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 it self 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 fervor 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 ought to be look'd 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. Chrysostome (z) Hom. 46. in Joan. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 asking 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 c. 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 forbid 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 killing Letter there is also in the New Testament a Letter that kills him who do's 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. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We are not to eat the Flesh of the Lamb as the Slaves of the Letter do c. 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 hungred 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 corde 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 quickneth the Flesh profiteth nothing c. 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 spake 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 spake of was celestial Meat from above and spiritual Nourishment to be given by him c. 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 long'd 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 c. 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 quickneth 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. Defens 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 fince 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. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. upon those words It is the Spirit that quickneth 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 distinguish'd 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 Mans Blood than to shed it Origen's (u) Prolog 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 c. 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 c. 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. also well expresses it thus There is an Analogy betwixt the Motions and Operations of the Soul and the Senses of the Body c. 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 c. What do's 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 do's not bestow his Body after that manner you think he do's 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 shak'd off the Devil's Power And elsewhere (f) Glaphyr in Exod. lib. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaking of the Eunuch He by his Question says he shewed 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 tuâ—â— 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. Chrysostome (k) In 1 Cor. c. 11. v. 29. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 expounding those words He that eateth and drinketh unworthily c. says As Christs 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 c. 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
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 Lev. 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 nequaquà m 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 Sayings of S. Austin The first is upon the 98 Psalm (d) In Ps 98. where he confutes those who when our Saviour spake 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 crucifie 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 chuse Words to express his Mind more fully by in this Matter His other Saying is against the Manichees who fansied a latent Christ in the Fruits of Trees and Ears of Corn and professed to eat him that was passible with their Mouths S. Austin thus sarcastically derides them (e) Contr. Faustum l. 20. c. 11. Ore 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 Sepulcher 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 testifie 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 Christs 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.
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 Christs 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 formed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 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 Jesu 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 receiv'd 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 ate the Bread and no Lord. Neither is S. Austin singular in this Phrase of the Bread of the Lord to signifie 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 it self 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 expresly (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 Christs 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 Christs 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 Lords Table and received from the Lords Table to some to Life and to others to destruction But the thing it self 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
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 ate of the Heavenly Food in the Desart 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 ate 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 c. The rest of the Sermon being of a moral and allegorical Nature I omit Besides this Sermon in Publick 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 Arch-Bishop 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 brake it saying thus to his Apostles Eat this Bread it is my Body and again he blessed the Cup filled with Wine and spake 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 Priests 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 sence in re corporali but in a Spiritual sence 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 ate the same spiritual Meat and drank the same spiritual Drink c. The Apostle that says what you have heard They all ate c. he do's not say corporally but spiritually Christ was not as yet born nor his Blood shed then it was the People of Israel did eat that Spiritual Meat and drank of that Rock neither was that Rock Christ Corporeally tho' he spake 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 Sence of the English Epistle and that Paragraph of it which I have inclosed between two Brackets was look'd upon as so disagreeable to the present Faith of the Roman Church that some had rased them out of the Worcester Book but the same Latin Epistle being found in Exceter Church it was restored I was once about to have added some Citations here out of Bertram's 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 it self 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 Arch-bishop 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 rased 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 tà m corporis quà m animae
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 c. 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 impossibl 10. begins 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 c. 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 spake 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 rose 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 Sence 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 then 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 ate 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 Bit 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 show'd This is what the Jew urges with great reason But the Catholick Author makes a poor Answer to it and has nothing to say in effect but this That the Tradition of the Catholick 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 publick and apparent to all the People insomuch that Infidels were terrifyed 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 dry-shod 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 Chanel of Jordan and then Jordan returned to its wonted course But the Kings of the Amorites and Canaanites hearing of so great and publick 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 c. 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 publick 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 do's 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 tire 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 begins to be on the Altar This seems to be impossible For a thing begins to be where it was not before two ways Either by Local Motion or by the conversion of another thing into it as appears
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 c. Let all that has been said Beloved prevail thus far with us that we may not eat Christs 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 Lords Body that we may be enlivened by his spirit c. CHAP. XIV The Fourteenth Difference Several Vsages and Practices of the Fathers 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 practises 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 Mens 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 Sayings 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 above-named 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 Catechumens 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 Catechumens Penitents c. 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 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 c. 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 do's the Priest stand at the Altar when none participates in vain is the daily Sacrifice He minds them that the Cryer had said indeed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That those that were in penitence or penance should depart but thou says he art not of that number but of those that may participate i.e. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not being hindred 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 communicat det locum it was the custom in his Time for a Deacon to cry aloud If any do not Communicate let him depart 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
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 rose 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 Mens Senses and another thing they declare inwardly to believing Minds Outwardly Bread and Wine are seen both in appearance and in tast yet they are truly after Consecration Christ's Body and Blood by a Spiritual Sacrament An Heathen Child is Baptized 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 Well-spring 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 then we see that it is a Creature corruptible and changeable but if we own a spiritual Power there then we understand that Life is in it and that it confers Immortality on those that tast it by Faith. There is a great difference betwixt the insible Vertue 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 suffer'd in and that Body which is consecrated for the Eucharist The Body that Chrivt suffer'd 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 rose from the Dead henceforth dies no more but is eternal and impassible 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 Pledg and a Type the Body of Christ is the Truth We keep this Pledg Sacramentally till we come to the Truth it self and then is the Pledg 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 Fore-fathers were baptized in the Cloud and in the Sea and all ate 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 ate 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 dayly 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
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 Virgine natum est in quo ipse Dominus passus est in Cruce resurrexit de sepulchro Idem esse quod sumitur de altari cui errori quantum potuimus ad Egilonem Abbatem scribentâ—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 do's 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 entreth 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 rose 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 it self 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 c. is the same that we receive at the Altar scraped out those words which I have inclosed 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 Sence agreeing indeed with that of the Ancients but no Sence at all when the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is supposed and those Prayers to be interpreted by it c. 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 threatnings 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 laught at their Baptism that Christians should fansy a purgation thereby from Great Crimes Yet after all this they took no occasion from the Eucharist to traduce them tho 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 Sence 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 Turn-coats 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 strengthned their Reproach if they knew that they were bound thus to believe But then 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 Averroes and others I believe indeed that they must always count this a foolish Paradox which Averroes charged Christians withal in that known Saying of his (b) Se Sectam Christianâ deteriorem aut ineptiorem nullam reperire quam qui sequuntur ii 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 Averroes 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 Averroes for this Calumny when all acknowledg that this Philosopher P. Innocent 3. who establish'd 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 Averroes 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 bin Edris ita scribit verba autem Isa fic Arabes Christum vocant super quo pax Qui edit carnem meam bibit sanguinem c. Christiani literaliter intelligunt Atque sic Christiani atrociores sunt in Christum quà m Judaei Illi enim Christum occisum reliquerunt hi 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 c. 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 Altare 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 c. 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 sence of Transubstantiation by being turned into it and cloathed 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 Messias c. 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 extreamest 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 look'd upon as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which will always hinder and obstruct their Conversion whilst it is believed by them to be the common Sence 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 Hereticks 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 Catholick 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
Old Test did eat the same spiritual meat with us because they ate it by Faith. Page 127 4 Consid They represent Christs Body as dead and that so it must be taken Ergo spiritually Page 128 Two remarkable sayings of S. Austin to prove all this Page 130 CHAP. XIII The Thirteenth Difference The Fathers assert that the Faithful only eat Christs 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 Christs 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 c. 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 Christs 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 abhorr'd Page 149 7 Inst In the Reservation of the Eucharist Three differences herein consider'd 1 Difference The Anc. Church took no care to reserve what was not received in the Eucharist but the Ro. Church reserves all 151 c. 2 Differ What had been publickly 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 c. 8 Inst The infinite sollicitous 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 c. 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 differ'd from the present Rom. Church in the Article of the corporal presence Page 182 c. The Saxon Easter-Sermon produc'd as a Testimony against them Page 183 184 c. Two Epistles of Elfric the Abbot declare against that Doctrine Page 187 188. A Remarkable Testimony also of Rabanus Archbishop of Mentz alledged Page 189 CHAP. XVII The Conclusion of the whole Shewing that Heathens and Jews reproached not the Ancient Christians about the Eucharist 191. Transubstantiation occasion'd 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 Christs 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 justifie 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 Parcchōs part 2. num 25. which tells us there are three most wonderful things which the Catholick 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 conteined 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 no Created Power can effect but God's Omnipotency alone I 'le give them in the Words of the Jesuite 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.
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 c. we need not question but that the same Spirit coming upon the Water of Baptism or on him that is baptized do's 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 signifie 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 'le 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 quà m 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 Dogma's these are the Paradoxes of Pelagian Hereticks more wonderful than those of the Stoick 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 do's not determine what the word THIS refers to only telling us that it must demonstrate the whole Substance of the thing present yet it expresly 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 do's 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 â—â—eri possit quia panis de quo enunciatur manere debet If the Pronoun THIS in Christ's Words pointed at the Bread then 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 shew 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) Adv. 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 do's allegorically signifie the Word i. e. the Blood of the Word shed for many for the remission
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. Observ The Fathers oft-times 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 it's 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 Christs 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. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 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 sayings 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 Lords 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 Christs 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 forbid 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. Chrysostome (m) Epist 1. ad Innocent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaking of the rudeness of the Souldiers in the Church says that in the tumult the most holy Blood of Christ was shed upon the Souldiers 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 Catholicks and directing how to discover them he says (n) Serm. 4. de Quadrages Ita in Sacramentorum communione se temperant ut interdum tutiùs lateant Ore 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 Antients 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. Observ 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 Christs 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 rose because it is a memorial of it
J. Christi c. 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 c. Also the Fathers say still more expresly 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 poâ—est 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 Lords 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 Bishops 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 râ—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 sermonâ— Christi conficitur Vera utique caro Christi quae crucifixa est quae sepulta est Verè ergo carâ—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 Hereticks 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 Christs 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. where he means the Eucharist distinguishing it from Christs 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 c. 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. Observ 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 Lords Table which the Church of Rome will
exemplum dedit ut quotiescunque hoc facimus in mente 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 look'd 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 witnesses 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. Christe 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. Chrysostome (n) Hom. 51. in Matth. Lat. Graec. Savil. Hom. 50. pag. 322. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. As when thou art baptized it is not he viz. the Priest that baptizes 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 c. The same Father * Id. Epist ad Colos Hom. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thus speaks of one to be baptized 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 c. speaks to those that are to be baptized 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 c. Marcus the Hermite (p) De Baptism 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaking of a baptized Person says Upon his Baptism he has Christ lying hid in him S. Chrysostome 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 thy self 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 our selves 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 c. 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 then it is observable that he do's 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 cloathed with one Christ by the Nature of one Baptism I 'le 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 do's 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 dyed in that Blood and baptized 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 baptized 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 baptized 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 Promiss part 2. Baptismo sanguine Christi tinguntur They are dyed in the Blood of Christ in Baptism S. Chrysostome (c) Catech. ad illuminand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaking to those that were to receive Baptism You shall be cloathed with the Purple Garment dyed 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 enquire 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. Observ 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 impassible and invulnerable now it is glorified and cannot admit any separation of Parts which Crucifixion do's 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. Chrysostome (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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 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 c. Again in another place (o) In Coemeter appel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. speaking of the Priest standing before the Holy Table c. he adds When thou seest the Sheep viz. Christ slain and divided c. So also elsewhere (p) De Poenit. in Encoen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 O wonderful The Mystical Table being prepared the Lamb of God slain for thee c. 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 lick'd Lazarus's 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 c. The Sacrament is not really the Body of Christ put in the actual state of one slain dead and without Life nor do's it contain it so but in that respect do's 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 corde 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 parentes tui tenuerunt carnem tu tene corde quoniam Christus absens etiam praesens est nisi praesens esset à nobis teneri non posset c. Corpus enim suum intulit coelo majestatem non abstulit mundo exhorting the Jews to hear and take hold on Christ he brings one in asking Whom shall I lay hold of one that is absent c. 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 Ev. 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
of him who is our God and Lord no more in Sacrament as Believers but in the thing it self 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 shews 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 Ev. 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 â—â—â—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 c. 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 corde 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 c. 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 ate 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 c. 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 then their Meat and ours were not the same For Christ could not be thus their Meat because then 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. Chrysostome 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. Chrysostome 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 expresly 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 Catholick 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
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 c. Unde concedendum quod mali sumunt rem Sacramenti quod est corpus Christi verum quod natum est de Virgine c. it withdrew it self says This is an errour 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 Christs true Body born of the Virgin c. This ought not to seem a strange Doctrine to be held by those who say that brute Creatures may devour Christs 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 Christs Body do's 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 then 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 Christs 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 c. 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 c. 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 it self 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 c. à fertilitate terrae omnia visibilia Sacramenta Visibile enim Sacramentum ad terram pertinet Haec omnia communia habent in Ecclesia boni mali Nam 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 Bread-Corn 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 do's not pertain to Earth at
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 Cluny 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 prophanation 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 Calice in manibus Diaconi existente Sanguinis partem sugit Sacrarum Cerimon lib. 2. cap. de Missa Majori Papa personaliter celebrante But neither do's 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 do's 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 Kinds in all their Publick 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 carelesness 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 perswaded 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 prophanation 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 prophanations c. 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 Perswasions 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 look'd 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 shew 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 Perswasions 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
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 anathematized 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 publick 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 Lay-man 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 lock'd 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 Perswasions 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. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 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 perswaded 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 Adriatick 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 Shipwrack'd at Sea and not yet having been baptized lest he should die without the Mystery he begg'd of some of those that were baptized 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 irreconcileable 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 fic 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
rei fit scissura Signi tantum fit fractura Qua nec status nec statura Signati minuitur c. 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 stagger'd 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 c. Another Hymn of the same Author which begins Pange 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 c. 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 perswade Then to this Sacrament so high Low rev'rence let us now direct Old Rites must yield in dignity To this with such great Graces deckt And Faith will all those Wants supply Wherein the Senses feel defect c. In another Hymn of Th. Aquinas which begins 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 appâ—obration of three Doctors of the Faculty there An. 1669. a little Book in French called Practique pour Adorer le tres Saint Sacrament de l' Autel Or A Form for the Adoration of the most Holy Sacrament of the Altar Which begins 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 do's reverence hearing them repeated as much He that being confessed and communicated shall say the above-said 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 Rubrick 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 Jesu 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. Splendor vultus Christi illumina me Passio Christi conforta me H. Sar. Sudor vultus Christi virtuosissime sana me O bone Jesu exaudi me Intra vulnera tua absconde me Ne permittas me separari à ce Ab hoste maligno defende 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 hide 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 Virgine Vere passum immolatum In cruce 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 Jesu 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 suddain 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 Litaniae de Sacramente S. Litaniae variae p. 30. Panis vivus qui de Coelo descendisti Misere nobis Deus absconditus Salvator Misere