Selected quad for the lemma: blood_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
blood_n	drink_v	eat_v	saviour_n	5,467	4	7.4314	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A25225	The additional articles in Pope Pius's creed, no articles of the Christian faith being an answer to a late pamphlet intituled, Pope Pius his profession of faith vindicated from novelty in additional articles, and the prospect of popery, taken from that authentick record, with short notes thereupon, defended.	Altham, Michael, 1633-1705.; Altham, Michael, 1633-1705. Creed of Pope Pius IV, or, A prospect of popery taken from that authentick record.	1688 (1688)	Wing A2931; ESTC R18073	87,445	96

one kind after Consecration the Body of Christ is signified And in his Book of Sacraments he hath these expressions In eating and drinking we signifie that Flesh and Blood which were offered for us Ambr. de Sacram. l. 4. c. 4 5. And l. 6. 1. Thou receivest the Sacrament in a similitude It is the Figure of the Body and Blood of our Lord. Thou drinkest the likeness of his precious Blood. And again Bread and Wine remain still the same thing they were before and yet are changed into another thing i. e. They are the same things really and in substance but another thing Sacramentally and in signification As to his last Authority taken from St. Cyril Alex. Ep. ad Coloss Though there be some Rhetorical aggravations the like whereunto may be found in other of the Fathers some of which I have given you an account of yet do I not see that any thing more is design'd by St. Cyril in this place than only to assure us of Christ's real but Spiritual presence in this Sacrament For that he never dreamt of any real and substantial change of the Elements therein is plain from his own words in another place where he saith * Cyril in Johan l. 4. c. 24. Christ gave to his believing Disciples pieces of Bread not pieces of his Body And again † Id. Ad Object Theodor. Our Sacrament doth not assert the eating of a Man i. e. Flesh and Blood that were to draw the minds of the Believers in an irreligious manner to gross cogitations I confess also That under one kind alone is received Christ whole and entire that being a true Sacrament THIS he tells us is a consequence of what is declared above and if so then must they stand and fall together If the foundation be defective the Superstructure is in danger If the Antecedent be false the Consequence can scarce be true Having therefore throughly sifted and examined the preceeding Article and found no Foundation upon which to build our Faith that there is any such real and substantial change wrought in the Elements of the sacred Eucharist after Consecration as is there pretended nor any reason to receive their monstrous and new invented Article of Transubstantiation into the Articles of our Creed we may justly reject this which he calls a consequence thereof But to shew that we have other reasons besides the inconsequence thereof to reject this Article as a Sacrilegious robbing of the People of one half of the sacred Eucharist let us consider the Institution of it and the constant practice of the Church thereupon If we consider the Institution we shall there find that our blessed Saviour in words as plain as possible did institute his Holy Supper under both kinds we may also find that as he did institute it so likewise he did administer it under both kinds we may also observe that He who said to his Disciples Take eat did also say unto them Drink ye all of this and in the close of all he leaves this word of command with them This do in remembrance of me as if he should have said what you have seen me do the same do ye And it is evident by the Apostles practice hereupon that they understood this to be the meaning of their Master And that this was not to remain a duty only during their time but in all after Ages of the Church St. Paul is very plain saying As often as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup 1 Cor. xi 26. ye shew forth the Lords death till he come And as for the practice of the Church thereupon it is very evident that for above a thousand years after Christ the Eucharist was always administred in both kinds So that if we have any regard either to the Institution or Example or Command of Christ or to the Practice of the Apostles or of the Church of Christ for so many Ages we have great reason to reject this Article as a great Novelty And indeed so it is for the first Foundation of it as a thing necessary to be believed and practised is laid in a Decree of the Council of Constance in the year of our Lord 1416. But the Vindicator will tell us that we are mistaken here for he pretends to find some footsteps of it in the Scriptures and for this alledgeth certain passages out of the sixth Chapter of St. John where our Saviour speaks sometimes both of Eating and Drinking and sometimes of Eating only To this I answer That our Blessed Saviour in that place doth not speak any thing of the Sacrament of his Body and Blood but only of a Spiritual feeding upon him by Faith. For when he held that conference with the Capernaitan Jews this Sacrament was not then instituted nor of two years after and therefore no conclusive Argument can be built thereupon But he urgeth us with the Authority of St. Basil in his Epistle ad Caesar Patr. where he saith he finds these words It hath the same efficacy whether a person receives from the Priest one part or more Whether these be the words of St. Basil or how truly they are transcrib'd I have not the opportunity now to examine but admitting for the present that they are what is all this to the denying of the Cup to the Laity and forbidding the Administration of the Sacrament in both kinds under so severe a penalty But I find St. Basil cited by Johannes Gerhardus for a quite different purpose Johan Gerhard de Sacra Coena c 9. §. 43. Basil l. 1. de Bapt. c. 3. for he brings him in speaking on this wise If he who by eating offends his Brother be void of Charity what shall be said of him who dares idly and unprofitably both eat the Body and drink the Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ And again What is the duty of a Christian Id. in Moralib sub finem Let him cleanse himself from all filthiness of Flesh and Spirit and so let him eat the Body and drink the Blood of Christ But at last he urgeth us with the opinion of Luther Melancthon and Spalatensis That in this point Christ hath left no necessary precept but that it may profitably and lawfully be received under one or both kinds To this I answer 1. That our Faith is not founded upon Luther's or any other Man's assertion but upon the Institution of Jesus Christ 2. That Luther wrote his Epistle to the Bohemians before he was fully grounded in the truth and that afterwards he did retract according to the example of St. Austin many things that he had written To this end you may find him begging and beseeching his Reader to read his former writings with pity and commiseration In praefat Tom. 1. Before all things I pray and beseech the godly Reader and I beseech him for our Lord Jesus Christ's sake that he would read these my writings with judgment yea and with great pity remembring

they are made Righteous when they are justified but as the Apostle saith They are justified freely by his Grace Rom. iij. And to explain himself a little after he adds That Grace would not be Grace if it were not given freely but rendred as a due Debt In the same Epistle I find also these words It is not therefore in vain that we sing unto God His mercy shall prevent me and His mercy shall follow me Whence life eternal it self which in the end shall be enjoyed without end and therefore is rendred to precedent merits yet because those merits to which it is given are not prepared by any ability of ours but are wrought in us by Grace even Life eternal it self is called Grace for no other reason but because it is given freely not therefore because it is not given to Merits but because those very Merits to which it is given are themselves a gift These words are an Inference from what went before where St. Austin argues against Merit either before to obtain Grace or after to deserve a Reward These are his words What is the Merit of Man before Grace by which he may deservedly obtain Grace when as all our Merit is from Grace and when he crowns our Merits he crowns nothing else but his own Gifts And from hence he inferrs in the words before cited Whence I observe 1. That all that is good in us here is owing to Divine Mercy preventing us 2. That all the good we can expect hereafter must be from the same Divine Mercy following us 3. That Life eternal which is the great Reward of Vertue and Goodness is called Grace 4. That though it be said to be given to Merits it is not said to be given for the sake of those Merits 5. That those Merits to which it is given are themselves the gift of God and therefore not Merits in the strict sence of the word It is not Righteousness but Pride in the name of Righteousness that expects eternal Life as a Reward due to its deserving These are St. Austin's own words in the next page which directly contradict this Definition of the Council of Trent viz. That a man justified truly deserves Life everlasting by his good works And now if the Vindicator can make any advantage of these words of St. Austin either to himself or to his cause I shall not envy him IV. He tells us that the Council hath defin'd That by works a Man is justified and not by Faith only And to prove this he alledgeth Jam. ij 24. where it is said ye see then how that a man is justified by works and not by faith only This place of Scripture hath been so often urged and all the Arguments raised therefrom so often and so miserably baffled that I wonder with what confidence this Gentleman could bring it upon the stage again They have been often told that St. James here doth not speak of Justification before God but before Men. That as Faith only though that Faith be not alone justifies us before God so good Works do justifie the truth of that Faith and evidence the reality of our Justification thereby unto Men. Which Interpretation is well warranted by St. Paul when he saith If Abraham was justified by Works then hath he whereof to glory but not before God Rom. iv 2. I likewise profess That in the Mass is offered a true proper and propitiatory Sacrifice for the Living and the Dead TO persuade us to a compliance herewith the Vindicator advanceth both Scripture and Antiquity Two great Arguments if well managed Which whether they be or no I shall now Examine 1. He begins with Scripture and by way of Preface thereunto tells us That our blessed Saviour being a Priest according to the Order of Melchisedeck did at his last Supper offer his Body and Blood after an unbloody manner for the Remission of Sins This is unhappily to stumble at the Threshold For 1. How his Consequent comes to be tack'd to his Antecedent is past my capacity to understand Our blessed Saviour was made a Priest for ever after the Order of Melchisedeck Therefore at his last Supper he did offer his Body and Blood after an unbloody manner for the Remission of Sins What Logick there is in this I am yet to learn. 2. If he did offer himself at his last Supper to whom did he do it For we do not find that he did address himself or offer any thing to any but only to his Disciples and surely he will not say that he offered himself as a Sacrifice unto them 3. If he did offer his Body and Blood then was it not an unbloody Sacrifice as they say it was 4. If it was an unbloody Sacrifice then could it not be propitiatory For without shedding of Blood there is no Remission of Sins Heb. ix 22. But the Vindicator hath good Scripture for all this viz. Luke xxij 19. 1 Cor. xi 24. Matth. xxvi 28. In all which places the Words of Institution are recited with some variation St. Matthew saith This is my Body vers 26. St. Luke adds Which is given for you And St. Paul saith Which is broken for you His whole Argument there depends upon the Words of Institution Before therefore I meddle with his reasoning therefrom it will be convenient to consider and explain them And 1. Our Saviour saith This is not This is Transubstantiate or wonderfully converted into another substance viz the substance of my Body 2. If when he said This is he meant Transubstantiation then his Body must be Transubstantiate before he spake and if so then the Conversion doth not depend upon the Words as they affirm For This is implies a thing already done 3. When he said This is my Body it is evident that his true natural humane Body was there with them took the Bread brake it gave it eat it now if that which he took brake gave and eat was then the Body of Christ either he must have two Bodies there at that time or else the same Body was by the same Body taken broken given and eaten and yet all the while neither taken broken given nor eaten 4. When he saith This is my Body which is given for you as St. Luke or Which is broken for you as St. Paul if it be understood literally then must it be either his natural or his glorified Body if they say the former then we urge them again with the preceding Observation the latter they will not dare to say because his Body was not then Glorified 5. If these words be to be literally and strictly to be understood then the substance of Bread must be Christ's Body at that time for what can any Man living understand by This but only this Bread For what he took he blessed what he blessed he brake what he brake he gave to his Disciples what he gave to them he bad them take and eat and what he bad them take and eat of that he

saith This is my Body and all this he himself tells us was Bread. And that it did not receive any such wonderful Conversion or Change as they believe it did by the pronouncing of those words St. Paul who may be presumed to understand the mind of his Master as well as any of them is a very good Evidence who after the Words of Consecration by which they pretend the Change is made doth over and over again call it Bread as you may read 1 Cor. xi 26 27 c. 6. When he saith Do this in remembrance of me it implies an Absence for we can no more be said to remember that which is present than to see that which is absent 7. When it is said This Cup is the New-Testament in my Blood which is shed for you and for many for the remission of Sins Are these words to be understood literally too Must we believe that by the pronouncing of these words there is a substantial Change made If so then it must not be of the Wine but of the Cup and that not into the Blood of Christ but into the New Testament or New Covenant in his Blood which none of them as yet have been so bold as to affirm 8. If we consider that our Saviour celebrated this Sacrament before his Passion and said This is my Body which is broken and This is my Blood which is shed it cannot be literally true of his natural humane Body for that was then whole and unbroken and his Blood was not then shed And indeed it was impossible that the Disciples should understand these words literally because they not only plainly saw that what he gave them was Bread and Wine but they saw likewise as plainly that it was not his Body which was given but his Body which gave that which was given not his Body broken and Blood shed because they saw him alive at that very time and beheld his Body whole and unpierced Having thus considered the words of Institution and made some Remarks upon them let us now see how the Vindicator argues therefrom His first Remark is That the words of Institution are spoken in the present Tense whence he thus argues That it is certain that then before the Passion on the Cross the Body was given and broken Mystically and the Chalice shed for the Remission of Sins To this I answer 1. That if the Vindicator had consulted the Romish Bible or the Mass he might there have found Tradetur instead of Traditur shall be given instead of is given and Effundetur instead of Effunditur shall be shed instead of is shed Which words were likewise long ago used by Origen and St. Chrysostom Origen in Matth. Tract 35. Chrysost in 1 Cor. 11. Sa in verb. Matth. Cajetan in Luc. 22. and the Jesuit Sa would have told him in Greek it is said Which is shed the time present for the time to come And Cardinal Cajetan would have informed him even as the Evangelists by the time present have expressed the future Effusion of Blood saying is shed St. Paul likewise saying is broken signifieth by the present time the breaking of his Body which was after to be done upon the Cross Barrad Harmon Evangeilst Tom. 4. l. 3. c 4. And Barradius the Jesuit saith The Lord useth the time present instead of the future time which then approached for the words ought to be understood of his future passion which then drew near in this sence This is my Body which shall shortly be given for you to suffer and to die So that though the words were really spoken in the present Tense yet did not that hinder either the Primitive Fathers their own Translators of the Bible the Compilers of their Mass or their own Eminent Doctors from understanding them of the time to come Nor is it to be wondered at for they well knew that it was our Saviour's way and manner of speaking As for instance before any of the Jews were come to lay hands on him he said Behold the Son of Man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is betrayed or given into the hands of Sinners Matth. xxvi 45. Therefore doth my Father love me because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I lay down my Life that I may take it again John x. 17. And in another place I am no more in the World John xvij 11. And St. Paul in conformity to his Master's way and manner of speaking saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I am already offered up 2 Tim. iv 6. All which considered it will not appear to be so very certain as this Gentleman thinks it is That the Body of Christ was given and broken before his Passion on the Cross But 2dly He seems to qualifie the rigour of his Assertion by telling us That all this was done Mystically To which I answer That if by Mystically he mean Sacramentally i. e. That our blessed Saviour by what he did at his last Supper intended to signify to his Disciples what he was about to do and suffer for them and the rest of Mankind the day following we shall not differ with him about it But if by Mystically he mean Really though Invisibly as undoubtedly he doth we cannot agree with him for in a true proper and propitiatory Sacrifice as the Article which he here undertakes to defend calls it the thing offered ought to be visible and there ought to be a Destruction of it in the Sacrifice none of all which appears to be in this Action of our Blessed Saviour But he proceeds Which saith he being done in an unbloody manner and offered to God we call it an unbloody Sacrifice and it being for the Remission of Sins 't is likewise propitiatory To this I answer 1. The Vindicator here takes that for granted which we can by no means allow him viz. That the Body of Christ was given and broken Mystically and the Chalice shed for the Remission of Sins before his Passion on the Cross And why we cannot admit of this I have given you an Account already 2. He contradicts himself for he tells us This was done in an unbloody manner and yet he had before told us That the Chalice was shed by which I suppose he means if he have any meaning in it the Blood in the Chalice Now if Christ's Blood was shed how could it be done in an unbloody manner Or how could it be called an unbloody Sacrifice 3. He tells us It was offer'd to God but how doth that appear That our Saviour in his last Supper did indeed offer Bread and Wine to his Disciples is very plain and evident but that he offered either them or any thing else to God the Words of Institution give us no account 4. That it being for Remission of Sins it was likewise propitiatory And here he is under a great mistake for every thing that is for Remission of Sins is not a propitiatory Sacrifice The Baptism of John and his Preaching was for the Remission

of Sins Mark i. 4. And so likewise is Baptism and Repentance Acts ij 38. And yet I suppose the Vindicator will not say That either Baptism or Preaching or Repentance are propitiatory Sacrifices But perhaps he will say That all shedding of Blood made for Remission of Sins is a propitiatory Sacrifice I cannot consent to him in this neither for there is a shedding of Blood sacramental and not real which is made to represent the shedding of Christ's Blood upon the Cross and that is no propitiatory Sacrifice But what if it be real Though it be yet will not the proposition be universally true for the Blood of our Lord was really shed and for Remissions of Sins too at his Circumcision and yet Circumcision was no Sacrifice In a true propitiatory Sacrifice three Things are required 1. There must be a real Effusion of Blood. 2. That real Effusion of Blood must be for the Remission of Sins 3. That Effusion of Blood must be by the Death of the thing offered None of which are to be found in this Action of our Blessed Saviour at his last Supper and therefore it could not be a true proper and propitiatory Sacrifice But if we should grant which we cannot do that this were a Sacrifice and a propitiatory Sacrifice too will it by a necessary Consequence follow that every Mass-Priest at this day doth in the Mass offer a true proper and propitiatory Sacrifice for the Living and the Dead Yes saith the Vindicator For though Christ was offered but once upon the Cross of which St. Paul speaketh Hebr. vij 27. yet in this manner as Christ offered himself at his last Supper we believe that the Apostles and their Successors were commanded to repeat it in a perpetual memory and representation of his Death and Passion by Christ's own Institution when he said to them Do this in remembrance of me in which words he gave them power of doing the same that he had done To this I answer That in the same manner as Christ offered himself at his last Supper he is offered still i. e. Sacramentally and that by the command of Christ we are obliged often to celebrate or repeat this Sacrament in memory of his Death and Passion upon the Cross And that by virtue of those Words Do this in remembrance of me Power was give to the Apostles and their Successors to do the same thing he did i. e. to celebrate this Sacrament in memory of his Death and Passion on the Cross All this we readily grant but what is all this to the Priest's Offering in the Mass a true proper and propitiatory Sacrifice for the Living and the Dead Those of the Roman Communion do indeed lay great stress upon these words Do this in remembrance of me pretending to find therein a power given to every Mass-Priest to offer up the Son of God as a true proper and propitiatory Sacrifice for the Living and the Dead But if they would but consult St. Paul he would better inform them what the importance of these words is For after he had recited the words of Institution and in the close thereof these very words Do this in Remembrance of me in the very next words he tells them what it was they were to do in remembrance of him saying As often as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup ye do shew the Lord's Death till he come 1 Cor. xi 26. 2. Having gone as far as he can with his Scripture proofs he calls in the assistance of Antiquity telling us with sufficient confidence That this i. e. the matter contained in this Article is the Sence of the Primitive Fathers Whether it be or no is the thing we are now to consider and for that purpose I shall examine his Quotations out of them His first Witness is St. Chrysost Hom. 7. I suppose he means 17. in Ep. ad Hebr. where it is said We still offer the same Sacrifice c. To this I answer What St. Chrysostom meant by those words I know no body can better inform us than St. Chrysostom himself who immediately subjoins 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Or to speak more properly we make a commemoration of the same Sacrifice And in the same Homily had the Vindicator carefully perused it of been so honest as to have noted it he might have found such Expressions as these We offer indeed but it is in remembrance of his Death This Sacrifice is an Example of that Sacrifice This which we now do is in commemoration of that which hath been done But that which the Vindicator seems to lay the great stress upon is That St. Chrysostom in this Homily and likewise l. 6. de Sacerd. calls the Eucharist a Sacrifice We grant it but if he will let him explain himself he will tell him upon what account he so calleth it in this Homily Because it representeth the Sacrifice of our Lord's Death and therein we commemorate the same till his coming again And in the other place Because we pray unto God that he would receive the Sacrifice of his Death as a satisfaction for our Sins His next Evidence is St. Ambrose sup Ps 38. Where he speaks of the Priest's offering Sacrifice for the People and of Christ's being offered up upon Earth when his Body is offered St. Ambrose in the same place explains himself saying The Shadow went before the Image followed the Truth shall be The Shadow in the Law the Image in the Gospel the Truth in the Heavens O Man go up into Heaven and thou shalt see those things whereof here was an Image and a Shadow Where he plainly tells us that what is done here upon Earth is only an Image or Representation And in another place he saith In Luc. l. 5. c. 7. We have seen him and look'd upon him with our Eyes and we have thrust our Fingers into the print of his Nails For we seem to see him that we read of and to have beheld him hanging upon the Cross and with the feeling Spirit of the Church to have searched his Wounds Now as St. Ambrose here saith We see him hanging on the Cross c. In like manner doth he say He is offered up upon Earth when his Body is offered For as their own Gloss upon the Sentences of Prosper saith Christ is Sacrificed i. e. his Sacrifice is represented and a commemoration is made of his Passion His next Authority is Cyril Alex. Anath 11. We celebrate in our Churches an Holy Life-giving and Vnbloody Sacrifice What St. Cyril meant by this Unbloody Sacrifice he himself will best inform us if we consult him about it for in another place he saith Cyril contr Julian l. 10. We having left the gross Ministery of the Jews have a commandment to make a fine thin and spiritual Sacrifice And therefore we offer unto God for a sweet smelling savour all manner of Vertues Faith Hope Charity And in the same sence that he calls these Sacrifices doth he call

the Eucharist an unbloody Sacrifice i. e. A Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving His last Reserve is St. August who l. 9. Confess c. 13. speaks of his Mother Monica desiring to be remembred at the Altar after her death because she knew that thence was dispens'd the Holy Victim by which was cancelled the Hand-writing which was contrary unto us And Serm. 32. de Verb. Apost where he speaks of a propitiatory Sacrifice and Alms offered for Souls departed and of commemorating the Dead at the Sacrifice and of a Sacrifice being offered for them That Christians did usually meet to celebrate the memorial of Holy Martyrs and others departed in the Faith of Christ and that some kind of prayers were in St. Austin's time used for the dead we deny not But these are not the things in question but whether in the Mass there be offer'd a true proper and propitiatory Sacrifice for the living and the dead To prove this he produceth these passages of St. Austin wherein he seems to call the Eucharist the holy Victim and the Sacrifice Now what St. Austin meant by these words he himself shall tell you In his Book of Faith he calls it A Sacrifice of Bread and Wine offered in Faith and Charity August ad Petr. Diac. c. 19. and A Commemoration of the Flesh of Christ which he offered for us and of the Blood which he shed for us Id. de Civ Dei l. 17. c. 17. And in another place To eat the Bread in the New Testament is the Sacrifice of Christians And again This Flesh and Blood of Christ was promised before his coming Id. contr Faustum l. 20. c. 21. by the resemblance of Sacrifices in the Passion of Christ it was truly exhibited After the Ascention of Christ it is celebrated by the Sacrament of Commemoration Id. Epist ad Bonifac 23. And again Was not Christ once sacrificed in his Body and yet he is sacrificed to the people in a sacred sign every day Id. de Civ Dei l. 10. c. 5. And again That which we call a Sacrifice is a sign or representation of the true Sacrifice Thus doth St. Austin explain himself and if thus explain'd the Vindicator can any way avail either himself or his cause by his testimony he hath free liberty so to do I believe and profess That in the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist is truly really and substantially the Body and Blood together with the Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ and that there is a change or conversion of the whole Substance of the Bread into the Body and of the whole Substance of the Wine into the Blood which Conversion or Change the Holy Church calls Transubstantiation THIS Doctrine he saith is founded in the express words of Christ who said This is my Body This is my Blood. To this I answer These and the other words of Institution having been considered already and no new matter here offered I shall not need to trouble my self nor the Reader with the Repetition of what hath been already said And this being the only Scripture proof he here alledgeth I shall only referr you to what I have said of it in the foregoing Article and so wait upon the Vindicator to his Authorities The Authorities which he here produceth if they be any thing to his purpose must be acknowledged to be ancient and the Authors of good Credit Whether therefore they will serve the end which he aims at we shall now enquire His first Evidence is St. Ignatius Martyr in Ep. ad Smyrn where speaking of some Hereticks of his time he saith They do not allow of Eucharists and Oblations because they do not believe the Eucharist to be the Flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ which suffered for our Sins and which the Father in his mercy raised again from the dead These words are indeed thus cited by Theodoret Dial. 111. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They do not receive the Eucharists and Oblations But in the Copy of this Epistle which is to be seen in the Florentine Library and is generally thought to be the most genuine we find this passage thus worded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They recede or abstain from Eucharists and Prayer But this only by the bye the stress of his Argument lies not in this but in the reason of their recession and refusal which was Because they did not confess that the Eucharist was the Flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ which suffered for our Sins and was raised again These words at first sight to an unthinking Man may seem to conclude the point but if we consider who they were that refused the Eucharist for this reason it will much abate the force of them That they were Hereticks the Vindicator owns and what their Heresie was Ignatius will tell us They denied Christ to be a perfect Man they held that he had not a true humane but only a fantastical Body That he did not really but in appearance only suffer upon the Cross and rise again from the Dead Against these the holy Martyr in the beginning of this Epistle bends his whole discourse his whole business being to make it appear That Christ was truly born of the Virgin Mary truly baptized of John in Jordan truly suffered under Pontius Pilate and was truly raised again from the Dead Now what wonder is it that those who did believe that he never had any real Body should refuse and reject with scorn his Sacramental Body when offered to them For what Sacrament what Sign what Remembrance what Representation can there possibly be of that which in truth never had any Being The whole importance therefore of these words is only this These Hereticks would not believe the Eucharist to be the Sacramental Body of Christ because they did not believe that ever he had any real Body St. Chrysostome speaking of some such in his time who would not believe that Christ really suffered Chrysost in Matth. Hom. 83. tells us in what manner they used to convince them When they say How may we know that Christ was offered bringing forth these Mysteries we stop their mouths For if Christ died not whose Sign and Token is this Sacrifice Where he calls the Eucharist a Mystery a Sign and a Token i. e. A Representation of the Death of Christ and in this sence are we to understand the Holy Martyr Ignatius in this place His next witness is St. Hilary l. 8. de Trinit where he saith My Flesh is Meat indeed and my Blood is Drink indeed There 's no place left for doubting of the Reality of his Flesh and Blood for now both by the Profession of Christ himself and by our Faith 't is truly Flesh and truly Blood. Is not this Truth It may indeed not be true to them who deny Christ to be God. To this I answer That the words which St. Hilary here quoteth are in John vi 55. In which whole Chapter our Saviour speaketh not