so often every year under both kinds we fulfil the precept and that being done the receiving afterwards under one kind can be no violation of the precept it being an act of Devotion not prohibited but he that never receives under both kinds all his life time is a manifest transgressor And so the Fourth Reason is answered The Seventh Objection is in substance the same with the former only this induceth the authority of the Fathers upon the Texts cited in the Fifth Reason where by breaking Bread they understand this Sacrament I Answer That the Disciples in those times lived in common and gave up their Temporals into the common stock and took their refection in common so that their coming together to break Bread means their Meeting together to take their Corporal repast However the Receiving under one Kind upon particular occasions proves just nothing in order to this question because the Precept may at other times be fulfilled by receiving under both Kinds which the Fathers no way impugne But if you consult the Fathers you shall find many of them abetters of this Opinion Chrisostom speaking of the practise of the Old Law wherein it was not lawful for the people to participate of that part that was reserved for the Priest adds these words Sed nunc non sic verum omnibus unum corpus proponitur unum poculum Chrisost Hom. 18. in poster Corinth Gelasius apud Gratian Cap. Comperimus de Consecrat dist 2. Gelatius Papa speaking of the Manachaeans saith thus Comperimus quod quidam sumpta tantummodo corporis Sacri portione à calice Sacri cruoris abstineant qui proculdubio quoniam nescio qua superstitione docentur obstringi aut Sacramenta integra percipiant aut ab integris arceantur quia divisio unius ejusdem mysterii sine grandi Sacrilegio non potest provenire And of the same Opinion is Leo Papa Leo. Serm. â—â—de Quadrages with others And this proves the Fifth Reason Inâ—â—â—eient SECT IV. Corallaries drawn from the Romanists Doctrine of their pretended Sacrifice of the Mass IT is the usual practise of our Antagonists when they apprehend any Dogmatical Point conducing to their intended design they cast about them and summon all the strength of Arguments they can muster up to establish that Principle But if the same Position in another occasion stand in their way and obstruct the evincing of some other Thesis then they with all sedulous industry apply themselves to depress and cry down the same Point which they had before so elaborately strived to make good As in this subject to make out the legality of their half Communion How do they endevor to devest the drinking of the Blood of all its Prerogatives and particular Graces peculiar to that kind alone as though it were superfluous and after receiving under the Species of Bread it were but actum agere to Administer the Chalice Yet when they treat of their Sacrifice of the Mass then the consummating of the Chalice is held in great veneration and esteemed to necessary that rather then omit it they must lay hold of any hard shift and have recourse to extremities for which no reason can be alleaged except they grant the Chalice its due and allow its efficacy and operation as proper to it self which in this Discourse we shall make plainly appear The approved notion of a Sacrifice is this Immutatio facta circa rem aliquam creatam in agnitionem Supremi Dominii It is a change made about some created thing in acknowledgment of the Supreme Dominion and according to this definition they infer the Mass to contain verum Council Trid. in profession sâ—â—â—i proprium propitiatorium Sacrificium as the Council of Trent declares A true proper and Propitiatory Sacrifice for in the Consecrating of the Bread and Wine there is a proper Conversion or Transmutation of the same into the Body and Blood of Christ and these are also consummated by the Sacrificater all which is performed by way of a Commemoration of that bloody Sacrifice whereby the Author of Life offer'd himself upon the Cross to his eternal Father as a Propitiation for the sins of Mankind Yet to compleat this unbloody Sacrifice it is not sufficient that the Priest do consummate the Hoast under the Species of Bread but it is also rigorously and indispensably necessary that he also consummate the Chalice under the Species of Wine and therefore in case a Priest after having Consecrated the Bread and Wine and Consummated the Hoast should by any sudden accident or indisposition of Body fall down at the Altar and be rendred wholly unable of Consummating the Chalice under the Species of Wine in this case they are to use all possible means suddenly to procure another Priest and if none could be found that are fasting yet rather then faile they must appoint one that is not fasting to Consummate the Chalice and yet without such an immergent necessity it is esteemed a heinous crime for any one to presume to receive this Sacrament except he be fasting the reason hereof is because the Sacrifice should not remain imperfect for the Offering up an incompleat Sacrifice to the Author of all Being is held a great abomination and a disrespect to God and therefore a less inconvenience must yield to a greater for ex duobus malis minus est eligendum This being so I now come to examine the ground of this indispensable necessity Why is the Consummating the Chalice so rigorously requir'd They Answer To compleat the Sacrifice I again demand What is wanting to the compleating the Sacrifice They Answer The Receiving under the Species of Wine which in this Sacrifice hath been Consecrated Here I must alledge their own Arguments which they so industriously urge to excuse their denying the Chalice to the Laity For say they he who receives under the Species of Bread receives all Christ not only the Body but the Blood of Christ the Natural Union the Divine Word the Hypostatical Union and the whole Trinity therefore to receive again under the Species of Wine is superfluous it is actum agere he had all before and more he cannot have so that the second reception is but a bare repetition of the former without addition or diminution This Doctrine which is their own I apply to their Sacrifice When the Priest hath Consecrated in both Kinds and Consummated the Hoast I still press to know What is wanting to compleat their Sacrifice Nothing can be assign'd but the Consummating the Chalice But I Reply The Sacrificater hath already Received all Christ nothing excepted What would he have more for to Consummate the Chalice is but to receive the very same again it is but an unnecessary Repetition it is actum agere whereby nothing is received but what was received before and therefore if any thing be wanting to Compleat the Sacrifice it must be some Spiritual Benefit or Emolument that the Chalice brings with it In
touching the Vessels with this Forme Accipe potestatem c. they affirm the Ordained to receive the Order of Priesthood with Power to Consecrate and offer Sacrifice and the Character to be thereby imprinted But by the consequent imposition of hands the Ordained receives a Power only to forgive or retain sins as the Forme of words expresseth So Becanus Part 3. Theologiae Cap. 26. de Sacramento Ordinis quest 4. who uses his utmost endeavor by this means to maintain the Validity of Ordination according to the present practice of the Church of Rome yet so as not to draw any prejudice upon the Ordination of the Greek Church and other Christian Congregations whose Ordinations the Church of Rome ever declared valid But the Council of Florence seems to obstruct his design by assigning no other Essentials of Ordination but the Tradition of the Vessels and their Forme and here Gamachaeus above cited in the precedent Section Cap. 4. joyns his forces with Becanus or rather Becanus with him So also doth Meratius D 7. S. 2. who to the Autority of the Council of Florence Answers Concilium non suscepisse ex professo declarandum accurate singulorum ordinum materiam formam totalem ac integram c. sed solum per cujus rei Traditionem potestas ordinis conferetur The Council saith Meratius did not undertake of purpose to declare exactly the total and adequate Matter and Forme of each order c. but only to declare what those things were by whose Tradition the power of order was conferr'd And this Opinion Isamberus also imbraces with avidity as conceiving all helps little enough in such a hard conjuncture and therfore joyns this Opinion with his own specify'd above in the Second Objection St. Bonaventure holds the same in 4 d. 7. ar 1. q. 1. 2. and before him Alexander p. 4. Summe q. 9. Memb. 1. 2. ar 2. where he distinguisheth between that which Christ Ordained and that which the Church Ordained in these words Quae enim ab homine Ordinata sunt ab homine possunt mutari quae autem à Deo instituta sunt non nisi dictante Deo debent mutari These things saith he that are Ordained by Man may be changed by Man but those things that are Instituted by God are not to be changed but by Gods appointment As to their Interpretation of the Council of Florence I Answer That it is is a meer ungrounded shift for the Council gives not the least hint of any such sense but undertakes to assign the Essential matter of Priesthood and to that purpose specifies only the Tradition of the Vessels as the only Essential Matter and mentions nothing else which would be a meer delusion if the Council had judged any thing else to be Essential But Becanus interprets it thus Nota antiqua Concilia assignasse materiam à Christo Institutam Florentinum verò materiam assignasse quam Ecclesia introduxit Note saith Becanus that the Antient Councils assigned the matter Instituted by Christ but the Council of Florence specified the Matter that was introduced by the Church Be it so then the Antient Councils assigned only the Imposition of hands as the Essential Matter of Priesthood but the Council of Florence in the time of those Fathers signified the Tradition of the Vessels and nothing else as the only Essential Matter So that neither the Antient nor Modern Councils ever joyned these two Matters together as parts of the whole by their own Confession But hence it is plain that the Church of Rome hath introduced a New Matter and Forme which Christ never Instituted and yet they hold it Essential Now to their Argument My first Answer is That this is a meer evasion to save them from Shipwrack What ground have they for patching up a Sacramental Matter with two such disparate and heterogeneal pieces What time will they appoint to have the Character imprinted What will this avail them if it should be all granted for none of them will admit the Imposition of Hands alone with its Forme to have a capacity to confer the Order of Priesthood and Imprint the Character therefore they must declare the Ordination of the Greeks to be frustrate who never used any other Matter then the Imposition of Hands But if this alone be sufficient Then what need is there of the Tradition of the Vessels Why should these two parts so different from each other be conjoyned if either of them apart were sufficient My Second Answer is That they could never have made a worse choice then to joyn these two Matters and Formes together in order to constitute the entire Essence of Ordination for both the one and the other are Innovations the one begun about Seven hundred years since the other was introduced about Four hundred and fifty years since so that neither was Instituted by Christ neither recommended by the Apostles neither practised in the Church of God before the times specified From whence then can they derive their Validity My Third Answer is That the last Imposition of Hands with this Forme Accipe Spiritum Sanctum c. Receive the Holy Ghost whose sins you forgive they are forgiven whose sins you retain they are retained This I say can no way belong to the Essentials of Priesthood because this Matter and Forme are applyed to none but those that have before received the Order of Priesthood and have the Character Imprinted which is manifest because they all said Mass and Consecrated with the Bishop before the application of this Matter and Forme which is not performed till after they have all Received the Communion immediately before the Post-Communion is Read wherefore this Matter and Forme comes too late to have any influence upon the Order of Priesthood but I shall not need spend time in the Proof of this because the Authors of this Objection grant it and only make use of this Matter and Forme to confer the Power of Forgiving and Retaining sins Which being supposed they must rely wholly upon the Tradition of the Vessels for conferring upon the Ordained the Spiritual Power of Priesthood and enabling him to Consecrate the Body and Blood of Christ and to offer Sacrifice and for Imprinting the Character c. all which the touching of the Vessels with its Forme can never accomplish because here is nothing at all of Christ's Institution no Imposition of Hands doth any way concur to this So that we have here the Power of Priesthood conferr'd with the Character and yet without any Imposition of Hands and hereby this Opinion agrees with the First Objection which excludes all Imposition of Hands and therefore must of necessity condemn the Greek Church who never use any other Matter of Ordination then the Imposition of Hands And yet the main drift of these Objections is to save the Validity of the Greeks Ordinations so as not to destroy their own And that the Power of Consecrating the Body and Blood of Christ is the
Power of offering Sacrifice then conferr'd upon the Ordained and nothing else And the offering of Sacrifice is the chief action of a Priest because it impowers him to Consecrate the Body and Blood of Christ which none but a Priest can do Albert. Mag. L. 6. Theolog. veritatis C. 36. Actus Presbyterorum saith Albertus Magnus est Consecrare corpus Sanguinem Christi est actus principalis Alius est consequens scilicet ligare solvere The Act of Priests is to Consecrate the Body and Blood of Christ and it is the principal Act. The other is consequent which is to Retain and Absolve which they all grant therefore they must acknowledge Priesthood to be hereby conferr'd For To what other sense can they draw those words Take Receive Accept the Power of offering Sacrifice and the Ordained comes with a full intention to Receive the Power whence there cannot be the least shadow of any other design then intending this Matter and Forme as the Essentials of Priesthood SECT VIII An Illation drawn from the Premises of the Invalidity of Ordination in the Church of England Solved THe Council of Trent seems to make no difference between Order and Ordination Trid. Sess 23. Can. 3. but confounds them together Si quis dixerit Ordinem sive Sacram Ordinationem non esse verè propriè Sacramentum à Christo Domino institutum c. Anathema sit If any one shall say That Order or Holy Ordination is not truly and properly a Sacrament Instituted by Christ c. let him be Accursed But I shall make it appear that there is a considerable difference between Order and Ordination the one is that which they call a Sacrament the other not The Order of Priesthood is a Spiritual Power whereby the Ordained is enabled and Commissioned to exercise all Priestly Functions with Autority The Ordination consists in the Essential Matter and Forme regularly and aptly applyed by the Bishop which is the Ordainer to him that is Ordained and from this Matter and Forme so applyed results in the Ordained that Spiritual Power which is properly the Order of Priesthood the Character is thereby Imprinted and the Graces accommodated to the Priestly Ministry are also conferr'd So that Order with its concomitants is the effect but Ordination is the cause That is permanent in the Ordained for terme of life this is transient and passeth away for it lasts no longer then while that power is in conferring That is the principal end intended by Christ This is the means Instituted by Christ to attain that end That is as it were a Patent or Commission which the Priest acts by this the cause either efficient or Moral which procured it wherefore these being so different from each other the Council of Trent could not intend to have them both Sacraments but that alone if any must be a Sacrament which confers the Order of Priesthood to the Ordained and also Imprints the Character c. all this is performed by Ordination not by Order for nothing can be the cause of it self Order is the effect and therefore cannot be the cause The Character and Sacramental Graces are not produced by the Order but by the Ordination so that if any be a Sacrament it must be this which being premised as evident in it self A Tenth Objection by way of Deduction is drawn from the precedent Doctrine For if the Ordination of the Church of Rome be Invalid it must of necessity draw with it the Nullity of the Church of Englands Ordination who received her Orders from the Church of Rome and cannot make out her Succession of Bishops from Christ and his Apostles without passing through the sides of the Roman Bishops who must integrate the linkes of continuation Wherefore if the Church of Rome have no true Bishops it inevitably follows that the Church of England must lye under the same Censure for one that hath no power of Order can never confer that power upon another because none can give that which he hath not Otherwise it would follow that meerly Men or Civil Magistrates might confer Orders which no Man will grant My Answer to this Objection is grounded in a Principle received by the Romanists themselves namely that where the true Essentials are regularly and orderly applyed though there be a defect in the Ordainer for want of the power of Order yet if he Ordain Cum titulo colorato bona fide the Ordination is valid Four things therefore are necessary to the Validity of Ordination conferr'd by such a Bishop First That none of the Essentials be wanting Secondly That nothing be added in the Ordination repugnant to the Essentials or destructive of their Operation Thirdly That there be in the Ordainer Titulus coloratus bona sides that is a general presumption that he is a true Bishop and that he Ordains according to his Conscience knowing nothing amiss Fourthly That he have a right Intention of conferring the Order Where these Requisites do concurre the Ordination is certainly valid The First Proof hereof is grounded upon that provident care that Christ ever had of his Church for when all the Essentials and necessary Conditions are applyed and no Moral defect to be imputed to the Ordainer nor the Ordained and no Humane prudence could ever detect that secret defect in the Ordainer it would be too severe that the Original Instituter of Ordination should refuse to the Ordained the power of Order nay in a short time it would prove destructive to the whole Church for Christ knew full well the fragility of Humane Nature and considering his infinite Wisdom and Protection of his Church would not oblige our imbecility to Moral Impossibilities or if we failed by our Natural Weakness without either sin or voluntary error would permit the utter ruine and destruction of his Church which would certainly insue if such Ordinations were not valid For I suppose the Ordainers and Ordained to proceed with a candid sincere and good Conscience and that Morally speaking have not the least suspicion of any default or want of power in the Ordainer nay he himself neither knows nor surmiseth any desiciency in his Order In this Case Should the Ordination be void and null Whom could we impute it to certainly to none but those who by their Super-inductions pretended to Correct Christ's Institutions and thereby rendred all defective But must this be so prejudicial to the Church of Christ as to involve all Posterity into the Imputation of the same Crime who were no way consenting to it nay who in due time reformed such abuses and wholly disclaimed from them No certainly our Great Redeemer is more equitable and knows who rejects his Ordinances and Institutions and who endeavors to maintain them But now since Pride Ambition or a vain Pretence to an Arbitrary Power against Divine Right or what Motive else I know not induced the Prelates of the Church of Rome to evacuate Christ's Institutions and in their
act of Divine Faith whose material Object is the Incarnation of the Divine Word The formal Object is Gods asserting of it Whence it ensues that though Faith have a greater certainty then Science yet it is destitute of Evidence as well in attestato as in attestante that is can neither demonstrate by Human Reason the Revelation it self nor the Mystery revealed We all agree that those words Hoc est corpus menm were spoken by Christ himself But we differ in giving the true sense and meaning of them The surest Rule that may guide us herein is to consult the Belief of the Primitive Church they certainly received from the Apostles the true Interpretation of them For it would derogate from Christ's goodness and providence to imprint an erroneous belief upon the first Professors of Christianity What then remains but that we consult Antiquity and inquire what their beliefe was of this Mystery And when this appears it would be a vain attempt of any one after a long continued series of Centuries to start a new Interpretation of those words for that must needs be an Erroneous Innovation and Adulterated Doctrine as repugnant to the general belief of all Christians from Christ's time I should swerve from my intended brevity should I here cite the several Texts of the antient Fathers and Doctors of the Church in opposition to the Real Presence for speaking of the Eucharist they frequently call it the Sacrement of the Body and Blood of Christ and St. Augustine tells us Aug. de Civit Dei L. 10. C. 5. That a Sacrament signifies a Sacred Sign which cannot be the thing signified They also call it the Resemblance the Similitude the Type the Antitype the Symbole the Sign the Image the Figure of the Body and Blood of Christ and consequently not the Body it self Consonant to these expressions of the Fathers was the Universal Belief of the Church none positively affirming for above 800 years after Christ that the Body of our Saviour was really contained in the Sacrament Though in the year 637 A Monk of Mount Sinai one Anastasius among other Contemplations which he had in his Cell would needs disapprove of the former way of speaking which had been ever used till his time and so rejected the expression of Figure and Antitype but used no attempt to settle any point of Doctrine repugnant to the belief of Antiquity Yet what Anastasius began by way of altering the Tearms another Monk of Corbie in France one Paschasius Ratbert compleating by his Doctrine Taught That the Body and Blood of Christ were truly and really present in the Sacrament of the Eucharist which he declares in his Treatise of the Body and Blood of our Saviour which he Composed in the Ninth Century after Christ in the year 818. And for this we have Bellarmines own Testimony Bellarm. de Script Eccles who acknowledgeth that Paschasius was the first Author that ever Wrote a serious Treatise of the Truth of the Body and Blood of our Saviour in the Eucharist This Doctrine being then new never any before attempting to assert it by any set Treatise it found great opposition so that most of the Learnedest Men in those times employed their endeavors severally to oppose it and cry it down which Paschasius himself acknowledgeth for being moved by his intimate Friend Frudegard Paschasias Epist ad Frudegard Pag. 623. about this Doctrine he Answers him You question me about a difficulty whereof many People do doubt to wit of the Real Presence so in his Letter to Frudegard And in his Commentary upon the 26th of St. Mark Idem in 26 Matth. L. 12. pag. 1094. he says I have Treated of these Mysteries more amply and expresly because I have been informed that I have been Censured by many as if in the Book which I Wrote of the Sacrament and Published I had attributed to the words of Christ more then the truth of the words would permit This being a thing so well known in History I shall not here inlarge upon it but only reflect upon the Doctrine of one of our own Nation which is venerable Bede Bede in Luc. C. 22. Idem in Ps 3. Idem hom de Sanc. in Epiph. Idem in Ps 133. To. 8. Idem de Tahern L. 2. C. 2. asibi who in several places of his Works declares his Opinion against the Real Presence for he tells us That our Saviour hath given us the Sacrament of his Body and Blood in the Figure of Bread and Wine And that our Saviour gave to his Disciples in the Last Supper the Figure of his Body and Blood That the Creatures of Bread and Wine pass into the Sacrament of his Body and Blood by the ineffable Sactification of the Holy Ghost That our Saviour changed the Sacrifices of the Legalia into the Sacrifice of Bread and Wine And that in lieu of celebrating the Passion of our Saviour in the Flesh and the Blood of Victims as the Antients did we celebrate it in the Oblation of Bread and Wine These and the like expressions which are frequent in the Works of this Author do manifestly declare that in those times none held the Real Presence but all believed the Eucharist to be a Figure or a Sacrament that is a Sign of the Body and Blood of Christ Hence there arose in the Church a high debate about this new Doctrine Paschasius got some Abetters of his Opinion but the greatest number and the most considerable vehemently opposed it as a Novelty others stood indifferent expecting the issue others again held a third Opinion which in substance was Consubstantiation for they Asserted The Body of Christ in the Eucharist to be united to the substance of Bread The contest about these several Opinions grew fervent some adhering to the one part others to the other and this mutual Contest lasted all the Ninth Century Whereupon that Great Emperor Charles Surnamed the Balde who was then Emperor of Germany and King of France finding his Subjects dissected into opposite Parties and contending against each other with so much rancor and animosity resolved to Consult the Learnedst Men he had in his Dominions upon the Question which was the ground of the debate Pursuant to this Resolution he calls to him one John Scot whose right Name was Erigene by Nation an Irish-man or a Scotchman I am not certain which This was a person of profound Learning and eminent Vertue and therefore highly esteemed by the Emperor and was vulgarly called The Holy Philosopher Another which the Emperor designed for his intended purpose was one Bertram but by the Writers of his time was called Retram which was his true Name He was a Monk and Priest of the Church of Rome of the Monastery of Corbie and afterwards for his Fame and rare Parts was created Abbot of Orbais who Wrote several Books and among others one of Predestination against Paschasius whom he Learnedly impugnes and censures him of
be contained in the Holy Sacrament in Verity or in Figure and concludes with these words Hitherto have we declared that the Body and Blood of Christ which are received in the Church by the mouths of the Faithful be Figures And so terminates this First Question SECT VIII An Account of the Doctrine of Retram in reference to the Second Question THe Second Question that was to be resolved by Retram or Bertram was this as he himself declares Whether the same Body that was Born of Mary that Suffered Dyed was Buried and sitteth on the Right hand of the Father be that Body which is daily received in the Church by the mouths of the Faithful in the Mystery of the Sacrament or no Ambr. L. 1 de Sacram. And first he discourseth out of St. Ambrose That the substance of the Creatures suffer no Mutation in these words For after the substance of the Creatures they be even the same things after the Consecration that they were before For before the Consecration they were Bread and Wine and after they appear to remain in the same kind still Where his Position is That the substance of the Creatures are the same after Consecration that they were before which he proves thus Before Consecration they were Bread and Wine and after Consecration they not only appear to remain but really do remain in the same kind still of Bread and Wine this must be the drift of his Argument for else it would not prove his intent Then having said That the Body and Blood of Christ are not present in forme but in vertue he applauds a distinction of St. Ambrose How diligently and how wisely hath he made a distinction where be saith touching the flesh which was Crucisied and Buried this is the true Flesh of Christ but touching that which is received in the Sacrament he saith This is the Sacrament of the true Flesh so dividing the Sacrament of the Flesh from the very Flesh c. But he affirmeth the Mystery which is done in the Church to be the Sacrament of the very Flesh in which Christ Suffered instructing the Faithful that the Flesh in which Christ Suffered and was Crucified and Buried is not a Mystery but the very Natural Flesh but this Flesh which now containeth the Similitude of the very Flesh in Mystery is not Flesh in Kind nor in Forme but in Sacrament For in Kind it is Bread c. Hence he proceeds to the Autority of St. Hierome Hieron in Epistolam Pauli ad Eph. The Flesh and the Blood of Christ saith he St. Hierom are understood two manner of ways which he explicates the one Corporeally and the other Spiritually Therefore saith Bertram the Spiritual Flesh and the Spiritual Blood which are daily received of the Faithful do differ undoubtedly from the Flesh Crucified and the Blood shed as the Autority of this Doctor doth witness Much to this purpose he discourseth upon the Autority of St. Augustine Aug. in Evangelium Sancti Joan. distinguishing between the Spiritual Food and the Corporeal Food of the Fathers of the Old Law comparing them with us Where he affirms out of St. Augustine that their Spiritual Food was the same with ours the Body of Christ but the Corporeal Food was very different as much as the Manna the Cloud and the Sea differ from Bread and Wine Which he confirms by the Autority of St. Paul speaking of the Antient Fathers that were Baptised in Moses in the Cloud and in the Sea and they all did eate the same Spiritual Meate and drank the same Spiritual Drink which he concludes to be Christ in a Figure as it is with us in the Sacrament where he saith Christ is in a certain manner and this manner is in Figure and Image Hence he draws this Illation Wherefore the Body and Blood that we now celebrate in the Church do differ from the Body and the Blood which are now known to be glorified by the Resurrection This Body is the Pledge and the Figure the other is the very Natural Body And presently he adds And as the Figure differeth from the verity thus it is plain that the Mystery of the Body and Blood of Christ which is received of the Faithful in the Church differeth from the said Body that was Born of Mary the Virgin c. Then he cites St. Austin's words Preaching to the People of the Body and Blood of Christ. The thing which you see in the Altar of God saith St. Austin was seen of you the last night Aug. Serm. ad Populum but what it is or what it meaneth or of how great a thing it containeth the Sacrament ye have not yet heard The thing which you see is Bread and Wine He then tells them That by Faith they ought to believe the Bread to be the Body and the Wine to be the Blood of Christ And then he makes them object that the Body of Christ that was Born of the Virgin c. with his Blood Ascended entirely into Heaven where he now is How then can this Bread be his Body and this Wine his Blood St. Austin Answers These good Brethren be called Sacraments because that one thing is seen in them and another thing understood that which is seen hath a Corporeal form and that which is not seen hath a Spiritual Fruit. Whereupon Bertram adds In these words this worshipful Author instructing us what we ought to think of the proper Body of the Lord that was Born of Mary c. Also what we ought to think of the Body set on the Altar whereof the People be partakers The very Body is whole and not divided with any Section neither cover'd with any Figures but this Body set on the Table of the Lord is a Figure because it is a Sacrament And again Therefore St. Austin hath Taught us that as the Body of Christ is signified in the Bread which is on the Altar so is the Body of the People that receive it Then Addressing his Discoure to the Emperor he saith Your Wisdom most excellent Prince may perceive that I have proved by the Testimonies of Holy Scripture and of the Holy Fathers that the Bread which is called the Body of Christ and the Cup called his Blood is a Figure because it is a Mystery And that there is no small difference between the Mystical Body and the Body that Suffered was Buried and Rose again for this which suffered is the proper Body of our Saviour neither in it is any Figure or Signification but the manifest action of the thing it self c. And thus he concludes his Answer to the Emperor insisting all along upon this Truth That in this Holy Sacrament is contained the same Bread and Wine that was before which are called the Body and Blood of Christ because they Mystically and Figuratively signifie the same and are Received by the Faithful by way of Commemoration of Christ's Passion and by vertue of Christ's Institution they