(x) Epist 3. ad Volusian Quorum nullum potest esse ubique totum quoniam per innumerabiles partes aliud alibi habeat necesse est quantumcumque sit corpus seu quantulumcunque corpusculum loci occupet spatium eundemque locum sic impleat ut in nulla ejus parte sit totum Non sic Deus dicitur implere mundum velut aqua velut aer ut minore sui parte minorem mundi impleat partem majore majorem Novit ubique totus esse nullo contineri loco distinguishing Bodies into gross and subtile ones he says Both are Bodies none of which can be every where whole and entire because by reason of its innumerable Parts it must have another Place elsewhere and how great or little soever a Body is it possesses a Space of Place and so fills that Place that it is not whole in any part of it And a little after God is not thus said to fill the World in the same manner as Water or Air do's so that by a lesser part of himself he fills a lesser part of the World and by a greater part a greater So that according to him none but God and Spirits can have such an Existence So in his Epistle to Euodius (y) Epist 101. Nullum esse quantulumcunque corpusculum quod non pro suo modo loci occupet spatium nec in eo quod occupat ubique sit totum sed minus sit in parte quà m in toto There is no Body so little which after its manner do's not possess a local Space neither is it whole every where in that Space it possesses but less in a part of that Space than in the whole And again (z) Contra Epist Manichaei cap. 16. Nec omnino potest esse aliquod corpus sive coeleste sive terrestre sive aereum sive humidum quod non minus sit in parte quà m in toto neque ullo modo possit in loco hujus partis habere aliam partem sed aliud hic aliud alibi per spatia qúaelibet locorum distantia dividua c. There can be no Body either Celestial or Terrestrial Aereal or Aqueous that is not less in a part than in the whole nor can it any ways have another part in the place of this part but must have one here another elsewhere throughout the several distant and divided Spaces of Place c. But the Nature of the Soul is not found to be extended to the Spaces of Place by any Bulkiness Animae vero natura nullo modo invenitur locorum spatiis aliquâ mole distendi He says the same in another Epistle (a) Ad Dardanum Epist 57. Spatia locorum tolle corporibus nusquam erunt quia nusquam erunt nec erunt and adds Take away local Extent from Bodies and they will be no where and if they are no where they will not be at all In the same Epistle speaking of the Divine Persons that nothing hinders why they may not be every where simul argues thus For they are not Bodies Non enim corpora sunt quorum amplior sit in tribus quam in singulis magnitudo nec loca suis molibus tenent ut distantibus spatiis simul esse non possint Ubique totum praesentem esse non dubites tanquam Deum in eodem Templo Dei esse tanquam inhabitantem Deum in loco aliquo coeli propter veri corporis modum whose Magnitude is larger in Three than in One nor do they possess Places by their Bulk so as not to be able to be in distant Spaces at once which is the Nature he acknowledges of Bodies He says also of Christ We are not to doubt that whole Christ is every where present as God and is in the same Temple of God as an inhabiting Deity and in one certain place of Heaven by reason of the Nature of his true Body Elsewhere (b) De Civit. Dei l. 22. c. 29. Deus totus in coelo est totus in terra non alternis temporibus sed utrumque simul quod nulla natura corporalis potest God is whole in Heaven and whole on Earth not at different times successively but both together which no Corporeal Nature is capable of Again (c) Epist 6. ad Italicam Omne quod oculis corporeis conspici potest in loco aliquo sit necesse est neque ubique sit totum sed minore sui parte minorem locum occupet majore majorem Every thing that may be seen with Bodily Eyes must of necessity be in some Place nor can it be whole every where but must possess a lesser Place by a lesser Part of it self and a greater Place by a greater Part. He repeats almost the same in his Twenty eighth Epistle And in another Book (d) Cont. Epist Manichaei c. 16. Aeris partes suos quoque implent locos nec fieri potest ut aer quo impletur haec domus simul secum in eadem domo habere possit etiam illum aerem quem vicini habent The Parts of Air also fill their Places nor is it possible that the Air that fills this House should together with it have the Air that is in a Neighbour's House Again elsewhere (e) De Immort Animae c. 16. Moles omnis quae occupat locum non est in singulis suis partibus tota sed in omnibus quare aliqua pars ejus alibi est alibi alia Every thing of Bulk that possesses a Place is not whole in its single Parts but whole in all its Parts therefore one Part of it is in this Place and another in another In another Tract (f) Tract 31. in Joan. Homo secundùm corpus in loco est de loco migrat cum ad alium locum venerit in eo loco unde venit non est Deus autem implet omnia ubique totus est non secundùm spatia tenetur locis Erat tamen Christus secundùm visibilem carnem in terra secundùm invisibilem Majestatem in coelo in terra Man as to his Body is in a Place and passes from one Place to another and when he comes to another Place he is no longer in that Place from whence he came But God fills all things and is every where whole not confined to Places according to Spaces Christ according to his visible Flesh was on Earth according to his invisible Majesty in Heaven and Earth To name but two or three more out of S. Austin who seems to speak Prophetically (g) De Vnit Eccles c. 10. His dictis mox ascendit in coelum praemunire voluit aures nostras adversus eos qui procedentibus temporibus exsurrecturos esse praedixerat dicturos Ecce hic Christus ecce illic Quibus nec crederemus admonuit Nec ulla nobis excusatio est si crediderimus contra vocem Pastoris nostri tam claram
shew that the Fathers advance such Positions as plainly contradict this Doctrine 1 Position The Fathers ever since Christ's departure and Ascension into Heaven look upon his Body as absent from Earth tho' in another sense he is still present All those Testimonies before produced under the Fifth Difference concerning Bodies being commensurate to Space and not being in more places than one and saying this of Christ's Body as well as of other Bodies are a Proof of this Position but besides those I will here add some further direct Proofs of it S. Ambrose thus (i) Com. in Luc. 24. Ascende nobis ut te sequamur mentibus quem oculis videre non possumus c. Ergo non supra terram nec in terra nec secundùm carnem quaerere te debemus si volumus invenire Nunc enim secundùm carnem non novimus Christum Maria quia quaerebat in terra tangere non potuit Stephanus tetigi◠quia quaesivit in coelo Stephanus inter Judaeos vidit absentem Ascend speaking to Christ that we may follow thee with our Minds whom we cannot see with our Eyes S. Paul has taught us how we should follow thee and where we may find thee Seek those things that are above where Christ sits c. Therefore we ought not to seek thee upon Earth nor in the Earth nor according to the Flesh if we would find thee Mary could not touch him because she sought him on Earth Stephen touched him because he sought him in Heaven Stephen among the Jews saw him absent S. Austin is so copious in this Argument and his Testimonies so many that a good Choice of them is only necessary Thus he says (k) Serm. 140. de Tempore Ideo Dominus noster absentavit se corpore ab omni Ecclesia ascendit in coelum ut fides aedificetur si enim non nòsti nisi quod vides ubi est fides Therefore our Lord absented himself from every Church and ascended into Heaven that our Faith may be edified for if thou knowest nothing but what thou seest where is Faith Again (l) Serm. 60. de Verb. Dom. Semper quidem Divinitate nobiscum est sed nisi corporaliter abiret à nobis semper ejus corpus carnaliter videremus nunquam spiritualiter crederemus Christ is always with us by his Divinity but unless he were corporally absent from us we should always carnally see his Body and should never spiritually believe This is a clear Testimony that Christ is absent as to his Natural Body and that if it were not so he would be visible to us still Again (m) Tract 50. in Joannem Loquebatur de praesentia corporis sui nam secundùm Majestatem suam secundùm Providentiam secundùm ineffabilem invisibilem Gratiam impletur quod ab eo dictum est Ecce ego vobiscum omnibus diebus c. Secundùm carnem vero quam assumpsit secundùm id quod de Virgine natus est c. non semper habebitis me vobiscum expounding those words The Poor ye have always with you but me ye have not always He spake this says he concerning the Presence of his Body For according to his Majesty according to his Providence according to his unspeakable and invisible Grace that is fulfilled which he said Behold I am always with you c. But according to the Flesh which he assumed according to what was born of the Virgin c. directly contrary to the Trent Catechism ye shall not have me always with you And in another place (n) Serm. 120. de diversis Secundùm praesentiam pulchritudinis divinitatis suae semper cum patre est secundùm praesentiam corporalem jam supra coelos ad dextram patris est secundùm praesentiam vero fidei in omnibus Christianis est According to the beautiful Presence of his Divinity he is always with the Father according to his corporal Presence he is now above the Heavens at the right hand of the Father he forgot to add and in the Holy Sacrament but according to the Presence of Faith so he is in all Christians What can be more plain than another Saying of his (o) Serm. 74. de diversis Credimus in eum jam sedentem ad dextram patris sed tamen quamdiu sumus in corpore peregrinamur ab eo nec eum dubitantibus vel negantibus dicentibus Vbi est Deus tuus valemus ostendere We believe on him who sits now at the right hand of the Father but yet whilst we are in the Body we are absent as in a strange Country from him nor can we shew him to those that doubt to those that deny him and say Where is thy God If S. Austin had believed as the Roman Church do's the Corporal Presence of Christ in the Eucharist he could have pointed to him upon the Altar if any had asked Where is thy God Cyril of Alexandria (p) In Joan. 9.5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says Tho' Christ be absent from the World as to his Flesh yet he is present to those that are in him and to the whole Universe by his Divine and Ineffable Nature neither is he absent from any Creature nor distant from any but is every where present to all and fills the whole Universe And elsewhere (q) In Joan. 17.12 speaking of the Disciples who thought it a great loss to them that being taken up to Heaven he would now be absent according to his Flesh he says They ought not only to have respected and looked to his Fleshly Presence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but to have understood that tho' he was separated from their Society according to the Flesh nor could be seen by their bodily Eyes yet that he was present and assistant always by the Power of his Divinity Fulgentius (r) Ad Trasimund l. 2. c. 17. Unus idemque secundùm humanam substantiam absens coelo cùm esset in terra derelinquens terram cum ascendisset in coelum Secundùm Divinam vero immensamque substantiam nec coelum dimittens cùm de coelo descendit nec terram deserens cùm ad coelum ascendit One and the same Christ according to his Humane Substance was absent from Heaven when he was upon Earth and left Earth when he ascended up to Heaven but according to his Divine and Immense Substance neither left Heaven when he descended from Heaven nor forsook Earth when he ascended into Heaven Again (s) Id. ibid. c. 18. Quomodo corporaliter ascendit in coelum in sus fidelibus praedicatur esse in terra si non est in illo divinitatis immensitas quae coelum implere possit terram How did he corporally ascend into Heaven and yet is said to be in the Faithful on Earth unless the Immensity of the Divinity be in him which can fill Heaven and Earth Yes a Romanist would have told him of another way That even
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 Secundùm vero praesentiam fidei in omnibus Christianis est he is now above the Heavens at the Right Hand of the Father and he knows but one more 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 illi Quia vidisti credidisti beati qui non viderunt credunt Our Lord comforting us who now that he sits in Heaven cannot handle him but only touch him by Faith says to Thomas Because thou hast seen thou hast believed blessed are they that have not seen and believe S. Cyril of Alexandria agrees perfectly with this Doctrine (d) In Joan. 13.33 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. and knows no other Presence of Christ now but what is Spiritual and Divine since he ascended to the Father and left the World. For they that judge
more need of Symbols or Signs when the Body it self appears I refer the Reader to the Testimonies produced before Chap. 10. Position 2. out of S. Austin Sedulius Primasius Bede c. I will conclude this Chapter with a passage or two out of the Prayers after the Sacrament in the Old Liturgy used in Bertram's time (k) V. Bertram de corp sang Christi prope finem p. 112. Edit ult Lat. Engl. We who have now received the Pledge of Eternal Life most humbly beseech thee to grant (l) Ut quod in imagine contingimus Sacramenti manifesta participatione sumamus That we may be manifestly made partakers of that which we here receive in the Image of the Sacrament And thus afterwards (m) Ibid. p. 114. Perficiant in nobis quaesumus Domine tua Sacramenta quod continent ut quae nunc specie gerimus rerum veritate capiamus in another Prayer Let thy Sacraments work in us O Lord we beseech thee those things which they contain that we may really be partakers of those things which now we celebrate in a Figure Bertram Comments upon these Prayers in such passages as these Whence it appears says he that this Body and Blood of Christ are the Pledge and Image of something to come which is now only represented but shall hereafter be plainly exhibited therefore it is one thing which is now celebrated and another which shall hereafter be manifested And afterwards p. 115. The Prayer says that these things are celebrated in a Figure not in Truth that is by way of similitude or representation not the manifestation of the thing it self Now the Figure and the Truth are very different things Therefore the Body and Blood of Christ which is celebrated in the Church differs from the Body and Blood of Christ which is glorified since the Resurrection c. Ps 117. We see how vast a difference there is between the mystery of Christs Body and Blood which the faithful now receive in the Church and that Body which was born of the Virgin Mary which suffered rose again ascended into Heaven and sitteth at the right hand of the Father For this Body which we celebrate in our way to happiness must be spiritually received for Faith believes somewhat that it sees not and it spiritually feeds the Soul makes glad the heart and confers Eternal Life and Incorruption if we attend not to that which feeds the Body which is chew'd with our teeth and ground in pieces but to that which is spiritually received by Faith. But now that Body in which Christ suffered and rose again was his own proper Body which he assumed of the Virgin which might be seen and felt after his Resurrection c. It is very observable and a great confirmation of what has been said in this Chapter That the Ancient Christians of S. Thomas inhabiting the Mountains of Malabar in the East Indies agree with the Ancient Church in denying our Saviours Corporal Presence in the Sacrament of the Eucharist as appears from their Publick Offices and other Books mentioned in a Synod which was celebrated amongst them by Dom Aleixo de Menezes Archbishop of Goa in the Year 1599. In the fourteenth Decree of the third Action of the said Synod in which most of their Church Offices and other Books are Condemned for containing Doctrines contrary to the Roman Faith there is particular notice taken of their contradicting the Roman Faith in the point of Transubstantiation 1. The Book of Timothy the Patriarch is condemned for asserting through three Chapters that the true Body of Christ our Lord is not in the Sacrament of the Altar but only the Figure of his Body 2. The Book of Homilies is condemned which teacheth that the H. Eucharist is only the Image of Christ as the Image of a Man is distinguished from a real Man and that the Body of Christ is not there but in Heaven 3. The Book of the Exposition of the Gospels is condemn'd which teacheth that the Eucharist is only the Image of the Body of Christ and that his Body is in Heaven at the right Hand of the Father and not upon Earth 4. Their Breviary which they call Iludre and Gaza is condemn'd which teaches that the most H. Sacrament of the Eucharist is not the true Body of Christ Lastly The Office of the Burial of Priests is condemn'd where it is said that the most H. Sacrament of the Altar is no more but the virtue of Christ and not his true Body and Blood. This Synod was Printed in the University of Conimbra with the Licences of the Inquisition and Ordinary in the Year 1606. and is in the Possession of a Learned Person who gave me this account out of it CHAP. XII The Twelfth Difference The Fathers assert That Christ's Body is not eaten corporally and carnally but only spiritually But the Church of Rome teaches a Corporal Eating a Descent of Christ's Natural Body into ours and understands the Eating of Christ's Body literally and carnally IF the Church of Rome declares its own Faith when it imposes the Profession of it upon another and makes one abjure the contrary under pain of Anathema then I am sure it was once with a witness for the eating of Christ's Body in the most literal and proper Sense when An. Dom. 1059. Pope Nicholas II. and the General Council of Lateran prescribed a Profession of it to Berengarius made him swear it and anathematize the contrary as it is set down by Lanfrank (n) De Eucharist Sacram. adv Berengar which because the Nubes Testium tho' it has set down two other Forms durst not give us I will therefore here transcribe out of him Ego Berengarius indignus Diaconus Ecclesiae S. Mauritii Andegavensis cognoscens veram Catholicam Apostolicam Fidem anathematizo omnem Haeresm praecipue eam de quâ hactenus infamatus sum quae astruere conatur panem vinum quae in altari ponuntur post consecrationem solummodo Sacramentum non verum corpus sanguinem Dom. nostri Jesu Christi esse nec posse sensualiter nisi in solo Sacramento manibus Sacerdotum tractari vel frangi aut fidelium dentibus atteri Consentio autem S. Romanae Ecclesiae Apostolicae sedi ore corde profiteor de Sacramentis Dominicae mensae eam fidem tenere quam Do minus Venerabilis Papa Nicholaus haec S. Synodus authoritate Evangelica Apostolica tenendam tradidit mihique sirmavit scilicet Panem vinum quae in altari ponuntur post consecrationem non solum Sacramentum sed etiam verum corpus D. N. J. Christi esse sensualiter non solum Sacramento sed in veritate manibus Sacerdotum tractari frangi fidelium dentibus atteri jurans per S. homousion Trinitatem per haec sacrosancta Christi Evangelia Eos vero qui contra hanc fidem venerint cum dogmatibus sectatoribus suis
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 Father 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 erat priùs certè vel tunc videbitis quia non eo modo quo puratis 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 he 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 hear 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 Joan. 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 sanguinem 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 tun◠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. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 veritate videntes reficiuntur speaking of the Passover The Immolation of this Passover represents the Glory of our Resurrection when all the Elect shall eat together the Flesh of the Immaculate Lamb I mean of him who is our God and Lord no more in Sacrament as Believers but in the thing 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
cleave to their Bowels or Entrals cannot be interpreted of his proper and natural Body since as the Romanists confess this Body can neither touch us nor be touched by us as it exists in the Sacrament much less can cleave or stick to our Bodies But the representative Body of Christ may and he that made this Petition first seems to tell us his own Sense tho' no very wise one that he would not have this Holy Food to pass through him as other Meats did and which many of the Ancients thought this also did but might remain and be consumed as S. Chrysostom's phrase is with the Substance of his Body Thus I think I have demonstrated sufficiently the first thing I asserted at the beginning of this Chapter That the old Prayers in the Canon of the Mass concerning the Sacrament agree not with the present Faith of the Roman Church I proceed now to shew the other thing That their New Prayers and Devotions to the Sacrament have no countenance from the Ancient Church I told the Reader before of their New Festival which the Missal calls the Feast and Solemnity of the Body of Christ They have suited all things answerably to it New Prayers New Hymns and their allowed Books of Devotion have an Office of the Blessed Sacrament for one day of the Week and a New Litany c. Which I shall give now some account of and tho' all of them are not direct Prayers to it yet they are such strains concerning it and in such a new Stile as has no old Example Thus translated in the Manual of Godly Prayers Missal Rom. in Solemn corporis Christi Oratio Deus qui nobis sub Sacramento mirabili passionis tuae memoriamreliquisti tribue quaesumus ita nos corporis sanguinis tui sacra Mysteria venerari ut redemptionis tuae fructum in nobis jugiter sentiamus Qui vivis c. O God which under the Admirable Sacrament hast left unto us the Memory of thy Passion grant we beseech thee that we may so worship the Sacred Mysteries of thy Body and Blood that continually we may feel in us the fruit of thy Redemption Who livest c. I believe the Ancient Church never thus prayed that by the worship of the Sacred Mysteries they might feel the Fruit of Christ's Redemption but that they might so receive the Sacred Mysteries c. for they laid the stress upon worthy receiving as this Church do's upon worshipping In an Office of the Venerable Sacrament printed at Colen 1591. they are still more particular Ibid. p. 72. ad completor Deus qui gloriosum corporis sanguinis tui mysterium nobiscum manere voluisti praesta quaesumus ita nos corporalem praesentiam tuam venerari in terris ut ejus visione gaudere mereamur in coelis Qui vivis c. O God who wouldst have the glorious Mystery of thy Body and Blood to remain with us grant we pray thee that we may so worship thy corporal Presence on Earth that we may be worthy to enjoy the Vision of it in Heaven Who livest c. Ibid. p. 44. ad primam Deus qui in passionis tuae memoriam panem vinum in corpus sanguinem tuum mirabiliter transmutasti concede propitius ut qui in venerabili Sacramento tuam praesentiam corporalem credimus ad contemplandam speciem tuae celsitudinis perducamur Qui vivis c. Again thus O God who in memory of thy Passion didst wonderfully change Bread and Wine into thy Body and Blood mercifully grant that we who believe thy Corporal Presence in the Venerable Sacrament may be brought to the beholding of the appearance of thy Highness Who livest c. Rithmus S. Thomae ad Sacram Eucharistiam Or a Rithm of Tho. Aquinas to the Holy Eucharist In Missal Rom. ad finem Orat. post Missam Adoro te devotè latens Deitas Quae sub his figuris vere latitas Tibi se cor meum totum subjicit Quia te contemplans totum deficit Visus tactus gustus in te fallitur Sed auditu solo tutò creditur Credo quicquid dixit Dei Filius Nil hoc verbo veritatis verius In cruce latebat sola Deitas At hic latet simul humanitas Ambo tamen credens atque confitens Peto quod petivit Latro penitens Plagas sicut Thomas non intueor Deum tamen meum te confiteor Fac me tibi semper magis credere In te spem habere te diligere O Memoriale Mortis Domini Panis vivus vitam praestans homini Praesta meae menti de te vivere Et te illi semper dulcè sapere c. I devoutly adore thee O latent Deity Who under these Figures truly liest hid My Heart submits it self wholly to thee For when it contemplates thee it wholly fails me Sight tast and touch is deceived in thee Hearing alone a Man may safely trust Whatsoe'er the Son of God said I believe Nothing is truer than this Word of Truth The Deity only on the Cross was hid Here the Humanity also is conceal'd But both believing and confe l ng both I ask what the Repenting Thief desir'd I do not see as Thomas did thy Wounds Yet I acknowledg thee to be my God. O make me still more to believe in thee On thee to place my Hope and thee to love O thou Memorial of my dying Lord Thou living Bread and giving Life to Men Grant that my Soul on thee may ever live And thou to it mayst always sweetly tast c. Another Sequence of Tho. Aquinas which begins Lauda Sion Salvatorem In Missal Rom. in sesto Corp. Christi Docti Sacris institutis Panem vinum in salutis Consecramus hostiam Dogma datur Christianis Quod in carnem transit panis Et vinum in sanguinem Quod non capis quod non vides Animosa firmat fides Praeter rerum ordinem Sub diversis speciebus Signis tantum non rebus Latent res eximiae Caro cibus sanguis potus Manet tamen Christus totus Sub utrâque specie A sumente non concisus Non confractus non divisus Integer accipitur Sumit unus sumunt mille Quantum isti tantum ille Nec sumptus consumitur Sumunt boni sumunt mali Sorte tamen inequali Vitae vel interitus Mors est malis vita bonis Vide paris sumptionis Quà m sit dispar exitus Fracto demum Sacramento Ne vacilles sed memento Tantum esse sub fragmento Quantum toto tegitur Nulla rei fit scissura Signi tantum fit fractura Qua nec status nec statura Signati minuitur 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
the visible Species and according to the visible Creature or according to the Substance of the Creatures Which are Modes of Speech which the present Roman Church will not allow of in the Eucharist For they tell us their plain Belief what Species are in a Sequence on Corpus-Christi day which explains it thus Sub diversis Speciebus Signis tantum non rebus Latent res eximiae Admirable things lie hid under the different Species which are only Signs and not Things CHAP. V. The Fifth Difference The Fathers differ from the Roman Church in their Assertions about the Nature and Properties of Bodies EVery one knows what the Sentiments of the Roman Church are herein and what they must necessarily assert believing Transubstantiation That a Body that is Organical as Christ's is may be invisible and impalpable commensurate to no Space That it may possess one Place so as to be in more at the same time That it may be entire in one Part and in one Point and may exist after the manner of a Spirit See Bellarmine de Eucharist lib. 1. cap. 2. reg 3. lib. 3. c. 7. The Council of Trent says (a) Sess 13. cap. 3. Totus Christus integer sub specie panis sub qualibet ejus speciei parte existit Whole and entire Christ is in the Eucharist under the Species of Bread and under every part of the Species of Bread. I shall now show That the Fathers assert quite contrary to all these Maxims of the Roman Church giving us a different Account of the Nature and Properties of Bodies and in the Particulars forenamed make no difference betwixt Christ's Body and ours 1 Assertion They assert That every Organiz'd Body not excepting the Body of Christ is visible and palpable Tertullian (b) De Resurrect c. 35. Corpus hominis non aliud intelligam quam quod videtur quod tenetur I understand nothing by the Body of a Man c. but what is seen and felt Methodius (c) Apud Phatium Cod. 234. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God is Incorporeal and therefore Invisible Eustathius Antioch (d) De Engastrimytho 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If he was Invisible without doubt he was Incorporeal Speaking of Samuel raised at Endor Didymus (e) Caten in Joan. 4.24 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If a thing be Invisible it presently follows that it is Incorporeal Greg. Nazianzen (f) Orat. 34. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If God be a Body what kind of Body and how an impalpable and invisible one This is not the Nature of Bodies And he cries out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 O strange Licence to imagine thus Greg. Nyssen (g) De Opific hom cap. 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. says That is not a Body that wants Colour Figure Solidness Space Weight and the rest of its Attributes S. Austin (h) De Verb. Domini Ser. 60. Semper quidem Divinitate nobiscum est sed nisi corporaliter abiret à nobis semper ejus corpus carnaliter videremus speaking of our Lord says He is always with us by his Divinity but if he were not corporally absent from us we should always carnally see his Body Ephrem Antioch (i) Apud Photium Cod. 229. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 No Man of any sense can say That the Nature of that which is palpable and impalpable of that which is visible and that which is invisible is the same Altho' the Valentinians in Eulogius (k) Ibid. Cod. 230. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 say That the Nature of that which is visible and that which is invisible is the same And so did the Manichees Ibid. Vigilius (l) Lib. 4. contr Eutych Necesse erit ut caro sicut verbum si unius cum eo est naturae increata sit invisibilis c. Sed carnem his conditionibus subjacere impossibile est speaking of the Lord's Body says It is necessary the Flesh as well as the Word if they be of one Nature be uncreated and invisible But it is impossible that Flesh should be the Subject of such Conditions Titus Bostrensis (m) Contr. Manich. l. 2. Omne quod sub aspectum cadit cum sit corpus natura oppositum est inaspectabili incorporeo c. Every thing that falls under our Sight seeing it is a Body is in Nature opposite to that which is invisible and incorporeal Damascen (n) De Fide Orth. lib. 1. c. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 How can that be a Body c which is impalpable and invisible Gregory the Great (o) Moral lib. 14. c. 33. Erit itaque subtilis quia incorruptibilis erit palpabilis quia non amittet essentiam veracis naturae speaking of a glorified Body says It will therefore be a subtile Body because it will be incorruptible and it will be palpable because it shall not lose the Essence of its true Nature Cyril of Alex. in his Explication of the third Anathema of the Ephesine Council (p) Tom. 3 Concil Labbe p. 817. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He is not a Stranger to that body which he has united to himself which we say is capable to be felt and to be seen In fine The Church of Rome makes Christ's Body invisible tho' it be present the Fathers never make it so but because it is absent So Ammonius (q) Caten in Joan. 16.10 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He was taken up into Heaven and became invisible unto Men. And the Author imperfecti Operis in Matthaeum (r) Homil. 53. Si sit praesens non creditur sed videtur cùm autem absens fuerit non videtur sed creditur dum timetur When he is present he is not believed but seen but when he is absent he is not seen but believed whilst he is feared 2 Assertion The Fathers assert That every Body is quantum and as it has Quantity possesses a Place or Space and is commensurate to it That a Body cannot be in more than one Place nor be intire in one Part nor exist after the manner of a Spirit All which are false if Transubstantiation be true S. Basil (s) Contr. Eunom l. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 makes that to be incorporeal whose Essence cannot be divided three ways or has not three Dimensions Greg. Nyssen (t) De Opific Hom. c. 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says That if you take Quantity Solidness and other Properties from the Subject the whole Nature of the Body is dissolved c. S. Austin says so much upon this Argument that I must only mention some few Testimonies out of a great Heap that might be collected He says (u) Lib. 4. de Orig. Animae c. 11. Corpus est quicquid majoribus minoribus suis partibus majora minora spatia locorum continentibus constat A Body is that which consists of greater and lesser Parts containing greater and lesser Spaces of Place Again
say (n) Author Libr. cui tit Celebres Opiniones de Anima c. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That it is impossible for one Body to penetrate another Body And the same Author says (o) Ibid. cap. ult Sic dici posset in milii grano coelum contineri That if this were possible you might then say That Heaven it self might be contained in a Grain of Millet The Fathers argue against Marcion upon this Rule That whatsoever contains another thing is greater than that which is contained in it So do's Epiphanius (p) Haeres 42. sec 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So do's Tertullian (q) Contr. Marcion l. 1. c. 15. Irenaeus (r) Adv. Haer. l. 2. c. 1. has the same Rule and laughs at Marcion's God upon that account Greg. Nyssen (s) De Vita Mosis proves that the Deity has no Bounds by this Argument That otherwise what contains would be greater than the Deity contained therein Theophylus Antioch (t) Ad Autolycum l. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says This is the Property of the Almighty and True God not only to be every where but to inspect and hear all things Neither is he contained in a Place for else the containing Place would be greater than himself for that which contains is greater than that which is contained in it I will conclude this Chapter with the remarkable Words of Fulgentius (u) De Fide ad Petr. c. 3. Unaquaeque res ita permanet sicut à Deo accepit ut esset alia quidem sic alia autem sic Neque enim sic datum est corporibus ut sint sicut spiritus acceperunt c. Every thing so remains as it has received of God that it should be one on this manner and another on that For it is not given to Bodies to exist after such a manner as is granted unto Spirits c. CHAP. VI. The Sixth Difference The Church of Rome suitably to the strange Doctrine it teaches about Christ's Body and Blood teaches us not to believe the Report our Senses make That the Substance of Bread and Wine remain in the Sacrament but to pass a contrary Judgment to what they inform us herein But the Fathers teach the contrary That we may securely relie upon the Evidence of our Senses as to any Body even as to the true Body of Christ THat the Church of Rome would not have us in this Matter to attend to the Evidence of Sense is needless to prove since nothing is more common than to hear them call upon us to distrust them and to believe against their Report Thus the Trent Catechism * Ad Paroch de Euchar. part 2. num 25. Nullam Elementorum substantiam remanere quamvis nihil magis à sensibus alienum remotum videri possit teaches us to believe That no Substance of the Elements remains in the Eucharist tho' nothing seems more strange and remote from our Senses than this And again †Ib. n. 46. Corpus sanguinem Domini ita sumimus ut tamen quod verè sit sensibus percipi non potest We so receive the Body and Blood of Christ that yet we cannot perceive by our Senses that it is truly so As for the Fathers they are Strangers to this Doctrine nor did they betray the Christian Cause in this manner by taking away all Certainty from the Testimony of our Senses They on the contrary proved the Truth of Christ's Body against the Valentinians the Marcionites and other Hereticks by this Argument which the Church of Rome rejects they made their Appeals frequently as S. John had done before them to what had been seen with Mens Eyes to what their Ears had heard and their Hands had handled without any suspicion of their being deceived Thus Irenaeus (a) Lib. 3. adv Haeres c. 20. Hoc autem illis occurrit qui dicunt eum putativè passum Si enim non verè passus est nulla gratia ei cùm nulla fuerit passio Et nos cùm incipiemus verè pati seducens videbitur adhortans nos vapulare alteram praebere maxillam si ipse illud non prior in veritate passus est Et quemadmodum illos seduxit ut videretur ipse hoc quod non erat nos seducit adhortans perferre ea quae ipse non pertulit This meets with them who say That Christ suffered only seemingly For if he did not truly suffer no Thanks are due to him when there was no Passion And when he shall begin truly to suffer he will seem a Seducer when he exhorts us to suffer Stripes and to turn the other Cheek if he first did not suffer this in truth And as he seduced them in seeming to be that which he was not so he seduces us whilst he exhorts us to suffer the things which he did not suffer Again (b) Id. lib. 5. cap. 1. citante Theodoreto Dial. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 These things were not done seemingly only but in reality of truth for if he appeared to be a Man when he was not so he neither did remain the Spirit of God which he truly was since a Spirit is invisible nor was there any Truth in him for he was not that which he appeared to be He thought it you see absurdity enough to say That Christ appeared what he was not But what absurdity can this be to them that say it is constantly so in the Sacrament where that appears so and so which is not so as the Bread and Wine according to them do's Again (c) Id. lib. 5. cap. 7. Quomodo igitur Christus in carnis substantia resurrexit ostendit discipulis figuram clavorum apertionem lateris haec autem sunt indicia carnis ejus quae surrexit à mortuis sic nos inquit suscitabit per virtutem suam As Christ therefore rose again in the Substance of our Flesh and shewed to his Disciples the Print of the Nails and the Opening of his Side and these are Indications of his Flesh which arose from the Dead so also he says he will raise us up by his Power Tertullian also argues thus against Marcion (d) De carne Christi c. 5. Maluit crede nasci quam aliqua ex parte mentiri quidem in semetipsum ut carnem gestaret sine ossibus duram sine musculis solidam sine sanguine cruentam sine tunica vestitam sine fame esurientem sine dentibus edentem sine lingua loquentem ut phantasma auribus fuerit sermo ejus per imaginem vocis Believe it he chose rather to be born which Marcion thought absurd than in any respect to lie and that against himself so as to carry Flesh about him hard without Bones solid without Muscles bloody without Blood cloathed without a Garment craving Food without Hunger eating without Teeth speaking without a Tongue so that his Speech was a Phantasm to Mens Ears
Non debetis aquas illas oculis aestimare sed mente You ought not to make an Estimate of those Waters with your Eyes but with your Mind Thus also S. Ambrose (q) De his qui initiantur c. 3. Quod vidisti aquas utique sed non solas Levitas illic ministrantes summum Sacerdotem interrogantem consecrantem Primo omnium docuit te Apostolus non ea contemplanda nobis quae videntur sed quae non videntur c. Non ergo solis corporis tui oculis credas Magis videtur quod non videtur quia istud temporale illud aeternum aspicitur quod oculis non comprehenditur animo autem mente cernitur speaking of Baptism As to what thou hast seen to wit the Waters and not those alone but Levites there ministring and the Bishop asking Questions and Consecrating First of all the Apostle has taught thee That we are not to look upon the things that are seen but on the things that are not seen c. Do not therefore only believe thy bodily Eyes That is rather seen which is not seen because that is Temporal this is Eternal which is not comprehended by our Eyes but is seen by our Mind and Understanding S. Chrysostom (r) In Joan. Hom. 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaking also of Baptism thus breaks out Let us believe God's Affirmation for this is more faithful than our Sight for our Sight often is deceived that is impossible to fall to the Ground It is so frequent an Expression of S. Chrysostome That God's Word is more to be credited than our Eyes that he applies it not only to the Sacraments but even to the Case of Alms-giving For thus he says (s) Hom. 89. in Matth. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let us be so affected when we give Alms to the Poor as if we gave them to Christ himself For his Words are more sure than our Sight Therefore when thou seest a poor Man remember the Words whereby Christ signified that he himself is fed For tho' what is seen is not Christ yet under this shape he receives thy Alms and asks it Ans 3. The Fathers in the matter of Signs and Sacraments therefore call upon us not to listen to our Senses and credit them because in such Cases they would have us to consider things beyond and above their information such as relate to their Use and Efficacy these being spiritual things signified by what is visible wherein they place the Mystery and which Sense can neither discover nor judge of S. Austin has a Rule (t) De Doctr. Christ l. 2. c. 1. De signis disserens hoc dico ne quis in eis attendat quod sunt sed potius quod signa sunt id est quod significant Signum est enim res praeter speciem quam ingerit sensibus aliud aliquid ex se faciens in cogitationem venire in this Case I say this treating of Signs in which none ought to attend to what they are but rather that they are Signs that is that they signifie For a Sign is a thing which besides what appears affecting the Senses do's of it self make somewhat else to come into our thoughts So also Origen (u) In Joan. tom 18. ad finem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 describes a Sign to be a Note of another thing besides that which the Sense gives testimony to But none has so fully declared this Matter and answered the former Objection as S. Chrysostome in the place forecited whose Words deserve to be set down at large (x) In 1 Cor. Hom. 7. Edit Savil. Tom. 3. p. 280. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Where treating of Baptism the Eucharist and other Mysteries after he has told us as we heard before what a Mystery is viz. When we do not meerly believe what we see but see one thing and believe another he goes on thus I and an Infidel are diversly affected with them I hear that Christ was crucified I presently admire his Benignity He hears the same and he counts it Infirmity I hear that he was made a Servant and I admire his Care He when he hears the same counts it Infamy And so he goes on with his Death and Resurrection and the different Judgment is made of them and proceeds to speak of the Sacraments The Infidel hearing of the Laver of Baptism esteems it simply Water 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. but I do not look meerly upon what I see but regard the cleansing of the Soul by the Spirit He thinks that my Body only is washed but I believe that my Soul is made clean and holy I reckon the Burial Resurrection Sanctification Righteousness Redemption Adoption of Sons the Inheritance the Kingdom of Heaven the Supply of the Spirit For I do not judge of the things that appear by my Sight 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but by the Eyes of my Mind I hear of the Body of Christ I understand what is said one way an Infidel another Which he further illustrates admirably thus As Children looking upon Books know not the Power of Letters understand not what they look upon nay even to a grown Man that is unlearned it will be the same when a Man of Skill will find out much hidden Virtue Lives and Histories contained therein And if one of no skill receive a Letter he will judge it only to be Paper and Ink but he that has Skill hears an absent Person speak 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and discourses with him and speaks what he pleases to him again by his Letters Just thus it is in a Mystery Unbelievers hearing seem not to hear but the Believers being taught Skill by the Spirit perceive the Power of the hidden things This Discourse of S. Chrysostome's explains a Place of S. Cyril of Jerusalem (y) Catech. 4. Mystag 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. and teaches us how to understand it where speaking of the Eucharist he says Do not consider it as bare Bread and Wine for it is the Body and Blood of Christ according to our Lord's Affirmation And altho Sense suggests this to thee let Faith confirm thee Do not judge of the Matter by thy Taste but by Faith be undoubtedly persuaded that thou art honoured with the Body and Blood of Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And afterwards Being fully persuaded that the visible Bread is not Bread tho' the Taste perceive it such but the Body of Christ and the visible Wine is not Wine tho' the Taste would have it so but the Blood of Christ All which must be only understood of the Sacramental Relation that the Bread and Wine have to the Body and Blood of Christ which the Sense of Tasting acquaints us nothing at all with and therefore is not a fit Judge of this but we are to believe and not doubt of its Truth It will also help us to understand another Place of S. Chrysostome Homil. 83. in
3.5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says The sensible Water is transelemented into a Divine Virtue for the Fathers make Changes in Baptism as well as the Eucharist and sanctifies those in whom it is Nay he affirms That the Water differs only from the Spirit in our manner of Conception for it is the same in Energy Cyril of Jerusalem (u) Catech. Mystag 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 calling the Flesh and Bread in the Feast of Idols defiled by the Invocation of impure Devils he illustrates it thus As the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist before the Invocation of the adored Trinity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is bare Bread and Wine but after Invocation the Bread is made the Body of Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Wine the Blood of Christ so also in the same manner those Meats of the Pomp of Satan in their own Nature being simple things yet by the Invocation of Devils they become impure That 's the Change here That those Meats are in Quality not in Substance made impure and so if the Comparison hold the Change in the other is That they are Hallowed Bread and Wine in Use and Efficacy different from what they were before The Author under Cyprian's Name (x) De Vnct. Chrysinat Inest Veritas signo Spiritus Sacramento speaking of Chrysm says Truth is in the Sign and the Spirit in the Sacrament Thus S. Ambrose (y) De iis qui init c. 9. in fine understands the Body of Christ for that Divine Substance and Presence of the Spirit which is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Christ's Body Christ is in that Sacrament In Illo Sacramento Christus est quia corpus est Christi Non ergo corporalis esca sed spiritalis est Corpus enim Dei corpus est Spiritale Corpus Christi corpus est divini Spiritus quia Spiritus Christi sc est because it is the Body of Christ It is not therefore Corporeal but Spiritual Food For the Body of God is a Spiritual Body The Body of Christ is the Body of the Divine Spirit not his natural Body because it is the Spirit of Christ. Here Corpus Dei is Corpus Spiritale that is Substantia Spiritalis Spiritus The Author under his Name (z) De Sacram. lib. 4. cap. 4. Quomodo potest qui panis est corpus esse Christi Consecratione Ergo ut tibi respondeam Non erat corpus Christi ante consecrationem sed post consecrationem dico tibi quod corpus est Christi Ipse dixit factum est ipse mandavit creatum est Tu ipse eras verus creatura posteaquam consecratus es nova creatura esse coepisti c. How can that which is Bread be the Body of Christ By Consecration To answer thee therefore It was not the Body of Christ before Consecration but after Consecration I tell thee it is the Body of Christ. He said it and it was done he commanded and it was created Thou thy self wast an old Creature but after thou wast consecrated thou beganst to be a new Creature c. So that according to this Author as in Regeneration by Baptism Man changes his Nature so do's the Consecrated Bread in the Eucharist change its Nature Therefore it is no substantial Change because the other confessedly is not so Druthmarus (a) Comm. in Math. 26. speaking of a Person taking a long Journey and leaving a Pledge behind him to remember him by Ita Deus praecipit agi à nobis transferens spiritualiter panem in corpus vinum in sanguinem ut per haec duo memoremus quae fecit pro nobis de corpore suo c. he adds Thus also God has commanded us to do spiritually changing the Bread into his Body and the Wine into his Blood that by these two things we may remember what he hath done for us with his Body and Blood c. 5 Assertion The Fathers express in the same manner and as fully our substantial Change into Christ's Body as of the Bread into Christ's Body Yet none will from such Expressions assert the former and there is the same reason not to do the latter Gr. Nyssen (b) Orat. Catech. cap. 37. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As a little Leaven according to the Apostle likens the whole Mass to it self so the Body of Christ put to death by God coming into our Body do's change and convert the whole into it self And again a little after His immortal Body being in him that receives it changes the whole into its own Nature Cyril of Alexandria (c) In Joan. lib. 4. cap. 3. says He that receives me by a participation of my Flesh shall have Life in himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being wholly transelemented into me P. Leo Magn. (d) De Nat. Dom. Serm. 10. Christi caro de utero virginis sumpta nos sumus We are the Flesh of Christ taken from the Womb of the Virgin. And elsewhere (e) Id. de Passion Serm. 14. Non aliud agit Participatio corporis sanguinis Christi quà m ut in id quod sumimus transeamus Ipsum per omnia spiritu carne gestemus The Participation of the Body and Blood of Christ intends nothing else but that we should pass into that which we receive That we may carry him in all things both in Spirit and Flesh Not as Bellarmine and others pervert the Sense reading gustemus Again in another place (f) Epist 23. In illa mysticâ distributione spiritualis alimoniae hoc impertitur hoc sumitur ut accipientes virtutem coelestis cibi in carnem ipsius quia caro nostra factus est transeamus In that mystical Distribution of Spiritual Food this is bestowed on us this is taken that receiving the Virtue of the Celestial Meat we should pass into his Flesh who was made our Flesh See more Testimonies to this sense in the Chapter following Position 3. CHAP. IX The Ninth Difference The Fathers differ from the Church of Rome in their Belief of Christ's Presence in the Eucharist The Church of Rome asserts the substantial Presence of Christ's Natural Body there but the Fathers deny it THe former is the Assertion of the Roman Church in the Trent Council in which an Anathema is pronounced (g) Conc. Trid. Sess 13. cap. 6. Can. 1. against such as deny That in the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist is contained truly really and Substantially the Body and Blood of Christ but shall say That he is in it only as in a Sign or Figure or Virtue And the Catechism ad Parochos (h) Part. 2. de Eucharist n. 25. says That the True Body of our Lord Christ the same that was born of the Virgin and sits in the Heavens at the Right-hand of the Father is contained in this Sacrament I will now
his Body could be present in Heaven and Earth after the manner of a Spirit Vigilius Taps (t) Contr. Eutych l. 1. Hoc erat ire ad patrem recedere à nobis auferre de mundo naturam quam susceperat à nobis Nam vide miraculum vide utriusque proprietatis mysterium Dei filius secundùm humanitatem suam recessit à nobis secundùm divinitatem suam ait nobis Ecce vobiscum sum omnibus diebus c. Quos reliquit à quibus decessit humanitate sua non reliquit nec deseruit divinitate sua This was to go to the Father and recede from us to take from the World the Nature that he had taken from us For see the Miracle see the Mystery of both Natures distinct not a Word of the Mystery of a Body being in more places than one The Son of God according to his Humanity departed from us according to his Divinity he says to us Behold I am with you always c. Those whom he left and departed from by his Humanity he did not leave nor forsake by his Divinity Again (u) Id. ibid. l. 4. Quando in terra fuit non erat utique in coelo nunc quia in coelo est non est utique in terra c. Quia verbum ubique est caro autem ejus ubique non est apparet unum eundemque Christum utriusque esse naturae esse quidem ubique secundùm naturam divinitatis suae loco contineri secundùm naturam humanitatis suae Haec est Fides Confessio Catholica quam Apostoli tradiderunt Martyres roborarunt Fideles nunc usque custodiunt When Christ was on Earth he was not in Heaven and now because he is in Heaven he surely is not on Earth c. Because the Word is every where but his Flesh is not every where it appears plainly that one and the same Christ is of both Natures and that he is every where according to the Nature of his Divinity and contained in a Place according to the Nature of his Humanity which would be a bad Argument if his Body were in Heaven and in the Eucharist at the same time And then he concludes This is the Catholick Faith and Confession which the Apostles delivered the Martyrs confirmed and the Faithful now still keep and preserve Leo Magn. (x) Serm. 2. de Ascens Dom. Christus coram Discipulis elevatus in coelum corporalis praesentiae modum fecit Christ being raised up to Heaven in sight of his Disciples he put an end to his bodily Presence So he explains it that he was to remain at the Right-hand of his Father till he should come again to judge the Quick and Dead Bede (y) Com. in Marc. 13. Christus ad Patrem post resurrectionem victor ascendens Ecclesiam corporaliter reliquit quam tamen nunquam divinae praesidio praesentiae destituit manens in illa omnibus diebus usque ad consummationem seculi Christ ascending after his Resurrection into Heaven as a Conqueror left the Church as to his bodily Presence which yet he never left destitute of the security of his Divine Presence remaining in the Church always to the end of the World. This may abundantly suffice to prove the First Position 2 Position The Fathers distinguish the Presence of Christ's Body from the Sacrament of it which they make to be a Memorial and Pledge of Christ as gone away and absent S. Chrysostome (z) In 1 Cor. 11.29 expounding those words He that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment and asking how that Table which is tha Cause of so many good things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and flows with Life should be made Condemnation to any resolves it thus That this happens not from its own Nature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but from the Purpose of him that approaches this Table For says he as Christ's Presence which brought those great and unspeakable Blessings to us did condemn those the more that did not receive it so also the Mysteries make way for greater Punishments to those that unworthily partake of them A remarkable Testimony because we see he distinguishes the Presence of Christ from the Sacrament of it compares the one with the other and because of the Relation that the Mysteries have to Christ and that both are intended to convey great Blessings therefore they both when unworthily treated occasion greater Punishments S. Austin (a) Contr. Faust l. 20. c. 21. Hujus sacrificii caro sanguis ante adventum Christi per victimas similitudinum promittebatur in passione Christi per ipsam veritatem reddebatur post ascensum Christi per Sacramentum memoriae celebratur The Flesh and Blood of this Sacrifice before Christ's coming was promised by Victims of Resemblance in the Passion of Christ it was exhibited in the Truth it self after Christ's Ascension it is celebrated by the Sacrament of Remembrance Where you see the Sacrament of Remembrance is opposed to the Exhibition of the Truth Author Comm. in Epistolas Pauli inter Hieronymi Opera (b) In 1 Cor. 11. Hoc est benedicens etiam passurus ultinam nobis commemorationem sive memoriam dereliquit Quemadmodum si quis peregrè proficiscens aliquod pignus ei quem diligit derelinquat ut quotiescunque illud viderit possit ejus beneficia amicitias memorari quod ille si perfecte dilexit sine ingenti defiderio non possit videre vel fletu upon those words He took Bread and after he had given thanks he brake it That is says he blessing us even when he was about to suffer he left his last Memorial with us Just as if one travelling into another Country should leave a Pledge with him when he loved that whensoever he look'd upon it he might call to mind his Favours and Friendship which such a Person if he perfectly lov'd him could not behold without a great passion or weeping It will be very hard to reconcile this Pledge of Absence with such a constant Presence of his Body as the Church of Rome teaches even there where we are required to look upon that Pledge and remember our absent Friend Sedulius has the same Exposition of the Place almost in the same words Primasius also confirms it (c) In 1 Cor. 11. upon those words The same night that our Lord was betrayed he took Bread. He left says he Ultimam nobis commemorationem reliquit Salvador Deus 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 to us his last Memorial
an Ascent by Contemplation Before this will I present my self on this will I offer acceptable things Sacrifice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Oblation and Holocausts so much more excellent than the things now offered as Truth excels a Shadow If Christ's Body were corporally present it is not conceivable what better Oblation than that we could present no more than of what other Oblation this should be only a Type and Shadow Oecumenius (p) In Heb. 10. v. 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon those words Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of Faith says thus Seeing there remains nothing visible neither the Temple that is Heaven nor the High Priest that is Christ nor the Sacrifice that is his Body it remains that we have need of Faith. I shewed before that the Fathers never make Christ's Body invisible but only from its distance and absence And so it must be understood here that he and his Body the Priest and the Sacrifice are invisible being both in Heaven at that distance which makes Heaven it self and its Inhabitants invisible to us and therefore he recommends Faith which can only make them present to us Author imperfecti Operis in Matthaeum (q) Hom. 11. Si ergo vasa sanctificata ad privatos usus transferre sic periculosum est in quibus non est verum corpus Christi sed mysterium corporis ejus continetur quanto magis vasa corporis nostri quae sibi Deus ad habitaculum praeparavit non debemus locum dare Diabolo agendi in eis quod vult among the Works of Chrysostome in Latin has this Saying If therefore it be so dangerous a thing to turn the Sanctified Vessels to private Uses in which is not the true Body of Christ but only the Mystery of his Body is contained therein how much more as to the Vessels of our Body which God has prepared for himself to dwell in we ought not to give place to the Devil to act in them what he pleases One may trust an Adversary as to his Opinion of what makes against him These Words were look'd upon as so considerable an Objection that an Attempt to corrupt them was practised long ago The Learned Archbishop Usher in the Preface of his Answer to the Jesuit's Challenge has observ'd That those words in quibus non est verum corpus Christi sed mysterium corporis ejus continetur were left out wholly in an Edition at Antwerp 1537. and at Paris 1543. and in another at Paris apud Audoenum Parvum 1557. Dr. James in his Corruption of True Fathers p. 53. says Those words are found in all the ancient Copies at Oxford as Archbishop Usher says they were extant in the ancienter Editions as in 1487. And I my self have seen one Paris Edition even in the Year 1536. apud Claud. Chevallonium where those words are extant So that I conclude That the Antwerp Edition first mentioned apud Joan. Steelsium 1537. was the first that made the Alteration But then I further observe That in the large Paris Edition in Latin of S. Chrysostome 1588. which I have by me those words are inserted indeed in the Text but inclosed within two Brakets with this Note in the Margin Haec in quibusdam exemplaribus desunt which is very fine work when they themselves had omitted them in the forenamed Prints They have plaid the same Prank with the same Author in another of his Homilies viz. Hom. 19. whose Words were not favourable to the Real Presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist The words are these Sed forte dices quomodo dicere illum possum non esse Christianum quem video Christum confitentem altare habentem Sacrificium panis vini offerentem baptizantem c. Perhaps thou wilt object How can I say that he is not a Christian whom I see confessing Christ having an Altar offering the Sacrifice of Bread and Wine baptizing c. In the Paris Edition apud Audoenum Parvum An. 1557. as Dr. James Notes those words Sacrificium panis vini are changed into these Sacrificium corporis sanguinis Christi The Paris Edition of 1588. before mentioned tho' it had more Conscience than to insert this Change into the Text yet so far complied with the Cheat as to put in the Margin aliàs Sacrificium corporis sanguinis Christi If this Trade had gone on successfully they might have had in time a Consent of Fathers on their side but it can never be without it I will conclude this Particular with one Observation more of what the Reader may find at large discoursed of in a late Learned Dissertation of Monsieur Allix (r) Dissert de Sanguine D. N. Jesu Christi ad Epist 146. S. Augustini Utrum nunc corpus Domini ossa sanguinem hebeat upon occasion of an Epistle of S. Austin to Consentius who enquired of him Whether now the Body of Christ has Bones and Blood The very reading of that 146th Epistle of S. Austin wherein he plainly in his Answer to that Question betrays his doubting of it as well as in other of his Works his distinguishing betwixt Christ's having a true Body after his Resurrection and his having Flesh and Blood the Testimonies there of other of the Ancients especially of Origen and his Followers that seem plainly to make both the glorified Body of Christ and also of Believers to be of another Composition than that of proper Flesh and Blood these I say are a Demonstration that the Ancient Fathers did not believe any Presence of true Flesh and Blood to be now in the Eucharist Neither do I think the Answer given to this Dissertation by Monsieur Boileau Dean of Sens (s) Disquisit Theolog. de Sangu Corporis Christi post resurrectionem to be a satisfactory one in this Particular For tho' I should grant which yet I see not sufficiently cleared by him that generally the Fathers and S. Austin also did believe that Christ had a Body after the Resurrection of the same Substance tho' differing in Qualities from what he had before yet there are Three things that he has by no means said any thing material to in his Answer 1. That he has given no Account of S. Austin's studious declining to determine any thing in particular about the Blood of Christ when he had never so fair an occasion to do it but waves this always even where he seems as he do's in his Retractations to determine for his having palpable Flesh and Bones 2. Why S. Austin should ever at all doubt or hesitate about this Matter of Christ's Blood after his Resurrection is unconceivable if he with the rest of the Fathers had such a constant Belief of its Presence in the Eucharist as the Romanists affirm 3. That tho' the Fathers use the Argument of the Eucharist to prove the Truth of Christ's Body yet none ever urged Origen or his Followers with an Argument from thence to
means of fasting till Evening according to their Vow and eating the Sacrament then and not before But to proceed with our Testimonies Hesychius (o) In Levit. l. 2. c. 8. Propterea carnes cum panibus comedi praecipiens ut nos intelligeremus illud ab eo mysterium dici quod simul panis caro est sicut Corpus Christi panis vivi qui de Coelo descendit God therefore commanded Flesh to be eaten with Bread that we might understand that that mystery viz. the Eucharist was spoken of by him which is both Bread and Flesh as the Body of Christ the living Bread that descended from Heaven It can be only Bread and Flesh in our way for in that of Transubstantiation it is only Flesh and no Bread. S. Austin (p) Lib. cont Donatist c. 6. De ipso pane de ipsa Dominica manu Judas Partem Petrus accepit tamen quae Societas quae consonantia quae pars Petri cum Juda Of the very Bread Judas and Peter both took a part and yet what Society what agreement what part has Peter with Judas Again (q) Id Tract in Joan. 26. Patres manducaverunt spiritualem utique eandem escam nam corporalem alteram quia illi Manna nos aliud omnes eundem potum spiritualem biberunt aliud illi aliud nos sed specie visibili quidem tamen hoc idem significante virtute spirituali The Fathers did eat the same spiritual meat with us but the corporal was different they did eat Manna we another thing he means Bread and they all drank the same spiritual drink they one thing we another another as to the visible substance but in spiritual virtue signifying the same thing And again elsewhere (r) Id. Tract 45. in Joan. Videte ergo fide manente signa variata Ibi Petra Christus nobis Christus quod in Altari ponitur illi pro magno Sacramento ejusdem Christi biberunt aquam profluentem de Petra nos quid bibamus norunt fideles Si speciem visibilem intendas aliud est si intelligibilem significationem eundem potum spiritualem biberunt Behold while Faith remains the same the signs are varied There in the Wilderness the Rock was Christ to us that which is placed on the Altar viz. Bread is Christ And they drank the Water that flowed from the Rock for a great Sacrament of the same Christ what we drink the faithful know viz. Wine if you regard the visible substance it is another thing if the spiritual signification they drank the same spiritual drink Again in another place (s) Tract 26. in Joan. Nam nos hodie accepimus visibilem cibum sed aliud est Sacramentum aliud est virtus Sacramenti We have received to day the visible food but the Sacrament is one thing and the virtue of the Sacrament is another That which he calls here cibus visibilis the visible food a little after S. Austin calls it visible Sacramentum a visible Sacrament where he distinguishes this again from the Virtus Sacramenti the Virtue of the Sacrament so that the visible food and the visible Sacrament with him are the same I have already produced the Testimonies vid. chap. 8. Observ 5. where the Fathers make what is distributed in the Eucharist to be without Life or sense which can be true of nothing else but of the Bread and Wine So that unless we make them distribute what they had not consecrated the Bread and Wine must remain after Consecration The same is also evidently proved from another common assertion of the Fathers that Christ offered the same oblation with Melchisedek S. Cyprian (t) Lib. 2. Epist 3. Quis magis sacerdos Dei summi quam Dominus noster Jesus Christus qui Sacrificium Deo Patri obtulit obtulit hoc idem quod Mechisedec obtulerat id est panem vinum suum scilicet corpus sanguinem Who was more a Priest of the most High God than our Lord Jesus Christ who offered a Sacrifice to God the Father and offered this same that Melchisedeck had offered that is Bread and Wine to wit his Body and Blood Which indeed the Wine and Bread was by representation but if you understand this of proper Flesh and Blood offered in the Eucharist then it is not the same oblation with that of Melchisedeck Isidore Peleusiota (u) Lib. 1. Epist 431. ad Paliad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Melchisedeck performed his sacred Office in Bread and Wine by which he foresignified the type of the divine mysteries Eusebius (x) Lib. 5. Dem. Evang. c. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Melchisedeck 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For as he Melchisedeck being a Priest of the Gentiles never seems to have made use of Bodily Sacrifices but blessed Abraham only in Bread and Wine After the same manner also first our Lord and Saviour himself then all the Priests that derive from him performing in all Nations their spiritual function according to the Ecclesiastical Sanctions by Bread and Wine do express the mysteries of his Body and saving Blood Melchisedeck having foreseen these things by a divine spirit and having used before these images of future things S. Jerome (y) Epist ad Evagrium Melchisedec pane vino simplici puroque sacrificio Christi dedicaverit Sacramentum Melchisedeck by Bread and Wine which is a simple and a pure Sacrifice did dedicate Christs Sacrament S. Austin (z) Epist 95. Melchisedec prolato Sacramento coenae Dominicae novit aeternum ejus sacerdotium figurare Melchisedeck bringing forth the Sacrament of the Lords Supper i. e. Bread and Wine knew how to figure Christs Eternal Priesthood Again (a) L. 17. de civit Dei c. 17. Ex eo quod jam nusquam est Sacerdotium Sacrificium secundum ordinem Aaron ubique offertur sub sacerdote Christo quod protulit Melchisedec quando benedixit Abraham upon those words Thou art a Priest for ever c. He adds Since now there is no where any Priesthood or Sacrifice according to the Order of Aaron and that is every where offered under Christ the Priest which Melchisedeck brought forth when he blessed Abraham In many other places S. Austin says the same Arnobius (b) In Psal 109. Christus per mysterium panis vini factus est sacerdos in aeternum Christ by the mystery of Bread and Wine is made a Priest for ever S. Chrysostom (c) Comment in Psal 110. vel 109. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Why did he say a Priest after the Order of Melchisedeck Even because of the mysteries because he also brought out Bread and Wine to Abraham Isidore of Sevil (d) In Genesin cap. 12. Non secundùm Aaron pecudum Victimas sed oblationem panis vini id est corporis sanguinis ejus Sacramentum in Sacrificium offeramus Let us not offer the
of Jerus (o) Catech. Mystag 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 When they tast they are not required to tast Bread and Wine i. e. not these alone but the Antitype of Christs Body and Blood. Theodoret as we heard before (p) Dialog 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 calls the Divine Mysteries the Antitypes of the True Body of Christ And in another place (q) Recapit in fine Dialog 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he says If the Lords Flesh be changed into the Nature of the Divinity wherefore do they receive the Antitypes of his Body for the Type is superfluous you see Type and Antitype signify the same when the Truth is taken away Theodotus of Antioch (r) Citante Bulingero adv Casaub p. 166. says As the King himself and his Image are not two Kings neither are these two Bodies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 viz. The Body of Christ personally existing in the Heavens and the Bread the Antitype of it which is delivered in the Church by the Priests to the Faithful They call it a Figure Tertullian (s) Lib. 3. adv Maricion Panem corpus suum appelans ut hinc etiam intelligas corporis sui figuram pani dedisse Calling Bread his Body that thou mayst thence understand that he gave to the Bread the Figure of his Body Again (t) Lib. 4. adv Marcion c. 40. Acceptum panem distriburum discipulis corpus suum illum fecit hoc est corpus meum dicendo id est figura corporis mei The Bread which he took and distributed to his Disciples he made it his Body saying This is my Body that is the Figure of my Body Ephrem Syrus (u) Tract de nat dei curiose non scrutanda Diligenter intuere quomodo in manibus panem accipiens benedixit fregit in figuram immaculati corporis sui calicemque in figuram pretiosi sanguinis sui benedixit deditque discipulis suis Diligently consider how Christ taking Bread in his hands blessed and brake it for a figure of his immaculate Body and also blessed and gave the Cup to his Disciples for a figure of his precious Blood. S. Austin (x) In Psal 3. Adhibuir Judam ad convivium in quo corporis sanguinis sui figuram discipulis commendavit tradidit He admitted Judas to the Banquet in which he commended and delivered to his Disciples the figure of his Body and Blood. Bede (y) In Psal 3. Nec à Sacratissimâ coena in quâ figuram Sacrosancti corporis sanguinisque suis discipulis tradidit ipsum sc Judam exclusit also says the same Neither did Christ exclude Judas from the most holy Supper in which he delivered to his Disciples the figure of his most holy Body and Blood. And elsewhere (z) In Luc. 22. Pro agni carne vel sanguine suae carnis sanguinisque Sacramentum in panis vini figurâ substituens ipsum se esse monstraret cui juravit Dominus Tu es sacerdos in aeternum secundum Ordinem Melchisedec Christ instead of the Flesh or Blood of a Lamb substituting the Sacrament in the Figure of Bread and Wine showed that it was he to whom the Lord sware Thou art a Priest for ever after the Order of Melchisedeck The words of the Ambrosian Office are very remarkable as they are set down by the Author of the Book of Sacraments under his name where he asks this Question (a) Lib. 4. de Sacram. c. 5. in initio Vis scire quia verbis coelestibus consecratur Accipe quae sint verba Dicit sacerdos Fac nobis inquit hanc oblationem ascriptam rationabilem acceptabilem quod est Figura corporis sanguinis Domini nostri Jesu Christi c. Wouldst thou know that the Eucharist is Consecrated by Heavenly words Hear then what the words are The Priest says Make this oblation to us allowable rational acceptable which is the Figure of the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ c. This Prayer thus expressed in this Office signifies more than all that can be cited against us out of these Books and indeed they were too plain to be continued when Transubstantiation was believed in the Roman Church and therefore in the present Canon of the Mass they are changed and instead of Figura Corporis they now read Fiat nobis Corpus c. Lastly The Fathers call the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist the Image of Christs Body Eusebius (b) Lib. 8. Demon. Evang. Christ says he delivered to his Disciples the Symbols of his Divine Oeconomy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 requiring them to make an Image of his Body Gelasius (c) Tract de duabus Naturis Certe Imago Similitudo corporis sanguinis Christi in actione mysteriorum celebrantur Satis ergo nobis evidenter ostenditur hoc nobis in ipso Christo Domino sentiendum quod in ejus imagine profitemur celebramus sumimus c. Surely the Image and similitude of the Body and Blood of Christ are celebrated in the action of the mysteries It is evidently therefore shown to us that we must think of our Lord Christ the same which we profess celebrate and take in his Image c. Procopius of Gaza (d) Comm. in 49 Genes expounding these words spoken of Juda His Eyes shall be red with Wine and his Teeth white with Milk Gen. 49.12 he applies it to the Eucharist and that gladness which is obtain'd by the mystical Wine which Christ first tasted and bad his Disciples take and drink and the Milk may signify the purity of the mystical food 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for he gave the Image of his own Body to his Disciples no longer requiring the bloody Sacrifices of the Law and by the white teeth he denoted the purity of the Bread by which we are nourished Author Dialog adv Marcionitas inter opera Originis (e) Dialog 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If Christ as the Marcionists say was without Flesh and without Blood of what Flesh or of what Body or Blood did he give the Images and commanded his Disciples to make a remembrance of him by Synodus Constantinop an 754. (f) In Concil Nicen. 2. Act. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Fathers there call the Eucharist the true Image of Christ and say afterwards Christ commanded us to offer an Image a chosen matter to wit the substance of Bread not having an humane Figure lest Idolatry should be introduced And again It pleased him that the Bread of the Eucharist being the true Image of his natural Flesh should be made a Divine Body being sanctified by the coming of the Holy Ghost the Priest which makes the oblation intervening to make it holy which before was common He that would have more Testimonies of this kind may consult Monsieur Blondel in his Esclaircissements sur l' Eucharistie cap. 4.
prop. 8. The Fathers also make two or three Remarks which add further strength to this Argument First Remark They not only make Bread and Wine to be the Image Type Figure c. of Christs Body Crucified but they also assert that an Image Figure c. cannot be the thing it self of which it is an Image and Figure Tertullian (g) Cont. Marcion l. 2 c. 9. Imago veritati non usquequaque adaequabitur aliud enim est secundum veritatem esse aliud ipsam veritatem esse The Image cannot be every ways adequate to the Truth for it is one thing to be according to Truth another to be the Truth it self Athanasius (h) Contr. Hypocr Milet. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That which is like to another is not that thing it self to which it is like Hilary (i) De Synodis Neque enim sibi ipsi quisquam imago est Neither is any one an Image of himself S. Ambrose (k) De fide l. 1. cap. 4. Nemo potest sibi ipsi imago fuisse None can ever have been an Image of himself Gr. Nyssen (l) De anima resurrect 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 An Image would be no longer such if it were altogether the same with that of which it is an Image S. Austin (m) De Trinit l. 7. c. 1. Quid absurdius quà m Imaginem ad se dici What can be more absurd than to be called an Image with respect to ones self Gaudentius (n) In Exod. tract 2. Figura non est veritas sed imitatio veritatis A Figure is not the Truth but an imitation of the Truth Theodoret (o) In Dan. l. 2. c. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 An Image has the Figures and lines not the things themselves Cyril of Alexand. (p) In Amos cap. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Type is not the Truth but rather imports the similitude of the Truth Bertram (q) De corp sang Domini Pignus Imago alterius rei sunt id est non ad se sed ad aliud aspiciunt A pledge and an Image are of another thing that is they do not look to themselves but to something else This Epiphanius the Deacon (r) In Concil Nic. 2. Act. 6. in the second Council of Nice confesses and therefore is fain to deny that the Eucharist is the Image or Antitype of Christs Body 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For says he If the Eucharist be an Image of his Body it cannot be the Divine Body it self Damascen also (s) De Orth. fide l. 4. c. 14. who was one of the first Innovators in the matter of the Eucharist denies that the Bread and Wine are a Type or Figure of Christs Body and Blood but the very Body and Blood it self and that when the Antients call them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Antitypes they mean it is so before Consecration of the Elements not after which I have abundantly showed by foregoing Testimonies in this Chapter to be false and it is confessed by some of the Roman Authors themselves In a word the Fathers make a sign to be inferiour and to fall short of the thing signified thus S. Chrysostom (t) Hom. 8. in Epist ad Roman 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says It is inferiour to it and so much the more as a sign is below the thing of which it is a sign So also S. Jerome as we heard before puts the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist in the same rank as to veneration with holy Chalices Veils and other things that relate to the Passion of our Lord 2 Remark The Fathers assert that an Image and Type must visibly demonstrate that of which it is an Image Origen (u) Hom. 1. in Genes Qui viderit imaginem alicujus videt eum cujus imago est He that sees the Image of a person sees him of whom it is an Image Marcellus Anchyr apud Eusebium (x) Lib. 1. cont Marcel c. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Images are demonstrative of those of whom they are Images so that by them he that is absent seems to appear Greg. Nyssen (y) In Cant. Hom. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Original is plainly seen in the likeness of it Hilary (z) De Synodis Eum cujus Imago est necesse est ut imago demonstret It is necessary that an Image should demonstrate him of whom it is an Image Which plainly confutes those mens fancies in the Church of Rome (a) Bellarm. de Euchar. l. 2. cap. 15. who make Christ invisibly present in the Eucharist to be the sign of himself visibly suffering upon the Cross For as Greg. Nyssen (b) Lib. 1. cont Eunom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says How can a man form an Idea of a visible thing from an Invisible And Tertullian laughs at it as ridiculous when he says (c) Lib. de carne Christi c. 11. Nemo ostendere volens hominem cassidem aut personam introducit No one that intends to show a man brings in a Helmet or a Vizard Which we know hide him from our sight Irenaeus (d) L. 2. adv haeres c. 40. Typus secundùm materiam substantiam aliquoties à veritate diversus est Secundùm autem habitum lineamentum debet servare similitudinem similiter ostendere per praesentia ea quae non sunt praesentia says A Type is often different from the Truth according to the matter and substance of the Type but according to the habit and lineaments it ought to keep likeness and likewise by things present show those things that are not present 3. Remark The Fathers plainly make the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist to be Signs and Symbols of Christ as absent S. Ambrose (e) L. 1. de Offic. cap. 48. Hic umbra hic Imago illic veritas Umbra in Lege imago in Evangelio veritas in Coelestibus Here is the shadow here the Image there viz. in Heaven is the Truth The shadow is in the Law the Image in the Gospel the Truth in Heaven Again (f) In Psalm 38. Ascende ergo homo in coelum videbis illa quorum umbra hic erat vel Imago Ascend O Man into Heaven and thou shalt see those things of which there was here only a shadow or Image Maximus (g) In cap. 1. Hierarch Eccles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Interpreter of the Spurious Dionysius speaking of the Bread and Wine which he calls Holy Gifts says They are Symbols of things above that are more true So again (h) In Cap. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 elsewhere he says The things of the Old Law were a shadow those of the New Testament were an Image but the state of the World to come is the Truth Theodoret (i) In 1 Cor. 11.26 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 After his coming there will be no
(l) Tract in illud Evang. Quicunque dixerit verbum contra filium hominis expounding those words What if ye see the Son of Man ascending where he 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 Eusebius gives us (n) Lib. 3. Eccl. Theol. c. 1◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 heavenly 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 sensibly heard profit nothing but it is the Spirit that quickneth them that can spiritually hear them S. Basil (o) In Psal 33. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 understand it For says he Quod si mysterium intellexisset hoc potius diceret Domine cur abeamus non est cûm credamus nos corporis sanguinis tui fide salvandos if he had understood the Mystery he should rather have said Lord there is no reason we should go away since we believe we shall be saved by Faith in thy Body and Blood. He means his Death and Passion which is his Sense of eating Christ's Body and Blood. Theodorus Heracleot (q) Catena in Joan. 6.54 55. refers this eating Christ's Flesh to the sincere embracing the Oeconomy of his Incarnation These says he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon the reasoning of their Minds by assenting to it as it were tasting the Doctrine do rationally or spiritually eat his Flesh and by Faith partake of his Blood. S. Chrysostom (r) Hom. 46. in Joan. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 coelo 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 Cantic 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 credendo nec motu
concerning this Matter Baronius has given us (e) Baronius Append. ad Tom. 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 â—i 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 sanguinem 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 sâ—it 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 once adore it For thus the Missal (*) Ritus celebr Missam cap. 8. Dicit hoc est enim Corpus meum Quibus prolatis celebrans Hostiam tenens inter pollices indices genuflexus eam adorat Tunc se erigens quantum commodè potest elevat in altum Hostiam intentis in eam oculis quod in Elevatione Calicis facit populo reverenter ostendit adorandam directs That when the Priest comes to the words of Consecration and has said This is my Body then holding the Host as he is directed he kneels down
and worshipped Not to mention some extraordinary contingences such as the breaking out of a great Fire suddenly occasioning the drawing it out of its Retirement to oppose against and stop its fury Besides the Pope himself has often need of the reserved Host not to Take and eat according to the Institution but to take along with him when he in his Pontificals rides to any Church or takes a Journey to a City this always accompanies him and the Book of Sacred Ceremonies will give you an account of the Horse and the colour of it upon which it is set with the Bell about his Neck and the pompous Train the Canopy carried over it and lighted Torches before it c. Let me only add farther That in that case which is pretended to be the great occasion for the reservation of the Eucharist I mean to be in readiness for sick Persons yet even here the Procession and the Pomp and the Magnificence in the conveying it to such Places and the Receiving the Adorations of all it meets seems to be as much designed as the communicating those sick Persons which they will be contented as soon to let alone as to abate those attending Ceremonies The Ancient Church had very homely practices they used and suffered in cases of great necessity things that this Church would account incongruous if not profane Such as that which Dionysius of Alexandria (f) Apud Euseb Hist Eccles l. 6. c. 44. relates concerning old Serapion who when he lay a-dying sent a young Grand-child of his to call one of the Presbyters of Alexandria to give him the Sacrament Who by reason of Ilness not being able to go along with him he made no more ado but took a little portion of the Eucharist and gave it into the Youth's Hand and directed him to moisten it and so to infuse it into his Mouth which he did and immediately upon the swallowing it the old Man expired I Question whether the Gentlemen of the Roman Church will allow this to be a true Communion but I believe with their perswasions they would not follow it for a World. We may more than guess so by a remarkable Story Nic. Trigautius tells us of what was resolved upon by the skilful Jesuits in a Case exactly like the former (g) Nic. Tâ—â—gantii exped apud Sinas l. 5. c. 7. p. 503. Neque domi loco convenienti celebrari poterat neque pro majestate per vicos deferri solabantur igitur illum socii necessaria peccatorum confessione perfunctum posse sine viatico quod legitime impeditus minimè susciperet coelestem gloriam introire at Pekin in China One Fabius who had been converted and baptized being above Eighty Years old fell sick to Death and having been confess'd of his Sins with great earnestness desired to receive the Sacrament for his Viaticum but there being no convenient place at his House to celebrate it in nor liberty to carry it through the Streets in Pomp and requisite State they comforted him with the consideration of his having made confession of his Sins which was necessary and told him that he might without taking the Sacrament when he was lawfully hindred go to Heaven and so they left him These admirable Casuists you see determine against communicating the dying Person when it could not be performed with the majestick Ceremonies they desired The Priest of Alexandria and the Fathers in China differ very widely in their Practice and you may be sure their Perswasions in this matter were as different the Man himself indeed he tells us found a way to get the Communion at last by throwing himself into their House but it was not till they had made a little Procession within doors till the Tapestry was spread on the Floors and the Tapers lighted nothing could be done In a word to perswade People of the necessity of these Pomps and Solemnities in conveying the Sacrament to the Sick they produce several Miracles * See the School of the Eucharist Title Asses and Mares c. how when the Priests have carried the Eucharist through Fields without attendance Troops of Asses and Mares have run to supply this defect and having first fallen down on their Knees to worship the Deity he carried they have accompanied him to the Place waited at the sick Man's Door till all was over and then marched back again in good order with him God showing by these respects paid to it by Beasts what he expected much more from Men. 2. Difference relates to what was received in the Eucharist wherein we also see a plain disagreement in the usages of the Primitive and the present Roman Church Which is this The Ancient Church allowed great Liberty privately to reserve what had been publickly received in the Eucharist Which would be now a great Crime in the Roman Church so far from being allowed It is undeniable that anciently this was allowed whether they did well or ill in it is not at all the question but concerning the Matter of Fact. S. Basil (h) Epist 289. thinks that the Custom took its rise from Times of Persecution when Christians were forced to flee into Desarts and live in solitude having not the presence of a Priest to communicate them they had the Sacrament reserved by them and communicated themselves But he says even when this Reason ceased this became afterwards an inveterate Custom And in Alexandria and Egypt the Laicks commonly had the Sacrament by them in their own Houses (i) Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and he says expresly this which they so reserved 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with all liberty as his Phrase is was a Particle received from the Priest's Hand in the Church So Nazianzen (k) Orat. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. says of his Sister Gorgonia Whatsoever of the Antitypes of the precious Body and Blood of Christ her Hand had treasured up c. Which very phrase intimates that at several times she had reserved and made a collection of the Consecrated Elements Tertullian supposes it a common practice in his time when he says (l) Lib. 2. ad Vxor Non sciet maritus quid secretò ante omnem cibum gustes c. Thy Husband will not know what it is thou tastest secretly before all other Meat c. It is true indeed that in the Councils of Saragosa and Toledo in Spain this was prohibited in the 4th Century upon occasion of the Priscillianists who did receive the communion as others did and reserved it and so could not be discovered tho' they never took it against whom Learned Men think those Councils made those Canons which 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
with them for the honour of thy Christ c. Would it not run finely to pray that God would be well pleased with Christ for the honour of his Christ But besides the Petition that God would look propitiously upon them it follows in the Canon That God would accept them as he did the Gifts of Abel and Abraham and Melchisedeck How unagreeable is this if Christ himself be understood here to make the Comparison for acceptance betwixt a Lamb and a Calf or Bread and Wine and Christ the Son of God with whom he was always highly pleased But then what follows still entangles Matters more in the Church of Rome's Sense The Prayer That God would command these things to be carried by the hands of his Holy Angel to the High Altar above For how can the Body of Christ be carried by Angels to Heaven which never left it since his Ascension but is always there Besides the High Altar above in the Sense of the Ancients is Christ himself And Remigius of Auxerre tells us (s) De celebrat Missae in Bibl. Pat. 2dae Edit Tom. 6. p. 1164. In Coelo rapitur ministerio Angelorum consociandum corpori Christi That S. Gregory's Opinion of the Sacrament was That it was snatched into Heaven by Angels to be joined to the Body of Christ there But then in the sense of Transubstantiation what absurd stuff is here to pray that Christ's Body may be joined to his own Body So that there can be no sense in the Prayer but ours to understand it of the Elements offered devoutly first at this Altar below which by being blessed become Christ's Representative Body and obtain acceptance above through his Intercession there And thus it is fully explained by the Author of the Constitutions (t) Lib. 8. c. 13. in initio 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let us entreat God through his Christ for the Gift offered to the Lord God that the good God by the mediation of his Christ would receive it to his Coelestial Altar for a sweet smelling Savour To put the Matter further out of all doubt it is observable that the Liturgies that go under the name of S. James and S. Mark do both of them mention the acceptance of the Gifts of Abel and Abraham and the admitting them to the Celestial Altar before the reciting the words of the Institution or Consecration as the Roman Church calls them by which they say the Change is made That the Liturgy of S. Chrysostom prays That God would receive the Oblations proposed to his Supercelestial Altar almost in the same words both before and after Consecration and that he look'd upon them to be the same in substance that they were before plainly appears by an expression after all where he prays (u) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the Lord would make an equal division of the proposed Gifts to every one for good according to every Man 's particular need Which cannot be understood of Christ's proper Body but of the consecrated Bread and Wine which cannot admit of shares or Portions equal or unequal Lastly That S. Basil's Liturgy also before the Consecration prays That the Oblations may be carried unto the supercelestial Altar and be accepted as the Gifts of Abel Noah Abraham c. And to shew that even after the words of Institution he did not believe them to be other things than they were before he still calls them the Antitypes (x) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. of the Body and Blood of Christ and prays That the Spirit may come upon us and upon the Gifts proposed to bless and sanctify them and to make this Bread the venerable Body of our Lord God and Saviour Jesus Christ and this Cup his Blood the Spirit working the change And afterwards the Priest prays (y) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That by reason of his Sins he would not divert the Grace of his Holy Spirit from the proposed Gifts A needless fear if the Gifts were already Christ's Body that the Spirit should be hindred from coming upon that where all the Fulness of the God-head dwells bodily by any Man's Sins The next Passage of the Canon increases still the difficulty to them that believe Transubstantiation When it says Through Jesus Christ our Lord by whom O Lord thou dost always create sanctify quicken bless and bestow all these good things on us If there be no good thing remaining in the Eucharist besides Christ when these words are said What Sense or Truth is there in them Can Christ or his Body that already exists be created anew and be always created Can that be always sanctified that was never common Or is he to be raised and quickned anew daily that once being so raised can die no more c. But that which makes the Absurdity of this Interpretation the greater is that they say that all this is done to Christ by Christ himself as if God by Christ did create Christ and by Christ did bless and quicken and sanctify Christ which none but he that is forsaken of common Sense can affirm The old Interpreters of the Canon made other work of it and supposed that the Creatures offered to God remained Creatures still for thus the forecited Remigius (z) In Bibl. Patr. Tom. 6. p. 1165. Per Christum Deus Pater haec omnia non solum in exordio creavit condendo sed etiam semper creat praeparando reparando bona quia omnia à Deo creata valdè bona creata suis conspectibus oblata sanctificat ut quae erant simplex creatura fiant Sacramenta vivificat ut sint mysteria vitae Benedicit quia omni benedictione coelesti gratiâ accumulat Praestat nobis per eundem secum sanctificantem qui de corpore suo sanguine suo nobis tam salubrem dedit refectionem comments upon them God the Father not only in the beginning created all these things by Christ but also always creates them by preparing and repairing them Good because all things created by Good are very good He sanctifies those things so created and offered in his sight when the things that were a simple Creature are made Sacraments he quickens them so that they become Mysteries of Life He blesses them because he heaps all Celestial Benediction and Grace on them He bestows them on us by the same Christ sanctifying them with him who has given to us so wholsom a repast from his Body and Blood. What can be also more plain than the words of the next Prayer I mentioned That what we have taken with our Mouth may of a Temporal Gift be made an Eternal Remedy Did ever any one call Christ a Temporal Gift in distinction from an Eternal Remedy Is it not certain that the Oblata the things offered are the Temporal Gift which by our due receiving them become eternally beneficial to us The last Prayer also which beg That the Body and Blood of Christ may
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 Infidels 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 de â—ensa Sect. 14. p. 220. Ahmad bin Edris ita scribit verba autem Isa sic 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 sanguimem 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 Messia 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 Dicu 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 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 Eortalitium
Fidei contra Judaeos 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. fol. 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 Egyyt 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 Ibid. 12. Impossib fol. 132. 3. 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 in Fire which begins to be any where either because it is kindled there anew or is brought thither de novo But it is manifest that the true Body of Christ was not always on the Altar because the Christians assert that Christ ascended in his Body to Heaven It seems also impossible to be said that any thing here is converted anew into Christ's Body because nothing seems convertible into that which existed before since that into which another
thing is turned by such a change begins to exist Now it is manifest that Christ's Body did praeexist seeing it was conceived in the Womb of Mary It seems therefore impossible that it should begin to be on the Altar anew by the Conversion of another thing into it In like-manner neither by a change of Place because every thing that is locally moved do's so begin to be in one place that it ceases to be in that other in which it was before We must therefore say that when Christ begins to be on this Altar on which the Sacrament is perform'd he ceases to be in Heaven whither he ascended It is also plain that this Sacrament is in like manner celebrated on divers Altars Therefore it is impossible that the Body of Christ should begin to be there by a Local Motion 4. You Christians affirm Ibid. 13. Imposs fol. 134 that your Christ is whole in the Sacrament under the Species of Bread and Wine This I prove thus to be impossible Because never are the Parts of any Body contained in divers Places the Body it self remaining whole But now it is manifest that in this Sacrament the Bread and Wine are asunder in separate Places If therefore the Flesh of Christ be under the Species of Bread and his Blood under the Species of Wine it seems to follow that Christ do's not remain whole but that always when this Sacrament is celebrated his Blood is separated from his Body Ibid. 14. Imposs fol. eod 5. You Christians say that in that little Host the Body of Christ is contained This I prove to be impossible Because it is impossible that a greater Body should be included in the place of a lesser Body But it is manifest that the True Body of Christ is of a greater Quantity than the Bread that is offered on the Altar Therefore it seems impossible that the true Body of Christ should be whole and entire there where the Bread seems to be But if the whole be not there but only some part of it then the foresaid Inconvenience returns that always when this Sacrament is perform'd the Body of Christ is Differenced or separated by Parts I will only here set down what the Catholick Author replies to this after the unintelligible distinctions of the Schools and seems most to trust to even such wise Similitudes as these that the Soul is greater than the Body and yet is contained within it that a great Mountain is contained in the little Apple of the Eye and the greatest Bodies in a little Looking-glass and great Virtues in little precious Stones and in the Little Body of the Pope great Authority c. Ibid. 15. Imposs fol. 135. 6. The Jew says you Christians affirm that your Christ is in like manner on more Altars where Masses are celebrated This seems to be impossible because it is impossible for one Body to exist in more places than one But it is plain that this Sacrament is celebrated in more Places Therefore it seems impossible that the Body of Christ should be truly contained in this Sacrament Unless perhaps any should say that according to one part of it it is here and according to another Part elsewhere But from thence it would again follow that by the Celebration of this Sacrament the Body of Christ is divided into Parts when yet the Quantity of the Body of Christ seems not to suffice for the dividing so many Particles out of it as there are Places in which this Sacrament is performed 7. You Christians say that after Consecration Ibid. 16. Imposs fol. 136. all the Accidents of Bread and Wine are manifestly perceived in this Sacrament viz. the Colour Tast Smell Figure Quantity and Weight About which you cannot be deceived because Sense is not deceived about its proper Objects Now these Accidents as you assert cannot be in the Body of Christ as in their Subject Nor can they subsist by themselves seeing the Nature and Essence of an Accident is to be in another thing 7. Metaphys For Accidents seeing they are Forms cannot be individuated but by their Subject and if the Subject were taken away would be universal Forms It remains therefore that these Accidents are in their determinate Subjects viz. In the substance of Bread and Wine Wherefore there is there the substance of Bread and Wine and not the substance of Christ's Body for it seems impossible that two Bodies should be together in one place 8. The Jews say Ibid. 17. Imposs fol. 137. It is certain that if that Wine in your Sacrament were taken in great Quantity that it would heat the Body and intoxicate as before it was a Sacrament and also that the Bread would strengthen and nourish It seems also that if it be kept long and carelesly it will corrupt and it may be eaten of Mice the Bread and Wine also may be burnt and turned into Vapours all which cannot agree to the Body of Christ seeing your Faith declares it to be impassible It seems therefore impossible that the Body of Christ should be contained substantially in this Sacrament 9. The Jew says Ibid. 18. Imposs fol. 137. That you Christians break that Sacrament into Parts Therefore it is impossible that the Body of Christ should be there The Consequence is thus proved Because that Fraction which do's sensibly appear cannot be without a Subject For it seems to be absurd to say That the Subject of this Fraction is Christ's Body Therefore it is impossible Christ's Body should be there but only the Substance of Bread and Wine There is a great deal more of what the Jews say against this Doctrine in that Author but this is enough for the purposes I before mentioned and so I leave it to the Consciences of those concerned to show that even the Jews have better explained the words whereby Christ instituted this Sacrament than the Romanists have by making it a Figure of Christ's Body and not the Body it self spoken more agreeably to the Faith of the Ancient Church that did so and have confuted the Errors of this Church by Maximes consonant to the Sense and Reason of all Man-kind Which God grant they may be sensible of who have so manifestly swerved from them all that so their Words may never rise up in Judgment against them THE END Books lately printed for Richard Chiswell A Dissertation concerning the Government of the Ancient Church more particularly of the Encroachments of the Bishops of Rome upon other Sets By WILLIAM CAVE D. D. Octavo An Answer to Mr. Serjeant's Sure Footing in Christianity concerning the Rule of Faith With some other Discourses By WILLIAM FALKNER D.D. 40. A Vindication of the Ordinations of the Church of England in Answer to a Paper written by one of the Church of Rome to prove the Nullity of our Orders By GILBERT BVRNET D. D. Octavo An Abridgment of the History of the Reformation of the Church of England By GILB BVRNET D. D. Octavo The APOLOGY of the Church of England and an Epistle to one Signior Scipio a Venetian Gentleman concerning the Council of Trent Written both in Latin by the Right Reverend Father in God JOHN JEWEL Lord Bishop of Salisbury Made English by a Person of Quality To which is added The Life of the said Bishop Collected and written by the same Hand Octavo The Life of WILLIAM BEDEL D. D. Bishop of Kilmore in Ireland Together with Certain Letters which passed betwixt him and James Waddesworth a late Pensioner of the Holy Inquisition of Sevil in Matters of Religion concerning the General Motives to the Roman Obedience Octavo The Decree made at ROME the Second of March 1679. condemning some Opinions of the Jesuits and other Casuists Quarto A Discourse concerning the Necessity of Reformation with respect to the Errors and Corruptions of the Church of Rome Quarto First and Second Parts A Discourse concerning the Celebration of Divine Service in an Unknown Tongue Quarto A Papist not Misrepresented by Protestants Being a Reply to the Reflections upon the Answer to A Papist Misrepresented and Represented Quarto An Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England in the several Articles proposed by the late BISHOP of CONDOâ— in his Exposition of the Doctrine of the Catholick Church Quarto A Defence of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England against the Exceptions of Monsieur de Meaux late Bishop of Condoâ— and his Vindicator 40. A CATECHISM explaining the Doctrine and Practâ—â—â— of the Church of Rome With an Answer thereunto By a Protestant of the Church of England 80. A Papist Represented and not Misrepresented being an Answer to the First Second Fifth and Sixth Sheets of the Second Part of the Papist Mispresented and Represented and for a further Vindication of the CATECHISM truly representing the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome Quarto The Lay-Christian's Obligation to read the Holy Scriptures Quarto The Plain Man's Reply to the Catholick Missionaries 140. An Answer to THREE PAPERS lately printed concerning the Authority of the Catholick Church in Matters of Faith an the Reformation of the Church of England Quarto A Vindication of the Answer to THREE PAPERS concerning the Unity and Authority of the Catholick Church and the Reformation of the Church of England Quarto