro est, sicut Corpus Christi panis vivi qui de Coelo descendit. . God therefore commanded Flesh to be eaten with Bread, that we might understand, that that mystery (viz. the Eucharist) was spoken of by him, which is both Bread and Flesh, as the Body of Christ the living Bread that descended from Heaven. It can be only Bread and Flesh in our way, for in that of Transubstantiation it is only Flesh and no Bread. S. Austin (p) Lib. count. Donatist. c. 6. De ipso pane & de ipsa Dominica manu, & Judas Partem & Petrus accepit; & tamen quae Societas, quae consonantia, quae pars Petri cum Juda? . Of the very Bread Judas and Peter both took a part, and yet what Society, what agreement, what part has Peter with Judas? Again (q) Id Tract. in Joan. 26. Patres manducaverunt spiritualem utique eandem (escam) nam corporalem alteram, quia illi Manna, nos aliud— & omnes eundem potum spiritualem biberunt, aliud illi, aliud nos, sed specie visibili quidem, tamen hoc idem significante virtute spirituali. . The Fathers did eat the same spiritual meat with us, but the corporal was different, they did eat Manna, we another thing (he means Bread)— and they all drank the same spiritual drink, they one thing, we another, another as to the visible substance, but in spiritual virtue signifying the same thing. And again elsewhere (r) Id. Tract. 45. in Joan. Videte ergo, fide manente, signa variata. Ibi Petra Christus, nobis Christus quod in Altari ponitur; & illi pro magno Sacramento ejusdem Christi biberunt aquam profluentem de Petra, nos quid bibamus norunt fideles. Si speciem visibilem intendas aliud est, si intelligibilem significationem eundem potum spiritualem biberunt. . Behold while Faith remains the same, the signs are varied. There (in the Wilderness) the Rock was Christ, to us that which is placed on the Altar (viz. Bread) is Christ; And they drank the Water that flowed from the Rock for a great Sacrament of the same Christ, what we drink the faithful know, (viz. Wine) if you regard the visible substance it is another thing, if the spiritual signification they drank the same spiritual drink. Again in another place (s) Tract. 26. in Joan. Nam & nos hodie accepimus visibilem cibum; sed aliud est Sacramentum, aliud est virtus Sacramenti. . We have received to day the visible food; but the Sacrament is one thing, and the virtue of the Sacrament is another. That which he calls here cibus visibilis (the visible food) a little after S. Austin calls it visibile Sacramentum (a visible Sacrament) where he distinguishes this again from the Virtus Sacramenti (the Virtue of the Sacrament) so that the visible food, and the visible Sacrament, with him are the same. I have already produced the Testimonies (vid. chap. 8. Observ. 5.) where the Fathers make what is distributed in the Eucharist to be without Life or sense; which can be true of nothing else but of the Bread and Wine. So that unless we make them distribute what they had not consecrated, the Bread and Wine must remain after Consecration. The same is also evidently proved from another common assertion of the Fathers, that Christ offered the same oblation with Melchisedek. S. Cyprian (t) Lib. 2. Epist. 3. Quis magis sacerdos Dei summi, quam Dominus noster Jesus Christus, qui Sacrificium Deo Patri obtulit & obtulit hoc idem quod Mechisedec obtulerat, id est panem & vinum, suum scilicet corpus & sanguinem? . Who was more a Priest of the most High God, than our Lord Jesus Christ, who offered a Sacrifice to God the Father, and offered this same that Melchisedeck had offered, that is Bread and Wine, to wit his Body and Blood? Which indeed the Wine and Bread was by representation, but if you understand this of proper Flesh and Blood offered in the Eucharist, than it is not the same oblation with that of Melchisedeck. Isidere Peleusiota (u) Lib. 1. Epist. 431. ad Pallad. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. . Melchisedeck performed his sacred Office in Bread and Wine, by which he foresignified the type of the divine mysteries. Eusebius (x) Lib. 5. Dem. Evang. c. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (Melchisedeck) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. . For as he (Melchisedeck) being a Priest of the Gentiles never seems to have made use of Bodily Sacrifices, but blessed Abraham only in Bread and Wine. After the same manner also, first our Lord and Saviour himself, than all the Priests that derive from him, performing in all Nations their spiritual function according to the Ecclesiastical Sanctions, by Bread and Wine do express the mysteries of his Body and saving Blood, Melchisedeck having foreseen these things by a divine spirit, and having used before these images of future things. S. Jerome (y) Epist. ad Evagrium. Melchisedec pane & vino simplici puroque sacrificio, Christi dedicaverit Sacramentum. . Melchisedeck by Bread and Wine, which is a simple and a pure Sacrifice, did dedicate Christ's Sacrament. S. Austin (z) Epist. 95. Melchisedec prolato Sacramento coenae Dominicae novit aeternum ejus sacerdotium figurare. . Melchisedeck, bringing forth the Sacrament of the Lords Supper (i. e. Bread and Wine) knew how to figure Christ's Eternal Priesthood. Again (a) L. 17. the civet. Dei, c. 17.— Ex eo quod jam nusquam est Sacerdotium & Sacrificium secundum ordinem Aaron, & ubique offertur sub sacerdote Christo, quod protulit Melchisedec quando benedixit Abraham. upon those words, Thou art a Priest for ever, etc. He adds, Since now there is no where any Priesthood or Sacrifice, according to the Order of Aaron; and that is every where offered under Christ the Priest, which Melchisedeck brought forth when he blessed Abraham. In many other places S. Austin says the same. Arnobius (b) In Psal. 109. Christus per mysterium panis & vini factus est sacerdos in a ternum. . Christ by the mystery of Bread and Wine, is made a Priest for over. S. Chrysostom (c) Comment. in Psal. 110. vel 109.— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. . Why did he say, a Priest after the Order of Melchisedeck? Even because of the mysteries, because he also brought out Bread and Wine to Abraham. Isidore of Sevil (d) In Genesin cap. 12. Non secundùm Aaron pecudum Victimas, sed oblationem panis & vini, id est, corporis & sanguinis ejus Sacramentum in Sacrificium offeramus. . Let us not offer the Victims of Beasts according to Aaron, but let us offer in Sacrifice the oblation of Bread and Wine, that is the Sacrament of Christ's Body and Blood. Bede (e) Hom. the 55. in Vigil. S. Jo. Bapt. Redemptor noster ideo sacerdos esse dicitur secundùm Ordinem Melchisedec, quia, ablatis victimis legalibus, idem sacrificii genus in mysterium sui corporis & sanguinis in N. Testamento offerendum instituit. . Our Redeemer is therefore called a Priest, after the Order of Melchisedeck, because taking away the legal Sacrifices, he instituted the same kind of Sacrifice (viz. Bread and Wine) should be offered under the N. Testament, for the mystery of his Body and Blood. What the Scriptures acquaint us with, that after the Blessing of the Bread, Christ broke it and gave it to his Disciples, is also insisted on by the Fathers as done in the Eucharist, in order to the distributing of it to the receivers. But Bellarmine says expressly (f) L. 1. de Missa, c. 27. Nostra fractio non fit ad distribuendum, sed ad certum mysterium significandum. . That our breaking is not made for distribution, but to signify a certain mystery. Therefore in the Roman Church, that which they give in the Sacrament to the people is whole, and not broken off from any other thing. Wherein they differ from the Fathers, for their Eucharist was what the Apostles call breaking of Bread, Act. 2 46. and the Jesuit Lorinus upon that place observes, that it was the manner of the Primitive Church, Lorinus in Act. 2. v. 46. Panem unum conficere, atque illum consecratum in tot partes frangere, quot erant communicantes, sicut & Christus in coena fecit. to make one Loaf, and when they had consecrated it, to break it into so many parts as there were Communicants, as Christ also did in his Supper. And thus as it is 1 Cor. 10.17. There is one Bread, etc. and we being many are one Body, for we all partake of one Bread. This Fraction, tho' the Fathers express it as if it were done to the proper Body of Christ, yet they mean it only of the Bread that represents it: and therefore that must remain, for there is nothing else to be broken. When therefore S. chrysostom (g) Hom. 24. in 1 Cor. Tom. 3. Edit. Savil. p. 397. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. says, that upon the Cross a Bone of him was not broken, but what Christ did not suffer up●n the Cross, that he suffers in the oblation for thy sake, and suffers himself to be broken, that he may fill us all. This cannot be meant of any thing but what represents his Body torn and rend, viz. Bread. So S. Austin (h) Epist. 59— Et ad distribuendum comminuitur. speaks of that upon the Lord's Table, which is blessed and sanctified, and broke in small pieces to be distributed. Which can be only Bread. And this elsewhere (i) Epist. 86.— Sicut frangitur in Sacramento Corporis Christi. he expresses more plainly. Paul, says he, broke Bread that night, as it is broken in the Sacrament of the Body of Christ. Again (k) August. apud Bedam in 1 Cor. 11. Manducemus Christum; vivit manducatus, quia surrexit occisus: nec quando manducamus, parts de illo facimus, & quidem in Sacramento id fit; & norunt fideles quemadmodum manducent carnem Christi, unusquisque accipit partem, etc. S. Austin thus exhorts. Let us eat Christ; he lives though eaten, for he arose though slain. Neither when we eat him, do we make parts of him; so indeed we do in the Sacrament, and the faithful know how they eat the Flesh of Christ (there.) Every one takes a part, etc. This is a very remarkable Testimony, because of the distinction he makes between Christ's proper Body, and that in the Eucharist, affirming quite different things of them, as this of taking and eating a part, which is only true of the Bread. For as for the true Body of Christ, we are informed by another, Chrysologus (l) Serm. 159. Non potest Christus edi & dividi. Integer à credentibus sumitur, integer in ore cordis recipitur. . Christ cannot be eaten and divided. He is taken whole of Believers, he is received whole in the mouth of the heart. I will conclude this Chapter with the say of three great persons among the Fathers, who positively assert what I have been proving, that the Bread and Wine remain in the Eucharist. S. Chrysostom (m) Hom. 83. in Matth. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. . Who says expressly, When our Lord delivered the mysteries, he delivered Wine. S. Austin (n) De Civ Dei, lib. 17. cap. 5. Manducare panem, est in N. Testamento sacrificium Christianorum. . To eat Bread, is the Sacrifice of Christians in the N. Testament. Fulgentius (o) De fide ad Petrum, cap. 19 Christo nunc, id est, tempore N. Testamenti, cum Patre & Spiritu Sancto, cum quibus una est illi Divinitas, Sacrificium panis & vini in fide & charitate Sancta Ecclesia Catholica per universum orbem terrae offerre non cessat. . Now; that is, in the time of the N. Testament, the Holy Catholic Church, throughout the whole Earth, does not cease to offer in Faith and Charity, the Sacrifice of Bread and Wine to Christ, with the Father and H. Spirit, who have one Divinity together with him. CHAP. XI. The Eleventh Difference. The Fathers make the Bread and Wine to be the Sacrament, Sign, Figure, Type, Antitype, Image, etc. of Christ's Body and Blood. They of the Church of Rome, make either the Accidents subsisting without a Subject, or the Body of Christ latent under those Accidents, to be the Sacrament, Sign, Figure, etc. and not the substance of Bread and Wine, which they say is abolished. Therefore they have no Sacrament such as the Fathers assert. I Might give in here a very large Collection out of the Fathers, calling the Bread and Wine by all those names above mentioned; but to avoid tediousness, I shall only select some few of them (enough to prove the Truth of what I have asserted) under the several heads. S. Ambrose (p) De iis qui initiant. c. 9 Vera utique caro Christi, quae crucifixa est, quae sepulta est, verè ergo carnis illius est Sacramentum. . It is the true Flesh of Christ that was buried; therefore it (viz. the Eucharist) is truly the Sacrament of his flesh. S. Austin (q) Serm. ad recen. Batis. Quomodo est panis corpus ejus, & calix, vel quod habet calix, sanguis ejus? Ista, fratres, ideo dicuntur Sacramenta, quia in iis aliud videtur, aliud intelligitur. . How is the Bread his Body, and the Cup, or what the Cup contains, his Blood? These, Brethren, are therefore called Sacraments, because in them we see one thing, and understand another. Again (r) In Psal. 68 conc. 1. Cùm veniret Dominus ad coenam, qua commendavit Sacramentum corporis & sanguinis sui. . When the Lord came to the Supper, wherein he commended the Sacrament of his Body and Blood. Facundus (s) Defence 3. capit. l. 9 Christi fideles Sacramentum corporis & sanguinis ejus accipientes, corpus & sanguinem Christi rectè dicuntur accipere.— non quod propriè corpus ejus sit panis & poculum sanguis, sed quod in se mysterium corporis sanguinisque contineant. . Christ's faithful ones, receiving the Sacrament of his Body and Blood, are rightly said to receive his Body and Blood. And he had said before, Not that the Bread is properly his Body, and the Cup his Blood, but because they contain in them the mystery of his Body and Blood. Isidore (t) De Offic. Eccles. l. 1. c. 18. Haec duo sunt visibilia, sanctificata autem per Spiritum Sanctum in Sacramentum Divini Corporis transeunt. speaking of the Bread and Wine, says, These two are visible, but being sancrified by the Holy Spirit they pass into a Sacrament of his Divine Body. They call them also Symbols. Origen (u) Comm. in Matth. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. . Having discoursed (as we hear● before) of the Eucharist, concludes thus. Thu much may suffice concerning the Typical and symbo lical Body. And distinguishes it from the word that was made Flesh, which he calls true food. Eusebius (x) Dem. Evang. l. 1. cap. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. . Having received a command to celebrate the memory of this Sacrifice upon the Table, by the Symbols of his Body and saving Blood, according to the Ordinances of the N. Testament. Theodoret (y) Comm. in 1 Cor. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. , not only in the large Testimony produced out of him in the last Chapter, calls the Bread and Wine the Symbols of Christ's Body and Blood, but says thus elsewhere. In the most H. Baptism we see a type of the resurrection, than we shall see the resurrection itself. Now we see the Symbols of the Lords Body, there we shall see the Lord himself. They call them Signs. S. Austin (z) Contr. Adimant. c. 12. Non dubitavit Dominus dicere hoc est corpus meum, cùm daret signum corporis sui. . Our Lord did not doubt to say, This is my Body, when he gave the sign of his Body. S. Ambrose (a) De iis qui init. c. 9 Ante benedictionem verborum Coelestium alia species nominatur, post Consecrationem Corpus Christi significatur. of the Bread. Before the Benediction of the Heavenly words, another species is named, after the Consecration the Body of Christ is signified. S. Cyprian (b) Nec potest videri sanguis ejus quo redempti & vivificati sumus, esse in chalice, quùm vinum desit calici, quo Christi sanguis ostenditur. Epist. ad Caecilium. . Neither can the Blood of Christ, whereby we are redeemed and quickened, be seen to be in the Cup, when Wine is wanting in the Cup, whereby the Blood of Christ is shown. Speaking against those that used only Water. Tertullian (c)— L. 1. adv. Martion. Nec panem reprobavit, quo ipsum Corpus suum reptaesentat. . Neither did he reject Bread, whereby he represents his own Body. S. Jerome (d) In Matth. 26.— Ut quomodo in praefiguratione ejus Melchisedec summi Dei sacerdos panem & vinum offerens fecerat, ipse quoque veritatem sui corporis & sanguinis repraesentarer● . Christ, says he, took Bread that comforts man's heart, and proceeded to the true Sacrament of the Passover, That like as Melchisedeck the Priest of the High God had done, when he offered Bread and Wine, so he also might represent the truth of his Body and Blood. It's a very trifling objection that our Adversaries make both to this and the former Testimony in Tertullian, that the word repraesentare (to represent) signifies very often to exhibit a thing, and make it present; for tho' it should be granted, it would not help their cause, since they both say, that it is Bread that represents his Body, which therefore must remain, since that which is not cannot act any thing: but then I add, that tho' in some Cases to represent is to exhibit, yet never in the Case of Sacraments and Signs, for their Essence consists in signification, therefore their representation as Signs, must be to denote and show rather something absent which they represent, than to make it present. They call them also Types. Cyril of Jerus. (e) Catech. Mystag. 4.— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. He bids us receive the Bread and Wine with all certainty, as the Body and Blood of Christ: for in the Type of the Bread his Body is given to thee, and in the type of Wine his Blood. Greg. Nazianzen (f) In Pasch. Orat. 43. Ed. Basil. Gr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. We. shall receive the Passover now in a Type still, tho' more clear than that of the old Law (for the legal Passover, I am beld to say it, was an obscure Type of a Type) but within a while we shall receive it more perfect and more pure. S. Jerome (g) In Jerem. 31. upon those words of Jerem. 31. They shall flow unto the goodness of the Lord, for Wheat, and Wine and Oil, adds, — De quo conficitur panis Domini, & sanguinis ejus impletur typus, & benedictio sanctificationis ostenditur. Of which is made the Lords Bread, and the Type of his Blood is filled, and the Blessing of Sanctification is shown. Theodoret (h) Dialog. 3.— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. calls the Eucharist, The venerable and saving Type of Christ's Body. Another name is Antitypes, signifying the same with the former. Author Constitutionum (i) Lib. 5. cap. 13.— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. under the name of Clemens Roman. Christ delivered to us the mysteries which are antitypes of his precious Body and Blood. Again (k) Lib. 7. c. 26. O our Father, we give thee thanks for the precious Blood of Jesus Christ shed for us, — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. and for his precious Body of which we celebrate these Antitypes. Eustathius of Antioch (l) In Proverb. 9 citat. in Cenc. Nic. 2. Act. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. , expounding those words, Eat my Bread, and Drink the Wine that I have mingled, says, He speaks these things, by Bread and Wine preaching the Antitypes of Christ's Bodily Members. Macarius (m) Homil. 27. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. . In the Church is offered Bread and Wine, the Antitype of Christ's Flesh and Blood. Greg. Nazianzen (n) Orat. 11. telling the story how his Sister Gorgonia was Cured of a desperate Malady, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. by applying the Sacrament mixed with tears to her Body, he expresses it thus. Whatsoever of the Antitypes of the precious Body and Blood of Christ her hand had treasured up, etc. Cyril of Jerus. (o) Catech. Mystag. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. . When they taste, they are not required to taste Bread and Wine (i. e. not these alone) but the Antitype of Christ's Body and Blood. Theodoret (as we heard before (p) Dialog. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. ) calls the Divine Mysteries, the Antitypes of the True Body of Christ. And in another place (q) Recapit. in fine Dialog. 3.— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. he says, If the Lords Flesh be changed into the Nature of the Divinity, wherefore do they receive the Antitypes of his Body, for the Type is superfluous (you see Type and Antitype signify the same) when the Truth is taken away. Theodotus of Antioch (r) Citante Bulingero adv. Casaub. p. 166. says, As the King himself and his Image are not two Kings, neither are these two Bodies, viz. The Body of Christ personally existing in the Heavens, and the Bread, the Antitype of it, which is delivered in the Church by the Priests to the Faithful. They call it a Figure. Tertullian (s) Lib. 3. adv. Marition. Tanem corpus suum appellans, ut hinc etiam intelligas corporis sui figuram pani dedisse. . Calling Bread his Body, that thou mayst thence understand, that he gave to the Bread the Figure of his Body. Again (t) Lib. 4. adv. Martion. c. 40. Acceptum panem & distributum discipulis, corpus suum illum fecit, hoc est corpus meum, dicendo, id est, figura corporis mei. . The Bread which he took and distributed to his Disciples, he made it his Body, saying, This is my Body, that is, the Figure of my Body. Ephrem Syrus (u) Tract. de nat. dei curiosè non scrutanda. Diligenter intuere, quomodo in manibus panem accipiens, benedixit & fregit in figuram immaculati corporis sui, calicemque in figuram pretiosi sanguinis sui benedixit deditque discipulis suis. . Diligently consider, how Christ taking Bread in his hands, blessed and broke it, for a figure of his immaculate Body, and also blessed and gave the Cup to his Disciples, for a figure of his precious Blood. S. Austin (x) In Psal. 3. Adhibuit (Judam) ad convivium, in quo corporis & sanguinis sui figuram discipulis commendavit & tradidit . He admitted.. Judas to the Banquet, in which he commended and delivered to his Disciples the figure of his Body and Blood. Bede (y) In Psal. 3. Nec à Sacratissimâ coena, in quâ figuram Sacrosancti corporis sanguinisque suis discipulis tradidit, ipsum (sc. Judam) exclusit. also says the same, Neither did Christ exclude Judas from the most holy Supper, in which he delivered to his Disciples the figure of his most holy Body and Blood. And elsewhere (z) In Luc. 22. Pro agni carne vel sanguine suae carnis sanguinisque Sacramentum in panis & vini figurâ substituens, ipsum se esle monstraret, cui juravit Dominus, Tu es sacerdos in aeternum secundùm Ordinem Melchisedec. , Christ instead of the Flesh or Blood of a Lamb, substituting the Sacrament in the Figure of Bread and Wine, showed that it was he, to whom the Lord swore, Thou art a Priest for ever after the O●●● of Melchisedeck. The words of the Ambrosian Office are very remarkable, as they are set down by the Author of the Book of Sacraments under his name, where he asks this Question. (a) Lib. 4. de Sacram. c. 5. in initio. Vis scire quia verbis coelestibus consecratur? Accipe quae sint verba. Dicit sacerdos, Fac nobis, inquit, hanc oblationem ascriptam, rationabilem, acceptabilem, quod est Figura corporis & sanguinis Domini nostri Jesu Christi, etc. Wouldst thou know that the Eucharist is Consecrated by Heavenly words? Hear then what the words are. The Priest says, Make this oblation to us allowable, rational, acceptable, which is the Figure of the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, etc. This Prayer thus expressed in this Office, signifies more than all that can be cited against us out of these Books; and indeed they were too plain to be continued, when Transubstantiation was believed in the Roman Church, and therefore in the present Canon of the Mass they are changed, and instead of Figura Corporis, they now read, Fiat nobis Corpus, etc. Lastly, The Fathers call the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist, the Image of Christ's Body. Eusebius (b) Lib. 8. Demon. Evang. . Christ, says he, delivered to his Disciples the Symbols of his Divine Oeconomy, — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. requiring them to make an Image of his Body. Gelasius (c) Tract. de duabus Naturis. Certè Imago & Similitudo corporis & sanguinis Christi in actione mysteriorum celebrantur. Satis ergo nobis evidenter ostenditur, hoc nobis in ipso Christo Domino sentiendum, quod in ejus imagine profitemur, celebramus & sumimus, etc. . Surely the Image and similitude of the Body and Blood of Christ are celebrated in the action of the mysteries. It is evidently therefore shown to us, that we must think of our Lord Christ the same, which we profess, celebrate and take in his Image, etc. Procopius of Gaza (d) Comm. in 49 Genes. expounding these words spoke● 〈◊〉 Juda, His Eyes shall be red with Wine, and his Teeth 〈…〉 Milk (Gen. 49.12.) he applies it to the Eucharist 〈…〉 gladness which is obtained by the 〈…〉 first tasted, and had his Disciples take and 〈…〉 Milk may signify the purity 〈…〉 food, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for he gave the ●●●ge of his 〈…〉 his Disciples, no longer requiring the bl●●dy 〈◊〉 of the Law, and by the white teeth be denoted the purity of the Bready by which y●● are nourished. Author Dialog. adv. Marcionitas inter opera Originis (e) Dialog. 3.— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. . If Christ, as the Marcionists say, was without Flesh and without Blood, of what Flesh, or of what Body or Blood did he give the Images, and commanded his Disciples to make a remembrance of him by? Synodus Constantinop. an. 754. (f) In Concil. Nicen. 2. Act. 6.— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. . The Fathers there call the Eucharist, the true Image of Christ, and say afterwards— Christ commanded us to offer an Image, a chosen matter, to wit, the substance of Bread, not having an humane Figure, lest Idolatry should be introduced. And again. It pleased him, that the Bread of the Eucharist, being the true Image of his natural Flesh should be made a Divine Body, being sanctified by the coming of the Holy Guest, the Priest which makes the oblation intervening to make it holy, which before was common. He that would have more Testimonies of this kind, may consult Monsieur Blondel, in his Esclaircissements sur l' Eucharistie, cap. 4. prop. 8. The Fathers also make two or three Remarks, which add further strength to this Argument. First Remark. They not only make Bread and Wine to be the Image, Type, Figure, etc. of Christ's Body Crucified; but they also assert, that an Image, Figure, &c. cannot be the thing itself, of which it is an Image and Figure. Tertullian (g) Cont. Martion. l. 2, c. 9 Imago veritati non usquequaque adaequabitur, aliud enim est secundùm veritatem esse, aliud ipsam veritatem esse. . The Image cannot be every ways adequate to the Truth; for it is one thing to be according to Truth, another to be the Truth itself. Athanasius (h) Contr. Hypocr. Milet. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. That which is like to another is not that thing itself to which it is like. Hilary (i) De Synodis. Neque enim sibi ipsi quisquam imago est. . Neither is any one an Image of himself. S. Ambrose (k) De fide l. 1. cap. 4. Nemo potest sibi ipsi imago fuisse. . None can ever have been an Image of Himself. Gr. Nyssen (l) De anima & resurrect. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. . An Image would be no longer such if it were altogether the same with that of which it is an Image. S. Austin (m) De Trinit. l. 7. c. 1. Quid absurdius quàm Imaginem ad se dici? . What can be more absurd, than to be called an Image with respect to ones self. Gaudentius (n) In Exod. tract. 2. Figura non est veritas, sed imitatio veritatis. . A Figure is not the Truth, but an imitation of the Truth. Theodoret (o) In Dan. l. 2. c. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. . An Image has the Figures and lines, not the things themselves. Cyril of Alexand. (p) In Amos. cap. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. . A Type is not the Truth, but rather imports the similitude of the Truth. Bertram (q) De corp. & sang. Domini. Pignus & Imago alterius rei sunt, id est, non ad se, sed ad aliud aspiciuu● . A pledge and an Image are of another thing; that is, they do not look to themselves, but to something else. This Epiphanius the Deacon (r) In Concil. Nic. 2. Act. 6. in the second Council of Nice confesses, and therefore is fain to deny, that the Eucharist is the Image or Antitype of Christ's Body; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For, says he, If (the Eucharist) be an Image of his Body, it cannot be the Divine Body itself. Damascen also (s) De Orth. fide l. 4. c. 14. who was one of the first Innovators in the matter of the Eucharist, denies, that the Bread and Wine are a Type or Figure of Christ's Body and Blood, but the very Body and Blood itself; and that when the Ancients call them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Antitypes, they mean it is so before Consecration of the Elements not after, which I have abundantly showed, by foregoing Testimonies in this Chapter, to be false, and it is confessed by some of the Roman Authors themselves. In a word, the Fathers make a sign to be inferior, and to fall short of the thing signified; thus S. Chrysostem (t) Hom. 8. in Epist. ad Roman. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. says, It is inferior to it, and so much the more, as a sign is below the thing of which it is a sign. So also S. Jerome (as we heard before) puts the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist, in the same rank as to veneration with holy Chalices, Veils, and other things that relate to the Passion of our Lord 2 Remark. The Fathers assert, that an Image and Type must visibly demonstrate that of which it is an Image. Origen (u) Hom. 1. in Genes. Qui viderit imaginem alicujus, videt eum cujus imago est. . He that sees the Image of a person, sees him of whom it is an Image. Marcellus Anchyr. apud Eusebium (x) Lib. 1. cont. Marcel. c. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. . Images are demonstrative of those of whom they are Images, so that by them he that is absent seems to appear. Greg. Nyssen (y) In Cant. Hom. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. . The Original is plainly seen in the likeness of it. Hilary (z) De Synodis. Eum cujus Imago est, necesse est ut imago demonstret. . It is necessary that an Image should demonstrate him of whom it is an Image. Which plainly confutes those men's fancies in the Church of Rome (a) Bellarm. de Euchar. l. 2. cap. 15. , who make Christ invisibly present in the Eucharist, to be the sign of himself visibly suffering upon the Cross. For as Greg. Nyssen (b) Lib. 1. cont. Eunom. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; says. How can a man form an Idea of a visible thing from an Invisible? And Tertullian laughs at it as ridiculous, when he says, (c) Lib. de carne Christi c. 11. Nemo ostendere volens hominem, cassidem ant personam introducit. No one that intends to show a man, brings in a Helmet, or a Vizard. Which, we know, hid him from our sight. Irenaeus (d) L. 2. adv. haeres. c. 40. Typus secundùm materiam & substantiam aliquoties à veritate diversus est. Secundùm autem habitum & lineamentum debet servare similitudinem, & similiter ostendere per praesentia, ea quae non sunt praesentia. says, A Type is often different from the Truth, according to the matter and substance of the Type, but according to the habit and lineaments, it ought to keep likeness, and likewise by things present, show those things that are not present. 3. Remark. The Fathers plainly make the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist, to be Signs and Symbols of Christ as absent. S. Ambrose (e) L. 1. de Offic. cap. 48. Hic umbra, hic Imago, illic veritas. Umbra in Lege, imago in Evangelio, veritas in Coelestibus. . Here is the shadow, here the Image, there (viz. in Heaven) is the Truth. The shadow is in the Law, the Image in the Gospel, the Truth in Heaven. Again (f) In Psalm 38. Ascend ergo, homo, in coelum, & videbis illa quorum umbra hic erat vel Imago. . Ascend, O Man, into Heaven, and thou shalt see those things, of which there was here only a shadow or Image. Maximus (g) In cap. 1. Hierarch. Eccles. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. the Interpreter of the Spurious Dionysius, speaking of the Bread and Wine which he calls Holy Gifts, says, They are Symbols of things above that are more true. So again (h) In Cap. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. elsewhere he says, The things of the Old Law were a shadow, those of the New Testament were an Image, but the state of the World to come is the Truth. Theodoret (i) In 1 Cor. 11.26. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. . After his coming there will be no more need of Symbols (or Signs) when the Body itself appears. I refer the Reader to the Testimonies produced before (Chap. 10. Position 2.) out of S. Austin, Sedulius, Primasius, Bede, etc. I will conclude this Chapter with a passage or two out of the Prayers after the Sacrament in the Old Liturgy, used in Bertrams time (k) V Bertram de corp. & sang. Christi prope finem. p. 112. Edit. ult. Lat. Engl. . We who have now received the Pledge of Eternal Life, most humbly beseech thee to grant, (l) Ut quod in imagine contingimus Sacramenti, manifesta participatione sumamus. That we may be manifestly made partakers of that which we here receive in the Image of the Sacrament. And thus afterwards (m) Ibid. p. 114. Perficiant in nobis quaesumus, Domine, tua Sacramenta quod continent; ut quae nunc specie gerimus, rerum veritate capiamus. in another Prayer. Let thy Sacraments work in us,' O Lord, we beseech thee, those things which they contain, that we may really be partakers of those things which now we celebrate in a Figure. Bertram Comments upon these Prayers, in such passages as these. Whence it appears, says he, that this Body and Blood of Christ are the Pledge and Image of something to come, which is now only represented, but shall hereafter be plainly exhibited.— therefore it is one thing which is now celebrated, and another which shall hereafter be manifested. And afterwards (p. 115.) The Prayer says, that these things are celebrated in a Figure, not in Truth, that is, by way of similitude (or representation) not the manifestation of the thing itself. Now the Figure and the Truth are very different things: Therefore the Body and Blood of Christ, which is celebrated in the Church, differs from the Body and Blood of Christ which is glorified since the Resurrection, etc. We see how vast a difference there is between the mystery of Christ's Body and Blood which the faithful now receive in the Church, P. 117. and that Body which was born of the Virgin Mary, which suffered, risen again, ascended into Heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of the Father. For this Body which we celebrate in our way (to happiness) must be spiritually received; for Faith believes somewhat that it sees not; and it spiritually feeds the Soul, makes glad the heart, and confers Eternal Life and Incorruption, if we attend not to that which feeds the Body, which is chewed with our teeth, and ground in pieces, but to that which is spiritually received by Faith. But now that Body in which Christ suffered and risen again, was his own proper Body which he assumed of the Virgin, which might be seen and felt after his Resurrection, etc. It is very observable, and a great confirmation of what has been said in this Chapter, That the Ancient Christians of S. Thomas, inhabiting the Mountains of Malabar in the East Indies, agree with the Ancient Church in denying our Saviour's Corporal Presence in the Sacrament of the Eucharist; as appears from their Public Offices, and other Books, mentioned in a Synod which was celebrated amongst them by Dom Aleixo de Menezes Archbishop of Goa, in the Year 1599 In the fourteenth Decree of the third Action of the said Synod, in which most of their Church Offices and other Books are Condemned, for containing Doctrines contrary to the Roman Faith, there is particular notice taken of their contradicting the Roman Faith in the point of Transubstantiation. 1. The Book of Timothy the Patriarch is condemned, for asserting through three Chapters, that the true Body of Christ our Lord is not in the Sacrament of the Altar, but only the Figure of his Body. 2. The Book of Homilies is condemned, which teacheth, that the H. Eucharist is only the Image of Christ, as the Image of a Man is distinguished from a real Man; and that the Body of Christ is not there, but in Heaven. 3. The Book of the Exposition of the Gospels is condemned, which teacheth, that the Eucharist is only the Image of the Body of Christ, and that his Body is in Heaven at the right Hand of the Father, and not upon Earth. 4. Their Breviary, which they call Iludre and Gaza, is condemned; which teaches, that the most H. Sacrament of the Eucharist is not the true Body of Christ. Lastly, The Office of the Burial of Priests is condemned, where it is said, that the most H. Sacrament of the Altar, is no more but the virtue of Christ, and not his true Body and Blood. This Synod was Printed in the University of Conimbra, with the Licences of the Inquisition and Ordinary in the Year 1606. and is in the Possession of a Learned Person, who gave me this account out of it. CHAP. XII. The Twelfth Difference. The Fathers assert, That Christ's Body is not eaten corporally and carnally, but only spiritually. But the Church of Rome teaches a Corporal Eating, a Descent of Christ's Natural Body into ours, and understands the Eating of Christ's Body literally and carnally. IF the Church of Rome declares its own Faith, when it imposes the Profession of it upon another, and makes one abjure the contrary under pain of Anathema; then I am sure it was once with a witness for the eating of Christ's Body in the most literal and proper Sense; when An. Dom. 1059. Pope Nicholas II. and the General Council of Lateran, prescribed a Profession of it to Berengarius, made him swear it, and anathematise the contrary, as it is set down by Lanfrank (n) De Eucharist. Sacram. adv. Berengar. ; which because the Nubes Testium (tho' it has set down two other. Forms) durst not give us, I will therefore here transcribe out of him. I Berengarius, Ego Berengarius indignus Diaconus Ecclesiae S. Mauritii Andegavensis, cognoscens veram Catholicam & Apostolicam Fidem, anathematizo omnem Haeresin, praecipue eam de quâ hactenus infamatus sum; quae astruere conatur panem & vinum quae in altari ponuntur, post consecrationem solummodo Sacramentum, & non verum corpus & sanguinem Dom. nostri Jesu Christi esse; nec posse sensualiter, nisi in solo Sacramento, manibus Sacerdotum tractari, vel frangi, aut fidelium dentibus atteri. Consentio autem S. Romanae Ecclesiae & Apostolicae sedi, & over & cord profiteor de Sacramentis Dominicae mensae, eam fidem tenere, quam Dominus & Venerabilis Papa Nicholaus & haec S. Synodus authoritate Evangelica & Apostolica tenendam tradidit, mihique sirmavit: scilicet, Panem & vinum quae in altari ponuntur post consecrationem, non solum Sacramentum, sed etiam verum corpus D. N. J. Christi esse, & sensualiter non solum Sacramento, said in veritate manibus Sacerdotum tractari, frangi & fidelium dentibus atteri, jurans per S. & homoousion Trinitatem, & per haec sacrosancta Christi Evangelia. Eos vero qui contra hanc fidem venerint cum dogmatibus & sectatoribus suis aeterno anathemate dignos esse pronuncio, etc. unworthy Deacon, etc. knowing the true Catholic and Apostolic Faith, do anathematise all Heresy, especially that for which I have hitherto been defamed; which endeavours to maintain, that the Bread and Wine placed on the Altar, after Consecration, are only a Sacrament (or Sign), and not the true Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ; and cannot, save only in the Sign, be handled or broken by the Priest's Hands, or be ground by the Teeth of the Faithful. But I agree with the Holy Roman Church, and the Apostolic Seat, and do with my Mouth, and from my Heart profess, That I hold the same Faith concerning the Sacraments of the Lords Table, which our Lord and Venerable Pope Nicholas and this Holy Synod, by Evangelical and Apostolical Authority, has delivered to me to hold, and confirmed to me, viz. That the Bread and Wine which are placed on the Altar, after Consecration, are not only a Sacrament, but also the true Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, and is sensibly, not only in the Sign and Sacrament, but in truth, handled and broken by the Priest's Hands, and ground by the Teeth of the Faithful: Swearing this by the Holy and Coessential Trinity, and by the most Holy Gospels of Christ. And as for those that oppose this Faith, I judge them, with their Opinions and Followers, worthy of an eternal Anathema, etc. This we may look upon as the Belief of that Church then, and this to be the manner of eating the Body of Christ: since, as Bellarmine well obferves (o) De Sacr-Euchar. l. 3. c. 21. Nec coguntur ulli abjurare & anathematizare sententias dubias, sed eas tantùm quae damnantur ab Ecclesia, tanquam haereses exploratae. , None are compelled to abjure and anathematise dubious Opinions, but only such as are condemned by the Church as known Heresies. But however Infallible this Pope and that General Council were, this way of eating Christ's Body, by tearing it with the Teeth, was quickly opposed, (as a late Learned Preface to the Determination of Joh. Parisiensis shows at large.) Peter Lombard could not digest it (p) Sentent. lib. 4. dist. 12, Fractio & parts quae ibi videntur fieri, in Sacramento fiunt, i. e. in visibili specie. Ideoque illa Berengarii verba ita distinguenda sunt, ut sensualiter, non modo in Sacramento, said in veritate dicatur corpus Christi tractari manibus Sacerdotum: Frangi verò & atteri dentibus, verè quidem sed in Sacramento tantum. . For tho' the Pope and Council defined, That both the handling, and also the breaking and tearing with the Teeth of Christ's Body, were not only in the Sign and Sacrament, but in Truth performed; he makes a distinction, and in express words (cited in the Margin) says, That Christ's Body is handled indeed, not only in Sacrament, but in Truth; but that it is broken and torn with the Teeth truly indeed, but yet only in Sacrament. That is, in the visible Species, as he before explains that Phrase. Directly contrary to Berengarius' Recantation. The words also of Job. Semeca, the Author of the Gloss upon the Canon-Law (q) Gloss. apud Gratian. de Consecr. Dist. 2. c Ego Berengarius. Nisi sanè intelligas verba Berengarii in majorem incides Haeresin quam ipse habuit; & ideo omnia referas ad species ipsas; nam de Christi corpore partes non facimus. , are very bold against it. Unless you understand the words of Berengarius in a sound sense, (and there can be no other, the words are so plain, but what must contradict it) you will fall into a greater Heresy than he was guilty of; and therefore you must refer all to the Species, (that's directly contrary to the Pope and Council) for we do not make Parts of Christ's Body. In fine, all the great Writers, especially the Jesuits, have forsaken this Definition, as not to be maintained, and this Eating in the most proper sense is wholly discarded; and we are told (r) De Sacr. Euchar. l. 1. c. 11. Ad rationem manducationis, non est necessaria attritio, sed satis est sumptio, & transmissio ab ore ad stomachum per instrumenta humana & naturalia, i. e. linguam & palatum. by Bellarmine, That grinding with the Teeth is not necessarily required to Eating; but it suffices that it be taken in, and transmitted from the Mouth into the Stomach by humane and natural Instruments, viz. the Tongue and Palate. This way, in plainer terms, is swallowing the Body of Christ without chewing. And indeed without this Descent of it into the Body, there could no Account be given of that Prayer in the Roman Missal (s) Corpus tuum, Domine, quod sumpsi, & sanguis quem potavi, adhaereat visceribus meis. : Lord, let thy Body which I have taken, and thy Blood which I have drunk, cleave unto my Entrails. They have also determined how long this Sacred Body makes its stay there. Aquinas (whom they all now follow) says (t) In 3. part. quaest. 76 art. 6. ad 3. Corpus Christi remanet in hoc Sacramento, quousque species sacramentales manent. Quibus cessantibus desinit esse corpus Christi sub eyes. , The Body of Christ remains in this Sacrament, so long as the Sacramental Species remain: When they cease to be, the Body of Christ ceases to be under them. Thus also Domin. Soto (u) In 4. dist. 12. qu. 1. art. 3. Est indubiè tenendum quod corpus (sc. Christi) descendit in stomachum.— Cùm digestio fiat in stomacho illic desinunt esse species, atque adeo corpus, quare non descendit in ventrem. . We ought undoubtedly to hold, That Christ's Body descends into the Stomach.— Since Digestion is made in the Stomach, there the Species cease to be, and so also Christ's Body, and therefore will not descend into the Draught. But now comes a scurvy Case, that will force out the whole Truth. Suppose, by reason of any Disease, the Species should descend further than the Stomach; as in a Flux, when there is no Digestion of the Species, nor time to do it in the Stomach, but they are presently carried downward whole, or else brought up immediately, as in case of sudden Vomiting. This also is resolved by the same Principles. So the last-named Author (x) Soto ibid. Sed si ob aliquem morbum species descenderent, consequenter & ipsum corpus descenderet & emitteretur. Pudor enim non debet esse in causa negandi veritatem. . If by reason of any Disease the Species should descend, (into the Draught, he means) the Body also itself would descend and be sent forth. For Shame ought not to be a Reason for denying the Truth. To which S. Antoninus (y) Part. 3. tit. 13. cap. 6. sect. 3. Igitur corpus Christi & sanguis tamdiu manet in ventre & stomacho vel vomitu & quocunque alibi, quamdiu species manent, sicut substantia conversa mansisset. Et si species incorruptae evomuntur, vel egrediuntur, est ibi vere corpus Christi. agrees, (citing Paludanus in the case.) Therefore the Body and Blood of Christ remains so long in the Belly and Stomach, or Vomit, or any where else, as the Species remain, just as the converted Substance (viz. Bread and Wine) would have remained. And if the Species are vomited up whole, or go forth (downwards) there is truly the Body of Christ. And he tells us of S. Hugo Cluniac. how he commended one Goderanus, who (by a strange fervour) swallowed down the Particles of an Host, which a Leper had vomited up with vile Spittle, saying, That S. Laurence his Gridiron was more tolerable. If these Consequences seem horrid and detestable to the Reader, the Doctrine, from which they necessarily flow, aught to be looked upon much more so. But now, to return to the Fathers, and their Sense of Eating the Body of Christ. It is evident to any that will impartially consult their Writings, that they were perfect Strangers to all these Cases that are thus currently resolved in the Roman Church. That Christ's Natural Body should enter into ours, is too gross and carnal a Thought, to be attributed to them; and fits only the Imaginations of a Carnal Church, and of those Capernaites, who in the Sixth of S. John ask, How can this Man give us his Flesh to eat? Christ tells them, That the Words he spoke to them were Spirit and Life. And so the Fathers always understood the eating of Christ's Body and drinking his Blood, not in a literal and proper, but in a figurative and spiritual Sense; as I shall now prove from their Writings. Wherein it may not be amiss to take notice, first, What their Sense is about understanding things carnally and spiritually. S. chrysostom (z) Hom. 46. in Joan. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. ask this Question, What is it to think (or understand) carnally? He answers, Simply to look upon the things proposed, and to think of no more.— But we ought to view all Mysteries with our inward Eyes: for this is spiritually to view them. S. Austin (a) De Doctr. Christ. l. 3. c. 5. Cùm figuratè dictum sic accipitur, tanquam proprie dictum sit, carnaliter sapitur. gives the same account. We have a carnal Taste, when we take that which is figuratively spoken, as if it were properly spoken. And elsewhere (b) Serm. 44. de diversis. Omnis figurata & allegorica lectio vellocutio, aliud videtur sonare carnaliter, aliud insinuare spiritualiter. . Every figurative and allegorical Reading or Speech, seems to sound one thing carnally, and to insinuate another thing spiritually. S. Austin (c) De Doctr. Christ l. 3. c. 16. Si praecepriva est locutio, aut flagitium aut facinus yetans, aut beneficentiam jubens, non est figurata. Si autem flagitium aut facinus videtur jubere, aut utilitatem aut beneficentiam vetare, figurata est. Nisi manducaveritis carnem filii hominis, etc. facinus vel flagitium videtur jubere: Figura ergo est, praecipiens passioni Domini esse communicandum, & suaviter atque utiliter in memoria condendum, quod caro ejus pronobis crucifixa & vulnerata est. further gives a Rule when to understand a thing literally, and when to understand it figuratively and spiritually. If the Speech be by way of command, either forbidding a Crime or heinous Wickedness, or bidding a beneficial or good thing to be done, it is not figurative: But if it seems to command a Crime or heinous Wickedness, or forbidden an useful and beneficial thing, it is figurative. And then he gives the Example of his Rule, in those words of Christ, Except ye eat the Flesh and drink the Blood of the Son of Man, ye have no Life in you. Now this, says he, seems to command a Crime or horrid thing; therefore it is a Figure, commanding us to communicate in the Passion of our Lord, and sweetly and profitably to treasure up in our Memory, that his Flesh was crucified and wounded for us. Origen said the very same before him (d) Hom. 7. in Levitic. non solùm in Veteri Testamento occidens Litera deprehenditur, est & in N. Testamento Litera quae occidit cum qui non spiritualiter quae dicuntur adverterit. Si enim secundùm literam sequaris hoc ipsum quod dictum est, Nisi manducaveritis carnem meam, & biberitis sanguinem meum, occidit haec litera. , and gives the same Instance. Not only in the Old Testament is found the kill Letter; there is also in the New Testament a Letter that kills him who does not spiritually consider what is said. For if thou follow this according to the Letter which was said, Unless ye eat my Flesh and drink my Blood, this Letter kills. And in another place (e) In Joan. Tom. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. . We are not to eat the Flesh of the Lamb, as the Slaves of the Letter do, etc. To which he opposes those who receive the Spirituals of the Word. Such as those whom S. Austin mentions (f) In Joan. tract. 26. Quia visibilem cibum spiritaliter intellexerunt, spiritaliter esurierunt, spiritaliter gustaverunt, ut spiritaliter satiarentur. , who pleased God and died not (i. e. eternally). Because they understood the visible Food (Manna) spiritually, they hungered spiritually, they tasted spiritually, that they might spiritually be satisfied. Or, as he expresses it a little after (g) Ibid. Qui manducat intus non foris, qui manducat in cord, non qui premit dente. , He that eats inwardly, not outwardly; that eats in his Heart, not he that presseth it with his Teeth. And therefore elsewhere * Serm. 33. de Verb. Dom. Nolite parare fauces, sed cor. exhorts them, Do not prepare your Jaws, but your Heart. This is what Clemens Alexandr. (h) Strom. l. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. requires, when he says, That Christ, when he broke the Bread, set it before them, that we may eat it rationally, i. e. spiritually. So S. Austin again (i) De Verb. Apost. Serm. 2. Tunc vita unicuique erit corpus & sanguis Christi, si quod in sacramento visibiliter sumitur, in ipsa veritate spiritualiter manducetur, spiritualiter bibatur. . The Body and Blood of Christ will then be Life to every one, if what is visibly taken in the Sacrament, be in truth spiritually eaten and spiritually drunk. Where he makes this to be eating in Truth, and the other but Sacramental. So Macarius (k) Homil. 27. having called the Bread and Wine the Antitype of Christ's Flesh and Blood, he adds, — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. They which are Partakers of the visible Bread, do spiritually eat the Flesh of the Lord. He should rather have said orally, according to the Doctrine of our Adversaries. S. Athanasius (l) Tract. in illud Evang. Quicunque dixerit verbum contra filium hominis. expounding those words, What if ye see the Son of Man ascending where be was before? It is the Spirit that quickeneth, the Flesh profiteth nothing, etc. adds, — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. He affirmed both of himself, the Flesh and Spirit, and made a difference betwixt the Spirit and the Flesh, that not only believing that of him which was visible, but what was invisible, they might learn, that those things which he spoke were not carnal, but spiritual. — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For to how many could his Body have sufficed for Meat, that it should be made the Food of the whole World? But therefore he mentions the Son of Man's Ascension into Heaven, that he might draw them from this corporal Conceit, — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. and hereafter might learn, that the Flesh he spoke of was celestial Meat from above, and spiritual Nourishment to be given by him,; etc. It will suffice all the World, if we follow Tertullian's (m) De Resurr. c. 37. Quia & sermo caro erat factus, proinde in causam vitae appetendus, & devorandus auditu, & ruminandus intellectu, & fide digerendus. Advice. Since the Word was made Flesh, he is to be longed for that we may live, to be devoured by Hearing; to be chewed by Understanding, and digested by Faith. It is an excellent Comment on this, which Euebius gives us (n) Lib. 3. Eccl. Theol. c. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. upon those words of John 6. The Flesh profits nothing, etc. Do not imagine that I speak of that Flesh I am encompassed withal, as if you must eat that; nor think that I command you to drink sensible and corporeal Blood: But know, that the very Words that I have spoken to you are Spirit and Life. So that these very Words and Speeches of his, are his Flesh and Blood; whereof whoso is always Partaker, being nourished as it were with beavenly Bread, shall be a Partaker of heavenly Life.— Let not the hasty hearing of those things by me, — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. of Flesh and Blood, trouble you; for things senfibly heard profit nothing, but it is the Spirit that quickeneth them that can spiritually hear them. S. Basil (o) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. says the same. There is an intellectual Mouth of the inward Man, whereby he is nourished who receives the Word of Life, which is the Bread that descended from Heaven: Facundus Hermian. (p) Lib. 12. Defence. 3. capit. c. 1. takes this of eating Christ's Flesh to be a Mystery, and that S. Peter when he answered, Lord, whither should we go? thou hast the Words of Eternal Life, did not then understnad it. For, says he, Quod si mysterium intellexisset, hoc potius diceret, Domine, cur abeamus non est, cum credamus nos corporis & sanguinis tui fide salvandos. if he had understood the Mystery, he should rather have said, Lord, there is no reason we should go away, since we believe we shall be saved by Faith in thy Body and Blood. He means his Death and Passion, which is his Sense of eating Christ's Body and Blood. Theodorus Heracleot. (q) Catena in Joan. 6.54, 55. refers this eating Christ's Flesh to the sincere embracing the Oeconomy of his Incarnation. These, says he, — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. upon the reasoning of their Minds, by assenting to it, as it were tasting the Doctrine, do rationally (or spiritually) eat his Flesh, and by Faith partake of his Blood. S. Chrysostom (r) Hom. 46. in Joan. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. upon those words, It is the Spirit that quickeneth, the Flesh profiteth nothing, reckons up some of those carnal Doubts that profit nothing; as, It is a carnal thing, says he, to doubt how Christ descended from Heaven, and to imagine him to be the Son of Joseph, and how he can give us his Flesh to eat. All these are carnal, which ought to be mystically and spiritually understood. Cyril of Jerusalem (s) Catech. Mystag. 4. says, That the Jews, for want of understanding spiritually Christ's words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 imagined that Christ exhorted them to devour his Flesh; which is hard to be distinguished from the Roman Churches Oral Manducation. This carnal Fancy might well make them shrink, and cry out, This is a hard Saying, who can hear it? For, as S. Austin (t) Cont. advers. Legis l. 2. c. 9 Horribilius videatur humanam carnem manducare quam perimere, & humanum sanguinem potare quam fundere. well observes, It seems more horrible to eat Humane Flesh, than to kill it; and to drink Man's Blood, than to shed it. Origen's (u) Prologue. in Cantic. Est materialis hujus hominis, qui & exterior appellatur, cibus potusque naturae suae cognatus, corporeus iste, sc. & terrenus. Similiter autem & spiritualis hominis ipsius, qui & interior dicitur, est proprius cibus, ut panis ille vivus qui de caelo descendit, etc.— Rerum vero proprietas unicuique discreta servatur, & corruptibili corruptibilia praebentur, incorruptibili verò incorruptibilia proponuntur. words (for I see no good reason to question they are his) are enough to convince effectually all such carnal Jews and Christians. There is a Meat and Drink for this material and outward Man, as we call him, agreeable to his Nature, viz. this corporeal and earthly Food. There is likewise a proper Food for the spiritual, or, as we call it, inward Man, as that living Bread that came down from Heaven, etc.— But the Property of things is reserved to each distinct, and corruptible things are given to that which is corruptible, and incorruptible things are proposed to that which is incorruptible. Greg. Nyssen (x) Hom. 1. in Cantie. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. also well expresses it thus. There is an Analogy betwixt the Motions and Operations of the Soul and the Senses of the Body, etc. — Wine and Milk are judged of by the Taste; — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. but these being intellectual, the Power of the Soul that apprehends them must be altogether intellectual. S. Chrysostom (y) Homil. 26. in Matth.— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. said well, That Christ gave himself to us for a spiritual Feast and Banquet. And Procopius Gazaeus (z) Comment. in Exod. Coelestis seu divinus Agnus animarum solet esse cibus. . The Celestial and Divine Lamb is wont to be the Food of Souls. S. Austin (a) Tract. 1. in Epist. Joan.— Ipsum jam in coelo sedentem manu contrectare non possumus, sed fide contingere. indeed tells us, We cannot handle him who now sits in Heaven; yet, says he, we may touch him by our Faith. For, as he says elsewhere (b) Tract. 26. in Evang. Joan. Non ad Christum ambulando currimus, sed credeudo: nec motu corporis, sed voluntate cordis accedimus.— Sic se tangi voluit, sic tangitur ab eis à quibus benè tangitur, ascendens ad patrem, manens cum patre, aequalis patri. , We run to Christ, not by walking, but by believing; nor do we approach him by the Motion of our Bodies, but by the Will of our Hearts. And afterwards.— Thus he would be touched, and thus he is touched by all that rightly touch him, ascending to the Father, remaining with the Father, equal to the Fath. r. And in the next Tractate (c) Idem Tract. 27. in Joan. Quid est hoc? Hinc solvit illud quod non noverant— Illi enim putabant eum erogaturum corpus suum, ille autem dixit, se ascensurum in coelum, utique integrum. Cùm videritis filium hominis ascendentem ubi crat priùs, certè vel tunc videbitis quia non co modo quo putatis erogat corpus suum, certè vel tunc intelligetis, quia gratia ejus non consumitur morsibus. upon those words, What if ye see the Son of Man ascend, etc. What does this mean? He hence resolves that which they did not know— For they imagined, that he would bestow his Body upon them; and he told them, that he would ascend into Heaven entire and whole. When you shall see the Son of Man ascending where he was before, then surely you will see, that be does not bestow his. Body after that manner you think he does: Surely you will then at least understand, that his Grace is not consumed by bites (of the Teeth) Gelasius (d) Contr. Eutych. l. 4. Credere in filium Dei, hoc est videre, hoc est audire, hoc est odorari, hoc est gustare, hoc est contrectare eum. therefore said well: To believe on the Son of God, this is to see him, this is to bear him, this is to smell, this is to taste him, and this is to handle him. These Testimonies, one would think, are sufficient to tell us the Sense of the Fathers in this Matter; yet, with the Reader's leave, I will add a few Considerations more, to put it out of all doubt. 1 Consideration. It appears there is no necessity to understand eating and drinking Christ's Body in the Eucharist, of his natural Body received into ours; because the Fathers say, We eat and drink, and partake of Christ's Body and Blood in Baptism, which, by the confession of all, can be done only spiritually there. Thus Cyril of Alexandria (e) In Joah. 9.6. says, The Gentiles could not have shaken off their Blindness, and contemplated the Divine and H. Light, that is, attained the Knowledge of the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity, — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. unless by Holy-Baptism they had been made Partakers of his Holy Flesh, and washed away the blackness of their Sin, and shaked off the Devil's Power. And elsewhere (f) Glaphyr. in Exod. lib. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. speaking of the Eunuch: He by his Question, says he, showed, that he was Partaker of the Spiritual Lamb; for he was presently thought worthy of Baptism. Fulgentius (g) De Bapt. Aethiop. in fine. Nisi manducaveritis carnem filii hominis, & biberitis ejus sauguinem, non habebitis vitam in vobis. Quod quisquis non solum secundùm veritatis mysteria, sed secundùm mysterii veritatem, considerare poterit, in ipso Lavacro S. Regenerationis hoc fieri providebit. . Unless ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his Blood, ye shall have no Life in you. Which whosoever can consider, not only according to the Mystery of Truth (viz. in the Sacraments) but according to the Truth of the Mystery, will see that this is done in the Laver of Holy Regeneration. And again (h) Ibid. Nec cuiquam esse aliquatenus ambigendum, tu●● unumquemque fidelium corporis sanguinisque participem fieri, quando in baptismate membrum corporis Christi efficitur. . Neither need any one in the least doubt, that every Believer is then made Partaker of Christ's Body and Blood, when he is made in Baptism a Member of Christ's Body. Therefore S. Basil (i) In Esa. 3. says, That the Lord takes away Christ from those who having put him on by Baptism, — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. by sinning afterwards trample upon his Body, and count the Blood of the Covenant an unholy thing. 2 Consideration. The Fathers, with reference to Eating and Drinking, distinguish Christ's True Body from his Sacramental one; which they could not do, if Christ's True and Natural Body and Blood were eat and drunk in a proper sense in the Sacrament. S. chrysostom (k) In 1 Cor. c. 11. v. 29. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. expounding those words, He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, etc. says, As Christ's Presence, which brought those great and unspeakable Blessings to us, did condemn those the more that did not receive it; so also the Mysteries make way for greater Punishments to those that unworthily partake of them. S. Austin (l) Contr. Faustum l. 20. c. 21. Hujus sacrificii caro & sanguis, etc.— in passione Christi per ipsam veritatem reddebatur, post ascensum Christi per Sacramentum memoriae celebratur. (whose words I have given Chap. 10. Posit. 2.) makes the Flesh and Blood of Christ to be exhibited in the Truth at his Passion, and in the Sacrament only the Memory of it to be celebrated. Bede (m) In Psal. 21:— Intelligent in pane & vino visibiliter sibi proposito aliud invisibile, scilicet corpus & sanguinem verum Domini, qui verus cibus & potus sunt, quo non venter distenditur, sed mens saginatur. upon those words, The Poor shall eat and be satisfied, says, By this Bread and Wine, which are visibly offered to them, they will understand another invisible thing, viz. the true Body and Blood of our Lord, which are really Meat and Drink, not such as fills the Belly, but which nourishes the Mind. And in another place (n) In Esdram lib. 2. cap. 8. immolatio. Paschae gloriam insinuet resurrectionis, cùm omnes electi carne agni immaculati, id est, Dei & Domini nostri, non amplius in Sacramento credentes, sed in reipsa ac verirate videntes, reficiuntur. speaking of the Passover. The Immolation of this Passover represents the Glory of our Resurrection, when all the Elect shall eat together the Flesh of the Immaculate Lamb, I mean of him who is our God and Lord, no more in Sacrament as Believers, but in the thing itself, and in Truth, as Spectators. Neither is that of Isidore of Sevil (o) De Officiis Eccles. l. 1 c. 15. to be passed over, who mentions this Prayer in the Liturgy of his Time; — Ut oblatio quae Domino offertur sanctificata per spiritum sanctum, corpori & sanguini Christi conformetur (not confirmetur, as the last Colen Edition absurdly has printed it, An. 1617.) That the Oblation which is offered to God, being sanctified by the Holy Spirit, may be conformed to the Body and Blood of Christ. Which very Phrase shows a difference betwixt what we receive in the Eucharist, and the true Body and Blood of Christ: Else it would not be Conformity, but Identity, as Monsieur Claude has well observed. 3 Consideration. They say, That the Fathers under the Old Testament did eat the same spiritual Meat with us; and give this as the Reason why it is spiritual Meat, Because it is not eaten corporally, but by Faith. Therefore both they and we must eat the same Meat only spiritually, not corporally. S. Austin has said so much in this Argument, that I need go no further. And I might insist upon many Passages I have upon other occasions named before; as that in his Treatise upon S. John's Gospel (p) Tract. 45. in Eu. Joan. Videte, fide manente, signa variata. Ibi petra Christus, nobis Christus quod in altari Dei ponitur. Et illi pro magno Sacramento ejusdem Christi. biberunt aquam profluentem de petra, nos quid bibamus norunt fideles. Si speciem visibilem intendas aliud est; si intelligibilem significationem eundem potum spiritualem biberunt. , where explaining that of the same spiritual Drink the Fathers drank, he has such Expressions as these. See the Signs are varied, Faith remaining the same. There the Rock was Christ (in Sign); to us that which is laid on the Altar is Christ; and they drank of the Water that flowed from the Rock, for a great Sacrament of the same Christ; what we drink, the Faithful know. If you regard the visible Species or Nature, it is another thing; if the spiritual or intelligible Signification, they drank the same spiritual Drink. In another place (q) Idem in Psal. 77. Idem in mysterio cibus & potus illorum qui noster, sed significatione idem non specie. Quia idem ipse Christus illis in petra figuratus, nobis in ●●●ne manifestatus est. . Their Meat and Drink was the same with ours in Mystery; not in Substance (or Species) the same, but in Signification. Because the same Christ who was figured to them in the Rock, is manifested to us in the Flesh. To add but one place more, which fully comprehends the whole sense of the Argument (r) De Vtilit. Penitentiae, cap. 1. : Where S. Austin explaining the same words, of our Fathers eating the same spiritual Meat, etc. he discourses thus. The Apostle says, Apostolus dicit, Patres nostros, non patres infidelium, non patres impiorum manducantes & morientes, sed patres nostros, patres fidelium, spiritalem cibum manducasse, & ideo cundem.— Erant enim ibi quibus plus Christus in cord quam Manna in ore sapiebat. Quicunque in Manna Christum intellexerunt, cundem quem nos cibum spiritalem manducaverunt.— Sic etiam eundem potum, Petra enim erat Christus. Eundem ergo potum quem nos, sed spiritalem, id est, qui fide capiebatur, non qui corpore hauriebatur.— Eundem ergo cibum sed intelligentibus & credentibus; non intelligentibus autem, illud solum Manna, illa sola aqua, etc. That our Fathers, not the Fathers of Unbelievers, not the Fathers of the Wicked, that did eat and die; but our Fathers, the Fathers of the Faithful, did eat spiritual Meat, and therefore the same.— For there were such there, to whom Christ was more tasteful in their Heart, than Manna in their Mouth.— Whosoever understood Christ in the Manna, did eat the same spiritual Meat we do.— So also the same Drink, For the Rock was Christ. Therefore they drank the same Drink we do, but spiritual Drink, that is, Drink which was received by Faith, not what was swallowed down by the Body.— They eaten therefore the same Meat, the same to those that understand and believe; but to them that do not understand, it was only that Manna, only that Water, etc. Here you see, S. Austin calls that Spiritual Drink which Faith receives, not which the Body takes down. And thus whether Christ be come, or be to come, it's all one (as he says a little after, Venturus & venit diversa verba sunt sed idem Christus) because Faith can apprehend what shall be, as well as what is. But if our Eating be Christ's natural Body swallowed down our Bodies, than their Meat and ours were not the same. For Christ could not be thus their Meat, because than he had not taken Flesh upon him; therefore those old Fathers could not take it down in the oral Sense. 4 Consideration. The Body and Blood are to be eaten and drunk, and to be received, as they are represented and set before us in the Sacrament. But there the Body of Christ (according to the Fathers as well as the Scriptures) is set before us as broken and dead, and his Blood as poured out of his Veins. Therefore it can be eaten and drunk by us only figuratively and spiritually. If the Reader look back to Chap. 10. Posit. 4. he will find a great many Testimonies, especially out of S. chrysostom, to prove that the Fathers considered Christ's Body in the Sacrament as slain and dead, and his Blood poured out of his Veins, and separated from his Body: And how S. chrysostom, at the same time when he tells us that Christ has given us leave to be filled with his Holy Flesh (i) Hom. 51. in Matth.— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. , he has proposed and set himself before us as slain. This I shall now give a further account of, seeing the Fathers speak nothing more plainly and fully than this. S. Austin (t) In Psal. 100 Nos de cruce Domini pascimur; quia corpus ipsius manducamus. not only tells us in general, That we are fed from our Lord's Cross, because we eat his Body; but more expressly says (u) Serm. 9 de 40. edit. à Sirmondo.— Qui se pro nobis in mensa crucis obtulit sacrificium Deo Patri, donans Ecclesiae suae Catholicae vitale convivium, corpore suo nos videlicet satians, & inebrians sanguine. , That Christ offered himself a Sacrifice for us to God the Father, on the Table of the Cross, giving to his Catholic Church a vital Banquet, viz. by satiating us with his Body, and inebriating us with his Blood. But all this, by looking upon him on the Table of the Cross, sacrificed and slain. This made Gr. Nyssen (x) Orat. 1. in Resurr. Dom. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. say, That the Body of the Victim (speaking of Christ) is not fit for eating, if it be alive. And S. Cyprian (y) Lib. 2. Ep. 3. Nec nos sanguinem Christi possemus bibere, nisi prius calcatus fuisset & pressus. . Neither should we be able to drink the Blood of Christ, unless it were first trodden and pressed. Alluding to Grapes in a Wine-press; and that Christ's Blood must be out of his Veins when we drink it, and so considered by us. But none of the Ancients has given a fuller Account of this than Hesychius (z) Com. in Leu. l. 1.— Carnem ejus, quae ad comedendum inepta erat ante passionem— aptam cibo post passionem fecit. Si enim non fuisset crucifixus, sacrificium corporis ejus minimè comederemus. Comedimus autem nunc cibum, sumentes ejus memoriam passionis. , who says, That Christ made his Flesh fit to be eaten after his Passion, which was not fit to be eaten before his Passion: For if he had not been crucified, we could by no means eat the Sacrifice of his Body. But now we eat Food, receiving the Memory of his Passion. And again (a) Ib. l. 2. Sartaginem, Domini crucem,— accipi oportet, quae etiam superimpositam Dominicam carnem, esibilem hominibus reddidit. Nisi enim superimposita fuisset cruci, nos corpus Christi nequaquàm mysticè percepissemus. , he compares the Cross to a Gridiron, which when our Lord's Flesh is put upon it, makes it fit to be Food of Men: For unless it had been laid thus upon the Cross, we could in no wise mystically have received Christ's Body. And because this Food, which is thus mystically to be eaten, could not be fit Food for us, unless Christ was crucified and slain; therefore in several places he speaks of Christ as slaying himself in the Eucharist (which cannot be understood properly) before he was slain upon the Cross. says (b) Ib. l. 1. Praeveniens, seipsum in caena Apostolorum immolavit, quod sciunt qui mysteriorum virtutem percipiune. , Christ, by way of anticipation, slew (or sacrificed) himself in the Supper of the Apostles, which they know that perceive the Virtue of the Mysteries. Again (c) Ib. l. 2. Prius figuratam ovem cum Apostolis caenans Dominus posteà suum obtulit sacrificium, & secundò sicut ovem scipsum occidit. . Our Lord first supping upon the figurative Lamb with the Apostles, did afterwards offer his Sacrifice, and a second time, as a Lamb, slew himself. And now after all these Testimonies and Considerations, which, put together, demonstratively conclude against any eating of Christ's Body, or drinking his Blood, but what is spiritual and figurative; I'll put an end to this Chapter with two remarkable Say of S. Austin. The first is upon the 98 Psalms (d) In Ps. 98. , where he confutes those who, when our Saviour spoke of eating his Flesh, and drinking his Blood, were offended at this, as an hard Saying; and then expounding that which Christ added, The words I speak are Spirit and Life, he makes our Lord speak thus to them: Spiritualiter intelligite quod locutus sum. Non hoc corpus quod videtis manducaturi estis & bibituri illum sanguinem quem fusuri sunt qui me crucifigent. Sacramentum aliquod vobis commendavi, spiritualiter intellectum vivificabit vos; & si necesse est illud visibiliter celebrari, oportet tamen invisibiliter intelligi. Understand spiritually what I have spoken. You are not to eat this Body which you see, nor to drink that Blood which they shall shed that will crucify me. I have commended a certain Sacrament to you, which if spiritually understood, will give Life to you; and if it be necessary this Sacrament should be visibly celebrated, yet it must be invisibly (i. e. spiritually) understood by you. No Protestant could choose Words to express his Mind more fully by, in this Matter. His other Saying is against the Manichees, who fancied a latent Christ in the Fruits of Trees, and Ears of Corn, and professed to eat him that was passable with their Mouths. S. Austin thus sarcastically derides them (e) Contr. Faustum l. 20. c. 11. o'er aperto expectatis quis inferat Christum, tanquam optimae sepulturae, faucibus vestris. : Ye expect with open Mouth, who should bring in Christ into your Jaws, as the best Sepulchre for him. If S. Austin had been for Oral Manducation of Christ's Body in the Eucharist, he could not have had the confidence to have objected this, as a Reproach to the Manichees, which might so easily have been returned with shame upon himself. I conclude therefore, that the Trent Fathers, when they called the Sacramental and Oral Manducation, real eating, to distinguish it from the spiritual eating; and made that Canon (f) Conc. Trid. Sess. 13. Can. 8. Si quis dixerit Christum in Eucharistia exhibitum, spiritualiter tantùm manducari, & non etiam sacramentaliter ac realiter, anathema sit. , If any shall say, That Christ exhibited in the Eucharist, is only spiritually eaten, and not also sacramentally and really, let him be Anathema: that herein they were so far from designing to testify their Consent with the Fathers (who, as you have heard, generally say the contrary) that they seem rather to have had a Conspiracy against them. CHAP. XIII. The Thirteenth Difference. The Fathers assert, That the Faithful only eat Christ's Body, and drink his Blood in the Eucharist, not the wicked. Whereas they of the present Roman Church extend it to both. THIS Assertion, being a necessary consequence of the foregoing one, will make my work the shorter for its proof. What the Church of Rome holds in this matter, cannot be questioned. The Trent Catechism speaking of such a Person that makes no distinction betwixt the Sacrament and other common food, expresses it thus (g) Catechis. ad Paroch. Part. 2. n. 27.— Qui impurè sumens corpus Domini, quod in Eucharistia occultè later— .— Who impurely taking the Body of the Lord, which lies hid in the Eucharist— there it is hid, they mean, under the species, and the wicked take it. Therefore Dom. Soto (who was one of the Council of Trent) says (h) In 4. dist. 12. qu. 1. art. 3.— Est indubiè tenendum quòd corpus (sc. Christi) descendit in Stomachum, etiamsi ab iniquo sumatur. ; We must undoubtedly hold, that the Body of Christ descends into the stomach, tho' a wicked man takes it. So Aquinas (i) Part. 3. quaest. 80. art. 3. conclus. Cùm corpus Christi in Sacramento semper permaneat, donec species Sacramentales corrumpantur, etiam injustos homines Christi corpus manducare consequitur. . Seeing the Body of Christ always remains in the Sacrament, till the Sacramental Species are corrupted, it follows, that even wicked men do eat the Body of Christ. Alensis (k) Part. 4. Qu. 11. memb. 2. art. 2. sec. 2. taking notice of the opinion of some that thought that as soon as the Body of Christ was touched by a Sinners lips, — Illud sentire erroneum est & manifestè contra sanctos: & ideo communiter tenetur quod in hoc non est differentia inter justum & injustum, quia uterque ipsum verum corpus Christi sumit in Sacramento, etc.— Unde concedendum, quod mali sumunt rem Sacramenti, quod est corpus Christi verum, quod natum est de Virgin, etc. it withdrew itself, says, This is an error, and manifestly against the Saints; and therefore it is held commonly, that in this there is no difference betwixt the just and unjust, for both of them receive the very Body of Christ in the Sacrament. And a little after. It must be granted, that the wicked receive the thing which the Sacrament is a sign of, which is Christ's true Body, born of the Virgin, etc. This ought not to seem a strange Doctrine to be held by those, who say that brute Creatures may devour Christ's Body. Which is the current opinion. So Aquinas (l) Loc. citat. ad Tertium. Dicendum, quod etiamsi mus vel canis hostiam consecratam manducet, substantia corporis Christi non definit esse sub speciebus, quamdiu species illae manent. . We must say, that altho' a Mouse or a Dog should eat a consecated Host, yet the substance of Christ's Body does not cease to be under the species, so long as the species remain. Alensis (m) Ibid. sec. 1. loco citat. Si canis vel porcus deglutiret hostiam consecratam integram, non video quare vel quomodo Corpus Domini non simul cum specie trajiceretur in ventrem canis vel porci. is as positive and more plain. If a Dog or a Hog should swallow a whole consecrated Host, I see not why nor how the Body of our Lord would not, together with the Species, be conveyed into the Belly of that Dog or Hog. It is also remarkable, that among three Articles which P. Gregory XI. an. 1371. prohibited to be taught (n) See Pref. to the determ. of Jo. Paris. p. 32. Si hostia consecrata à mure corrodatur, seu à bruto sumitur, quod remanentibus speciebus, sub iis definit esse Corpus Christi, & redit substantia Panis. under pain of Excommunication (which was also repeated by P. Clement VI) one of them was this. If a Consecrated Host should be gnawed by a Mouse, or taken by a Brute, that then the species remaining, the Body of Christ ceases to be under them, and the substance of the Bread returns. This he would not let pass for good Divinity. Nor can it at this Day, when this is one of the Cautions to be observed in the Celebrating of the Mass. (o) De Defect. Missae, sec. 10. n. 5. ante Missal. Roman. Si post confecrationem ceciderit musca, aut aliquid ejusmodi, & fiat nausea Sacerdoti, extrahat eam & lavet cum vino, finitâ Missa comburat, & combustio ac lotio hujusmodi in Sacrarium projiciatur. Si autem non fuerit nausea, nec ullum periculum timeat, sumat cum sanguine. That if a Fly, or any such animal fall into. the Chalice after Consecration, if the Priest nauseats it, than he must take it out and wash it with Wine, and burn it when Mass is ended, and the ashes and the wash be thrown into the H. Repository. But if he do not nauseate to swallow it, nor fears any danger, let him take it down with the Blood. What is all this for, but to tell us, that they look upon it still to be Christ's Blood, and that its better it should be in the Belly of a Priest than of a Brute? So also they give us another Case. (p) Ibid. n. 14. Si Sacerdos evomat Eucharistiam, si species integrae appareant, reverenter sumantur, nisi nausea fiat: tunc enim species consecratae cautè separentur, & in aliquo loco sacro reponantur, donec corrumpantur, etc. If a Priest should vomit up the Eucharist, and the species appear entire, they must be taken down reverently, unless nauseated; but in that case the Consecrated Species must be cautiously separated, and put in some H. Place, till they are corrupted, etc. But I beg the Readers Pardon for presenting him with such nauseous stuff; God grant that they who thus unworthily represent their Saviour, may have grace to repent, that the thoughts of their hearts may be forgiven them. As for the Fathers, if by their plain words we can understand their sense, they assert, that only the Faithful, and not the wicked, eat the Body of Christ, and drink his Blood in a proper sense S. Jerome (q) In Oseam c. 8.— Cujus caro cibus credentium est. calls the Flesh of Christ the food of Believers. And Isidore of Sevil (r) In Genes. c. 31.— Caro ejus qui est esca Sanctorum. Quam si quis manducaverit, non morietur in aeternum. that it is the meat of the Saints. And he adds (which makes it their food, and of none else) which if any one eat, he shall not die eternally. They therefore often call it the Bread of Life, and Life itself. S. Ambrose (s) In Psal. 118. Serm. 18. Hic est panis vitae: qui manducat vitam mori non potest; quomodo enim morietur, cui cibus vita est? . This is the Bread of Life: he that eateth Life cannot die; for how should he die whose Food is Life? S. Austin says the same (t) Serm. de verb. Evangel. apud Bedam in 1 Cor. 10. Quando Christus manducatur; vita manducatur— quando manducatur reficit. . When Christ is eaten, Life is eaten.— When he is eaten he refreshes. Again in another place (u) Serm. 44. de Diversis. Filii Ecclesiae habent à rore coeli & fertilitate terrae, etc. — à fertilitate terrae omnia visibilia Sacramenta. Visibile enim Sacramentum ad terram pertinet. Haec omnia communia habent in Ecclesia boni & mali. Name & ipsi habent, & participant Sacramentis, & quod norunt fideles à tritico & vino. distinguishing the Portion of Saints and Sinners, he makes the true Sons of the Church to partake both of the Dew of Heaven, and the fatness of the Earth. This fatness of the Earth he explains to be all visible Sacraments, for they pertain to the Earth. All these, he says, the good and bad in the Church have in common. For the bad have and partake of the Sacraments, and what the Faithful know made of Breadcorn, and Wine. If then the visible Sacrament, and that which has its original from Earth, be all that evil men partake of, to be sure they have nothing to do with Christ, the Heavenly Bread, or his Body, which (to use his Phrase) does not pertain to Earth at all, but is a Divine Food. Which none has more admirably and fully spoke to than Origen (x) In Matth. c. 15. v. 15. p. 253. Ed. Huet. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. . Who having said a great deal about Christ's Typical and Symbolical Body (which S. Austin called before the visible Sacrament) he goes on thus. Many things also might be said concerning that word which was made Flesh, and the true Food, which whosoever eats shall surely live for ever, no wicked Man being capable of eating it. For if it were possible, that a wicked man, continuing such, should eat him that was made Flesh, seeing he is the Word, and the living Bread, it would not have been written, That whosoever eats this Bread shall live for ever. This is that which Macarius (y) Homil. 14. discourses of so largely and piously. Telling us, that as a great rich Man, having both Servants and Sons, gives one sort of meat to the Servants, — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— and another to the Sons that he begot, who being Heirs to their Father, do eat with him.— So, says he, Christ the true Lord, himself created all, and nourishes the evil and unthankful; but the Children begotten by him, who are partakers of his grace, and in whom the Lord is form; — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. he feeds them with a peculiar refection, and Food, and Meat and Drink, above and besides other men, and gives himself to them that have Conversation with their Father, as the Lord says, He that eateth my Flesh, and drinketh my Blood, abides in me, and I in him, and shall not see death. With whom S. Jerome (z) In c. 66. Esaiae. Dum non sunt sancti corpore & spiritu, nec comedunt carnem Jesus, neque bibunt sanguinem ejus, de quo ipse loquitur; Qui comedit carnem meam & bibit sanguinem meum, habet vitam aeternam. agrees, speaking of voluptuous men; Not being holy in Body and Spirit, they neither eat the Flesh of Jesus, nor drink his Blood; concerning which he says; He that eateth my Flesh, and drinketh my Blood, hath Eternal Life. S. Austin also (a) Contra Donatist. post collat. c. 6. De ipso pane & de ipsa Dominica manu, & Judas partem & Petrus accepit. says. Of that Bread, and from our Lords own Hand, both Judas and Peter took a part. But then he (b) Tract. 59 in Joan. Evang. Illi manducabant Panem Dominum, ille Panem Domini contra Dominum, illi vitam, ille poenam. makes the distinction himself, that Judas received only the Bread of the Lord, when the other Disciples received the Bread that was the Lord. Which is directly contrary to Transubstantiation; for according to that, even such a one as Judas, must eat the Lord, and no Bread, when this Father says, that he eaten the Bread and no Lord. Neither is S. Austin singular in this Phrase of the Bread of the Lord, to signify the real substance of that Element that is eaten in the Sacrament, and not the proper Body of Christ. For so S. Jerome uses it (c) In Jerem. c. 31. Confluent ad bona Domini super frumento, de quo conficitur Panis. Domini. . When he speaks of Corn, of which the Bread of the Lord is made. It is also very observable, that as the Council of Trent (as we heard before) makes eating Christ Sacramentally and really to be the same, and spiritual eating to be of another sort, not real, but one would think, rather imaginary. On the quite contrary, the Fathers distinguish the sacramental eating from the real, and make the spiritual and real eating to be the same; and they will grant that a bad Man may eat Christ Sacramentally (that is, in sign) but not really; for so none but the faithful can do it. For thus S. Austin (d) Serm. 2. de verb. Apost. Tunc autem hoc erit, id est, Vita unicuique erit Corpus & sanguis Christi, si, quod in Sacramento visibiliter sumitur, in ipsa veritate spiritualiter manducetur, spiritualiter bibatur. . Then will this be, that is, the Body and Blood of Christ will be Life to every one, if that which is visibly taken in the Sacrament, be in the Truth itself spiritually eaten, and spiritually drank. Which in another place (e) Tract. 26. in Joan. Quod pertinet ad virtutem Sacramenti, non quod pertinet ad visibile Sacramentum. he expresses by the visible Sacrament, and the virtue of the Sacrament. Again most expressly (f) De Civit. Dei. l. 21. c. 25. Ipse dicens, qui mandacat carnem meam & bibit sanguinem meum in me manet & ego in eo, ostendit quid sit, non Sacramento. tenus, sed revera Corpus Christi manducare & sanguinem ejus bibere. . Christ saying, He that eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him, shows what it is, not sacramentally, but really and in truth, to eat Christ's Body, and drink his Blood. And therefore in the same Chapter (g) Ibid. Neque enim isti dicendi sunt manducare Corpus Christi, quoniam nec in membris computandi sunt Christi. speaking of wicked men, he says. Neither can they be said to eat the Body of Christ, since they are not to be accounted Christ's Members. S. Austin again distinguishes the Sacramentum rei (the Sacrament of the thing) from the res Sacramenti, the thing of which it is a Sacrament. (h) Tract. 26. in Joan. Hujus rei Sacramentum— in Dominica Mensa praeparatur & de Dominica Mensa sumitur, quibusdam ad vitam; quibusdam ad exitium. Res vero ipsa cujus & Sacramentum est, omni homini ad vitam, nulli ad exitium quicunque ejus particeps fuerit. The Sacrament of this thing— is prepared on the Lord's Table, and received from the Lords Table, to some to Life, and to others to destruction. But the thing itself of which it is a Sacrament, is for Life to every one that partakes of it, and to none for destruction. For as S. Chrysostom (i) Catena in Joh. 6.49. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. phrases it, He that receives this Bread, will be above dying? I will conclude this Chapter with two remarkable places of St. Austin. The first is cited by Prosper (k) Lib. Sentent. ex August. sententia (mihi) 341. vel 339. Escam vitae accipit & aeternitatis poculum bibit, qui in Christo manet & cujus Christus habitator est. Nam qui discordat à Christo, nec carnem ejus manducat, nec sanguinem bibit; etiamsi tantae rei Sacramentum ad judicium suae praesumptionis quotidiè indifferenter accipiat. who has gathered S. Austin's Sentences. He receives the food of life, and drinks the Cup of Eternity, who abides in Christ, and in whom Christ inhabits. For he that disagrees with Christ, neither eats his Flesh nor drinks his Blood; altho' he takes indifferently every day the Sacrament of so great a thing to the Condemnation of his presumption. The other place is, upon the sixth Chapter of S. John (l) Tract. 27. in Joan. in initio. Exposuit (Christus modum attributionis hujus & doni sui, quomodo daret carnem suam manducare, dicens, Qui manducat carnem meam, & bibit sanguinem meum, in me manet & ego in illo. Signum quia manducat & bibit, hoc est, si manet & manetur, si habitat & inhabitatur, si haeret ut non deseratur . Christ,..).. says he, expounded the manner of his assignment and gift, how he gave his Flesh to eat, saying, He that eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood, dwelleth in me and I in him. The sign that he eateth and drinketh is this, if he abides in Christ and Christ in him, if he dwells in him and is inhabited by him, if he cleaves to him so as not to be forsaken by him. And he concludes with this Exhortation (m) Ibid. propè finem. Hoc ergo totum ad hoc nobis valeat, dilectissimi, ut carnem Christi & sanguinem Christi non edamus tantum in Sacramento, quod & multi mali; sed usque ad Spiritus participationem manducemus & bibamus, ut in Domini corpore tanquam membra maneamus, ut ejus spiritu vegetemur, etc. . Let all that has been said, Beloved, prevail thus far with us, that we may not eat Christ's Flesh and Blood in Sacrament (or sign) only, but may eat and drink as far as to the participation of the Spirit, that we may remain as Members in our Lord's Body, that we may be enlivened by his spirit, etc. CHAP. XIV. The Fourteenth Difference. Several Usages and Practices of the Father's relating to the Eucharist, declare, That they did not believe Transubstantiation, or the Presence of Christ's Natural Body there; whose contrary practices or forbearance of them, in the Roman Church, are the Consequences of that belief. As also some things the present Roman Church practices, because they believe Transubstantiation, and the Corporal Presence, and dare not neglect to practise, so believing; which yet the Ancient Church did forbear the practice of, not knowing any obligation thereto; which plainly argues their different Sentiments about the Eucharist in those Points. IT is possible this Argument may have as good an effect to open men's Eyes, as any I have urged before, tho', I think, I have urged very cogent ones. For tho' some Men have a Faculty eternally to wrangle about the Words and Say of others, and to shift off an Argument of that kind, yet they cannot so easily get rid of an Objection from Matter of Fact, and a plain Practice. I shall therefore try, by several Instances of Usages and Forbearances, in the cases , whether we may not see as clearly as if we had a Window into their Breasts, that the Ancient Church, and the present Church of Rome, were of different Minds and Opinions in this Matter. 1. Instance. It was a part of the Discipline of the Ancient Church, to exclude the uninitiated, (Catechumen) the Energumeni, (acted by evil Spirits) and Penitents, from being present at the Mysteries, and to enjoin all that were present to communicate. It is so known a Case, that the Deacons in the Churches cried aloud to bid such depart, as I before named, when they went to the Prayers of the Mass, (which was so called from this dismission of Catechumen, Penitents, etc.) that I shall not stay to prove it. (See the Constitutions attributed to Clemens, l. 8. cap. 6, 7, 9, 12. and S. Chrysostom, Hom. 3. in Ep. ad Ephes.) By the same Laws of the Church, those that remained, after the exclusion of the rest, were all to communicate; whom the Author of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, under the name of Dionysius the Areopagite (n) Hurarch. Eccles. c. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. calls, Persons worthy to behold the Divine Mysteries, and to communicate. For this (because it is not so universally acknowledged as the former) I shall refer the Reader to the Second Canon of the Council of Antioch (o) Can. 2. Concil. Antioch.— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. , which says, That they which enter into the Church of God, and hear the Holy Scriptures, and do not communicate in Prayers with the People, or turn away from receiving the Eucharist through any disorderliness, are to be cast out of the Church, till they confess their Sin and repent, etc. Which is the same in sense with that Canon (p) Canon. Apostol. 9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. which is very ancient, (tho' not Apostolical, as it pretends) That all the Faithful that enter, and hear the Scriptures, and do not continue at Prayer, and also at the Holy Communion, are to be separated, as those that bring disorder into the Church. S. Chrysostom discharges a great deal of his Zeal as well as Eloquence, against those Persons that were present at the Eucharist, and did not communicate (q) Chrysost. Hom. 3. in Ep. ad Ephes. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.— In vain, he tells them, does the Priest stand at the Altar when none participates; in vain is the daily Sacrifice.— He minds them, that the Crier had said indeed, — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. That those that were in penitence (or penance) should departed— but thou, says he, art not of that number, but of those that may participate (i.e. — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— not being hindered by any Church-Censures as Penitents were) and regardest it not. — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉;— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. He says, That the King at the Marriage-Supper, did not ask, Why didst thou sit down? but why didst thou enter? And adds, That whosoever (being present) does not receive the Mysteries, stands there too boldly and impudently. The rest is well worthy the reading in that Homily. Gregory the Great also tells us, (r) Dialog. l. 2. cap. 23. Si quis non communicate, det locum. it was the custom in his Time, for a Deacon to cry aloud, If any do not Communicate, let him departed. There must be no Spectators, that is, unless they were Communicants. For as Justin Martyr (s) Apolog. 2. Of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. acquaints us, it was the usage of his Time, That the the Deacons reach to every one present of the consecrated Bread, and Wine, and Water, that they may communicate. If we now look upon the practice of the Roman Church, we shall find all quite contrary. There they may have as many Spectators as please to come, when there is but one alone that receives the Eucharist, I mean the Priest. Any one that knew nothing of the Matter, would conclude, when he saw their Masses, that they came thither about another Business ordinarily, than to eat and drink in remembrance of their Saviour; which was the only use that the Ancients understood of it. They considered it as a Sacrament, by Institution designed to represent Christ's Passion and Crucifixion; these consider the presence of his Glorified Body and his Divinity there, and are taken up with adoration more than any thing else. That they will not abate, every day you are present, when the Host is shown for that end: But as for the other, the receiving of the Eucharist, they are satisfied if it be done but once a Year. The Ancients looked upon it as an Invitation to a Table, where the Sacrament was to be their Meal; but here you are called to look upon the King present, and sitting in state; and chief to take care that, upon the Sign given, all may fall down together and worship him. S. Chrysostom (t) Loc. citat. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; calls it, a contumely against him that invites one to Feast, to be present and not to partake of it; and asks, Whether it had not been better for such a one to have been absent? But the Council of Trent was of another mind, and their Opinion is (u) Conc. Trid. Sess. 22. c. 6. Non propterea Missas illas in quibus solus sacerdos Sacramentaliter communicate, ut privatas & illicitas damnare, sed probare, atque adeo commendare. , That those Masses in which the Priest communicates sacramentally alone, are not to be condemned as private and unlawful, but to be approved and commended. And not content with this, they thunder out an Anathema (x) Ibid. Can. 8. Si quis dixerit Missas, in quibus solus sacerdos Sacramentaliter communicate, illicitas esse adeoque abrogandas, anathema sit. against those that say, (and let S. Chrysostom look to himself) that such Masses are unlawful and to be abrogated. At these Masses the Novices and Catechumen may be present, and no Deacon cries out to them to withdraw; for tho' indeed they may not eat, yet they may worship: And the Penitents that were excluded, while their Penance lasted, from so much as seeing the Sacrament in the Ancient Church; in this Church, the oftener they come for this purpose, the more welcome; and by direction, when public Penance has been enjoined, the Holy Altar has been the place chosen before which to perform it; as their Annals (y) Annal. Japon. ad An. 1579. tells us of one Sangunus, a noted Courtier in Japan, that for the expiation of a Crime, came and fell down at the Altar, in the Church of the Royal City, and there before the Holy Sacrament, clawed his Back with Scourges so long, as one of the Seven Penitential Psalms was recited. These Practices, tho' so contrary to one another, are yet natural enough, and well-suited to the Principles of each Church; but then, it is plain, their Principles and Opinions concerning the Sacrament, were widely different; and that such things were never practised of old, was not because Christians then wanted their Devotion, but their Faith. 2. Instance. A second practice of the Christian Church of old, was, giving the Communion in both kinds; the Cup, that is, as well as the Bread; tho' now, by a Law of the Roman Church, (in the Council of Constance and Trent) abolished. That the ancient Practice was to deliver it in both Kind's, has been often proved by Learned Men on our side, and particularly by an excellent late Discourse against the Bishop of Meaux (x) Discourse of the Communion in one kind, in Answer to the Bishop of Meaux 's Treatise. upon this Subject; and has been also acknowledged by the Learned Men of the Roman Communion, such as Cassander, Wicelius, Petavius, etc. Which makes it needless to insist further upon the proof of it. We are sure it continued thus even to the Age when Transubstantion was established by the Lateran Council, since we find a whole Army of Charles King of Sicily, (as the Historian (a) Apud Du Chisn. Tom. 5. Hist. Franc. p. 840. citante Dallaeo, de cultib. Latin. lib. 5. c. 12. Cum exercitus esset in procinctu, Decanum Meldensem, associatis sibi Monachis, corpus & sanguinem Christiregiis militibus dedisse. tells us) just before they went to the Fight against Manfred, Ann. 1265. (or 1266, as other Historians will have it) all received the Body and Blood of Christ. Aquinas agrees, That it was the ancient Custom of the Church, That all that communicated of the Body, communicated also of the Blood (b) In Joan. 6. Propter periculum effusionis. But for to prevent spilling the Blood, he says, in some Churches the practice is, that the Priest alone communicates in the Blood, and the rest in the Body of Christ. We see then about what time this grand Sacrilege, as P. Gelasius calls it (c) Speaking of some Persons that taking the Body, abstained from the Cup of the Holy Blood, says, Aut integra Sacramenta percipiant, aut ab integris arceantur, quia divisio unius ejusdemque mysterii sine grandi Sacrilegio non potest pervenire. Apud Gratian. decrit. 3. part. 2. dist. of dividing one and the same Mystery, made a more public entry into the Church; it was, when Transubstantiation had been newly made an Article of Faith; and it was very natural, that this practice should, within a while, by easy steps, be a Consequent of that. For Transubstantiation makes Christ's Flesh and Blood (the same which he took of the Virgin, and which he had when he was crucified) to be actually and corporally present in the Eucharist, and that in a glorified State, to which Divine Adoration is due; this is apt to beget a profound Veneration, and a mighty Concern, lest any thing contumelious should happen to that which Men justly account so very precious. Now it being certain, that the Blood which is under the Species of Wine, is subject to those Casualties, by reason of its fluidity, which the other Species is not so liable to; and that in the glorified State, the Body and Blood are inseparable; and therefore that one Species (viz. that of the Bread) contains under it both the Body and Blood together; what could be more agreeable to such Sentiments as these, than that Men should willingly part with their Right, in a Matter wherein they seem not to be much wronged (being only deprived of a few Accidents of Wine, when the Blood was secured to them) to secure the Honour of their Saviour. It is true indeed, that the Stream of the contrary Custom, made it difficult to remove that at once, notwithstanding this danger of effusion of the Blood, which they had been wont in all preceding Ages to receive; therefore the Wits of Men being set on work by a new Transubstantiating Doctrine, found out some new Devices, practised first in the Cells of the Monks; but afterwards, about the time of Berengarius, brought into the Churches to secure that dreadful Danger, and yet not deprive the People of communicating in the Blood of Christ. One was the Device of Intinction, or steeping the Bread in the Wine, and thus receiving both at once, which as Card. Cusanus informs us (d) Epist. 3. ad Bohem. Non parva altercatio in principio mutationis illius prioris— tamen universalis Ecclesia, quia ita tempori congruebat, populum cum intincto pane communicare permisit. tho' it went not down without great contention at the first change from the old Practice, yet the Universal Church, complying with the Times, permitted it. But it was not long it was thus suffered, for by a Decree of Pope Vrban 2. in the Council of Clermont, and by an enforcement of it by his Successor P. Paschal 2. (whose Epistle to Pontius Abbot of Clunie concerning this Matter, Baronius has given us (e) Baronius Append. ad Tem. 12. ad An. 1118. ) this practice was abrogated. A second Device also, about the same time, was brought into play, Of sucking the Consecrated Wine through little Pipes or Canes (called Pugillares) like Quills; concerning which Cassander (de communione sub utraque) gives us an account, and that some of them were to be seen in his Time. And indeed, this seems to be a sufficient security to the danger of Effusion, and also prevents that great Offence of any drops of Blood sticking to the Beards of People when they drank out of the Cup: and yet even this would not satisfy, nor any thing else be a sufficient Caution against the profanation of the Blood, but only debarring the People wholly of it. Yet this way is still used by the Pope himself, (and I think he has the sole privilege to do it) who in that which is called the Missa Papalis, when he himself celebrates and communicates, he sucks part of the Blood through a golden Quill * Cum pontifex Corpus Christi sumpserit, Episcopus Cardinalis porrigit ti calamum, quem Papa ponit in Calais in manibus Diaconi existente, & Sanguinis partem sugit. Sacrarum Cerimon. lib. 2. cap. de Missa Majori, Papa personaliter celebrante. . But neither does he always thus communicate, for their Book of Sacred Ceremonies acquaints us, ** Ibid. cap. Si Papa in nocte Nativitatis personaliter celebrat, Non sugit sangainem cum calamo, sed more communi. That when He celebrates personally on the Night of the Nativity of our Lord, that all things are observed, that are described in the Papal Mass, except that he communicates at the Altar alone, and not in his eminent and high Seat, and does not suck the Blood with a Quill, but takes it after the common manner. But now, after all, what account can we give of the Ancient Fathers? they apprehended it necessary to receive in both Kind's in all their Public Communions, and so they practised. Must we not then accuse them, either of great Dulness, or Indevotion? either that they wanted Sagacity, in not apprehending the imminent danger they in their way exposed the Blood of Christ to; or that they were guilty of a strange carelessness and indifferency, in not preventing it by any of those Methods which the Roman Church hath found out to do it? Truly, for my part, I am inclined to have as great, if not a greater opinion of them, in both respects, (especially for their Devotion) than I can have of the Roman Church; and I am the more persuaded hereto, because the Apostles themselves must come in to the side of the Ancient Church, their practice being the same: not to insist upon the Deference that ought to be paid to that Holy Spirit that we are sure acted them; who if there had been any such real danger of profanation, by receiving in both kinds, or ever was likely to be any such, would not have failed to have given directions to them how they should avoid it; and we cannot think the Apostles would not have set down those Directions to us in some of their Writings. But they have not done it; no not the Zealous St. Paul, who yet says so much to the careless Corinthians about this Argument, and tells them, that they came together, not for the better, but the worse; charges them with unworthy receiving, and being thereby guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord, (1 Cor. 11.) and that for this cause many were weak and sick among them, and were judged of the Lord for their profanations, etc. But this is none of the Charges against them, nor does he direct them to any of the wise Methods of the Roman Church for preventing this Danger; tho' he says, What he received of the Lord he delivered to them. There is nothing then remains, but that we assign the true Cause of this different Practice; which can be none other, but the Roman Churches innovating in their Faith about the Sacrament, and altering so their Opinions about the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist, that they require a different Conduct for their Devotion; so that neither the Practice of the Primitive Fathers, nor the Rules of the Apostles, will suit and agree with their Persuasions and Apprehensions. But now the Faith of the Ancient Church in this Matter was such, as neither requires nor can admit of any Alteration like what the Church of Rome has made in communicating the People only in one Kind. For, as I have before proved, they looked upon this Sacrament, not as an actual Exhibition and Presentation of the Natural and Glorified Body of our Saviour, which they believed to be absent and contained in the Heavens, but as a Representation of his Crucified Body, where his Blood was separated from his Body, and poured out of his Veins; and that not only the Elements, but the Sacramental Actions of breaking the Bread, and pouring out the Wine, and our eating and drinking were instituted to show forth this painful Death of our Lord, and the shedding of his most precious Blood for the Remission of Sins. By the presence of his glorified Body there, (as the Roman Church believes) this cannot be done, no breaking, nor no parts to be made of that, nor no separation of Blood, as out of the Body. But all can be done in the Representative Body of Christ, which is the Eucharist, all the Ends of the Institution can be there fully effected, and the Sacrifice on the Cross, in this Image of it, made present to our Faith, and to our Minds, and set livelily before us; and by the Effects of this upon our Hearts, while we partake of the Elements, through the powerful Grace of God's Holy Spirit, we may be prepared to receive all the Blessed Fruits and Benefits of his Passion. According to these Persuasions, it's plain, there can be no abatement of communicating in the Cup; because, without that, there is no representation of a Crucified Body; for the distinct partaking of the Blood, (not as supposed to be contained and received in the other Species) is that which alone shows (as I said before) the separation that was then made of his Body and Blood. 3. Instance. Another Practice of the Roman Church differing from the Ancient, is, The Elevation of the Eucharist, that all present may at once adore it. For thus the Missal (*) Ritus celebr. Missam cap. 8. Dicit, hoc est enim Corpus meum, Quibus prolatis, celebrans Hostiam tenens inter policies & indices— genuflexus eam adorat. Tunc se erigens, quantum commodè potest, elevat in altum Hostiam, & intentis in eam oculis (quod in Elevatione Calicis facit) populo reverenter ostendit adorandam. directs, That when the Priest comes to the words of Consecration, and has said, This is my Body; then holding the Host, (as he is directed) he knelt down and adores it. Then raising himself as high as he is able, he lifts up the Host on high, and fixing his Eyes upon it, (which he does also in the Elevation of the Cup) he shows the Host reverently to the People to be adored. This is the present Practice; which the Council of Trent (f) Sess. 13. c. 5. Nullus dubitandi locus relinquitur, quin omnes Christi fideles pro more in Ecclesia Catholica semper recepto, latriae cultum qui vero Deo debetur, huic sanctissimo Sacramento in veneratione adhibeant. endeavours to countenance, by telling us, That there is no doubt but that all Christians, according to the Custom always received in the Catholic Church, aught to give the Worship of Latria (which is supreme Worship) to the most Holy Sacrament in their worship of it. By which Sacrament (as their best Interpreters explain it) is meant, Totum visibile Sacramentum, all that is visible there, (together with Christ) and is one entire Object, consisting of Christ and the Species, and must be together adored. But whatsoever, besides Christ who is invisible, is visible there, call it what you please, is a Creature; and I am sure the Ancient Church never practised the adoration of any such; and it is strange impudence to talk of the Custom of the Catholic Church in this Matter. Neither can it be shown, by any good Testimonies of the Ancients, that this their Elevation, in order to Adoration, was ever used by them: No not so much as any Elevation for any purpose, is mentioned by those Fathers, who on set purpose have given an account of the Rites of communicating in the first Ages of the Church, neither by Justin Martyr, nor the Author of the Constitutions called Apostolical; nor Cyril of Jerusalem, nor the pretended Denis the Areopagite, or any other before the Sixth Century. A diligent Searcher of Antiquity, tells us (g) Dallaeus de relig. cult. object. l. 2. c. 5. , That he cannot find, among all the Interpreters of Ecclesiastical Offices in the Latin Church, the mention of any sort of Elevation before the Eleventh Century, (that is, the Age of Innovation in the Faith about the Eucharist). As for the Greeks of later date, in them we may meet indeed with an Elevation of the Eucharist, but for quite other purposes than Adoration. One of the Ends of their Elevation, is mentioned by Germanus Patriarch of Constantinople (h) In Tom. 2. Bibl. Pat. Gr. Lat.— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. , which was, to represent Christ lifted up upon the Cross, and his Death upon it, and the Resurrection itself. Another reason they give is, by the showing of this Food of the Saints, to invite and call them to partake of it. Which Nic. Cabasilas gives a full account of (i) In Expos. Liturg. apud Bibl. Pat. Gr. Lat. Tom. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. , saying, That after the Friest has been partaker of the sanctified Things, he turns to the People, and showing them the Holy Things, (i. e. the Bread and Wine) calls those that are willing to communicate. Or, as he still more fully explains it, The Life-giving Bread being received (by the Priest) and shown, he calls those that are likely to receive it worthily, saying, Holy Things are for the Holy * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. . Behold the Bread of Life which ye see. Run therefore you that are to partake of it; but it is not for all, but for him that is Holy, etc. It is certain then, that the Roman Practice (when for Adoration they elevate and show the Host) is an Innovation; and that it proceeded from the Novel Doctrines then set on foot in the church, is highly probable; not only because they commenced about the same time; but also because their practice suits so exactly with, and springs so freely from those Doctrines, it being so natural, when such a glorious Body as our Saviour's is believed to be made present where it was not before, to be wholly taken up with thoughts of Adoration and Worship above any thing else; as it is notoriously true in this Church, where the main End of the Eucharist, viz: communicating in the Body and Blood of Christ is strangely neglected; and they are more concerned, in carrying the Sacrament in Processions, in praying to it before their Altars, in preparing splendid Tabernacles where it may repose, decking and adorning the places of its Residence, and the like, than in engaging Men to receive it; which was the main thing the Ancient Church designed, that they might worthily partake of it; and when this was not designed, their way was wholly to conceal it. 4. Instance. Another Practice of the Roman Church, different from that of the Ancient Church, is, that now the Communicants Hands are unemployed in receiving the Eucharist; and all is put by the Priest into their mouths. Their Hands indeed may bear a part in their Adoration and showing some Signs of that, but otherwise they are useless. For now since Christ's Body is believed to lie hid under the Species of Bread and Wine, that is thought too sacred to be touched by the Hands of any, but the Priests. We may therefore conclude fairly, that if the Fathers had not this care to forbid this touching by the People's Hands, they had not this Faith of the Roman Church, that the Natural Body of Christ is in the Eucharist: since if this had been their Opinion, in all probability their practice would have been the same, Since that they had an equal concern for their Saviour's Honour, cannot well be doubted of. Now that they gave the Sacrament into the People's Hands, for the space of eight hundred Years or more, is clear by their Testimonies. Of which I'll mention only three or four out of an hundred that might be given. Clemens of Alexandria (k) Stromat. lib. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. says, That when the Priests have divided the Eucharist, they permit every one of the People to take a portion of it. Tertullian (l) Lib. de Idol. Cap. 7.— Eas manus admovere Corpori Domini, quae Daemoniis corpora conferunt. reproaches the Christian Statuaries, That they reached those hands to the Lord's Body, which had made Bodies for Devils. St. Ambrose (m) Apud Theodoret. Hist. Ecclesiast. Lib. 5. c. 19— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Story is a known one, how he repelled Theodosius from the Holy Table, after the slaughter he had made at Thessalonica, with these words; How wilt thou extend thy hands, yet dropping with the Blood of an unjust slaughter? How with those hands wilt thou receive the Lord's most Holy Body? He that will consult Cyril of Jerusalem's 5th Mystagogical Catechism, will find him there directing the Communicant how to order his Hands and Fingers in taking the Sacrament into them. Which a Roman Master of the Ceremonies would not have said a word about, being only concerned about the Mouth. That this manner of receiving was used in the 9th Century, appears by the Capitulary of Carolus Mag. (n) Capit. Car. M. Lib. 7. Placuit ut omnes qui Sacram acceperint Eucharistam, & non fumpserint, ut sacrilegi repellantur. who ordered, That all that received the Eucharist (acceperint, that is, into their Hands) and did not take it (sumpserint, that is, into their Mouths) should be kept back as sacrilegious Persons. If they had received it by their Mouths only, this distinction could not have been made. 5. Instance. Another Practice, very unagreeable with the belief of Transubstantiation, is this, That the Ancient Church was not afraid to administer the Eucharistical Wine in Glass Vessels and Cups: tho' now it would be a great Crime in the Church of Rome to do so. For that Ancient Practice, I might urge that of Tertullian (o) Lib. de pudicit. c. 7, & 10. Procedant ipsae picturae calicum vestrorum, si vel in illis perlucebit interpretatio pecudis illius, utrumne Christiano an Ethnico peccatori de restitutione conliniet. Cap. 10.— At ego ejus Pastoris. Scripturas haurio, qui non potest frangi. , who reflecting upon the Church's Indulgence to Sinners, mentions the Picture of the Shepherd carrying the Lost Sheep on his Back, drawn on the Chalices, which might be seen by all, being pellucid. To which he opposes, afterwards, the Scriptures of that Shepherd that could not be broken. As also that of St. Jerom (p) Epist. 4. ad Rusticum. Nihil illo ditius, qui Corpus Domini canistro vimineo, sanguinem portat in vitro. , where speaking of S. Exuperius, he says, Nothing is richer than he who carries the Lord's Body in a wicker Basket, and his Blood in a Glass. But it is needless to add more Testimonies, because the thing is confessed by Baronius (q) Notis ad Martyrol. Rom. in August. 7. A temporibus Apostolorum vitreus Calix in usu fuisse videtur. , in his Notes upon the Acts of S. Donatus, who confesses, That Glass Chalices seem to have been in use from the Times of the Apostles. And says a great deal more than I have mentioned, to confirm it. And that this Custom continued long in the Church, may be concluded from hence, That Baronius can find no earlier prohibition of it, than that of the Council of Rheims, which he says was held in the Days of Charles the Great. I have nothing to do with the Commendation he adds of this Prohibition, (being concerned only in the Matter of Fact) saying, That it was very laudable; but I do not think it was so merely for his Reason, [ob periculum quod immineret materiae fragili] because of the imminent danger in such brittle Matter. For if the Custom was as ancient as the Apostles, how came they to want that quick Sense the Roman Church now has to prevent that Danger? But we may be certain, that they, and the Church after them, that used such Glasses, had not the present Persuasions of this Church, about a hidden Deity, and the latent glorified Flesh and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist, else they would have had both the Discretion and Devotion to have provided him a better place of reception. Now they have done it in the Canon Law (r) Can. ut Calix. didst 1. de Consecrat. — De aere aut aurichalco non fiat Calix, quia ob vini virtutem aeruginem parit, quae vomitum provocat. Nullus autem de ligneo, aut vitreo calice praesumat missam cantare. , enjoining, that the Cup and Patent be, if not of Gold, at least of Silver, (allowing only Pewter in case of great Poverty) but in no wise the Cup must be of Brass or Copper, the virtue of the Wine causing a rust that procures Vomiting, (which yet one would think the Blood of Christ, where there is no Wine, should not cause) but over a Wooden or a Glass Cup, none may presume to say Mass. All is very agreeable to their several Persuasions. 6. Instance. To this let me add another Instance, more difficult still to be reconciled with the belief of Transubstantiation, viz. The mixing the Blood of Christ with Ink, for writing things of moment. So I call the consecrated Wine, according to the usual Language of the Fathers, giving it the name of Christ's Blood; but it's not possible to believe that they who thus used it, thought it to be so, any otherwise than by representation: since you can hardly think of a higher profanation, by any mixture, than this, of blending the true Blood of Christ with Ink, unless I except the case of mixing it with Poison, for the destruction of Persons; and thus P. Victor 2. and P. Victor 3. and Henry 7. Emperor, all died by receiving Poison in the Sacrament, as is attested by numerous and credible Historians. Taking it therefore for granted, that no Body will have the confidence to assert, that they who thus mixed it with Ink, did believe Transubstantiation, I shall now set down three remarkable Instances of a Pope, a General Council, and a King, that thus used it. The first is of Pope Theodorus, who as Theophanes (whose words Baronius (s) Ad an. D. 648. Sec. 14. has given us) relates, when Pyrrhus the Monothelite departed from Rome, and was come to Ravenna, and returned like a Dog to his Vomit; and when this was found out, P. Theodorus Calling a full Congregation of the Church, came to the Sepulchre of the Head of the Apostles, and ask for the Divine Cup, he dropped some of the Life-giving Blood into the Ink; and so, with his own hand, made the deposition of excommunicated Pyrrhus. Thus Theophanes. The next Instance, is, the doing of the same in the Condemnation and Deposition of Photius Patriarch of Constantinople, by the Fathers of the 4th Council of Constantinople (which the Romanists call the 8th General Council) which is thus related by Nicetas in the Life of Ignatius (t) Apud. Concil. Labbe. Tom. 8. pag. 1231. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. . The Bishops subscribed his Deposition, not with bare Ink, but, which may make one tremble (as I have heard it attested by those that knew it) dipping the Pen in the very Blood of our Saviour; thus they condemned and exauthorized Photius, and with him, all that had been ordained by him. All this was Anno. Dom. 869. The last Example is, of a Peace or Agreement struck up between Charles the Bald, and Bernard count of Barcelona, in in the same Age, related by Odo Aribert; (whose Fragment Baluzius has given us) (u) Notis ad Agobardum, p. 129. who tells us, That Agreement at Tholouse, was confirmed and signed between the King and the Count, Sanguine Eucharistico, with the Blood of the Eucharist. Tho' notwithstanding this Charles stabbed Bernard with his own hand. 7. Instance. The next Instance shall be, The different Practices of the Ancient Church and the Present Roman, with reference to the Reservation of the Eucharist, after the Communion was ended, and what they did with the Remains not received. Concerning which, for methods sake, I shall refer all to three remarkable differences. 1. Difference.] What was not received in the Eucharist by the Communicants, the Ancient Church took no care to reserve it; But the new Roman Church reserves all publicly that is unreceived, and puts little of it to any uses that are Sacramental. I will not say that there was no reservation of the Remains, after the Eucharist was over, of what had been consecrated, and not received, even before the Innovations took place, which were introduced by the Roman Church, because there may perhaps be some Instances given of communicating the Sick out of such Remains; and among the Greeks there was also communicating, ex praesanctificatis, of what had been consecrated before; but these, I say, were but later Customs of the 6th and 7th Centuries, and both before and after the contrary Custom did prevail; and where these Reservations were, they employed them to the ends of the Sacrament, for to be eaten and not to be adored. But as to the most Ancient Custom of the Church, it is truly given by the Author of the Commentary upon S. Paul's Epistles, among S. Jerom's Works (x) Tom. 9 Edit. Froben. in 1 Cor. 11. In Ecclesia convenientes suas separatim offerebant, & post communionem quaecunque eis de sacrificiis superfuissent, illic in Ecclesia communem coenam comedentes pariter consumebant. . Who on those words of S. Paul (1 Cor. 11.) This is not to eat the Lord's Supper, etc. says thus, Meeting in the Church, they separately made their Oblations, and after the Communion, whatsoever remained of the Sacrifices there in the Church, eating a common Supper, they consumed them together. But when these common Meals ceased, and this way of consumption with them; The Ancient Church had other ways to do it. Witness the Practice mentioned by Hesychius (y) Lib. 2. in Levit. cap. 8. Quod nunc videmus in Ecclesia sensibiliter fieri, ignique tradi quaecunque remanere contigerit inconsumpta. , who explaining that place of the Law, which required, That whatsoever of the Flesh and Bread remained, should be burnt with Fire; adds, which we see also now sensibly done in the Church; that whatsoever happens to remain (of the Eucharist) unconsumed, is burnt. Evagerius (z) Histor. Lib. 4. c. 36. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. mentions another different usage, but with the same effect, at Constantinople, where, he says, It was an old Custom, that when a great deal of the Holy Parts of the Immaculate Body of Christ our God remained, they sent for some Youths that went to School, of an unripe Age, who eat them up. Nicephorus Callistus says, That this continued so to his Time, and that he himself had been one of those Youths that eaten up those Particles (a) Lib. 17. Hist. c. 25. . Neither was this a Practice of the Eastern Church only, but also of the Western, as appears by a Canon of a Synod of Mascon (b) Concil. Matiscon. Can. 6. apud Tom. 5. Conc. Labb. p. 982. Quaecunque reliquiae Sacrificiorum, post peractam Missam in Sacrario supersederint, quarta & sexta feria innocentes, ab illo cujus interest, ad Ecclesiam adducantur & indicto eis jejunio easdem reliquias conspersas vino percipiant , An.. 505. Whatsoever Relics of the Sacrifices shall remain in the Repository after Mass is ended, on Wednesdays and Fridays the Officer shall bring little Children to Church, and appointing them to Fast, they shall receive the said Remains sprinkled with a little Wine. If Transubstantiation had been their Belief, these had been lewd Profanations of the Lord's Body. The Roman Church therefore having this Belief, have ordered Matters quite otherwise, all is reserved that remains; the Pretence I know is, that they may have the Sacrament always in readiness to communicate the Sick withal; but they have been often told, that this is altogether needless, when the Priests with their portable Altars, have leave, upon less Occasions, to celebrate Mass privately; and when so many hundred Masses in the great Churches are daily celebrated, how easily may the Sacrament immediately (without being reserved) be conveyed from one of their Altars to such sick Persons. But whatsoever is pretended, they intent other things more suitable to that Presence, which they suppose to be there included; stately Tabernacles they prepare upon the Altars for his repose, with lighted Torches burning Day and Night before it; they come thither, even out of the Times of the Assemblies to make their Prostrations; for so Card. Bellarmine (c) De cultu Sanct. l. 3. c. 4. S. Quinta ratio. Quia in Templis ordinariè praeter Dei praesentiam, quae est ubique, est etiam praesentia Mediatoris Christi corporaliter in Eucharista, quae certè auget spem & fiduciam orantis. , among the Encouragements to make private Prayers in Temples, gives this as one Reason, because ordinarily in them, besides the Presence of God which is every where, there is also the Presence of Christ our Mediator corporally in the Eucharist, which increases the Hope and Trust of him that prays. This is a new way of increasing Faith and Hope, which the Ancients were not acquainted with; they waited indeed at the Altar for that end, when the Eucharist was administered, and the evident representation and setting forth of Christ before their Eyes as crucified, was very proper to increase their Faith and Hope: And there in a Sacramental Sense, while they thus received, in the Phrase of Optatus (d) Lib. 6. adv. Donatist. Quid vos offenderat Christus, cujus illic per certa momenta corpus & sanguis habitabat? , the Body and Blood of Christ did inhabit for certain Moment's. But these certain Moment's will not do the Business of this Church, which requires a more constant and fixed Residence. They do not think their very Temples holy and venerable enough without it; for among the things that make a Temple so, and moreover endue it with a kind of a Divine Virtue, the forenamed Cardinal (e) Ibid. cap. 5. sec. Tertio probatur. reckons the presence of the Body of Christ in the Eucharist. So that it seems by their Opinions and Practice, the reserved parts of the Sacrament, are as necessary as those that are received. Especially if you remember that these reserved Parts are designed, not only to receive their Adorations, when they come to say their Prayers before it in the Churches, but also when it travels abroad, as it does upon many occasions, when none have occasion to receive it, nor think of saying their Prayers, being engaged in the Streets about their Secular Affairs; yet even there, when they happen to meet the Eucharist going in a solemn Procession, they must kneel and adore it. We know also that there is a peculiar Feast instituted (tho' of a late Date, An. 1264.) on Corpus-Christi Day, on which, with the greatest pomp and state imaginable, it is carried about the Streets and public Places to be seen and worshipped. Not to mention some extraordinary contingences, such as the breaking out of a great Fire suddenly, occasioning the drawing it out of its Retirement, to oppose against and stop its fury. Besides, the Pope himself has often need of the reserved Host, not to Take and eat (according to the Institution) but to take along with him when he, in his Pontificals, rides to any Church, or takes a Journey to a City, this always accompanies him; and the Book of Sacred Ceremonies, will give you an account of the Horse, and the colour of it, upon which it is set, with the Bell about his Neck, and the pompous Train, the Canopy carried over it, and lighted Torches before it, etc. Let me only add farther, That in that case which is pretended to be the great occasion for the reservation of the Eucharist, I mean, to be in readiness for sick Persons, yet even here the Procession, and the Pomp, and the Magnificence in the conveying it to such Places, and the Receiving the Adorations of all it meets, seems to be as much designed, as the communicating those sick Persons; which they will be contented as soon to let alone, as to abate those attending Ceremonies. The Ancient Church had very homely practices; they used and suffered, in cases of great necessity, things that this Church would account incongruous if not profane. Such as that which Dionysius of Alexandria (f) Apud Euseb. Hist. Eccles. l. 6. c. 44. relates concerning old Serapion, who when he lay dying, sent a young Grandchild of his to call one of the Presbyters of Alexandria to give him the Sacrament: Who by reason of Illness, not being able to go along with him, he made no more ado, but took a little portion of the Eucharist, and gave it into the Youth's Hand, and directed him to moisten it, and so to infuse it into his Mouth; which he did, and immediately upon the swallowing it, the old Man expired: I Question, whether the Gentlemen of the Roman Church will allow this to be a true Communion; but I believe, with their persuasions, they would not follow it for a World. We may more than guess so, by a remarkable Story Nic. Trigautius tells us of what was resolved upon by the skilful Jesuits, in a Case exactly like the former (g) Nic. Trigautii exped apud Sinas, l. 5. c. 7. p. 503. Neque domi loco convenienti celebrari poterat, neque pro majestate per vicos deferri: solabantur igitur illum socii necessaria peccatorum confessione perfunctum, posse sine viatico, quod legitime impeditus minimè susciperet, coelestem gloriam introire. , at Pekin in China; One Fabius who had been converted and baptised, being above Eighty Years old, fell sick to Death; and having been confessed of his Sins, with great earnestness, desired to receive the Sacrament for his Viaticum; but there being no convenient place at his House to celebrate it in, nor liberty to carry it through the Streets in Pomp and requisite State, they comforted him with the consideration of his having made confession of his Sins, which was necessary; and told him that he might, without taking the Sacrament, when he was lawfully hindered, go to Heaven; and so they left him. These admirable Casuists, you see, determine against communicating the dying Person, when it could not be performed with the majestic Ceremonies they desired. The Priest of Alexandria, and the Fathers in China, differ very widely in their Practice, and you may be sure their Persuasions in this matter were as different; the Man himself indeed, he tells us, found a way to get the Communion at last, by throwing himself into their House, but it was not till they had made a little Procession within doors; till the Tapestry was spread on the Floors, and the Tapers lighted, nothing could be done. In a word, to persuade People of the necessity of these Pomp's and Solemnities in conveying the Sacrament to the Sick, they produce several Miracles * See the School of the Eucharist, Title, Asses and Mares, etc. , how when the Priests have carried the Eucharist through Fields without attendance, Troops of Asses and Mares have run to supply this defect, and having first fallen down on their Knees to worship the Deity he carried, they have accompanied him to the Place, waited at the sick Man's Door till all was over, and then marched back again in good order with him; God showing, by these respects paid to it by Beasts, what he expected much more from Men. 2. Difference, relates to what was received in the Eucharist; wherein we also see a plain disagreement in the usages of the Primitive, and the present Roman Church. Which is this; The Ancient Church allowed great Liberty privately to reserve what had been publicly received in the Eucharist: Which would be now a great Crime in the Roman Church; so far from being allowed. It is undeniable, that anciently this was allowed, (whether they did well or ill in it is not at all the question, but concerning the Matter of Fact.) S. Basil (h) Epist. 289. thinks that the Custom took its rise from Times of Persecution, when Christians were forced to flee into Deserts, and live in solitude, having not the presence of a Priest to communicate-them, they had the Sacrament reserved by them, and communicated themselves. But he says (even when this Reason ceased) this became afterwards an inveterate Custom. And in Alexandria and Egypt, the Laics commonly had the Sacrament by them in their own Houses (i) Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. ; and, he says expressly, this which they so reserved 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, with all liberty (as his Phrase is) was a Particle received from the Priest's Hand in the Church. So Nazianzen (k) Orat. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. says of his Sister Gorgonia; Whatsoever of the Antitypes of the precious Body and Blood of Christ her Hand had treasured up, etc. Which very phrase intimates, that at several times she had reserved and made a collection of the Consecrated Elements. Tertullian supposes it a common practice in his time, when he says (l) Lib. 2. ad Vxor. Non sciet maritus quid secretò ante omnem cibum gusts, etc. , Thy Husband will not know what it is thou tastest secretly before all other Meat, etc. It is true indeed that in the Councils of Saragosa and Toledo in Spain, this was prohibited in the 4th Century, upon occasion of the Priscillianists, who did receive the communion as others did, and reserved it, and so could not be discovered, tho' they never took it; against whom Learned Men think those Councils made those Canons, which anathematised those that received, but did not take it down, but reserved it. However the foresaid Custom still prevailed in other Places, as might be shown, if it were needful, as far as the 11th Century. As for the present Church this is wholly a Stranger to them; they will have no Remains kept any where but upon the public Altars, where no Hand must touch them but the Priest's. The Council of Trent (m) Sess. 25. cap. 10. will not allow the Sanctimoniales, the very Nuns in their Quires, or in any places within their Cloister (intra chorum vel septa Monasterii) to keep it by them, but only in publica Ecclesia, notwithstanding any former Grants and Privileges. And a Great Man (n) Petavius de Poenit. l. 1. c. 7. Si quis nunc Laicus simile quid auderet, is apud nos censeretur gravi poena expiandi criminis reus, veluti sanctissimi Sacramenti profanus temerator. speaking of the former Usages, says, If any Layman now should dare to do so, he would be accounted guilty of a Crime to be expiated by a grievous punishment, as a profane Violator of the most Holy Sacrament. But if it be so great a Crime with them to reserve it when they have received it; What will they say to the next Difference I shall now mention? 3. Difference. That among the Ancients, what was so privately reserved, was put to such uses as the present Roman Church must abhor, because they are direct Affronts to the belief of Transubstantiation, and the corporal Presence. It appears by S. Cyprian, (libr. de Lapsis) that the very Women in his Time had liberty to take the Eucharist home with them, and dispose of it as they pleased; and the Woman he there speaks of, that locked it up in her Chest, had not the Roman Opinion of a Latent Deity, which such usage ill agrees with, or rather affronts. Neither had Cyril of Jerusalem (o) Catech. Mystag. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their. Persuasions, when he advises his Communicant, whilst his Lips were wet and dewy, with what he had drank in the Cup, with his Hands to touch his Eyes and Forehead, and the rest of the Organs of his Senses for their Sanctification. But what Gorgonia, Nazianzen's Sister, did with the Remains of the Antitypes of Christ's Body and Blood, exceeds it; when as he reports of her, to her commendation (p) Orat. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. , she mixed them with her Tears, and anointed her whole Body with it, for the recovery out of a grievous Disease. A like Story to which, S. Austin gives us (q) Lib. 3. secundi op. adv. Jul. Neque hoc permisisse religiosam matrem suam, sed id effecisse ex Eucharistiae cataplasmate. of the Mother of one Acatius, who was born with closed Eyes, which a Physician advised should be opened with an Instrument of Iron; but she refused, and cured him with a Cataplasm, or Plaster made of the Eucharist. In honour to our Saviour, we find a Woman anointing his Body; but to make his Body an Ointment for hers, or to make it into a Medicine, is but course usage of it, and such as none would adventure upon that was persuaded it was a deified Body. The old Custom which Eusebius mentions (r) Lib. 5. Hist. Eccles. c. 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. of fending the Sacrament from one Bishop to another, as a Token of Peace and Communion, seems to argue but little good Manners, (with the Church of Rome's Opinions concerning it); for tho' God sent his Son on a blessed Errand and Embassy, it look too saucy for us to send him on ours. What Indecencies would this Church justly fear the Body of Christ would be subject to, if there were that permission that was granted of old to carry the Eucharist along with them in their Voyages at Sea? Yet this P. Gregory the Great tells us was practised by Maximianus and his Commpanions retuining from Constantinople to Rome; and being in a Tempest in the Adriatic Sea (s) Dial. l. 3. c. 36.— Sibimet pacem dedisse, corpus & sanguinem Redemptoris accepisse; Deo se singulos commendantes. They Blood of their Redeemer, recommending every one himself to God. But that which S. Ambrose informs us (t) Orat. de obitu fratris. Priusquamperfectioribus esset initiatus mysteriis, in naufragio constitutus— ne vacuus mysterii exiret è vita, quos initiatos esse cognoverat, ab his Divinum illud fidelium sacramentum poposcit— ligari fecit in orario, & orarium involvit in collo, atque ita se dejecit in mare. of his Brother Satyrus, was still more bold; Who being Shipwrecked at Sea, and not yet having been baptised, lest he should die without the Mystery, he begged of some of those that were baptised, to let him have that Divine Sacrament of the Faithful, (the Custom then being to have it reserved about them) which they granting, he put it up in his Handkerchief which he then tied about his Neck, and so threw himself into the Sea. Whatsoever Conceits Satyrus might have when he borrowed it, yet those that bestowed it, could never think fit (with the foresaid belief) to deliver it into the Hands of one not yet a perfect Christian, nor to be tied about his Neck in a cloth that I suppose was no Corporal (as they call it) to be exposed to the dashing of Sea-waves, like a Bladder or a Cork to keep him from drowning. But there is a more irreconcilable Practice of the Ancients with the present Belief, with which I shall end this Particular about reservation of the Sacrament. It is the Custom of burying the reserved parts of it with their dead Bodies. The Author of the Life of S. Basil (u) Vita Basil. c. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. , tells us, That he kept a Particle of the Eucharist to be buried with him; and left it so to be by his last Will. St. Gregory (x) Dialog. l. 2. c. 24.— Quibus vir Dei manu sua protenus communionem Dominici corporis dedit, dicers, Ite atque hoc Dominicum corpus super pectus ejus ponite, & sic sepulturae eum tradite. Quod dum factum fuisser, susceptum corpus ejus terra tenuit, nec ultra projecit. tells a strange Story of Youth that was a Monk, who going out of S. Benet's Monastery without his Benediction, suddenly was found dead; and being buried, the next day was forced out of his Grave, and a second Time was found so after Burial: Whereupon, says he, they ran weeping to S. Benet, praying him to bestow his Blessing upon him. To whom that Man of God gave the Communion of the Lord's Body, saying, Go and lay this Body of our Lord upon his Breast, and so bury him. They did so, and then he kept in his Grave, and the Earth threw him out no more. I know that there are several Canons of Councils, made against this Practice, (as the 20th Canon of the Council of Carthage, and the 83 Canon of the 6th General Council at Constantinople in Trullo); upon which last Canon, Zonaras observes, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. That it was an ancient Custom to deliver the Lord's Body to Dead Bodies. But then methinks it's very observable, that the reason why the Fathers prohibit it, is not such a one as would be given in the Roman Church, from the horrible Profanation and contumely in thus using the Lord's Body (as it would be if it were truly and properly there, and no Bread remaining): But their Reason is from hence, Because it is written, Take and eat; But dead Carcases can neither take nor eat. But notwithstanding all these Prohibitions, the old Custom continued afterwards; for those that writ the Lives of Saints, and tell us of the translating of their Bodies from one place to another, inform us that they have found pieces of the Eucharist uncorrupted lying in their Grave: As Surius (y) Surius vit. Othmar. ad Nev. 16. Eas venerabiliter assumens sacro corpori apposuit. tells us in the Life of Othmarus, That when he came to be translated some Years after he was buried, they found under his Head, and about his Breast, little pieces of Bread, which were with much reverence laid by his Body again. The like does Amalarius (z) Di div. Offic. l. 4. c. 41. Oblata super pectus Sanctum posita, vestimento Sacerdotali indutum, etc. report, (citing Bede for it) that the same was practised when S. Cutberd was buried, his Head bound with a Napkin, the Eucharist laid upon his Holy Breast, with his Sacerdotal Habit upon him, etc. It is little less than a Demonstration, that they that thus treated the Sacrament, did not believe it contained a hidden Deity under the species of Bread and Wine; for sure they would not then have thus used the Lord of Life and Glory, to imprison him, as it were, and suffer him to lie buried with the putrid Carcases of the Dead. 8. Instance. The last Instance of differing Practices in the two Churches, shall be, In their over-sollicitousness to prevent any Accidents that might happen in the Administration of the Eucharist; their Frights when any such thing does happen, and the Expiations required for negligence to purge such Crimes; such as we have no footsteps of in any of those cases, in the Ancient Church. As to the first of those Cases, I have somewhat prevented myself, in what I before have shown, of their Devices of Intinction, sucking the Sacrament through Pipes; and, which is worst of all (out of this abundant caution) denying the People the Cup. Here therefore I shall mention other Cautions, such as those which tend to prevent any Fragments falling off from the Bread of the Eucharist, that no Crumbs may have any dishonour done to them, by being left unregarded, but either may be received or reserved. To this end, they have altered the Ancient Custom of providing common Bread, such as is of ordinary use, for the Sacrament, and required that it be unleavened, because this is less apt to break into Crumbs, and cleaves better together in its Parts. And tho' they do not say that there is no Sacrament where leavened Bread is used, yet the Missal (a) De defectibus, c. 3. n. 3. Conficiens graviter peccat. affirms, That he that consecrates in this, does grievously Sin; and herein they have raised (since the days that Transubstantiation was forming into a Doctrine of Faith) and maintained a great Controversy with the Greek Church, which does not use their Azyms, no more than the Anclent Church did. They have also invented, about the same Time, and still use, those little round Wafers (as they are commonly called) which is that which they consecrate for the Bread of the Sacrament, and take care hereby to prevent breaking into Crumbs; for they never break them for distribution, but put them whole into the Communicants Mouths; whereas the Ancient Practice was, to provide one whole Loaf of Substantial Bread, and to divide this into parts, and break it for to be distributed among them all. But these Hostiolae, little Hosts, are brought to such a tenuity, that they are the next door to what they call species, having scarce any substance, and deserve not properly the name of Bread, as a learned Man (b) Vossius in Thes. Theol. Disp. 19 de S. Coenae Syusb. has shown. The very Missal (Loc. citat. n. 7.) supposes, that they may easily disappear, and that a Wind may carry them away, for that is one of the cases it mentions, (aut vento, aut miraculo, vel ab aliquo animali accepta.) It is easy to show, that all this caution to prevent falling Crumbs, is perfect nonsense, according to their principles, since the True Body of Christ cannot be broken or crumbled into Bits, which is the only substance remaining; the rest, which they call Species, being Mathematical Lines and Colours only, and no matter under them; a whole World of them can never make up a Crumb of Bread, or any Fragment. And yet these are they about which such superabundant Caution is used; which are mentioned in the Missal. To name a few. When the Priest that celebrates does communicate himself, it is then only that he breaks the Host into three parts, one of which he puts into the Cup; and after he has taken the other two which are upon the Patin, he is directed (c) Missal. Ron. ritus celtor. Missam, c. 10. Sect. 4. to take the Patin, to view the Corporal, (or Cloth spread under it) to gather up the Fragments with the Patin, if there be any on it, and with his Thumb and Forefinger of his right Hand, to wipe the Patin carefully over the Chalice, and also his Fingers, lest any Fragments remain on them. Then for the Hosts that are reserved to another time, after the Priest has taken them off from the Corporal, and put them into the Vessel appointed for them, he is directed to mind carefully (d) Ibid. Sect. 15. , lest any Fragment, the lest imaginable, remain upon the Corporal; and if there be any, carefully to put them into the Chalice. When he has taken the Cup, with the 3d Particle of the Host put into it (e) Ibid. Sect. 5. , he must purify himself, drinking some wine poured into the Cup by the Minister that attends; then with Wine and Water must wash his Thumbs and Fore-fingers over the Cup, and must wipe them with the Burificatory; then he must drink off the Oblation (wherein he washed) and wipe his Mouth and the Chalice with the Purificatory. Suchlike also are the Cautions given when the People have communicated * Ibid. Sect. 6. . If the Hosts were laid upon the Corporal, the Priest wipes it (or sweeps it) with the Patin; and if there were any Fragments on it, he puts them into the Chalice. The Minister also holding in his right Hand a Vessel with Wine and Water in it, and in his left a little Napkin (Mappulam), does reach the Purification (to wash their Mouths) to them, a little after the Priest, and the little Napkin to wipe their Mouths. The Communicants also are directed (f) See the Rom. Ritual, de S. Eucharist. , after receiving, not presently to go out of the Church, or talk, or look about carelessly; nor to spit, nor read aloud Prayers out of a Book, left the Species of the Sacrament should fall out of their Mouths. All this is preventing Care: But now when Accidents do happen, they seem, by their ordering Matters, to be in a frightful Concern; and strange things are to be done, if possible, to make an honourable amends. In the last Chapter I have given the Reader some Instances of those strange Things, and will here only add two Cases which the Roman Missal provides for. The first is, If a Consecrated Host, or any part of it, should fall to the Ground, the direction is (g) Missal. Ram. de defect. Misae, c. 10. Sect. 15. , That it be reverently taken up, and the place where it fell must be cleansed, and a little scraped away, and such dust or scrape must be put in the Holy Repository. If it fell without the Corporal upon the Napkin (Mappam) or any ways upon any Linen Cloth, such Napkin, or Linen, must be carefully washed, and that Water poured out into the Holy Repository. The second Case is, When by negligence (h) Ibid. c. 10. Sect. 12. any thing of the Blood is Spilt. If it fell upon the Earth, or upon a Board, it must be licked up with the Tongue, and the place scraped sufficiently, and such scraping be burnt, and the Ashes laid up in the Repository. But if it fell upon the Altar-stone, the Priest must sup up the Drop, and the place be well washed, and that water cast into the Repository. If it fell upon the Altar-clothes, and the Drop sunk as far as the second or third Cloth, those must be thrice washed where the Drop fell, putting the Cup underneath to receive the Water, and that Water thrown into the foresaid place. And so it directs to such washing when it falls upon the Corporal alone, or the Priest's Garments, etc. I cannot but here annex also the Constitution which the Reader may find in the Appendix to the History of the Church of Peterburgh, Pag. 344. (being the first of two there set down) directing what is to be done, when any negligence happens about the Lord's Body and Blood, and how to expiate the Crime. When there is so great negligence about the Lord's Body and Blood, that it happens to fall downward, or into any place where it cannot be fully perceived, whether it fell, and whether any of it came to the Ground; Let the Matter be discovered as soon as may be to the Abbot or Prior, who taking some of the Friars with him, let him come to the place where this has happened; And if the Body shall have fallen, or the Blood have been spilt upon Stone, or Earth, or Wood, or Mat, or Tapestry, or such like, let the dust of the Earth be gathered, part of that Stone be scraped, part of that Wood, Mat, Tapestry, or the like, be cut away and cast into the Holy Repository. But if the place where it is thought chief to have fallen, let there be the like gathering, Scraping, cutting away, and casting into the Holy Repository. Then they by whose negligence this has happened in the next Chapter shall humbly declare their Fault, and on their naked Bodies receive Judgement (judicium nudi suscipiant) and Penance be enjoined them, either of Fasting, or Whipping, or Rehearsing so many Psalms, or such like. Which Persons going back to their places, from their Punishment (de judicio) all the priests then present shall rise up, and with all devotion offer themselves to receive Punishment. Then he that holds the Chapter, shall detain seven of them, which he pleases to choose, to receive the Judgement (of whipping) and command the rest to go away. The Chapter being ended, all prostrating themselves together, shall say seven Penitential Psalms in the Monastery, beginning to sing them as they go out from the Chapter. Then shall follow after the Psalms, the Pater Noster, with these Chapters and Collects. Let thy Mercy, O Lord, be upon us. Remember not our Iniquities. The Lord be with you. Let us pray. Hear, O Lord, our Prayers, and Spare the Sins of those that confess themselves to thee; that they whose guilty Consciences do accuse them, thy merciful Pardon may absolve them. Or that other Collect. O God, whose property is always to have Mercy; or such other collect for Sirs. But if the Blood fell upon the Corporal, or upon any clean Cloth, and it be certain whether it fell, let that part of the Cloth be washed in some Chalice, and the first Water it was washed in be drunk off by the Friars; the other two washings be cast into the Repository. The said Fault must be discovered in the first Chapter, but they alone, by whose negligence this has happened, shall receive the foresaid Discipline, but all the Friars shall say over in the Monastery all the seven Psalms, with the Chapters and Collects, as was said before. If that day, the short one for the Dead shall be read in the Chapter, let them first sing my words going into the Church: After that the seven Psalms, as aforesaid. But if in any other manner a lighter negligence shall happen relating to this Sacrament, the Friar, by whose Fault it happened, shall be punished with a lighter Revenge at the discretion of the Abbot or Prior. Thus I have given a sufficient Specimen of the strange Caution and Fears the Roman Church are under, lest any thing should happen, even to the very lest Particle or Drop of the Sacrament, that is dishonourable: And indeed, their Caution is very agreeable to their Persuasions, as I have before often hinted. But now if we turn our Eyes upon the Ancient Church, tho' we cannot question, either their Devotion or reverend Behaviour in all Acts of Religious Worship, and particularly in this great One; yet there is not to be found any such scrupulosities about minute things; nor such frightful apprehensions in the case of unforeseen Accidents, nor such Expiations as we have before heard of. They did not forbear to use the Common Bread (as I said before) tho' it might be more liable to crumble; they took their Share from one Common Loaf; they received the Wine without intinction, or sucking it through Pipes, etc. Which are all later Inventions, since the Faith was innovated concerning the Eucharist. But because this is only a Negative Argument, I will therefore add a Positive one, to demonstrate that the Ancients were far from these Scrupulosities; and also that they came into the Church with Transubstantiation, and not before; viz. The Practice of Communicating Infants. It is not my Business here to prove, that this was the common Usage in the Church, from the Times of S. Cyprian at least, even to later Ages, which has been done effectually by others (i) See Mr. Chillingworth 's Additional Treatises, in 4 to. , and is acknowledged by our Adversaries. Maldonate (k) Comm. in Joan. 6.53. the Jesuit owns, that it continued in the Church for six hundred Years. And Card. Perron (l) De loc. August. c. 10. grants, That the Primitive Church gave the Eucharist to Infants as soon as they were baptised: And that Charles the Great, and Lewis the Pious, both testify that this Custom remained in the West in their Age, that is, in the 9th Century in which they lived. But it went down lower, even to two Ages after Charles the Great. For that Epistle of P. Paschal 2. (which I mentioned in another Chapter) given us by Baronius, at the end of his last Tome, (Ad Ann. 1118. when that Pope died) wherein he forbids Intinction of the Bread in the Wine, and requires that the Bread and Wine should be taken separately; giveth us also this exception, (praeter in parvulis ac omnino infirmis qui panem absorbere non possunt) that it may be allowed to little Children, and those extremely weak, that cannot get down the Bread: Which had been a needless provision for them, if Infants had not then received the Sacrament. This being then a certain and confessed thing, that Infants received the Eucharist, I refer it to the Conscience of any Romanist, whether he can think the Ancients had any of their aforesaid Fears, and nice Scrupulosities, about the Accidents that might happen to the consecrated Elements, which in that Practice could not be prevented; it being impossible, where sucking Children receive either Bread or Wine, to hinder the happening of something which the Church of Rome will call highly dishonourable to the Sacrament. For to instance in a Case which S. Cyprian (m) Lib. de Lapsis. mentions, of a Christian little Girl, that by her Nurse's Wickedness had received polluted Bread in an Idol's Temple, and afterwards was brought by the Mother, knowing nothing, into the Church to receive the Communion. He relates how the Child, when its turn came to receive the Cup, turned away its Face, shut its Lips, and refused the Cup. But the Deacon (n) Ibid. Perstitit Diaconus, & reluctanti licet de Sacramento Calicis insudit. Tunc sequitur singultus & vomitus; in Corpore atque ore violato Eucharistia permanere non potuit. persisted, and though it strove against it, did infuse into it of the Sacrament of the Cup. Then followed sighing and vomiting; the Eucharist could not remain in a Body and Mouth that had been profaned. How would a Romanist start at the thoughts of pouring the Sacrament, as this Deacon did (who sure was a Zuinglian) into the Mouth of a struggling Child? But here is no mention of any concern about that, or what happened upon it; from whence it is natural to conclude, that the Ancients in this common Case having none of this Church's Scruples and Fears, that they had none of their Faith; for they must have had more Caution, if they had had their Opinion about the Eucharist. It is also very observable, to confirm what I have said, that though we can trace the Custom of Communicating Infants, as far as to the Age when the Transubstantiating Doctrine was set on foot, and ready to be form into an Article of Faith; yet here we are at a full stop, and can go no further, for this begat such Scruples and Fears, that made this quickly give place and vanish, which had so many Hazards attending it, and we hear no more of it since that in the Latin Church; but other great Churches, that have not made This an Article of their Faith, still retain the old Custom (though they err therein) of Communicating Infants. As the Greek Churches, the Muscovites, Armenians, Habassins, Jacobites, etc. concerning which see Dallée de Cultib. Latin. l. 5. c. 4. Thomas à Jesu de Convers. gentium, l. 7. c. 5. & c. 18. Ludolfi Histor. Aethiop. l. 3. c. 6. Sect. 37, 38. Histor. Jacobitarum, Oxon. cap. 9 See also Father Simons Critical History of Religions, concerning the Georgians, cap. 5. p. 67, 71. Nestorians, p. 101. Cophties, p. 114. Armenians, c. 12. p. 128. CHAP. XV. The Fifteenth Difference. The Old Prayers in the Canon of the Mass concerning the Sacrament, agree not with the present Faith of the Roman Church: And their New Prayers to the Sacrament have no countenance from the Ancient Church. IT is to no purpose to inquire, who was the Author of the Canon of the Mass, when Wallafridus Strabo (o) De reb. Ecclesiast. cap. 22. Quis primus ordinaverit nobis ignotum est. Auctum tamen fuisse, non semel sed saepius ex partibus additis intelligimus. (who lived in the middle of the 9th Century) tells us, It was a thing to him unknown. Seeing also he adds, That it had been enlarged, not only once but often; it is as vain to ask after its Age. The same also the Abbot Berno (p) Berno Ab. Augiens. de rebus ad Missam spectant. c. 1. Attamen ipsum Canonem non unus solus composuit totum, sed per tempora aliud alius interposuit vel adjecit. says, It was not one Man that composed the Canon all of it, but at several times another interposed and added another thing. And as they added, so also I doubt not but they altered many things, as we may guests by that remarkable Difference, betwixt what the Author of the Book of Sacraments, under the name of S. Ambrose (q) Lib. 4. de Sacram. cap. 5. Fac nobis hanc Oblationem adscriptam, rationabilem, acceptabilem, Quod est Figura corporis & sanguinis Domini nostri Jesu Christi. Quam Oblationem tu Deus in omnibus quaefumus benedictam, adscriptam, etc. facere digneris, nobis corpus & sanguis fiat dilectissimi tui Filii D. N. J. Christi. , citys as the Prayer in his Time, and what we now find in it. (speaking of the Oblation) it was, then, Make this Oblation to us allowable, rational, acceptable, Which is the Figure of the Body and Blood of Christ our Lord: Which now is turned into this Prayer, That the Oblation may be made to us the Body and Blood of thy dear Son our Lord. But yet to take the Canon as now it is, we shall find the Prayers of it, not capable of being reconciled with the present Faith of the Roman Church, and with Transubstantiation. To give some Instances. Thus they pray in the Canon, immediately after the words of Consecration. Can. M●ss. Unde & memores, Domine, nos servi tui, sed & plebs tua sancta ejusdem Christi Filii tui D.N. tam beatae passionis, necnon & ab inferis resurrectionis, sed & in coelos gloriosae ascensionis; Osserimus praclarae majestati tuae de tuis donis ac datis, Hostiam param, hostiam immaculatam, Panem sanctum vitae aeternae, & Calicem salutis perpetuae. Supra quae propitio ac sereno vultu respicere digneris: & accepta habere, sicuti accepta habere dignatus e● munera pueri tui justi Abel, & sacrificium Patriarchae nostri Abrahae, & quod tibi obtulit summus Sacerdos tuus Melchisedeck, sanctum Sacrificium, immaculatam Hostiam. Supplices te rogamus, omnipotens Deus, jube haec perferri per manus sancti Angeli tui in sublime Altar tuum, in conspectu Majestatis tuae, ut quotquot ex hac altaris participatione Sacrosanctum Filii tui corpus & sanguinem sumpserimus, omni benedictione coelesti & gratia repleamur. Per eundem J. Christum D. N. Nobis quoque peccatoribus— partem aliquam & societatem donare digneris cum tuis sanctis Apostolis— intra quorum nos consortium, non estimator meriti sed veniae, quaesumus, largitor adinitte. Per Christum D. N. Per quem haec omnia, Domine, semper bona creas, sanctificas, vivificas, benedicis & prastas nobis. Wherefore we, O Lord, thy Servants, and yet thy Holy People, being mindful, as well of the Blessed Passion, as also of the Resurrection from the Dead, and of the glorious Ascension into Heaven, of the same thy Son our Lord Jesus Christ; do offer to thy most excellent Majesty, out of thy own Donations and Gifts, a pure Sacrifice, an Immaculate Sacrifice, the Holy Bread of Eternal Life, and the Cup of Everlasting Salvation. Upon which (Gifts) vouchsafe to look, with a propitious and serene Aspect: and to accept them, as thou didst vouchsafe to accept the Gifts of thy Child, the Righteous Abel, and the Sacrifice of our Patriarch Abraham; and the Holy Sacrifice, the immaculate Hostie, which thy High Priest Melchisedeck did offer to thee. Almighty God, we humbly beseech thee, command these things to be carried by the Hands of thy Holy Angel to thy High Altar, before thy Majesty, that as many of us, as by this partaking of the Altar, have received the most holy Body and Blood of thy Son, may be filled with all Heavenly Benediction and Grace, by the same Jesus Christ our Lord. Vouchsafe also to bestow on us Sinners— some part and society with thy Holy Apostles, etc.— into whose society we entreat thee to admit us, not weighing our Merit, but bestowing Pardon on us. Through Christ our Lord. By whom, O Lord, thou dost always create, sanctify, quicken, bless, and bestow on us all these good things. Immediately after all have communicated, this follows. What we have taken with our Mouth, Quod ore sumpsimus, Domine, pura ment capiamus: & de munere temporali fiat nobis remedium sempiternum. O Lord, may we receive with a pure Heart: and of a temporal Gift, may it be made to us an Eternal Remedy. While the Priest is washing his Thumbs and Fore-fingers over the Cup, with Wine and Water, and wiping of them, he is bid to say; Corpus tuum, Domine, quod sumpsi, & sanguis quem potavi, adhereat visceribus meis: & praesta ut in me non remaneat scelerum macula, quem pura & sancta refecerunt Sacramenta. Qui vivis, etc. Let thy Body, O Lord, which I have taken, and thy Blood which I have drunk, cleave to my Entrails, and grant that the stain of my Crimes may not remain in me, whom pure and Holy Sacraments have refreshed. Who livest, etc. All these Prayers I have cited, the Reader must remember are after Consecration; upon which immediately, according to the present Faith of the Roman Church, the Substance of Bread and Wine is destroyed, and nothing but the Species and Shadows of them remain; and now Christ, instead of them, becomes present there in his Body, and Soul, and Divinity. This is their Faith. But it is impossible to reconcile this to those foregoing Prayers. For at the beginning of the Canon, they pray, * Supplices rogamus ac petimus uti accepta habeas & benedicas, haec dona, haec munera, haec sancta sacrificia illibata. That God would accept and bless these Donations and Gifts, these holy undefiled Sacrifices; that is, the Oblations of Bread and Wine, which are no more than so, till the words of Consecration. After this (as you heard) they pray, That this Oblation may be made to us, the Body and Blood of thy dear Son Jesus Christ. Which do not imply a change of Substances; for those words (fiat nobis) be made to us, may very well consist with the Oblations remaining in Substance what they were before, only beging the Communication of the Virtue and Efficacy of Christ's Passion to themselves. And that this is the sense of the Canon, appears by those words after Consecration, when they say, We offer to thy Majesty a pure Sacrifice of thy Donations and Gifts. Which words plainly suppose, that they are in Nature what they were, God's Creatures still, not the appearance and shadow of them only. But they call them now the Bread of Eternal Life, and the Cup of Salvation; because, after they are blessed and made Sacraments, they are not now to be looked upon as bodily Food, but as the Food of our Souls, as representing that Body of Christ, and his Passion, which is the Bread of Eternal Life. If they had understood nothing to remain now after consecration, but Christ's Natural Body, they would not have called this thy Gifts in the Plural Number, but expressed it in the Singular, thy Gift. Neither can they refer to the remaining Accidents, because they are no real Things, and rather tell us what God has taken away, (the whole Substance of them) than what he has given. But than what follows, puts it out of all doubt * Supra quae propitio ac sereno vultu respicere digneris. ; Upon which (still in the Plural) look propitiously. If it had been, Look upon us propitiously for the sake of Christ, it had been well enough. Or, to desire of God to look upon these things propitiously which they offer; if they mean (as he that made the Prayer did) that God would accept this Oblation of Bread and Wine, as he did of Abel and Melchisedeck, (which latter was indeed Bread and Wine) this had been very proper. But to make that which we offer to be Christ himself, (as they that believe Transubstantiation must expound it) and to desire God to look propitiously and benignly upon him, when there can be no fear that he should ever be unacceptable to his Father, nor none can be so foolish as to think that Christ stands in need of our recommendation to God for acceptance, this sense can never be agreeable to the Prayer. Therefore the most Ancient of all the spurious Liturgies, I mean, that attributed to Clemens in his Constitutions (r) Lib. 8. c. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. , has given us the true sense of it; We offer to thee this Bread and this Cup— and we beseech thee to look favourably upon these Gifts set before thee, O God, who standest in need of nothing; and be well pleased with them for the honour of thy Christ, etc. Would it not run finely, to pray that God would be well pleased with Christ, for the honour of his Christ? But besides the Petition, that God would look propitiously upon them, it follows in the Canon, That God would accept them, as he did the Gifts of Abel, and Abraham, and Melchisedeck. How unagreeable is this (if Christ himself be understood here) to make the Comparison for acceptance, betwixt a Lamb and a Calf, or Bread and Wine, and Christ the Son of God, with whom he was always highly pleased. But than what follows still entangles Matters more in the Church of Rome's Sense. The Prayer, That God would command these things to be carried by the hands of his Holy Angel to the High Altar above. For how can the Body of Christ be carried by Angels to Heaven, which never left it since his Ascension, but is always there? Besides the High Altar above, in the Sense of the Ancients, is Christ himself. And Remigius of Auxerre tells us (s) De celebrat. Missae in Bibl. Pat. 2dae Edit. Tom. 6. p. 1164. In Coelo rapitur ministerio Angelorum consociandum corpori Christi. , That S. Gregory's Opinion of the Sacrament was, That it was snatched into Heaven by Angels, to be joined to the Body of Christ there. But then in the sense of Transubstantiation, what absurd stuff is here to pray, that Christ's Body may be joined to his own Body? So that there can be no sense in the Prayer, but ours, to understand it of the Elements offered devoutly, first at this Altar below, which by being blessed become Christ's Representative Body, and obtain acceptance above through his Intercession there And thus it is fully explained, by the Author of the Constitutions (t) Lib. 8. c. 13. in initio. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. ; Let us entreat God, through his Christ, for the Gift offered to the Lord God, that the good God, by the mediation of his Christ, would receive it to his Celestial Altar, for a sweet smelling Savour. To put the Matter further out of all doubt, it is observable, that the Liturgies that go under the name of S. James, and S. Mark, do both of them mention the acceptance of the Gifts of Abel and Abraham, and the admitting them to the Celestial Altar, before the reciting the words of the Institution, or Consecration, (as the Roman Church calls them, by which they say the Change is made). That the Liturgy of S. Chrysostom prays, That God would receive the Oblations proposed to his Supercelestial Altar, almost in the same words, both before and after Consecration; and that he looked upon them to be the same in substance that they were before, plainly appears by an expression after all, where he prays (u) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. , That the Lord would make an equal division of the proposed Gifts to every one for good, according to every Man's particular need. Which cannot be understood of Christ's proper Body, (but of the consecrated Bread and Wine) which cannot admit of shares or Portions, equal or unequal. Lastly, That S. Basil's Liturgy also, before the Consecration, prays, That the Oblations may be carried unto the supercelestial Altar, and be accepted as the Gifts of Abel, Noah, Abraham, etc. And to show that even after the words of Institution, he did not believe them to be other things than they were before, he still calls them the Antitypes (x) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. of the Body and Blood of Christ; and prays, That the Spirit may come upon us and upon the Gifts proposed, to bless and sanctify them, and to make this Bread the venerable Body of our Lord God and Saviour Jesus Christ, and this Cup his Blood, the Spirit working the change. And afterwards the Priest prays (y) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. , That by reason of his Sins, he would not divert the Grace of his Holy Spirit from the proposed Gifts. A needless fear, if the Gifts were already Christ's Body, that the Spirit should be hindered from coming upon that, where all the Fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily, by any Man's Sins. The next Passage of the Canon increases still the difficulty to them that believe Transubstantiation. When it says, Through Jesus Christ our Lord, by whom, O Lord, thou dost always create, sanctify, quicken, bless and bestow all these good things on us. If there be no good thing remaining in the Eucharist besides Christ, when these words are said, What Sense or Truth is there in them? Can Christ, or his Body that already exists, be created anew, and be always created? Can that be always sanctified, that was never common? Or, is he to be raised and quickened anew daily, that once being so raised, can die no more? etc. But that which makes the Absurdity of this Interpretation the greater, is, that they say that all this is done to Christ by Christ himself; as if God by Christ did create Christ; and by Christ, did bless, and quicken, and sanctify Christ; which none but he that is forsaken of common Sense can affirm. The old Interpreters of the Canon made other work of it, and supposed that the Creatures offered to God, remained Creatures still; for thus the forecited Remigius (z) In Bibl. Patr. Tom. 6. p. 1165. Per Christum Deus Pater haec omnia non solum in exordio creavit condendo, sed etiam semper create praeparando & reparando: bona, quia omnia à Deo creata valdè bona: creata & suis conspectibus oblata sanctificat, ut quae erant simplex creatura, fiant Sacramenta: vivificat, ut sint mysteria vitae: Benedicit, quia omni benedictione coelesti & gratiâ accumulat. Praestat nobis, per eundem secum sanctificantem, qui de corpore suo & sanguine suo nobis tam salubrem dedit refectionem. comments upon them. God the Father not only in the beginning, created all these things by Christ, but also always creates them, by preparing and repairing them. Good, because all things created by Good are very good. He sanctifies those things so created and offered in his sight, when the things that were a simple Creature, are made Sacraments: he quickens them, so that they become Mysteries of Life: He blesses them, because he heaps all Celestial Benediction and Grace on them. He bestows them on us, by the same Christ sanctifying them with him, who has given to us so wholesome a repast from his Body and Blood. What can be also more plain than the words of the next Prayer I mentioned, That what we have taken with our Mouth, may of a Temporal Gift be made an Eternal Remedy? Did ever any one call Christ a Temporal Gift, in distinction from an Eternal Remedy? Is it not certain that the Oblata, the things offered, are the Temporal Gift, which by our due receiving them, become eternally beneficial to us? The last Prayer also, which begs, That the Body and Blood of Christ may cleave to their Bowels or Entrails, cannot be interpreted of his proper and natural Body; since, as the Romanists confess, this Body can neither touch us, nor be touched by us, as it exists in the Sacrament, much less can cleave or stick to our Bodies. But the representative Body of Christ may; and he that made this Petition first, seems to tell us his own Sense, (tho' not very wise one) that he would not have this Holy Food to pass through him, as other Meats did (and which many of the Ancients thought this also did) but might remain and be consumed (as S. Chrysostom's phrase is) with the Substance of his Body. Thus I think I have demonstrated sufficiently the first thing I asserted at the beginning of this Chapter, That the old Prayers in the Canon of the Mass, concerning the Sacrament, agree not with the present Faith of the Roman Church. I proceed now to show the other thing, That their New Prayers and Devotions to the Sacrament, have no countenance from the Ancient Church. I told the Reader before of their New Festival, which the Missal calls the Feast and Solemnity of the Body of Christ. They have suited all things answerably to it; New Prayers, New Hymns; and their allowed Books of Devotion, have an Office of the Blessed Sacrament, for one day of the Week, and a New Litany, etc. Which I shall give now some account of, and tho' all of them are not direct Prayers to it, yet they are such strains concerning it, and in such a new Style, as has no old Example. Missal, Rom. in Solemn. corporis Christi. Oratio. Deus qui nobis sub Sacramento mirabili passionis tuae memoriamreliquisti: tribue, quaesumus, ita nos corporis & sanguinis tui sacra Mysteria venerari, ut redemptionis tuae fructum in nobis jugiter sentiamus. Qui vivis, etc. Thus translated in the Manual of Godly Prayers. O God, which under the Admirable Sacrament, hast left unto us the Memory of thy Passion: grant, we beseech thee, that we may so worship the Sacred Mysteries of thy Body and Blood, that continually we may feel in us the fruit of thy Redemption. Who livest, etc. I believe the Ancient Church never thus prayed, that by the worship of the Sacred Mysteries, they might feel the Fruit of Christ's Redemption; but that they might so receive the Sacred Mysteries, etc. for they laid the stress upon worthy receiving, as this Church does upon worshipping. In an Office of the Venerable Sacrament, printed at Colen, 1591. they are still more particular. Ibid. p. 72. ad completor. Deus qui gloriosum corporis & sanguinis tui mysterium nobiscum manere voluisti: praesta, quaesumus, ita nos corporalem praesentiam tuam venerari in terris, ut ejus visione gaudere mereamur in coelis. Ibid. p. 44. ad primam. Deus qui in passionis tuae memoriam panem & vinum in corpus & sanguinem tuum mirabiliter transmurasti; concede propitius, ut qui in venerabili Sacramento tuam praesentiam corporalem credimus, ad contemplandam speciem tuae celsitudinis perducamur. Qui vivis, etc. O God, who wouldst have the glorious Mystery of thy Body and Blood to remain with us; grant, we pray thee, that we may so worship thy corporal Presence on Earth, that we may be worthy to enjoy the Vision of it in Heaven. Who livest, etc. Qui vivis, etc. Again thus; O God, who in memory of thy Passion didst wonderfully change Bread and Wine into thy Body and Blood; mercifully grant, that we who believe thy Corporal Presence in the Venerable Sacrament, may be brought to the beholding of the appearance of thy Highness. Who livest, etc. Rithmus S. Thomae ad Sacram Eucharistiam; Or a Rithm of Tho. Aquinas to the Holy Eucharist. In Missal. Rom. ad finem Orat. post Missum. Adoro te devotè latens Deitas, Quae sub his figuris vere latitas. Tibi se cor meum totum subjicit, Quia te contemplans totum deficit. Visus, tactus, gustus in te fallitur, Sed auditu solo tutò creditur. Credo quicquid dixit Dei Filius. Nil hoc verbo veritatis verius. In cruce latebat sole Deitas, At hic latet simul & humanitas: Ambo tamen credens atque confitens, Peto quod petivit Latro penitens. Plagas, sicur Thomas, non intueor, Deum tamen meum te confiteor. Fac me tibi semper magis credere, In te spem habere, te diligere. O Memoriale Mortis Domini, Panis vivus, vitam praestans homini; Praesta meae menti de te vivere, Et te illi semper dulcè sapere, etc. I devoutly adore thee, O latent Deity, Who under these Figures truly liest hid. My Heart submits itself wholly to thee, For when it contemplates thee, it wholly fails me. Sight, taste, and touch, is deceived in thee, Hearing alone a Man may fasely trust. Whatsoe'er the Son of God said, I believe. Nothing is truer than this Word of Truth. The Deity only on the Cross was hid, Here the Humanity also is concealed: But both believing and confessing both, I ask what the Repenting Thief desired. I do not see, as Thomas did, thy Wounds, Yet I acknowledge thee to be my God. O make me still more to believe in thee, On thee to place my Hope, and thee to love. O thou Memorial of my dying Lord, Thou living Bread, and giving Life to Men, Grant that my Soul on thee may ever live, And thou to it master always sweetly taste, etc. Another Sequence of Tho. Aquinas, which gins, Lauda Sion Salvatorem. In Missal. Rom. in sesto Corp. Christi. Docti Sacris institutis, Panem vinum in salutis Consecramus hostiam. Dogma datur Christianis, Quod in carnem transit panis Et vinum in sanguinem. Quod non capis, quod non vides, Animosa firmat fides Praeter rerum ordinem. Sub diversis speciebus, Signis tantum & non rebus Latent res eximiae. Caro cibus, sanguis potus; Manet tamen Christus totus Sub utrâque specie. A sumente non concisus, Non confractus, non divisus, Integer accipitur. Sumit unus, sumunt mille, Quantum isti, tantum ille; Nec sumptus consumitur. Sumunt boni, sumunt mali; Sorte tamen inequali Vitae vel interitus. Mors est malis, vita bonis; Vide paris sumptionis Quàm sit dispar exitus. Fracto demum Sacramento, Ne vacilles, sed memento, Tantum esse sub fragmento, Quantum toto tegitur. Nulla rei fit scissura, Signi tantum fit fractura; Qua nec status, nec statura Signati minuitur, etc. Being taught by holy Lessons, we consecrate Bread and Wine for a saving Host. It's a Maxim to Christians, that Bread is changed into Flesh, and Wine into Blood. What thou dost not comprehend, or see, a strong Faith confirms it, besides the order of Nature. Precious Things lie hid under different Species, which are Signs only, not Things. The Flesh is Meat, and the Blood Drink, yet Christ remains whole under each Kind. Uncut, unbroken, undivided, he is received whole by him that takes him. When a thousand take him, one takes as much as they; nor is he consumed in taking. The Good and Bad both take him, but their Lot is unequal in Life and Death. He is Death to the Bad, and Life to the Good; behold an unlike end of a like taking. When the Sacrament is broken, Be not staggered, but remember, There is as much in a Particle As the whole covers. Here is no division of the thing, Only a breaking of the Sign; Whereby neither the State nor Stature of the thing signified is diminished, etc. Another Hymn of the same Author, which gins, Pang lingua gloriosi. In Breviar. Rom. in sesto Corp. Christi. In supremae nocte coenae Recumbens cum sratribus, Observata lege plenè Cibis in legalibus; Cibum turbae duodenae Se dat suis manibus. Verbum caro, panem verum Verbo carnem efficit, Firque sanguis Christi merum, Et si sensus deficit Ad firmandum cor sincerum Sola fides sufficit. Tantum ergo Sacramentum Veneremur cernui: Et antiquum documentum Novo cedat ritui: Praestet fides supplementum Sensuum defectui, etc. Thus translated in the Manual of Godly Prayers. At his last Supper made by Night, He with his Brethren takes his Seat, And having kept the Ancient rite Using the Laws prescribed Meat; His twelve Disciples doth invite, From his own Hands himself to eat. The Word made Flesh, to words imparts Such strength, that Bread his Flesh is made, He Wine into his Blood converts; And if our Sense here fail and fade, To satisfy Religious Hearts, Faith only can the Truth persuade. Then to this Sacrament so high, Low reverence let us now direct, Old Rites must yield in dignity To this, with such great Graces decked: And Faith will all those Wants supply, Wherein the Senses feel defect, etc. In another Hymn of Th. Aquinas, which gins, Verbum supernum prodiens, they pray thus to the Sacrament. In Breviar. Rom. in Festo Corp. Christi. O salutaris Hostia, Quae Coeli pandis ostium: Bella premunt hostilia, Da robur, fer auxilium. O saving Host, that openest Heaven's Door, Th' Arms of our Foes, do us enclose: Thy strength we need; O help with speed, We humbly thee implore. There was published at Paris, with the app●obration of three Doctors of the Faculty there, An. 1669. a little Book in French, called, Practic pour Adorer le tres Saint Sacrament de l' Autel: Or, A Form for the Adoration of the most Holy Sacrament of the Altar. Which gins thus: Praised and adored be the most Holy Sacrament of the Altar. And then adds; Whosoever shall say these Holy Words, [Praised be the most Holy Sacrament of the Altar] shall gain an hundred days of Indulgences; and he that does reverence, hearing them repeated, as much. He that, being confessed and communicated, shall say the abovesaid words, shall gain a Plenary Indulgence; and the first five times that he shall say them, after his having been Confessed and Communicated, he shall deliver five of his Friends-souls, whom he pleases, out of Purgatory. Then follows the Form for honouring the Holy Sacrament, consisting of two Prayers, as follows, (which I shall set down in Latin and English, because I find them in the Hours of Sarum, Fol. 66. and in the S. Litaniae variae, p. 44. printed at Colen, 1643. The first of them has this Rubric before it in the Hours of Salisbury. Our Holy Father the Pope, John xxii. hath granted to all them that devoutly say this Prayer after the Elevation of our Lord Jesus Christ, three thousand days of Pardon for deadly Sins). Anima Christi sanctifica me. Corpus Christi salva me. Sanguis Christi inebria me. Aqua lateris Christi lava me. (Hor. Sar. Splendour vultus Christi illumina me.) Passio Christi conforta me. (H. Sar. Sudor vultus Christi virtuosissime sana me.) O bone Jesus exaudi me. Intra vulnera tua abscond me. Ne permittas me separari à ce. Ab hoste maligno defend me. In hora mortis meae voca me, Et jube me venire ad te; Ut cum sanctis tuis laudem te In saecula soeculorum. Amen. Soul of Christ, sanctify me. Body of Christ, save me. Blood of Christ, inebriate me. Water of Christ's Side, wash me. Passion of Christ, comfort me. O good Jesus hear me. Within thy Wounds hid me. Suffer me not to be separated from thee. From the malicious Enemy defend me. In the Hour of my Death call me, And command me to come to thee, That with thy Saints I may praise thee, For evermore. Amen. At the Elevation of the Mass. Hor. sec. us. Sar. Ibid. Ave verum corpus natum De Maria Virgin; Vere passum, immolatum In cruse pro homine: Cujus latus perforatum Unda fluxit sanguine. Esto nobis praeguslatum Mortis in examine. O Clemens, O pie, O dulcis Fili Mariae. Thus translated in the Manual of Godly Prayers. All hail true Body, born of the Blessed Virgin Mary 5 Truly suffered and offered upon the Cross for Mankind: Whose Side, pierced with a Speat, yielded Water and Blood. Vouchsafe to be received of us in the Hour of Death. O good, O Jesus, Son of the Blessed Virgin, have mercy on me. After this, the French Form adds what follows. These two good Prayers were found in the Sepulchre of our Lord Jesus Christ in Jerusalem; and whosoever carries them about him with Devotion, and in Honour of our Lord Jesus Christ, shall be delivered from the Devil, and from sudden Death, and shall not die of an ill Death. He shall be preserved from Pestilence, and all infectious Diseases. No Sorcerer, nor Sorcery, shall be able to hurt him or her, that has these two good Prayers about them. The Fire from Heaven shall not fall upon the House where these Prayers are rehearsed with devotion. A Woman with Child, saying them devoutly, shall be brought to Bed, without any danger of her own, or her Child's Death. Lightnings and Thunders shall not fall upon the Houses where these Prayers are rehearsed with Devotion. Such a one shall not die without Confession, and God will give him Grace to repent of his Sins. Now I will add a Specimen of Litanies of the Sacrament. Litaniaes de Sacramente: S. Litaniae variae p. 30. — Panis vivus qui de Coelo descendisti Misere nobis. Deus absconditus & Salvator Misere nobis. Frumentum Electorum Misere nobis. Vinum germinans Virgines Misere nobis. Panis pinguis & deliciae Regum Misere nobis. Juge Sacrificium Misere nobis. Oblatio munda Misere nobis. Agnus absque macula Misere nobis. Mensa purissima Misere nobis. Angelorum Esca Misere nobis. Manna absconditum Misere nobis. Memoria mirabilium Dei Misere nobis. Panis Supersubstantialis Misere nobis. Verbum caro factum habitans in nobis Misere nobis. Hostia Sancta Misere nobis. Calix Benedictionis Misere nobis. Mysterium fidei Miserere nobis. Praecelsum & venerabile Sacramentum Miserere nobis. Sacrificium omnium Sanctissimum Miserere nobis. Vere propitiatorium pro vivis & defunctis Miserere nobis. Coeleste Antidotum, quo à peccatis praeservamur Miserere nobis. Stupendum supra omnia miraculum Miserere nobis. Sacratissima Dominicae passionis commemoratio Miserere nobis. Donum transcendens omnem plenitudinem Miserere nobis. Memoriale praecipuum divini amoris Miserere nobis. Divinae affluentia largitatis Miserere nobis. Sacrosanctum & augustissimum mysterium Miserere nobis. Pharmacum immortalitatis Miserere nobis. Tremendum ac vivificum Sacramentum Miserere nobis. Panis omnipo●●●tia verbi caro factus Miserere nobis. Incruentum Sacrificium Miserere nobis. Cibus & conviva Miserere nobis. Dulcissimum convivium, cui assistunt Angeli ministrantes Miserere nobis. Sacramentum Pietatis Miserere nobis. Vinculum Charitatis Miserere nobis. Offerens & Oblatio Miserere nobis. Spiritualis dulcedo in proprio fonte degustata Miserere nobis. Refectio animarum Sanctarum Miserere nobis. Viaticum in Domino morientium Miserere nobis. Pignus futurae gloriae, etc. Miserere nobis. The Litany of the Sacrament in the Manual aforesaid. — Living Bread that didst descend from Heaven Have mercy on us. God hidden, and my Saviour Have mercy on us. Breadcorn of the Elect Have mercy on us. Wine budding forth Virgins Have mercy on us. Fat Bread, and the delight of Kings Have mercy on us. Continual Sacrifice Have mercy on us. Pure Oblation Have mercy on us. Lamb without spot Have mercy on us. (Manual adds) Table of Proposition Have mercy on us. Most pure Table Have mercy on us. Food of Angels Have mercy on us. Hidden Manna Have mercy on us. Memorial of God's wonderful Works Have mercy on us. Supersubstantial Bread Have mercy on us. Word made Flesh and dwelling in us Have mercy on us. Holy Host Have mercy on us. Chalice of Benediction Have mercy on us. Mystery of Faith Have mercy on us. Most high and venerable Sacrament Have mercy on us. Sacrifice of all other most Holy Have mercy on us. Truly propitiatory for the Quick and Dead Have mercy on us. Heavenly Antidote, whereby we are preserved from Sin Have mercy on us. Miracle above all other astonishing Have mercy on us. Most sacred Commemoration of our Lord's Death Have mercy on us. Gift surpassing all Fullness Have mercy on us. Chief Memorial of Divine Love Have mercy on us. Abundance of Divine Bounty Have mercy on us. Holy and most Majestical Mystery Have mercy on us. Medicine of Immortality Have mercy on us. Dreadful and Life-giving Sacrament Have mercy on us. Bread by the Word's Omnipotence made Flesh Have mercy on us. Unbloody Sacrifice Have mercy on us. Meat and Guest (Manual omits) Have mercy on us. Most sweet Banquet, whereat the Ministering Angels attend Have mercy on us. Sacrament of Piety Have mercy on us. Bond of Charity Have mercy on us. Offerer and Oblation Have mercy on us. Spiritual sweetness tasted in its proper Fountain Have mercy on us. Refection of Holy Souls Have mercy on us. Viaticum of those who die in our Lord Have mercy on us. Pledge of future Glory, etc. Have mercy on us. This is enough to show into what strains of Devotion the present Roman Church now runs, since Transubstantiation is an Article of its Faith. I deny not that these Prayers are very natural if that Doctrine were true; and I would fain have a good Reason assigned, why, if this Doctrine was believed of old, this was not the way of the Primitive Devotion: If they affirm that it was, it lies upon them to produce the evidence. But then let me tell them beforehand, that we will not be shamm'd off with a Rhetorical Prosopopoeia of an Author, under the name of S. Denis the Areopagite (which has been the only thing I have seen alleged, and as often answered) whose Authority neither cannot be considerable to us, who remember that he was first produced and shown to the World by Heretics, and rejected by the Orthodox. CHAP. XVI. The Sixteenth Difference. Our Ancient Roman-Saxon Church differred from the present Roman Church, in the Article of Transubstantiation and Corporal Presence. THis is the Last Difference I shall mention, tho' not the least; but a very material consirmation of what I have been all along proving, That there is no consen●●f the Ancient Church with the present Roman Church, in their Faith and Opinions about the Eucharist; when we shall find, that even our own Old English Church, that had received most of its Instructions in Christianity from the Roman, and in many other things agreed with what it now professes, yet in this widely differed from it. This plainly argues one of these two things, either that the than Roman Church, had not the Opinions of the present Church in these Matters and so did not propagate them to us; (which cannot be said, when we remember the busy Disputes about these Matters in the 9th Century, tho' they were not yet come to a determination); or else, that when the Roman Church warped, and generally espoused a New Doctrine which the Ancient Fathers were strangers to, we still kept our Ground, and did not suffer ourselves to be perverted, but held to the Ancient Belief. This is the Truth of our Case, as appears by a noble Remain of an Easter Sermon (about 700 Years old) in the Saxon Tongue, among other Catholic Homilies that were to be read yearly in the Church, It was produced in the last Age in the Saxon with a Translation in our English Tongue; (printed by John Day) it was since put, with the same Translation, by Mr. Fox into his Martyrology * Vol. 2. p. 380. last Edition. , and has been set forth with a Latin Translation by the Learned Abr. Whelock, in his Saxon Edition of Bede's Ecclesiastical History, p. 462. printed at Cambridg 1644. out of which I shall transcribe as much as will serve to prove our Assertion, softening the harshness of the Phrases of the last Age, and expressing the sense in words more easily understood. The Easter Sermon gins thus: MEN Beloved, you have been often discoursed to, concerning our Saviour's Resurrection, how he, after his Passion on this Day, risen powerfully from the Dead. Now we shall, by God's Grace explain something to you about the Holy Eucharist, which this day we are bound to frequent, and instruct your understanding about this Mystery, both according to the Old and New Testament, that no doubting may disturb you concerning this Life-giving Banquet.— The Sermon goes on with an account of the Jewish Passover, and the Application of those things to the Eucharist, which I omit; — Christ, before his suffering, consecrated Bread, P. 469. and distributed it to his Disciples, saying thus, Eat this Bread, it is my Body, and do this in remembrance of me: Also he Consecrated Wine in a Cup, and said, Drink ye all of this, This is my Blood which is shed for many for the Remission of Sins. The Apostles did, as Christ commanded, they consecrated Bread and Wine for the Eucharist. And to his memory also afterward every one of their Successors, and all Christ's Priests, According to Christ's Command, by the Apostolical Benediction, did consecrate Bread and Wine in his Name. Now Men have often disputed, P. 470. and do it still, How that Bread which is prepared of Corn, and is baked by the heat of Fire, can be changed into Christ's Body; and how that Wine which is pressed out of many Grapes, by any blessing of it, can be changed into our Lord's Blood? Now to such Men, I answer, that some things are spoken of Christ by signification, some others by a known thing: It is a true thing, and known, that Christ was born of a Virgin, and voluntarily suffered Death, and was buried, and this Day risen from the Dead. He is called Bread, and a Lamb, and a Lion, and otherwise, by signification. He is called Bread, because he is our Life, and the Life of Angels. He is called a Lamb, for his Innocency. A Lion, for his Strength, whereby he overcame the strong Devil. Yet notwithstanding, according to true Nature, Christ is neither Bread, nor a Lamb, nor a Lion. Wherefore then is that Holy Eucharist called Christ's Body, or his Blood, if it be not truly what it is called? Truly the Bread and Wine, which are consecrated by the Mass of the Priests, show one thing outwardly to men's Senses, and another thing they declare inwardly to believing Minds. Outwardly, Bread and Wine are seen both in appearance, and in taste; yet they are truly after Consecration Christ's Body and Blood, by a Spiritual Sacrament. An Heathen Child is Baptised, yet he altereth not his outward shape, though he be changed within. He is brought to the Font full of Sin through Adam's Disobedience, but he is washed from all his Sins inwardly, tho' he has not changed his outward Shape. So also that Holy Font-Water, which is called the Wellspring of Life, is like in Nature (in specie) to other Waters, and is subject to corruption; but the Power of the Holy Ghost, by the Priest's Blessing, comes upon that corruptible Water; and after that, it can wash both Body and Soul from all Sins, P. 471. by spiritual Power. We see now in this one Creature two things: that, whereby, according to true Nature, it is corruptible Water, and that whereby, according to the Spiritual Mystery, it has a saving Power. So also, if we look upon that Holy Eucharist according to a corporeal Sense, than we see that it is a Creature corruptible and changeable; but if we own a spiritual Power there, than we understand that Life is in it, and that it confers Immortality on those that taste it by Faith. There is a great difference betwixt the insible Virtue (and Power) of this Holy Eucharist, and the visible appearance of its proper Nature. By its Nature it is corruptible Bread, and corruptible Wine; and by the Virtue of the Divine Word, it is truly the Body and Blood of Christ; yet not corporally so, but spiritually. There is much differencce betwixt that Body which Christ suffered in, and that Body which is consecrated for the Eucharist. The Body that Chriut suffered in, was Born of the Flesh of Mary, with Blood and Bones, with Skin and Nerves; animated by a rational Spirit in humane Members: but his Spiritual Body, which we call the Eucharist, is collected from many grains of Corn, without Blood and Bone, without Member or Soul: wherefore there is nothing in it to be understood Corporeally, but all is to be understood Spiritually. Whatsoever is in that Eucharist which restores Life to us, this is from Spiritual Virtue, and from Invisible Operation. Therefore that Holy Eucharist is called a Sacrament, because one thing is there seen, and another thing understood: that which is there seen has a bodily Nature, that which we understand in it has a spiritual Virtue. The Body of Christ, that suffered Death, P. 472. and risen from the Dead, henceforth dies no more, but is eternal and impassable. That Eucharist is Temporary, not Eternal; it is corruptible, and capable of division into minute Parts; it is chewed with the Teeth, and sent into the draught: yet it will be true, that according to spiritual Virtue, it is whole in every part: Many receive that Holy Body, yet according to the spiritual Mystery, it will be whole in every part. Tho' some receive a lesser part of it, yet there will not be more virtue in the greater part than in the lesser, because it will be whole in all Men according to the invisible virtue. This Sacrament is a Pledge, and a Type; the Body of Christ is the Truth: We keep this Pledge Sacramentally, till we come to the Truth itself; and then is the Pledge at an end. It is indeed, as we said before, Christ's Body and his Blood, but not Corporally, but Spiritually. Do not dispute, how this can be effected, but believe it firmly, that so it is. Here follow some idle Visions, which that credulous Age were fond of, but are nothing to the purpose, and therefore I omit them. — Paul the Apostle speaketh of the old Israelites writing thus in his Epistle to the Faithful. P. 473. All our Forefathers were baptised in the Cloud and in the Sea; and all eaten the same spiritual Meat, and all drank the same spiritual Drink, for they drank of that spiritual Rock, and that Rock was Christ. That Rock, from whence the Water then flowed, was not Christ in a Corporal Sense, but it signified Christ, who declared thus to the Faithful, Whosoever thirsteth, let him come to me and drink, and from his belly shall flow living Water. This he said of the Holy Ghost, which they that Believed on him, should receive. The Apostle Paul said, that the People of Israel eaten the same spiritual Meat, and drank the same Spiritual Drink, because the heavenly Food that fed them for forty Years, and that Water that flowed from the Rock, signified Christ's Body and Blood, which are now daily offered in the Church of God. It was the same which we offer to day, not corporally, but spiritually. We told you before, that Christ consecrated Bread and Wine for the Eucharist before his Passion, and said, This is my Body, and my Blood: he had not yet suffered, and yet he changed, by his invisible Power, that Bread into his Body, and that Wine into his Blood; as he did before in the Wilderness, before he was born Man, when he turned the heavenly Food into his Flesh, and that Water flowing from the Rock into his Blood. P. 474. Many Persons eaten of the Heavenly Food in the Desert, and drank of the Spiritual Drink, and yet, as Christ said, are dead. Christ meant not that Death which no Man can avoid, but he understood eternal Death, which several of that People, for their Unbelief, had deserved. Moses and Aaron, and several others of the People that pleased God, eaten that heavenly Bread, and did not die that everlasting Death, tho' they died the common Death. They saw that the heavenly Food was visible and Corruptible; but they understood that visible thing spiritually, and they tasted it spiritually. Jesus said, Whoso eateth my Flesh, and drinketh my Blood, hath Eternal Life: He did not command them to eat that Body which he had assumed, nor to drink that Blood which he shed for us; but by that Speech, he meant the Holy Eucharist, which is Spiritually his Body, and his Blood; and whosoever tasteth this, with a believing Heart, shall have that Eternal Life. Under the old Law, the Faithful offered divers Sacrifices to God, which had a future signification of the Body of Christ, which he hath offered in Sacrifice to his heavenly Father for our Sins. This Eucharist which is now consecrated at God's Altar, is a Commemoration of the Body of Christ which he offered for us, and of his Blood which he shed for us: As he himself commanded, Do this in remembrance of me. Christ once suffered by himself; but yet his Passion by the Sacrament of this Holy Eucharist, is daily renewed at the Holy Mass. Wherefore the Holy Mass is profitable very much both for the Living, and also for the Dead, as it hath been often declared, etc. The rest of the Sermon being of a moral and allegorical Nature, I omit. Besides this Sermon in Public, we have also two other Remains of Elfrike the Abbot in the Saxon Tongue * Published at the end of the foresaid Sermon, printed by John Day. Also in the Notes on Bede 's Eccl. Hist. p. 332, 333, 334. , which speak the very same Sense, and deserve to be inserted as far as they concern this Argument of the Eucharist, and the change made in it. The first is an Epistle to Wulffine Bishop of Shyrburn, in which is this Passage. — The Eucharist is not the Body of Christ corporally, but spiritually: not the Body in which he suffered, but that Body when he consecrated Bread and Wine for the Eucharist, the night before his Passion, and said of the Bread he Blessed, This is my Body; and again of the Wine he blessed, This is my Blood, which is shed for many for the Remission of Sins. Now then understand, that the Lord, who was able to change that Bread before his Passion into his Body, and that Wine into his Blood, Spiritually; that the same (Lord) by the Hands of the Priests, daily consecrates Bread and Wine for his Spiritual Body, and for his Spiritual Blood. The second, an Epistle of Elfricke to Wulfstane Archbishop of York, in which, among other things (against too long reserving the Eucharist,) he says thus: Christ himself consecrated the Eucharist before his Passion; Vid. p. 334. Hist. Eccles. Sax. Lat. Bedae. he blessed Bread, and broke it, saying thus to his Apostles, Eat this Bread, it is my Body: and again he blessed the Cup, filled with Wine, and spoke thus to them, Drink ye all of this, it is my Blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many for the Remission of Sins. Our Lord, who consecrated the Eucharist before his Passion, and said; that Bread was his Body, and Wine truly his Blood, he also daily consecrates, by the Priest's hands, Bread for his Body, and Wine for his Blood, in a Spiritual Mystery, as we read in Books. [Yet notwithstanding that Lively Bread is not the same Body in which Christ suffered, nor that Holy Wine the Blood of our Saviour (which was shed for us) in bodily thing (or sense, in re corporali) but in a Spiritual sense (in ratione Spirituali.) That Bread indeed was his Body, and also that Wine his Blood, just as that heavenly Bread which we call Manna (which fed God's People forty Years) viz. was his Body, and that clear. Water was his Blood that then flowed from the Rock in the Wilderness.] As Paul writes in his Epistle, They all eaten the same spiritual Meat and drank the same spiritual Drink, etc. The Apostle that says, what you have heard, They all eaten etc. he does not say, corporally, but spiritually. Christ was not as yet born, nor his Blood shed: than it was the People of Israel did eat that Spiritual Meat, and drank of that Rock; neither was that Rock Christ Corporeally tho' he spoke so. The Sacraments of the Old Law were the same, and did spiritually signify that Sacrament (or Eucharist) of our Saviour's Body, which we now consecrate. This Last Epistle Elfricke wrote first in the Latin Tongue to Wulfstane, containing, tho' not word for word, yet the whole Sense of the English Epistle; and that Paragraph of it which I have enclosed between two Brackets, was looked upon as so disagreeable to the present Faith of the Roman Church, that some had razed them out of the Worcester Book; but the same Latin Epistle being found in Exeter Church, it was restored. I was once about to have added some Citations here out of Bertrams Book, (de corpore & sanguine Domini) out of which many passages in the Saxon Sermon foregoing, were taken. But they are so many, that I must have transcribed, and the Book itself is small, and so well worth the reading, especially with the late Translation of it into English, and a Learned Historical Dissertation before it, giving a large account of the Difference betwixt his Opinion, and that of Transubstantiation (printed An 1686) that I shall rather refer the Reader to it, where he may abundantly satisfy himself. Instead of it, I will only add one Testimony more out of Rabanus Archbishop of Mentz, in an Epistle to Heribaldus * Epist. ad Herib. c. 33. de Eucharist. . Which we are beholden to the Learned Baluzius for giving it us entire, (in Appendice ad Reginonem, p. 516.) a Passage having been razed out of the Manuscript, out of which it was first published. Thus he says; As for the Question you put, Quod autem interrogastis, utrum Eucharistia postquam consumitur & in secessum emittitur, more aliorum ciborum, iterum redeat in naturam pristinam quam habuerat, antequam in Altari consecraretur, superflua est hujusmodi Quaestio, cùm ipse Salvator dixerit in Evangelio, Omne quod intrat in os, in ventrem vadit, & in secessum emittitur. Sacramentum Corporis & Sanguinis ex rebus visibilibus & corporalibus conficitur, sed invisibilem tàm corporis quàm animae efficut sanctificationem, Quae est enim ratio, ut hoc quod stomacho digeritur, & in secessum emittitur, iterum in statum pristinum redeat, cum nullus hoc unquam fieri asscruerit? Nam quidam nuper de ipso Sacramento corporis & sanguinis Domini non ritè sentientes dixerunt, hoc ipsum corpus & sanguinem Domini quod de Maria Virgin natum est, & in quo ipse Dominus passus est in Cruse, & resurrexit de sepulchro, [Idem. esse quod sumitur de altari] cui errori quantum potuimus, ad Egilonem Abbatem scribent●s, de corpore ipso quid verè credendum sit, aperuimus. Whether the Eucharist, after it is consumed and sent into the Draught as other Meats are, does return again into its former Nature, which it had before it was consecrated on the Altar; This Question is superfluous, when our Saviour himself has said in the Gospel, Every thing that entereth into the Mouth, goeth into the Belly, and is cast out into the Draught. The Sacrament of the Body and Blood, is made up of things Visible and Corporeal, but effects the Invisible Sanctification both of Body and Soul. And what reason is there, that what is digested in the Stomach, and sent into the Draught, should return into its pristine State, seeing none has ever asserted that this was done? Some indeed of late, not thinking rightly of the Sacrament of our Lord's Body and Blood have said (which are the very words of Paschasius, whom he opposes) that the very Body and Blood of our Lord, which was born of the Virgin Mary, and in which our Lord suffered on the Cross, and risen again out of the Grave, [is the same that is taken from the Altar]; which Error we having opposed as we were able, writing to the Abbot Egilo, and declared what ought truly to be believed concerning the Body itself. That which he calls here an Error, is an Article now of the Romish Faith, which some Zealous Monk meeting withal, and not enduring it should be condemned as an Error, that the same Body which was born of the Virgin, etc. is the same that we receive at the Altar, scraped out those words which I have enclosed between the Brackets; and we may securely trust our Adversaries in this Matter, who have skill enough to know what Assertions make for them, and what against them. CHAP. XVII. The CONCLUSION. That the Doctrine of Transubstantiation has given a new occasion to the Enemies of Christian Religion to blaspheme. It is so great a stumbling-block to the Jews, that their Conversion is hopeless, whilst this is believed by them to be the Common Faith of Christians. That tho' the Church of Rome will not hearken to us, yet they may be provoked to emulation by the Jews themselves, who have given a better account of Christ's Words of Institution, and more agreeable to the Fathers, than this Church has; and raised unanswerable Objections against its Doctrine. HAving considered, in the foregoing Chapters, the Sense of the Ancient Church about Matters relating to the Eucharist, and Transubstantiation, from their own Writings; and found that their Assertions are inconsistent with the Belief of the present Roman Church; and that their Practices are not to be reconciled thereunto. Having also made an Enquiry into the Ancient forms of Devotion, relating to the Eucharist, remaining still in this Church, and found them to speak a Language, which has a Sense agreeing indeed with that of the Ancients, but no Sense at all, when the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is supposed, and those Prayers to be interpreted by it, etc. I shall now, for a Conclusion, take a view also of the principal Enemies of the Christian Faith; which will afford a convincing Evidence, that the Roman Doctrine is Novel, and a stranger to the Ancient Christians. It is sufficiently known, that the Adversaries of Christianity took all the occasions possible, and whatsoever gave them any colour to reproach the Faith and Worship of Christians, and to make their Names odious. Nothing that looked strange and absurd in either, escaped, being taken notice of by such as Celsus and Porphyry, Lucian and Julian, among the Heathens, and such as Trypho among the Jews. They curiously examined and surveyed what they taught and practised, and whatsoever they thought to be foolish and incredible, they, with all their wit and cunning, endeavoured to expose it. So, they did with the Doctrines of the Trinity, the Eternal Generation of the Son of God, his Incarnation, his Crucifixion especially, and our Resurrection. Neither were they less praying into the Christian Mysteries and Worship, which they could not be ignorant of, there being so many Deserters and Apostates in those Times of Persecution, who were well acquainted with them; and by threaten and fear of torment if there were any thing secret were likely to betray them. Not to insist upon this, that the great Traducer of Christians, I mean Julian, was himself once initiated in their Mysteries, and so could not be Ignorant of what any of them were; and has in particular laughed at their Baptism, that Christians should fancy a purgation thereby from Great Crimes. Yet, after all this, they took no occasion from the Eucharist to traduce them; though, if Christians then had given that adoration to it, that is now paid in the Roman Church, and if they had declared, either for a Corporal Presence, or an oral Manducation of him that was their God, they had the fruitfullest Subject in the World given them, both to turn off all the Objections of the Christians against themselves, for worshipping senseless and inanimate things; and also to lay the most plausible Charge of folly and madness against them, which their great Orator * Cicero, l. 3. de Nat. Deorum. Ecquem tam amentem esse putas, qui illud quo vescatur, Deum credat esse? had pronounced, before Christianity was a Religion in the World. Can any Man be supposed so mad, to believe that to be a God which he eats? A Learned Romanist † Rigaltius notis ad Tertal. lib. 2. c. 5. ad Vxorem. Se id facere in Eucharisticis suis testarentur. affirms, of the Ancient Christians, That they did testify their eating the Flesh, and drinking the Blood of their Lord God in their Discourses of the Eucharist. Which is true indeed, taking this eating and drinking in the Sacramental Sense we do; and so their Adversaries must needs understand their meaning. Otherwise (without a Miracle to hinder it) what he acknowledges in the same place, could never be true, (a) Ibid. Observandum vero, inter tot probra & convitia accusantium Christianos impietatis, eò quod neque aras haberent neque sacrificarent, interque tot fratrum perfidorum transfugia, non extitisse qui Christianos criminarentur, quod Dei ac Domini sui carnes ederent, sanguinem potarent. That among so many Reproaches of those that accused Christians of Impiety, for not having Altars nor Sacrifices, and among so many false Brethren that were Turncoats, yet there were none that made this an Accusation against them, that they are the Flesh of their God and Lord, and drank his Blood. We have this ingenuous confession of Bellarmine himself (*) De Eucharist. l. 2. c. 12. Verè stulti haberi possemus, si absque Verbo Dei crederemus veram Christi carnem ore corporali manducari. , That we might be accounted truly Fools, if without the Word of God, we believed the true Flesh of Christ to be eaten with the Mouth of our Bodies. But whether with or without the Word of God they believed such a corporal eating of Christ's Flesh, had been all one to the Heathens, if they knew that this was their Belief, and it would rather have strengthened their Reproach, if they knew that they were bound thus to believe. But than what he adds is very remarkable, Nam id semper infideles stultissimum paradoxum aestimârunt, ut notum est de Averroe & aliis. That Insidels always counted this a most foolish Paradox, as appears from Averro and others. I believe indeed, that they must always count this a foolish Paradox, which Averro charged Christians withal, in that known Saying of his (b) Se Sectam Christianâ deteriorem aut ineptiorem nullam reperire, quam qui sequuntur, two quem colunt Deum dentibus ipsi suis discerpunt ac devorant. . That he found no Sect worse, or more foolish, than the Christians, who tear with their Teeth, and devour that God whom they worship. But why was not this cast always in the Teeth of Christians, if this was always their professed Doctrine? Was Celsus, or Julian, or Lucian, less sagacious, or less malicious than Averro, that not a word of this foolish Paradox was ever so much as hinted by them to the reproach of Christians then? But the Cardinal has instanced the most unluckily in the World, in naming only Averro for this Calumny, when all acknowledge that this Philosopher, & P. Innocent 3. (who established Transubstantiation) lived in the same Age; and some very learned Men prove, from the Arabian Accounts, that those two were Contemporaries. And as for his [& aliis] others, I should be glad to see any named, that urged what Averro did to the Christians reproach, before the days of Berengarius. After that indeed, we can meet with a Follower of Mahomet; who (as a Learned Man (c) Hottinger in Eucharistia dejexja. Sect. 14. p. 220. Ahmed been Edris ita scribit, verba autem Isa (sic Arabes Christum vocant) super quo pax, Qui edit carnem meam & bibit sanguinem, etc. Christiani literaliter intelligunt. Atque sic Christiani atrociores sunt in Christum quàm Judaei. Illi enim Christum occisum reliquerunt; high carnem ejus edunt & sangumem bibunt, quod ipso teste experientia, truculentius est. gives us his words) says thus, Those words of Christ, He that eateth my Flesh, and drinketh my Blood, he is in me, and I in him, etc. Christians understand them literally, and so Christians are more cruel against Christ, than Jews; for they left Christ when they had slain him, but these eat his Flesh, and drink his Blood, which as experience testifies, is more savage. After the Roman Church's declaring for Transubstantiation, (though not before) we meet with the Oppositions of Jews, testifying their abhorrency (d) Ibid. Joseph. Albo de Ikkarim, lib. 3. cap. 25. Nam panis est corpus Dei ipsorum. Aiunt enim corpus Jesu quod est in Coelis, venire in Altar & vestiri pane & vino, post pronunciata verba, Hoc enim est Corpus meum, à sacrificulo, qualiscunque ille demum fuerit, sive pius sive impius, & omnia fieri Corpus unum cum corpore Messiae, etc. — Repugnant hic omnia Intelligibilibus primis, & ipsis etiam sensibus. of a Doctrine, which talks of a Sacrifice, and makes Bread to be the Body of their God, (which he means in the sense of Transubstantiation, by being turned into it, and clothed with its Accidents) whose Body that is in Heaven, comes upon the Altar; and upon the pronouncing these words, For this is my Body, by the Priest, whether good or wicked is all one, all things are made one Body with the Body of the Messiah, etc.— Which things are all repugnant to the first Principles of Reason, and to our very Senses themselves. As he afterwards shows in several Instances. And now we are told, that it is a common Bye-word to reproach a Christian by among the Turks, to call him Mange Dieu. All these took their rise plainly from Transubstantiation, and not from the Faith of the Ancient Church: For if one of it (e) Theodoret. Interrog. 55. in Genes. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. may speak for the rest, the Old Christians agreed in the Abhorrence, and called it, the extremest stupidity to worship that which is eaten. And again; Id. qu. 11. in Levit. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; How can any one of a sound Mind, call that a God, which being offered to the True God, is after wards eaten by him? But now, after all, the saddest Consideration is, that the Prejudices are so great against this, (and another Twin-Doctrine of the Roman Church, about the worship of Images) that a perpetual Stumbling-block seems to be laid before the Jews; and it may be looked upon as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that which will always hinder and obstruct their Conversion, whilst it is believed by them to be the common Sense and Faith of Christians; and they have too great a Temptation to believe so, when they have seen this Church, which has got the most worldly Power into its hands, persecuting not only Jews, but Heretics (as they call all other Christians that deny this Doctrine) to the Death for gainsaying it; and when that Work will cease, God only knows. The Jews can never be supposed to get over this hard Chapter, whilst they who call themselves the only Catholic Christians, hold such things about the Body of Christ, (and remember that it is about a Body) which as the forenamed Jos. Albo (f) Ibid. Ista talia sunt quae mens non potest concipere, neque os eloqui, neque auris audire. speaks, No Man's Mind can conceive, nor Tongue utter, nor any Ear can hear. He means, by reason of their absurdity. So that the Case of the Jews, and their Conversion, seems to be hopeless and desperate, according to all humane guesses, till there be a change wrought (not in the substance of the Bread and Wine this Church dreams of, but) in the Romanist's Belief. And though this also may seem, upon many accounts, to be as hopeless as the former, yet, for a Conclusion, I will try, whether, as once the Great Apostle thought it a wise method (Rom. 11.14.) by the Example of the Gentiles, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to provoke the Jews to Emulation; so it may not be as proper, to propose the Example of the Jews themselves to the Romanists, to provoke their Emulation, whom they may see better explaining (as blind as they are) Christ's words of Institution; and agreeing better with the Ancient Church in the matter of the Eucharist, than themselves; and raising such Arguments and Objections against the Transubstantiating Doctrine, as can never, to any purpose, be answered. The Instances of this are very remarkable, in a Book called Fortalitium Fidei contra Judeos, etc. printed An. 1494. but written, as the Author himself tells us (fol. 61.) in the Year 1458. where he gives us the Arguments of a Jew against Transubstantiation; some of which I shall out of him faithfully translate. The Jew (g) Vid. l. 3. consid. 6. sol. 130 impossibls. 10. gins with Christ's words of Institution, and shows, that they cannot be interpreted otherwise than figuratively, and significatively, as the Fathers, we have heard, have asserted. 1. Vos Christiani dicitis, etc. Ye Christians say in that Sacrament (of the Eucharist) there is really the Body and Blood of Christ. This is impossible. Because when your Christ, showing the Bread, said, This is my Body, he spoke significatively, and not really; as if he had said, this is the Sign or Figure of my Body. After which way of speaking, Paul said, 1 Cor. 10. The Rock was Christ; that is, a Figure of Christ. And it appears evidently, that this was the Intention of your Christ, because when he had discoursed about the eating his Body, and drinking his Blood, to lay the offence that risen upon it among the Disciples, he says, as it were, expounding himself, The words that I have spoken to you are Spirit and Life: denoting, that what he had said, was to be understood, not according to the Letter, but according to the Spiritual Sense. And when Christ said, This is my Body, holding Bread in his Hands, he meant, that that Bread was his Body (in potentia propinqua) in a near possibility, viz. after he had eaten it, for than it would be turned into his. Body, or into his Flesh; and so likewise the Wine. And after this manner we Jews do, on the day of Unleavened Bread; for we take unleavened Bread in memory of that time, when our Fathers were brought out of the Land of Egypt, and were not permitted to stay so long there, as whilst the Bread might be leavened, that was the Bread of the Passover; and we say; This is the Bread which our Fathers eaten, though that be not present, since it is past and gone; and so this unleavened Bread, minds us of the Bread of Egypt, and this Bread is not that; so is that Bread of which the Sacrifice of the Altar is made. It is sufficient for Christians to say, that it is in memory of that Bread of Christ, though this Bread be not that. And because it was impossible that one Bitten of his Flesh should be preserved in memory of him, he commanded, that that Bread should be made, and that Wine, which was his Flesh and Blood in the next remove to come into act; as we Jews do, (and Christ borrowed his Phrases and the Elements from their Supper) at the Passover with the unleavened Bread, as we said before. When therefore your Christ at the Table took Bread, and the Cup, and gave them to his Disciples, he did not bid them believe that the Bread and Wine were turned into his Body and Blood, but that as often as they did that, they should do it in remembrance of him, viz. in memory of that past Bread: and if you Christians did understand it so, no impossibility would follow; but to say the contrary, as you assert, is to say an impossible thing, and against the intention of your Christ, as we have showed. This is what the Jew urges with great reason. But the Catholic Author makes a poor Answer to it, and has nothing to say, in effect, but this, That the Tradition of the Catholic Church concerning this Sacrament is true. viz. That in this Sacrament there is really, and not by way of Signification, the True Body and True Blood of Christ. 2. Whereas the Roman Church flies to Miracles in this case of Transubstantiation, the Jew encounters that next of all, thus. You Christians say that the Body and Blood of Christ is in the Sacrament of the Altar by a Miracle; Ibid. 11. Impossib. p. 131. this I prove to be impossible. Because if there were any Miracle in the case, it would appear to the Eye; as when Moses turned the Rod into a Serpent; that was performed evidently to the Eye, though Men knew not how it was done. So also in the case of the Ark of the Covenant of Old, mighty Miracles were wrought; and those not only sensible Miracles, but also public, and apparent to all the People; (insomuch that Infidels were terrified at the very report of such Miracles) Men seeing before their Eyes the Divine Power brightly shining in Reverence of the Ark of his Covenant, as appears in his Dividing the Waters of Jordan, while the People of Israel passed over dryshod, the Waters on one side swelling like a Mountain, and on the other flowing down as far as the dead Sea, till the Priests with the Ark went over the Channel of Jordan, and then Jordan returned to its wont course. But the Kings of the Amorites and Canaanites hearing of so great and public a Miracle, were so confounded with the terror of God, that no Spirit remained in them (Josu. c. 4. & 5.) and so I might instance in many other Evident Miracles, which to avoid tediousness, I omit. And yet in that Ark, neither God nor Christ was really contained, but only the Tables of Stone containing the Precepts of the Decalogue, and the Pot of Manna, etc. (Exod. 16.) and the Rod of Aaron that flourished in the House of Levi (Numb. 17.) If therefore by the Ark (that carried only the foresaid Bodies that were inanimate, how sacred soever they were) God wrought in Honour of it such evident far-spreading and public Miracles, how much more powerfully should they have been wrought by him, if it were true, that in your Sacrament of the Altar the true God or Christ were really contained, whom you affirm that he ought to be worshipped and venerated infinitely above all. Since therefore no such thing does appear there to the Eye, it follows that it is impossible for any Miracle to be done there, since this is against the Nature of a Miracle. The answer to this is so weak, and so the rest, are generally such an unintelligible School-jargon, that I shall not tyre, the Reader with them. But shall go on with the Jew. 3. Ibid. 12. Impossib. fol. 132. You Christians do assert, that the true Body of Christ gins to be on the Altar. This seems to be impossible; For a thing gins to be where it was not before, two ways. Either by Local Motion, or by the conversion of another thing into it; as appears in Fire, which gins to be any where, either because it is kindled there anew, or is brought thither the novo. But it is manifest, that the true Body of Christ was not always on the Altar; because the Christians assert, that Christ ascended in his Body to Heaven. It seems also impossible to be said, that any thing here is converted anew into Christ's Body; because nothing seems convertible into that which existed before; since that into which another thing is turned, by such a change, gins to exist. Now it is manifest, that Christ's Body did praeexist, seeing it was conceived in the Womb of Mary. It seems therefore impossible, that it should begin to be on the Altar anew, by the Conversion of another thing into it. In like manner, neither by a change of Place, because every thing that is locally moved, does so begin to be in one place, that it ceases to be in that other in which it was before. We must therefore say, that when Christ gins to be on this Altar on which the Sacrament is performed, he ceases to be in Heaven whither he ascended. It is also plain, that this Sacrament is in like manner celebrated on divers Altars. Therefore it is impossible that the Body of Christ should begin to be there by a Local Motion. 4. You Christians affirm, Ibid. 13. Imposs. fol. 134. that your Christ is whole in the Sacrament, under the Species of Bread and Wine. This I prove thus to be impossible. Because never are the Parts of any Body contained in divers Places, the Body itself remaining whole. But now it is manifest, that in this Sacrament the Bread and Wine are asunder in separate Places. If therefore the Flesh of Christ be under the Species of Bread, and his Blood under the Species of Wine, it seems to follow, that Christ does not remain whole, but that always when this Sacrament is celebrated, his Blood is separated from his Body. 5. Ibid. 14. Imposs. fol. eod. You Christians say, that in that little Host, the Body of Christ is contained. This I prove to be impossible. Because it is impossible that a greater Body should be included in the place of a lesser Body. But it is manifest, that the True Body of Christ is of a greater Quantity than the Bread that is offered on the Altar. Therefore it seems impossible, that the true Body of Christ should be whole and entire there, where the Bread seems to be. But if the whole be not there, but only some part of it, than the foresaid Inconvenience returns, that always when this Sacrament is performed, the Body of Christ is Differenced (or separated) by Parts. I will only here set down what the Catholic Author replies to this (after the unintelligible distinctions of the Schools) and seems most to trust to, even such wise Similitudes as these, that the Soul is greater than the Body, and yet is contained within it; that a great Mountain is contained in the little Apple of the Eye; and the greatest Bodies in a little Looking-glass, and great Virtues in little precious Stones, and in the Little Body of the Pope great Authority, etc. 6. Ibid. 15. Imposs. fol. 135. The Jew says, you Christians affirm that your Christ is in like manner on more Altars where Masses are celebrated. This seems to be impossible, because it is impossible for one Body to exist in more places than one. But it is plain that this Sacrament is celebrated in more Places. Therefore it seems impossible that the Body of Christ should be truly contained in this Sacrament. Unless perhaps any should say, that according to one part of it, it is here, and according to another Part elsewhere. But from thence it would again follow, that by the Celebration of this Sacrament the Body of Christ is divided into Parts; when yet the Quantity of the Body of Christ seems not to suffice for the dividing so many Particles out of it, as there are Places in which this Sacrament is performed. 7. You Christians say, that after Consecration, Ibid. 16. Imposs. fol. 136. all the Accidents of Bread and Wine are manifestly perceived in this Sacrament, viz. the Colour, Taste, Smell, Figure, Quantity and Weight. About which you cannot be deceived, because Sense is not deceived about its proper Objects. Now these Accidents, as you assert, cannot be in the Body of Christ as in their Subject.— Nor can they subsist by themselves, seeing the Nature and Essence of an Accident is to be in another thing (7. Metaphys.) For Accidents seeing they are Forms, cannot be individuated but by their Subject; and if the Subject were taken away, would be universal Forms. It remains therefore that these Accidents are in their determinate Subjects, viz. In the substance of Bread and Wine. Wherefore there is there the substance of Bread and Wine, and not the substance of Christ's Body; for it seems impossible that two Bodies should be together, (in one place.) 8. The Jews say, Ibid. 17. Imposs. fol. 137. It is certain that if that Wine in your Sacrament were taken in great Quantity, that it would heat (the Body) and intoxicate, as before it was a Sacrament: and also that the Bread would strengthen and nourish. It seems also, that if it be kept long and carelessly, it will corrupt; and it may be eaten of Mice; the Bread and Wine also may be burnt and turned into Vapours; all which cannot agree to the Body of Christ, seeing your Faith declares it to be impassable. It seems therefore impossible, that the Body of Christ should be contained substantially in this Sacrament. 9 The Jew says, Ibid. 18. Imposs. fol. 137. That you Christians break that Sacrament into Parts; Therefore it is impossible that the Body of Christ should be there. The Consequence is thus proved: Because, that Fraction which does sensibly appear, cannot be without a Subject. For it seems to be absurd to say, That the Subject of this Fraction is Christ's Body. Therefore it is impossible Christ's Body should be there, but only the Substance of Bread and Wine. There is a great deal more of what the Jews say against this Doctrine, in that Author: but this is enough, for the purposes I before mentioned (and so I leave it to the Consciences of those concerned) to show, that even the Jews have better explained the words whereby Christ instituted this Sacrament, than the Romanists have, by making it a Figure of Christ's Body, and not the Body itself, spoken more agreeably to the Faith of the Ancient Church, that did so; and have confuted the Errors of this Church, by Maxims consonant to the Sense and Reason of all Mankind. Which God grant they may be sensible of, who have so manifestly swerved from them all, that so their Words may never rise up in Judgement against them. THE END. Books lately printed for Richard Chiswell. A Dissertation concerning the Government of the Ancient Church: more particularly of the Encroachments of the Bishops of Rome upon other Sus. By WILLIAM CAVE, D. D. Octavo. An Answer to Mr. Serjeant's [Sure Fooring in Christianity] concerning the Rule of Faith: With some other Discourses. By WILLIAM FALKNER, D.D. 40. A Vindication of the Ordinations of the Church of England; in Answer to a Paper written by one of the Church of Rome, to prove the Nullity of our Orders. By GILBERT BURNET, D. D. Octavo. An Abridgement of the History of the Reformation of the Church of England. By GILB. BURNET, D. D. Octavo. The APOLOGY of the Church of England; and an Epistle to one Signior Scipio, a Venetian Gentleman, concerning the Council of Trent. Written both in Latin, by the Right Reverend Father in God, JOHN JEWEL Lord Bishop of Salisbury: Made English by a Person of Quality. To which is added, The Life of the said Bishop: Collected and written by the same Hand. Octavo. The Life of WILLIAM BEDEL, D. D. Bishop of Kilmore in Ireland. Together with Certain Letters which passed betwixt him and James Waddesworth (a late Pensioner of the Holy Inquisition of Sevil) in Matters of Religion, concerning the General Motives to the Roman Obedience. Octavo. The Decree made at ROME the Second of March, 1679. condemning some Opinions of the Jesuits, and other Casuists. Quarto. A Discourse concerning the Necessity of Reformation, with respect to the Errors and Corruptions of the Church of Rome. Quarto. First and Second Parts. A Discourse concerning the Celebration of Divine Service in an Unknown Tongue. Quarto. A Papist not Misrepresented by Protestants. Being a Reply to the Reflections upon the Answer to [A Papist Misrepresented and Represented]. Quarto. An Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England, in the several Articles proposed by the late BISHOP of CONDOM, [in his Exposition of the Doctrine of the Cathelick Church]. Quarto. A Defence of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England; against the Exceptions of Monsieur de Meaux, late Bishop of Condom, and his Vindicator. 40. A CATECHISM explaining the Doctrine and Practices of the Church of Rome. With an Answer thereunto. By a Protestant of the Church of England. 80. A Papist Represented and not Misrepresented, being an Answer to the First, Second, Fifth and Sixth Sheets of the Second Part of the [Papist Misrepresented and Represented]; and for a further Vindication of the CATECHISM, truly representing the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome. Quarto. The Lay-Christian's Obligation to read the Holy Scriptures. Quarto. The Plain Man's Reply to the Catholic Missionaries. 240. An Answer to THREE PAPERS lately printed, concerning the Authority of the Catholic Church in Matters of Faith, and the Reformation of the Church of England. Quarto. A Vindication of the Answer to THREE PAPERS concerning the Unity and Authority of the Catholic Church, and the Reformation of the Chursh of England. Quarto. Mr. Chillingwarth's Book, called [The Religion of Protestants a safe way to Salvation] made more generally useful by omitting Personal Contests, but inserting whatsoever concerns the common Cause of Protestants, or defends the Church of England with an exact Table of Contents; and an Addition of some genuine Pieces of Mr. Chillingworth's, never before Printed, viz. against the Infallibility of the Roman Church, Trassubstantiation, Tradition, etc. And an Account of what moved the Author to turn Papist, with his Consutation of the said Motives. The Pillar and Ground of Truth. A Treatise showing that the Roman Church falsely claims to be That Church, and the Pillar of That Truth mentioned by S. Paul in his first Epistle to Timothy, Chap. 3. Vers. 15. 4º: The People's Right to read the Holy Scripture Asserted. 4ᵒ. A Short Summary of the principal Controversies between the Church of England and the Church of Rone; being a Vindication of several Protestant Doctrines, in Answer to a Late Pamphlet, Entitled, [Protestancy destitute of Scripture Proofs.] 4ᵒ. Two Discourses; Of Purgatory, and Prayers for the Dead. An Answer to a Late Pamphlet, Entitled, [The Judgement and Doctrine of the Clergy of the Church of England concerning one Special Branch of the King's Prerogative, viz. In dispensing with the Penal Laws.] 4ᵒ. The Notes of the Church, as laid down by Cardinal Bellarmin, examined and confuted. 4o. With a Table to the Whole. Preparation for Death: Being a Letter sent to a young Gentlewoman in France, in a dangerous Distemper of which she died. By W. W. 12ᵒ. The Difference between the Church of England and the Church of Rome, in opposition to a late Book, Entitled, At Agreement between the Church of England and Church of Rome. A PRIVATE FRAYER to be used in Difficult Times. A True Account of a Conference held about Religion at London, Sept. 29, 1687, between A. Pulton, Jesuit, and Tho. Tennison, D. D. as also of that which led to it, and followed after it. 4ᵒ. The Vindication of A. Cressener, Schoolmaster in Long-Acre, from the Aspersions of A. Pulton, Jesuit, Schoolmaster in the Savoy, together with some Account of his Discourse with Mr. Meredith. A Discourse showing that Protestants are on the safer Side, notwithstanding the uncharitable Judgement of their Adversaries; and that Their Religion is the surest Way to Heaven. 4ᵒ. Six Conferences concerning the Eucharist, wherein is showed, that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation overthrows the Prooss of Christian Religion. A Discourse concerning the pretended Sacrament of Extreme Unction; with an account of the Occasions and Beginnings of it in the Western Church. In Three Parts. With a Letter to the Vindicator of the Bishop of Condom. The Pamphlet entitled, Speculum Ecclesiasticum, or an Ecclesiastical Prospective-Glass, considered, in its False Reasonings and Quotations. There are added, by way of Preface, two further Answers, the First, to the Desender of the Speculum; the Second to the Half-sheet against the Six Conferences.