TO give the Reader a View of what Won­ders are to be believed, according to what the Trent Council has decreed con­cerning Transubstantiation, we need go no further than to the Trent Catechism Ad Parcchōs, part. 2. num. 25., which tells us, there are three most won­derful things, which the Catholick Faith without any doubt­ing, believes and confesses are effected in this Sacrament, by the Words of Consecration.

1. That the true Body of Christ, that same Body which was born of the Virgin, and sits at the Right-hand of the Father, is conteined in this Sacrament.

2. That no Substance of the Elements remains in it, tho' nothing may seem more strange and remote from our Senses.

3. What is easily collected from both, That the Accidents, which are seen with our Eyes, or are perceived by our other Senses, are without any Subject (in which they subsist) in a strange manner, not to be explained. So that all the Accidents of Bread and Wine may be seen, which yet inhere in no Substance, but subsist by themselves, since the Substance of the Bread and Wine are so changed into the very Body and Blood of our Lord, that the Substance of Bread and Wine cease wholly to be.

[Page 2]But others of the Romish Writers have made a larger and more particular Enumeration of the Miracles wrought in the Eucharist, which no Created Power can effect, but God's Omnipotency alone. I'le give them in the Words of the Jesuite Pererius In Joan. c. 6. Disp. 16. num. 48., who reckons these Nine distinct Miracles.

1. The same Christ remaining in Heaven, not departing thence, and without any local mutation, is really and corpo­rally in the Sacrament of the Eucharist.

2. Nor is he thus there only in one consecrated Host, but is together in all Hosts consecrated throughout the whole Earth.

3. Tho' the Body of Christ in the Sacrament has all its Quantity and Colour, and other sensible Qualities; yet as it is in the Sacrament, it is neither there visibly nor quantita­tively Quantum ad situm, & extensionem ejus ad locum. as to its situs, and extension unto Place.

4. Tho' the Body of Christ be in it self greater than a Consecrated Host, yet according to the (Esse) Being it has there, it is whole in that Host; nor only whole in the whole consecrated Host, but also whole in every part thereof.

5. If those Accidents of the Consecrated Host be corrupted, and it should happen that of them Worms or any other Ani­mal be generated, there is a great Miracle in their Generati­on: For either the Materia prima is created anew, out of which the substantial Form of those Animals is produced, as many Divines now think; or, according to S. Thomas, which seems to be a greater Miracle, The Quantity that was of the Consecrated Host, supplies the place of the Materia prima, and in it is produced the substantial Form of those Animals which are generated from thence.

6. The very Conversion of Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, which is properly called by Divines Transubstantiation, is a great Miracle; for such a Trans­mutation is found in no other thing, and is besides all the Or­der and Course of Nature, and can be made by no Created Power, but by God's Omnipotency alone.

7. The Manner by which such Transubstantiation is made, is not without a Miracle; for it is made by the Words of Consecration, pronounced rightly, and, as it ought, by a Priest. Therefore, as naturally supposing the last disposition in Mat­ter to produce the Form of Fire, the Form of Fire is infalli­bly [Page 3]produced in that Matter: So the Words of Consecration being pronounced by the Priest, Christ himself is infallibly in that Consecrated Host.

8. After Consecration, the whole Substance of Bread and Wine ceasing to be, yet their Accidents do not cease, but re­main: Neither do they remain inhering in any other Subject, but (per se existunt) exist by themselves, which is truly be­sides and above the Nature of Accidents, whose esse (as the Schools say) is inesse, because they can neither be pro­duced nor remain naturally without a Subject.

9. Lastly, Those Accidents of the Consecrated Host, tho' without the Substance of Bread and Wine, yet have the same natural Virtue which Bread and Wine had before Consecra­tion; viz. the Virtue of nourishing, encreasing, and strength­ning the Body of the Person that receives it; when yet Nu­trition is made by conversion of the Substance of the Food in­to the Substance of the Living Creature.

By reason of which Miracles (he says) the Church sings thus in the Hymn for Corpus-Christi day.

That is,

[Page 4]As for the Fathers, they are so far from consenting to this heap of Miracles in the Eucharist, that we have rea­son to think, as to some of them, they never entred into their thoughts, nor never troubled themselves about them; and, for the most of them, tho' they are direct Consequences of Transubstantiation, yet they are op­posed and contradicted by the Fathers, as shall be shewn in Particulars afterwards: Here it shall suffice to say in general, That the Fathers give us this as a Character of the old Hereticks, to urge God's Omnipotency to coun­tenance and give a colour to their Figments and absurd Opinions. Thus Gr. Nazianzen says of the Apollinarians, [...]. Orat. 51. That being pressed with these Reasonings, they fly to this, That to God it is possible. And Tertullian, when Praxeas also urged God's Omnipotency, gives this excellent Contr. Praxeam, c. 10. Si tam abruptè in praesumptionibus nostris hâc sententiâ utamur, quidvis de Deo confingere pote­rimus; quasi fecerit, quia facere potuerit. Non autem quia omnia potest facere, ideo credendum est illum fecisse, etiam quod non fe­cerit; sed an fecerit, requirendum. Answer to him. If we may so abruptly use this Sentence, (viz. That to God all things are easie) in our Presumpti­ons, we may then feign any thing we please of God; as if he had done a thing, because he was able to do it. But because (God) can do all things, we are not to believe he has done that which he has not done; but we are to inquire, whether he has done it or no.

Thus Gr. Nyssen Gr. Nyssen in Hex­aemeron. [...]. asserts, That the Will of God is the Measure of his Power. And Clemens of Alexandria Stromat. l. 4. propè finem. [...]., That God who is Omnipotent, will effect nothing that is absurd. And Origen L. 5. contr. Cel [...]. [...]., When we say, That God can do all things, we know how to understand all things, not of such things as cannot exist, and are unintelligible.

Obj. If any object, That the Fathers often bring in Instances of Gods miraculous Power (as St. Ambrose does in the Red Sea and the River Jordan, and in the miracu­lous Conception of our Saviour, &c.) to create Faith in Men as to the great Change that is wrought in the Eucharist.

[Page 5] Ans. I answer, True indeed: But then it is to be re­membred, (what shall hereafter be more fully declared) that the Change there is not terminated upon the Sub­stance of the Elements, nor is God's Power shewn upon them, to alter their Nature from what they were be­fore, so as to destroy them; but it is an addition of Grace to their Nature, and an advancement of them to produce wonderful Effects upon us in the use of them. So that now the Element of Water in Baptism is no more a common thing, but is employed by God to wash away our Sins, to cleanse our Souls, and to re­generate and renew us: And in the Eucharist the Bread and Wine, which in themselves are the Food of our Bodies, are advanced to be a Means to communicate the Body and Blood of Christ to us, for the nourishing and refreshing our Souls, and to make us Partakers of the saving Effects of his Death and Passion; which are only Miracles of God's Grace. And the Fathers urge the forementioned Miracles in Nature, to assure us of these Wonders of Divine Grace. And this they do not only in the case of the Eucharist, but of Baptism also; where yet none assert any Conversion of the Substance of Water into any other thing. Thus S. Ambrose De in qui initiantur, c. 9. ad finem. Si er­go superveniens Spi­ritus S. in Virginem conceptionem opera­tus esf, & generatio­nis munus implevit: Non utique dubitan­dum est, quod super­veniens in fontem, vel super eum qui baptismum consequi­tur, veritatem rege­nerationis operetur.: Mary conceived by the Holy Ghost, without the inter­vention of any Man, as S. Matthew tells us; She was found with Child of the Holy Ghost. If then the Holy Spirit coming upon the Virgin made her to conceive, &c. we need not question but that the same Spirit coming upon the Water of Baptism, or on him that is baptized, do's produce true Regeneration. And P. Leo Mag. De Nativit. Dom. Ser. 4. Christus de­dit aquae, quod dedit-Matri: Virtus enim Altissimi & obumbra­tio Spiritus S. quae fecit ut Maria pareret Salvatorem, eadem facit ut regeneret unda credentem.Christ gave to the Water, what he gave to his Mother; for the Power of the most High, and the Overshadowing of the H. Spirit, which caused Mary to bring forth our Saviour, the same causes the Water to regenerate a Believer. Excepting therefore these Wonders of God's Grace, the Fathers knew no other Mi­racles in the Sacraments; and these Wonders are com­mon to both the Sacraments, and not peculiar to one of them only.

[Page 6]This even Card. Cajetan In 3. part. q. 75. art. 1. Non est di­sputandum de divi­na potentia, ubi de Sacramentis tracta­tur. Ibid. art. 2. Stultum est ponere in hoc argumento, quicquid Deus potest facere. was so sensible of, that he tells us, We must not dispute concerning God's Power when we treat of Sacraments. And again, It is a fcolish thing to assert in this Argument, whatsoever God can do.

He was not ignorant of what S. Austin had said long before Lib. 3. de Trin. c. 10. Quia haec hominibus nota sunt, quia per homines fiunt, hono­rem tanquam religi­osa possunt habere, stuporem tanquam mira non possunt., who speaking of Signs taken to signifie other things, and instancing in the Bread taken and consumed in the Sacrament, adds, But because these things are known to men, as being made by men, they may have Honour given them for their relation to Religion; but cannot raise Astonish­ment, as Miracles or Wonders. Which he could never have said, if he had believed the Wonders and Miracles of Transubstantiation.

I'le conclude this Head with another Saying of his Lib. 3. cont. Julian. c. 3. Haec sunt sen­tentiarum portenta vestrarum, haec in­opinata mysteria Dogmatum novo­rum, haec paradoxa Pelagianorum haere­ticorum mirabiliora quàm Stoicorum Phi­losophorum.—Mira sunt quae dici­tis, nova sunt quae dicitis, falsa sunt quae dicitis. Mira stupe­mus, nova cavemus, falsa convincimus., which may be as well applied to the absurd Paradoxes and Miracles which the Roman Church advances in this Case of the Eucharist, as ever it was to those he there confutes about Baptism. These are the Prodigies of your Opinions; these are the uncouth Mysteries of New Dogma's; these are the Paradoxes of Pelagian Hereticks, more wonder­ful than those of the Stoick Philosophers.—The things you say are Wonderful, the things you say are New, the things you say are False. We are amazed at your Wonders, we are cautious against your Novelties, and we confute your Falsities.

But this Difference being more general, we go on to more particular ones.

THE Trent Catechism Ad Paroch part. 2.37. §. Haec vero. Si panis substantia remaneret, nullo mo­do dici videretur, Hoc est Corpus meum., tho' it do's not determine what the word [THIS] refers to, (only telling us, that it must demonstrate the whole Substance of the thing present) yet it expresly denies, that it refers to the Substance of Bread; for it adds, If the Substance of Bread remained, it seems no way possible to be said that, THIS IS MY BODY. So Bellarmine confesses De Euchar. l. 1. c. 1. sec. Nonus., that this Proposition, This Bread is my Body, must be taken figuratively, that the Bread is the Body of Christ by way of signification, or else it is plainly absurd and impossible. And he acknowledges Ib. lib. 2. cap. 9. §. Observandum., that this Propo­sition, The Wine is the Lord's Blood, teaches, that Wine is Blood by similitude and likeness. And elsewhere Lib. 3. cap. 19., It cannot be a true Proposition, in which the Subject is suppo­sed to be Bread, and the Predicate the Body of Christ; for Bread and Christ's Body are res diversissimae, things most different. And a little after, If we might affirm disparata de disparatis, different things of one another, you might as well affirm and say, that something is nothing, and nothing something; that Light is Darkness, and Darkness Light; that Christ is Belial, and Belial Christ; neither do's our Faith oblige us to defend those things that evidently imply a Con­tradiction.

So also Vasquez Disp. 180. cap. 9. n. 91. Si pronomen; Hoc in illis verbis de­monstraret panem, fatemur etiam fore, ut nulla conversio virtute illorum [...]eri possit, quia panis, de quo enunciatur, manere debet., If the Pronoun [THIS] in Christ's Words pointed at the Bread, then we confess it would fol­low, that no Conversion could be made by virtue of these Words, because the Bread, of which it is affirmed (sc. that it is Christ's Body) ought to remain.

Now that which the present Roman Church dare not affirm, because if it be taken properly, it is untrue, ab­surd, [Page 8]impossible, as implying a Contradiction, we shall now shew that the Fathers plainly affirm it, who yet could not be ignorant of this Absurdity. From whence it necessarily follows, that they took the whole words [THIS IS MY BODY] figuratively, as the Protestants do, since they cannot be taken otherwise, if Bread be affirmed to be Christ's Body, as the Romanists confess. Now that the Fathers affirmed that Bread is Christ's Bo­dy, is certain by these following Testimonies.

S. Irenaeus Adv. Haeres. l. 5. c. 2. [...].. Our Lord confessed the Cup which is of the Creature to be his Blood; and the Bread which is of the Creature, he confirmed it to be his Body.

Clement of Alexandria Paedag. lib. 2. c. 2. [...].. Our Lord blessed the Wine, saying, Take, drink, this is my Blood, the Blood of the Grape. For the Holy River of Gladness (so he calls the Wine) do's allegorically signifie the Word (i. e. the Blood of the Word) shed for many for the remission of Sins.

Tertullian Adv. Judaeos, c. 21. Panem corpus suum appellans.. Calling Bread his Body. Speaking of Christ.

And against Marcion Idem adv. Marcion. lib. 3. cap. 19. Panem corpus suum appel­lans, ut & hinc eum intelligas corporis sui figuram pani dedisse, &c. he says the same; Calling Bread his Body, that thou mayst know that he gave to Bread the Figure of his Body, &c.

And in the next Book Lib. 4. advers. Marc. c. 40. Accep­tum panem & distri­butum Discipulis, corpus suum illum fecit, Hoc est corpus meum dicendo, id est, figura corporis mei.. The Bread that he took and distributed to his Disciples, he made it his Body, saying, This is my Body, that is, the Figure of my Body.

S. Cyprian Epist. 76. ad Mag­num. Quando Domi­nus corpus suum pa­nem vocat de multorum granorum adunatione congestum, &c., When our Lord called the Bread, which is made up of many united Grains, his Body, &c.

Tatianus Syrus Harmon. in Bibl. Patrum, 1624. Tom. 7. Accepto pane, dein­de vini calice, corpus esse suum ac sanguinem testatus, &c.. Christ taking the Bread, and after that the Cup of Wine, testified that they were his Body and Blood, &c.

[Page 9] Origen Hom. 35. in Matth. Pa­ [...] isce quem Dominus cor­pus suum esse fatetur.. That Bread which our Lord confessed to be his Body.

Eusebius Demonstr. Evang. lib. 8. [...].. Christ appointed them (or delivered to them) to make use of Bread for a Symbol of his Body.

Cyril of Jerusalem Catech. Mystag. 4. [...];. When Christ affirms, and says of the Bread, This is my Body, who will dare to doubt further of it?

S. Jerome Epist, ad Hedibiam, Nos audiamus panem quem fre­git Dominus, deditque disci­pulis suis, esse corpus Salva­toris, &c.. Let us hear, that the Bread which our Lord brake and gave to his Disciples, is the Body of our Saviour. Which he explains further else­where Comm. in 26. Matt. Quo­modo in praefiguratione e­jus Melchisedek— pan [...]m & vinum offerens fecerat, ipse quoque veritatem sui corporis & sanguinis repraesentaret., That as Melchisedek prefiguring him had done, when he offered Bread and Wine, so he also re­presented the Truth of his Body and Blood.

S. Chrysostom In 1 Cor. Hom. 24. [...].. What is the Bread? The Body of Christ. What do they become that receive it? The Body of Christ. Not many Bodies, but one Body.

S. Austin Serm. ad recens. baptizat. apud Fulgentium, Bedam, &c. Quod fides vestra postulat instruenda, Panis est corpus Christi, Calix sanguis Christi.What your Faith is to be instructed in, is, That the Bread is the Body of Christ, and the Cup the Blood of Christ.

And elsewhere Contr. Adimantum, c. 12. Non dubitavit Dominus di­cere, Hoc est corpus meum, cum daret signum corporis sui. Our Lord doubted not to af­firm, This is my Body, when he gave the Sign of his Body.

Gaudentius In Exod. tract. 2. Cùm panem consecratum & vi­num discipulis suis porrigeret Dominus, sic ait, Hoc est corpus meam.. When our Lord reached the Conse­crated Bread and Wine to his Disciples, he said thus, This is my Body.

Cyril of Alexandria In J [...]an. 20.26, 27. [...], &c.. Christ, when he had bro­ken the Bread, as it is written, distributed it, saying, This is my Body.

Theophilus Antioch. Com. in Matth. 26., or the Author under his Name upon the Gospels, soeaks just S. Cyprian's Language. When Jesus said, This is my Body, he called the Bread his Body, which is made up of many [Page 10]Grains, by which he would represent the People, &c.

Theodoret In Dialog. 1. [...], &c.. In the delivery of the Mysteries, he called the Bread his Body, and that which is mixed (Wine and Water in the Cup) Blood.—And af­terwards, He honoured the visible Symbols with the appellation of his Body and Blood, &c.

Facundus Hermian. In Defens. 3. capit. lib. 9. c. ult. Ipse Dominus bene­dictum panem & calicem quem discipulis tradidit, corpus & sanguinem suum vocavit.. Our Lord himself called the Blessed Bread and Cup which he delivered to the Disciples, his Body and Blood.

Maxentius Dialog. 2. c. 13. Sed & panis ille quem universa Ec­clesia in memoriam Domini­cae passionis participat, cor­pus ejus. speaking of the Church, that is called Christ's Body, adds, Also the Bread which the whole Church partakes of, in memory of the Lord's Passion, is his Body.

Isidore of Sevil Originum lib. 6. cap. 19. Hoc, eo jubente, corpus Christi & sanguinem dici­mus, quod dum fit ex fru­ctibus terrae, sanctificatur & fit Sacramentum, operante invisibiliter Spiritu Dei. says, We call this, by his Com­mand, the Body and Blood of Christ, which being made of the Fruits of the Earth, is sanctified and made a Sacrament, by the invisible Operation of the Spirit of God.

Bede Comm. in Marc. 14. —Quia panis corpus con­firmat, vinum vero sangui­nem operatur in carne, hic ad corpus Christi mysticè, illud refertur ad sanguinem.. Christ said to his Disciples, This is my Body, &c. because Bread strengthens the Body, and Wine produces Blood in the Flesh; This relates mysti­cally to Christ's Body, and That to his Blood.

The Seventh General Council at Constantinople Extat in Conc. Nicen. 2. Art. 6. [...]., after reciting the Words of the Institution, This is my Body, after his taking, and blessing, and break­ing it, adds, Behold the Image of his Life-giving Body made preciously and honourably. And after­wards, It pleased him that the Bread of the Sacra­ment, being the true Figure of his natural Flesh, should be made a Divine Body, being sanctified by the coming of the Holy Ghost upon it, &c.

Druthmarus Comm. in Matth. 26. Hoc est corpus meum; id est, in Sacramento — Quia inter omnes vitae alimonias cibus panis & vinum valent ad confirmandam & recrean­dam nostram infirmitatem, recte per haec duo myste­rium sui Sacramenti confir­mare placuit. Vinum nam­que & laetificat & sanguinem auget; & idcirco non inconvenienter sanguis Christi per hoc figuratur, quoniam quicquid nobis ab ipso venit laetificat laetitiâ verâ, & anget omne bonum nostrum.. This is my Body, that is to say, in a Sacrament — Because among all things that are the Food of Life, Bread and Wine serve to strengthen and refresh our Weaknesses, it is with great Reason that he would in these two things establish the Mystery of his Sacrament. For Wine both chears us and increases Blood, and therefore very fitly the Blood [Page 11]of Christ is figured by it; because whatsoever comes to us from him, chears us with true Joy, and increaseth all Good in us.

Rabanus Maurus Comm. in Matth. 26. Quia panis confirmat cor­pus, ideo corpus ille Chri­sti congruenter nuncupatur, vinum autem quia sangui­nem operatur in carne, ideo ad sanguinem Christi re­fertur. explaining the Words of In­stitution, says, Because Bread strengthens the Body, therefore it is fitly called the Body of Christ; and Wine, because it produces Blood in our Flesh, is therefore re­ferred to the Blood of Christ.

In the Aethiopick Churches Ludolphi Aethiop. Hist. l. 3. c. 5 n. 56. Hic panis est corpus meum. they use this Phrase, (which the Church of Rome is so shy of) This Bread is my Body.

Bertram De Corp. & Sang. Dom. pag. 40. late Eng. & Lat. Translation. Non putamus ullum fidelium dubitare, panem illum fuisse corpus Christi effectum, quod Di­scipulis donans dicit, Hoc est corpus meum, &c.. I am confident, no Christian doubts, but that Bread was made the Body of Christ, which he gave to his Discples, saying, This is my Body, &c. And he there shews, that this is made by the same change, whereby the Manna and the Water of the Rock in the Wilderness were turned into his Body and Blood.

To conclude this Head; It is plain, that there is a general Consent of Fathers on the Protestant Side in this Particular, That the Bread and Wine are Christ's Body and Blood. And it is the more re­markable, because they give us this Sense, when they are explaining Christ's Words, and in their Commentaries upon the Gospels where the Words of Institution are recorded.

THe Catechism of the Trent Council Ad Parochos, part. 2. de Euchar. n. 25. says, That the Accidents which are either seen with cur Eyes, or perceived by our other Senses, are without any Subject, by a wonderful manner, and such as can­not be explained. They grant that we may see all the Accidents of Bread and Wine, but that they inhere in no Substance, but sustain themselves.—And afterwards Ibid. n. 44. §. Tertium restat. discourse thus: The Species of Bread and Wine subsist in this Sacrament, without any Subject in which they are: For since the Body and Blood of Christ is truly in this Sacrament, so that no Substance of Bread and Wine remains, because those Accidents cannot be inherent in the Body and Blood of Christ, it remains, that the Accidents sustain themselves, above all Order of Nature, being upheld by nothing else be­sides. And this (they say) was the perpetual constant Doctrine of the Catholick Church.

How false this Assertion is, we shall now shew from the Testimonies of the Fathers.

Irenaeus Lib. 2. c. 14. Non po­test intelligi aqua sine hu­mectatione, neque ignis sine calore, neque lapis sine du­ritia. Unita enim sunt in­vicem haec; alterum ab al­tero separari non potest, sed semper coexistere.. We cannot understand Water without Moisture, nor Fire without Heat, nor a Stone without Hardness. For these are united one to another, one can­not be separated from the other, but must always co­exist.

Athanasius Orat. 5. contra Arianos. [...]., (or the Author against the Arians in his Works) asserts, That every Quality is in a Sub­stance.

Isidore Peleusiota Lib. 2. Epist 72. [...]. says, That Quality cannot be without Substance.

[Page 13] Methedius Apud Photium Codic. 232. [...].. Quality cannot be separated, as to its Subsistence, from Matter. And a little before he says, This is the most impossible of all things.

S. Basil Epist 43. [...].If by your reasoning you can distin­guish Figure from a Body, yet Nature admits no such Difference, but one must be understood in conjun­ction with the other.

Greg. Nazianzen Orat. 37. [...]. proves the Holy Ghost not to be a Quality, because then it must be in a Subject. For, says he, either it do's subsist by it self, or is of the same kind with those which are called Accidents, which are in another.

This would be ill reasoning, if Transubstan­tiation were true; for the Holy Ghost might be a Quality, and yet be in no Subject, as well as the Colour and Taste of Bread may be in the Eucharist, without Bread or any other Substance in which it is.

Gr. Nyssen De Opificio Homin. c. 24. [...]. affirms, That as that is not a Body to which Colour, and Figure, and Solidness, and Space, and Heaviness, and other Properties are want­ing; so, as he adds, where those aforesaid do con­cur, they produce a Bodily Subsistence.

S. Austin Soliloq. lib. 2. c. 12. Mon­struosum enim & à veritate alienissimum est, ut id quod non esset, nisi in ipso (sc. sub­jecto) esset, etiam, cùm ipsum non fuerit, posse esse.. It is monstrous, and at the fur­thest distance from Truth, that what would not be at all unless it were in a Subject, yet should be able to exist when the Subject ceases to be. This is a Saying with a witness to confute Transubstanti­ation, where there is the Appearance and Figure, Taste and Weight of Bread, and yet no Sub­stance of Bread is there. Again he says Ibid. cap 13. Omne quod in subjecto est, si semper ma­net, ipsum etiam subjectum maneat semper necesse est., Eve­ry thing that is in a Subject, and always remains, it is necessary that the Subject also should always re­main.

Again De Immortal. Anim. cap. 5. Mutato subjecto, omne quod in subjecto est necessario mu­tari. Et cap. 8. Quod per se non est, si deseratur ab eo per quod est, profectò non erit. elsewhere. When the Subject is chan­ged, every thing that is in the Subject is necessarily changed. And again: That which exists not by it self, if it be forsaken of that by which it exists, un­doubtedly will not be at all.

[Page 14]Also in another place Epist. 57. ad Dardanum. Tolle ipsa corpora qualitati­bus corporum, non erit ubi sint, & ideo necesse est ut non sint.. Take away Bodies from their Qualities, and there will nothing remain where (those Qualities) should be; and therefore it follows necessarily, that they will not be at all.

Cyril of Alexandria In Joan. lib. 4. cap. 1. [...]. teaches the same co­piously. He calls it Madness to affirm, That the Essence of the Son consists in Subjection to the Father. For, says he, how can Subjection be conceived to subsist by it self, without existing in any thing else? And afterwards: If there be no Sub­ject, and nothing praeexists in which those things are wont to be done, how can they exist by themselves, which are understood and defined in the Order of Ac­cidents?

And elsewhere he says Thesaur. assert. 31. [...]., To be Unbegotten, is predicated of the Divine Essence, as inseparable from it; just as Colour is always predicated of every Body.

And in another place Ibid. assert. 16. [...], &c. disputing about the Eternity of the Son, and how proceeding from the Father he is not separated from him, he instances in Accidents that are inseparable from their Subjects. We see, says he, Heat inse­parably proceeding from Fire; but it is the Fruit of the very Essence of Fire, proceeding inseparably from it; [...]as also Splendor is the Fruit of Light. For Light cannot subsist without Splendor, nor Fire with­out Heat; For what is begotten of them, do's al­ways adhere to such Substances.

Again, in his Dialogues De Trinitate, Dial. 2. p. 451. [...]. of the Trinity, he asks, Whether Black and White, if they be not in their Subjects, can subsist of themselves? And the Answer is, They cannot.

Claud. Mamertus De Statu Animae, l. 3. c. 3. In rebus corporeis subjectum est corpus, & color corporis in subjecto: In incorporeis a­nimus & disciplina, quae i [...]a sibi nexa sunt, ut nec sine colore corpus, nec sine disci­plina rationalis sit animus—Utrum nam probare valea­mus manere quod in subjecto est, ipso intereunte subjecto?. In corporeal things, the Body is the Subject, and the Colour of the Body in the Subject: In incorporeal matters, the Soul and Discipline are Instances; which are so connected, that the Body cannot be without Colour, nor the Rational Soul without Discipline — Can we ever prove, that what is in the Subject abides, when the Subject it self perishes?

[Page 15] Isidore Hispal. Originum lib. 2. cap. 26. Quantitas, qualitas, & situs, sine subjecto esse non possunt.. Quantity, Quality, and Situ­ation, can none of 'em be without a Subject.

Bertram Contra Graec. l. 2. c. 7. in Tom. 2. Spicilegii D. Acherii. proves against the Greeks, That the Holy Ghost was not in Jesus Christ as in his Subject; because, says he, the Holy Ghost is not an Accident that cannot subsist without its Subject.

These Testimonies of the Fathers may suffice to shew how they differ from the Church of Rome, in this Point, of Accidents being without a Subject, which to them is so necessary a Doctrine, that Transubstantiation cannot be believed without it; and if the Fathers had believed Transubstan­tiation, it is incredible that they should deny this Doctrine, without so much as once except­ing the Case of the Eucharist: None can ima­gine how their Memory and Reflection should be so short, especially when (as we have heard) they form their Arguments to prove the Eternity of the Son of God, and the Personality of the Holy Ghost, from the inseparability of Acci­dents from their Subject. Nay, one of them says Orat. 5. contra Arianos, inter Athanasii Opera., That if God himself had Accidents, they would exist in his Substance.

When therefore P. Innocent De Myst. Missae, l. 4. c. 11. Est enim hic color & sapor & quantitas & qualitas, cùm ni­hil alterutro sit coloratum aut sapidum, quantum aut quale. asserts, That in the Eucharist there is Colour and Taste, and Quan­tity and Quality, and yet nothing coloured or tasteful, nothing of which Quantity or Quality are Affections: This is plainly to confound the Nature of all things, and to turn Accidents into Substances. So that if, for instance, the Host should fall into the Mire, and contract Dirt and Filth, this Filth sticks in nothing, or else Accidents are the Sub­ject of it; for it is confessed on all hands, That Christ's Body cannot be soiled or made filthy. Not to insist upon the Nonsense of his Assertion, which is just as if one should talk of an Eclipse without either Sun or Moon, or of an Horses Lameness without a Leg, concerning which on­ly Lameness can be affirmed.

I Need only refer the Reader, for the first part of this Assertion, to the Thirteenth Session of the Council of Trent, Can [...]n 2. & 3. where the Word Species is so used: And to what we heard before out of their Catechism, of the Species of Bread and Wine subsisting without any Subject in which they are. Every one knows this is their Customary Word, to express Appearances of things by, when nothing real is under them to support them

But now we shall see this to be a strange and foreign usage of this Word, which the Fathers know nothing of in their Sense; but in stead of denoting Accidents (by the Word Species) which are in no Subject, they use it commonly for the Substance, the Nature, the Matter of a thing, the Subject it self that appears: Not for Appear­ances without a Subject.

S. Ambrose often uses this Word Species, but never in the Sense of the Romanists: For which take these Instances.

S. Ambrose says Serm. 21. Dominum ro­gatum ad Nuptias aquae sub­stantiam in vini speciem com­mutasse., That at the Marriage (of Cana) our Lord being requested, did change the Substance of Water into the Species of Wine. That is, not into the Appearance of Wine, but into real Wine that he changed it.

And in another place Serm. 22. Speciem magis necessariam Nuptiis praestitit., He provided for the Mar­riage a more necessary Species: i. e. Wine, more agreeable to a Marriage-Feast than Water.

[Page 17]In another Book Officior. lib. 2. cap. 28. Hic numerus captivorum, hic ordo praestantior est quam species poculorum., speaking of Holy Ves­sels which he broke for the Redemption of Cap­tives, he says, This Number and Order of Captives far excels the Species of Cups. i.e. all sorts of them.

Again elsewhere De iis qui initiant. cap. 9. Gravior est ferri species quam aquarum liquor.. The Species of Iron is heavier than the Liquor of Water: i. e. the Sub­stance of Iron.

S. Austin In Joan. tract. 11. Omnes in Moyse baptizati sunt in nu­be & in mari. Si ergo figura maris tantum valuit, species baptismi quantum valebit?. They were all baptized into Mo­ses in the Cloud and in the Sea. If therefore the Fi­gure of the Sea availed so much, how much will the Species of Baptism avail?

In another place Serm. ad Infantes. Ut sit species visibilis panis, multa grana in unum consperguntur.. To make the visible Spe­cies of Bread, many Grains are mixed together into one.

Again Lib. 3. de Trinit. cap. 4. Quod cùm per manus homi­num ad illam visibilem speciem perducitur, non sanctificatur ut sit tam magnum Sacramen­tum, nisi operante invisibili­ter Spiritu Dei, &c., speaking of the Bread in the Sa­crament, he says, When by Mens Hands it is brought to that visible Species (i. e. to the Substance of Bread) it is not sanctified so as to become so great a Sacrament, without the invisible Operation of the Spirit of God.

So elsewhere In Joan. tract. 26. Omnes eundem spiritualem potum biberunt; aliud illi, aliud nos; sed specie visibili quidem, ta­men hoc idem significante virtute spirituali.. They all drank of the same spiritual Drink; they one thing, and we another; but tho' another as to the visible Species, yet as to the Spiritual Virtue signifying this same thing. Where the Visible Species, it's plain, denotes Water to the Jews, and Wine to us, not the Accidents only.

And in another Tractate Tract. 45. in Joan. Videte, fide manente, signa variata. Ibi petra Christus, nobis Chri­stus quod in altari Dei poni­tur; & illi pro magno Sacra­mento ejusdem Christi bibe­runt aquam profluentem de petra, nos quid bibamus no­runt fideles: si speciem visibi­lem intendas, aliud est, si in­telligibilem significationem, eundem potum spiritualem biberunt. to the same sense, speaking of the Jews. Behold the Signs are va­ried, Faith remaining the same. To them the Rock was Christ; to us, that which is placed on the Altar is Christ: They drank the Water flowing from the Rock, for a great Sacrament of the same Christ; what we drink, the Faithful know. If you regard the Visible Species, it is another thing; but if the intelligible Signification, they drank the same spiritual Drink.

And so in another Book Lib. 3. de Trinit. cap. 10. Cùm autem suscipitur, ali­quando in Angelo demonstra­tur, aliquando in ea Specie quae non est quod Angelus, quamvis per Angelum dispo­sita ministretur., speaking of things assumed to signifie matters to us, he says, When it is assumed, sometimes it is shewn in an Angel, sometimes in that Species which is not what an An­gel [Page 18]is, tho' it is ordered and disposed by an Angel's Mi­nistry. And his next Instance of such things is, ipsum Corpus, a Body it self.

So Gaudentius In Exod. tract. 2. Rectè etiam vini specie tum sanguis ejus exprimitur, quia cùm ipse in Evangelio dicit, Ego sum Vitis vera, satis declarat san­guinem suum esse omne vinum quod in figura passionis ejus offertur.. Also by the Species of Wine his Blood is then rightly expressed; for when he says in the Gospel, I am the true Vine, he fully declares, That all the Wine that is offered for a Figure of his Passion, is his Blood.

Arnobius jun. In Psal. 104. Succurrit, non solum cis speciem fru­menti, sed & vini & olei ad­ministrans.. Our Lord succours them, not only by affording them the Species of Corn, but also of Wine and Oyl. Where the Word Species, to be sure, relates to the Substance and the thing it self, not to the Accidents of Corn, and Wine, and Oyl.

Sedulius Lib. 2. Operis Paschal. speaking of the Offerings of the Wise Men that came to Christ, says,

That is,

The things they present are, you see, his Species.

Salvian's words are plain Lib. 1. de Gub. Dei. p. 21. Edit. Baluz. Adde medicatas aquas veldatas vel immutatas, Speciem servantes, Naturam relinquentes.. Add, says he, those healed Waters either given or changed, which preserved their Species, and relinquish'd their Nature. Here Species is taken for the Substance remain­ing, and Nature for the Qualities of the Water that were changed.

Walafridus Strabo De Rebus Eccles. cap. 16. Corporis & sanguinis sui Sa­cramenta panis & vini sub­stantia Discipulis tradidit— Nihil ergo congruentiùs his Speciebus ad significandam ca­pitis & membrorum unitatem, potuit inveniri. shewing how Christ in the Last Supper delivered to his Disciples the Sa­craments of his Body and Blood in the Substance of Bread and Wine, adds, Nothing more agreeable than these Species could be found, to signifie the Unity of the Head and Members.

[Page 19] Rupertus Abbas De Offic. lib. 2. cap. 9. In illum in quo fides non est, praeter visibiles Species panis & vini, nihil de Sacrificio pervenit.. Nothing of the Sacrifice en­ters into him that has no Faith, besides the visible Species of Bread and Wine. No one ever thought, but that the Wicked partak'd as much of the outward Elements as the Faithful; but he says a little before, That when the Priest distributes the Sacrifice to be eaten by the Faithful, the Bread and Wine is consumed and passes away. Therefore by the visible Species he means the Bread and Wine, which the Wicked only partake of.

It has been largely proved by Salmasius Simplicius Verinus de Transubst. p. 230, &c., That in the Civil Law and the Theodosian Code, the word Species is used for things there spoke of; as, Species annonariae, for all sorts of Corn; Species publicae, for Goods brought to the several Ports; Species vini, frumenti, olei, for Wine, Corn, and Oyl; and not the Accidents of them.

It is not to be expected that any thing should be cited out of Greek Authors, whose this Word is not; and yet it is observable, That even among them the Word [...], that answers to the Latin Word Species, is taken in the Sense of the Latin Fathers, and not in that of the present Church of Rome. To give only two Instances.

The Author under the Name of Dionysius the Areopagite Eccles. Hierarch. cap. 3. [...]., speaking of Christ's Incarnati­on, uses the Phrase of Assuming our Species; which his Scoliast, Maximus, thus explains; [...], that is, [...] When he had assumed our Species or Nature; not meerly an Appearance of our Nature.

Theophylact In Marc. 14. [...].. Because, says he, Bread and Wine are things familiar to us, and we could not endure, but should abhor to see Flesh and Blood set before us; therefore Christ, the Lover of Men, con­descending to us, preserves the Species of Bread and Wine, (that is, the Elements themselves) but he changes them into the Vri­tue of his Flesh and Blood.

To conclude this Head, Bertram Lib. de Corp. & Sang. Christi. Secundùm Speciem visibilem, secundùm visibilem Creaturam, & secundùm cre­aturarum substantiam., follow­ing the Sense of the Ancients, uses these Phrases indifferently; according to the visible Species, and according to the visible Creature, or according to the Substance of the Creatures. Which are Modes of [Page 20]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:

Admirable things lie hid under the different Species, which are only Signs, and not Things.

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 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.

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 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 [Page 32]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 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 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 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 by the Image only of a Voice. Then he instances in Christ's shewing his Hands and Feet to his Disciples after his Resurrection: Behold, says he, it is I my self; for a Spirit has not Flesh and Bones. But, as he goes on, Ecce fallit & decipit & circum­venit omnium oculos, omnium sensus, omnium accessus & con­tactus. Ergo jam Christum non de coelo deferre debueras, sed de aliquo circulatorio coetu, &c. according to Marcion's Interpretation, Behold, he cozens, and deceives, and circumvents [Page 33]all Mens Eyes, all Mens Senses, all their Approach­es and Touches. Thou therefore shouldst not have brought down Christ from Heaven, but from some Society of Juglers, &c.

Again Idem. adv. Marcion. l. 3. c. 8. Jam nunc cùm mendacium de­prehenditur Christi caro; se­quitur ut & omnia quae per carnem Christi gesta sunt, men­dacio gesta sunt, congressus, contactus, convictus, ipsae quo­que virtutes. Ibid. An credam ei de interiore substantiae, qui sit de exteriore frustratus? Quomodo verax habebitur in occulto, qui fallax repertus in aperto?. Now when the Flesh of Christ is found to be a Falsity, it follows also, That all the things done by the Flesh of Christ, are falsly acted; such as his meeting Persons, his touching them, his Conversation, and even his Miracles themselves, &c.

And when Marcion had instanced in the Appearances of Angels to Abraham and to Lot, like Men, meeting with them, and eating, and doing that they were com­manded, Tertullian answers Ibid. c 9. Scito, nec illud concedi tibi, ut putativa fuerit in Angelis caro, sed verae & so­lidae substantiae humanae., Know that this is not granted neither, that those Angels had only seeming Flesh, but of a true, solid, humane Sub­stance.

He adds afterwards Ibid. c. 10. Sufficit mihi hoc definire, quod Deo con­gruit, veritatem scilicet illius rci, quam tribus testibus sensi­bus objecit, visui, tactui, au­ditui., It suffices me to de­fine that, which is agreeable to God, viz. the truth of that thing, which he has made the Object of three Senses that testifie it, viz. Sight, Touch, and Hearing.

And again Ibid. c. 11. Jam Deum tuum honoras fallaciae titulo, si aliud se esse sciebat, quam quod homi­nes fecerat opinari., Thou now honourest thy God with the Title of Fallaciousness, if he knew himself to be another thing, than what he made Men to be­lieve he was.

And in his next Book against Marcion Lib. 4. c. 18. Illius pecca­tricis feminae argumentum eò pertinebit, ut cùm pedes Do­mini osculis figeret, lacrymis inundaret, crinibas detergeret, unguento perduceret, solidi corporis veritatem, non phan­tasma inane tractaverit.. The Argument of the Woman that was a Sinner belongs to this, to prove that when she kissed our Lord's Feet, watred them with her Tears, wiped them with her Hairs, and anointed them, she then hand­led the Truth of a solid Body, and not an empty Phantôme.

Again, in the last Chapter Ibid. c. 43. Cur autem in­spectui eorum manus & pedes suos offert, quae membra ex offi­bus constant, si ossa non habe­bat? Cur adjecit, & scitote quod ego sum, quem scilicet corpo­reum retro noverant?. Why do's he offer to their inspection his Hands and his Feet, which are Members consisting of Bones, if he had no Bones? Why did he add, and know that it is I my self, to wit, whom they had known before to have had a Body?

[Page 34]May not we ask, agreeably to this Reasoning of Tertul­lian, Why do's Christ offer to our sight the Accidents of Bread and Wine, if there be no Bread and Wine remaining in the Eucharist; especially when what we see, we knew to be Bread and Wine before?

But the most remarkable Testimony of Ter­tullian's is in his Book de Anima De Anima, cap. 17., where on set purpose he opposes the Academicks, that would not have Men give credit to their Senses. He urges-against them, Nulla sensuum frustratio causâ caret, quod si causae fallunt sen­sus, & per sensus opiniones, jam nec in sensibus consituenda fallacia est, qui causas sequun­tur, nec in opinionibus qui sen­sibus diriguntur sequentibus causas— Quid agis, Acade­mia procacissima? Totum vitae statum evertis, omnem naturae ordinem turbas, ipsius Dei pro­videntiam excoecas, qui cunctis operibus suis intelligendis, in­colendis, dispensandis, fruen­disque fallaces & mendaces Dominos praefecerit sensus, &c. That there is no Abuse of the Senses but has a Cause of it; and if those Causes deceive the Senses, and our Opinions by them, the Fallacy is not to be charged upon our Senses, that follow those Causes; nor upon our Opinions, that are directed by our Senses, which follow those Causes. —And aftewards he cries out, O thou mala­pert Academy, what dost thou do? (in charging Deceit upon the Senses) Thou overturnest the whole State of Life, thou disturbest all the Order of Nature, thou blindest the Providence of God himself, who (according to thee) has set lying and deceitful Senses as Lords over all his Works, for to understand, inhabit, dispense, and enjoy them, &c.

—It is no ways lawful and fit to call those Senses in question, —Non licet, non licet nobis in dubium sensus istos devocare, ne & in Christo de fide eorum deliberetur; nè fortè dicatur, quod falso Satanam prospecta­rit de coelo praecipitatum; aut falso vocem Patris audierit de ipso testificatam; aut deceptus sit cùm Petri socrum tetigit, aut alium posteà unguenti spi­ritum senserit, quod in sepul­turam suam acceptavit; alium poste à vini saporem, quod in san­guinis sui memoriam consecravit. — Atqui nè in Apostolis qui­dem ejus ludificata natura est. Fidelis fuit & visus & auditus in monte; fidelis & gustus vini illi­us, licet aquae ante, in nuptiis Galilaeae; fidelis & tactus exinde creduli Thomae.lest we should doubt of their Credit even in Christ himself; lest it should be said, that he falsly saw Satan thrown down from Heaven, or falsly heard his Fathers Voice testifying concern­ing him, or was deceived when he touched Peter's Wives Mother, or perceived afterwards a different Scent of the Ointment which he accepted for his Burial, and afterwards a different Taste of the Wine which he consecrated in memory of his Blood. —Neither was Nature abused in his Apostles. Faithful was their Sight and Hearing in the Mount; faithful and true was the Taste of that Wine which was Water before, at the Marriage in Galilee; faithful was Thomas's Touch, who thereupon be­lieved.

[Page 35] Recite John's Testimony: Recita Johannis testatimem: Quod vidimus, inquit, quod au­divimus, oculis nostris vidimus, & manus nostrae contrectave­runt de sermone vitae. Falsa utique testatio, si oculorum & aurium & manuum sensus natu­ra mentitur.That which we have seen, says he, which we have heard, which we have seen with our Eyes, and our Hands have handled of the Word of Life. This is all a false Testification, if the Nature of the Sense of our Eyes, and Ears, and Hands is a Lie and a Cheat.

And in the next Chapter Cap. 18. Videtur intelle­ctus duce uti sensu, & auctore & principali fundamento, nec sine illo veritates posse contingi.. The Under­standing seems to use Sense as a Leader, an Author, and principal Foundation; neither can Truths be laid hold of without it.

S. Austin teaches the same De vera Relig. cap. 33. Ne ipsi quidem oculi fallunt; non enim renunciare possunt animo nisi affectionem suam. — Si quis remum frangi in aqua opi­natur, & cum inde aufertur in­tegrari, non habet malum inter­nuncium, sed malus est judex. Nam ille pro natura sua non potuit aliter in aqua sentire, nec aliter debuit. Si enim aliud est aer, aliud aqua, justum est ut aliter in aere, aliter in aqua sentiatur. Quare oculus rectè videt; ad hoc enim factus est ut tantum videat: sed animus perverse judicat, &c. Doctrine. Our Eyes do not deceive us, for they can only report to the Mind how they are affected.—If one thinks that an Oar is broken in the Water, and when it is taken out of the Water made whole again, he has not a Bad Reporter, but he is an ill Judge. For the Eye, according to its Nature, neither could nor ought to perceive it otherwise while in the Water; For if the Air is a different Medium from Water, it must perceive it one ways in the Air, and another ways in Water. Therefore the Eye sees rightly; for it was made only to see: But the Mind judges amiss, &c.

So also S. Hillary In Psal. 137. Tollit stul­tissimam eorum temeritatem, qui frustrato falsóque corpore Dominum in carne visum esse contendunt; ut eum Pater ementita veritate in habitu fal­sae carnis ostenderit; non re­cordantes post resurrectionem corporis spiritum se videre credentibus Apostolis dictum esse, Quid conturbati, &c. videte manus & pedes meos, quoniam ipse ego sum, palpate & videte, quoniam spiritus carnem & ossa non habet, sicut me videtis habere.He takes away their foolish Rashness, who contend that our Lord was seen in the Flesh in a deceitful and false Body; that the Father feigning Truth, shewed him in the habit of false Flesh, (as the Romanists make Christ's Body to be shewn in habitu falsi panis) not remembring what was said after his Resurre­ction to the Apostles that thought they saw a Spirit; Why are ye troubled, &c. Behold my Hands and my Feet, that it is I my self; for a Spirit has not Flesh and Bones, as ye see me have.

Epiphanius Heres. 42. is very large in arguing the Truth of Christ's Body, from what was sensibly done to his Body; and if he argues truly, then what is sensibly done to the Bread in the Eucharist, proves the Truth of Bread remaining, and not on­ly the Appearance of it.

[Page 36]He asks Marcion Ibid. Refut. 4. [...]., How could he be taken and crucified, if, according to thy saying, he could not be handled? — For thou canst not define him to be a Phantôme, whom thou confessest to fall un­der the Touch.

Again Ibid. Refut. 10. & 11. [...]. he argues, That Christ had a true Body, because he went into the Pharisee's House and sat down. That which sits down, is a bulky Body.

And when the Woman washed his Feet with her Tears, [...] he adds, Not the Feet of a Phantôme. And kissed them, perceiving his Body by her Touch. And, What Feet did she kiss, but the Feet made up of Flesh and Bones, and other Parts?

So again Ibid. Refut. 14. [...]., the Woman that touched Christ and was healed, she did not touch Air, but something Humane that might be touched.

Again Ib. Refut. 16. [...].. An Imaginary thing, or Wind, or a Spirit or Phantôme, admits neither of Burial nor a Resurrection. But why may not a Phantôme as well be buried and raised, as Accidents be broken and distributed, when no Bread re­mains?

Again, he observes Refut. 65. from that of his kneeling down and praying, That all this was done [...], because his Disciples saw him, and he was found to his Disciples under their Touch. [...]

So also concerning Christ's Crucifixion, he observes Ibid. Refut. 71., That the piercing his Hands and Feet with Nails, and handling of them to do it, could not be [...], an imagination or shew. But if the Church of Rome say true, he is out; for it is only [...] and a Phan­tôme, when I chew and fasten my Teeth in the Host, there being no Substance that I bite.

He afterwards Ibid. Refut. 77. [...]. challenges Marcion from that Expression, He was known in breaking of Bread. How, says he, was this breaking of Bread performed? was it by a Phantôme, or from a Bo­dy [...].bulky, and really acting it?

[Page 37]Here I may well observe, That if the very breaking of Bread, argues a true Body that did perform that thing; how much more forcible is our Question to the Romanists, What means the mention of Bread broken in the Eucharist, (as Christ is said to break Bread) if nothing be broken at all but only in shew and appearance?

Epiphanius also elsewhere Haeres. 64. sec. 36. [...]. says, when Christ shewed to them Moses and Elias in the Mount, He did not present an Image or a Phantôme, as in­tending to deceive his Apostles; but shew'd what they were really.

Athanasius Orat. 2. de Ascen. Christi. says, Christ did both eat Meat, and permitted his Body to be touched by his Disciples, that not only their Eyes, but also their Fingers might be brought in for Witnesses of the Truth; [...]so remo­ving all suspicion of a Phantôme or Ghostly Ap­pearance.

S. Chrysostome De Resurrect. Hom. 9. Lat. Paris. 1588. Tom. 3. pag. 775. Non est meum meos ludificare phantasmate; vanam imaginem visus si timet, veritatem cor­poris manus & digitus exploret. Potest fortasse aliqua oculos ca­ligo decipere, palpatio corpo­ralis verum corpus agnoscat. brings in Christ saying thus. It is not my way to mock or abuse mine with a false appearance. If the Sight is afraid of a vain Image, the Hands and Fingers may find out the Truth of my Body. Perhaps some Mist may deceive the Eyes; but a corporal Touch owns a Body.

Also elsewhere Hom. 29. in Joan. [...]., speaking of Seeing and Hearing, he says, By these Senses we learn all things exactly, and seem Teachers worthy of credit, concerning such things which we receive by our Sight or Hearing, seeing we neither feign, nor speak falsly.

But lest any one should pretend, that the Eucharist is a Mystery, and that in such things our Senses may impose on us, and deceive us, it is very remarkable how this Father distinguishes betwixt them.

He tells us Hom. 13. in Ep. ad Ephes. [...]. wherein Deception do's consist, viz. when a thing do's not appear to be what it is, but appears to be what it is not. But he makes a Mystery to be another thing Hom. 7. in 1 ad Cor. [...], &c., viz. when we see not what we believe, but see one thing, and believe another thing: For this, says he, is the Na­ture of our Mysteries.

[Page 38]S. Austin Serm. de Temp. 161. Cujus prasentiam agnoscat oculus, at­trectet manus, digitus perscru­tetur. —Si fortè diceremus Thomae oculos fuisse deceptos, at non possemus dicere manus frustratas; in resurrectionis e­nim manifestatione de aspectu ambigi potest, de tactu non po­test dubitari. makes the concurrent Testimo­ny of Sense, especially that of Feeling, to give sufficient assurance to us. Thus he says. There is no cause to doubt of Christ's Resurrection, whose presence the Eye do's own, the Hand handles, and the Fingers examine. —If we perhaps should say, That Thomas his Eyes were deceived, yet we cannot say so of his Hands; for in clearing the Re­surrection, doubt may be made of the Sight, but no doubt can be made of Feeling.

Again elsewhere Contra Faustum, l. 14. c. 10. Qui nisi Daemones, quibus amica fallacia est, istis persuaderent, Quod Christus fallaciter passus, fallaciter mortuus sit, fallaci­ter cicatrices ostenderit?. Who but Devils, that are Friends to Cozenage, could persuade them, that Christ deceived Men, when he suffered, when he died, and when he showed his Scars?

Again Ibid. l. 29. c. 2. Illud est quod Magiae simile dicimini as­serere, quod passionem mor­temque ejus specie tenus fa­ctam & fallaciter dicitis adum­bratam, ut mori videretur, qui non moriebatur. Ex quo fit, ut ejus quoque resurrectionem umbraticam, imaginariam fal­lacemque dicatis: Neque enim ejus, qui non verè mortuus est, vera esse resurrectio potest: ita fit, ut & cicatrices discipu­lis dubitantibus falsas ostende­rit, nec Thomas veritate con­firmatus, sed fallacia deceptus clamaret, Dominus meus, & De­us meus, &c.. This, which is like Magick, ye are said to assert, That Christ's Passion and Death was only in appearance, and in a deceitful Shadow; so that he seemed to die, when he did not die. Whence it follows, that you must assert also his Resurrection to be in shew, imaginary, and fallacious. For he cannot be truly raised, who did not truly die: And if so, then he shewed false Scars to his doubting Disciples; neither did Thomas cry out, My Lord and my God, because he was confirmed in the Truth, but because he was deceived by a Cheat.

Suitably to which, he asserts in another place Lib. 83. Quaestion. Quaest. 14. Si phantasma fuit corpus Christi, fefellit Christus: & si fallit, veritas non est. Est autem veritas Christus; non igitur phantasma fuit corpus ejus., If the Body of Christ was a Phantôme, Christ deceived us; and if he deceive us, he is not the Truth. But Christ is the Truth; therefore the Body of Christ was not a Phantastical Body.

Now against all these plain Testimonies, I know only one Objection can be made, which we are to consider, viz. Objection. That some of the Fathers call upon us not to be­lieve our Senses, nor to regard their Information; and that particularly they do so in the Case of the Eucharist.

To this Objection, I shall give these satisfactory An­swers.

[Page 39]Ans. 1. It is certain, that the Fathers appeal to our Senses even in the matter of the Eucharist. We have seen Instances before, particularly in Tertullian; to which let me add one remarkable Testimony out of S. Austin Serm. ad recen. Baptizat. apud Fulgentium, Bedam, &c. Hoc quod videtis in altari Dei­etiam transacta nocte vidistis: sed quid esset, quid sibi vellet, quam magnae rei Sacramentum contineret nondum audistis. Quod ergo videtis, panis est & calix, quod vobis etiam oculi: vestri renunciant, &c.. This which you see upon God's Altar, you were shewn last night; but you have not yet heard what it is, what it meaneth, and of how great a Thing it is a Sacrament. That which you see, is Bread and the Cup; thus much your own Eyes inform you, &c. He appeals to their Eyes, you see, as to the Elements before them, and suppose, that when they tell them there is Bread and a Cup, they were not deceived. But then he informs them of that which their Senses could not be judge of, because not an Object of them, which was understood by the Bread and the Cup, as we shall hear afterwards.

Ans 2. The Fathers call upon Men not to regard the Informa­tion of their Senses, in matters wherein yet none questions the truth and certainty of their Information. Therefore this is no Argu­ment to question the Truth of what our Senses inform us of in the Eucharist, because they would not have us to re­gard them.

Thus Cyril of Jerusalem Catech. Mystag. 3. [...]., speaking of ho­ly Chrism. Take heed you do not think, says he, this to be meer simple Ointment. Sense indeed reaches no further than that; but then comparing Chrism with the Eucharist, (which is not to be look'd upon as com­mon Bread after Consecration) he adds, [...], &c. We are to look upon this Holy Ointment not as bare and common Ointment, after Consecration; but as the Grace of Christ, &c.

So also he says of Baptism Idem Catech. Illum. 3. [...], &c., Come not to the Font as to simple and meer Water, but to the Spiritual Grace that is given together with the Wa­ter. And a litle after, Being, says he, about to descend into the Water, do not attend to the simpleness of the Water. And yet, for all this, he never intended to deny it to be true Water.

Gelasius Cyzic. Diatypos. c. 4. [...].. We are not to consider our Baptism with sensitive, but with Intellectual Eyes.

[Page 40]Or, as S. Austin says Serm. 2. in Append. Sermon. 40. à Sirmondo Editor. 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 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 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 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 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 [Page 41]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 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 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. [...], &c. The Infidel hearing of the Laver (of Baptism) esteems it simply Water; 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 [Page 42]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 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 Matth.) where he bids us, [...], &c. Believe God every where, without contradi­cting him, tho' what he says seems contrary to our Reasonings, and to our Eyes; but let his Word pre­vail above our Reasonings and our Eyes. Let us do the same in the Mysteries, not fixing our Eyes only upon the things set before us, [...], &c.but let us hold fast his Words: For his Word cannot deceive us; but our Sense easily may: That can never fall to the ground; but this often fails. Since therefore the Word says, [...] This is my Body, let us be persuaded of it and believe it, and look upon it with intelle­ctual Eyes: For Christ has given us nothing sen­sible, [Page 43]but in sensible things all things intelligible. Thus in Baptism, by what is sensibly done, there is the Gift of Water; but what is perfected, is intelligible, viz. our Regeneration and Renovation.

If the Reader do's but remember that Bap­tism is as much concerned in this Discourse of S. Chrysostome, as the Eucharist; and that we are as much required not to trust our Eyes, that may deceive us, but to trust the Word of God in the one case as well as the other; it will not give the least countenance to the Absurdities of Transubstantiation.

And as for those Words of his, That Christ delivered no­thing sensible to us, they must be understood with an abate­ment, That we are not to be intent and to fix our Thoughts meerly upon what we see; for else it is certain, that there is something sensible delivered in the Eucharist, else there would be no Sign nor no Sacrament; and that Father would contradict himself, who in the very next Words tells us, That by sensible things he has delivered intelligible (that is, spi­ritual) things to us; for which he brings what is bestowed upon us in Baptism as a Proof.

INeed not tell you, how the Romish Writers catch at every place of the Fathers, where they meet with the mention of Christs Body and Blood: all their Citations are full of little else but Testimonies of this kind.

But if they had a mind to understand their sense, and did not meerly listen to the sound of their words, they would quickly see them interpret themselves, so that there could be no mistake, nor countenance given hereby to Transubstantiation, or any presence of Christ but what is spiritual. Which by a few Observations out of them will appear.

1. Observ. The Fathers give us warning of it, and tell us, That they studiously conceal and hide the Mysteries from some per­sons, both out of the Church, and in it. Therefore their meer expressions concerning it, are not sufficient to inform us of their meaning.

Thus Cyril of Jerusalem Catech. Illum. 6. pag. 149. Edit. 4. Paris. 1608. [...], &c. tells us, That we do not speak openly of the mysteries among the Ca­techumens, but often speak many things covertly, that the faithful that are acquainted with the mat­ter, may understand it, and they that are unac­quainted may not be hurt.

S. Austin In Psal. 103. Quid est quod occultum est, & non pub­licum in Ecclesia [...] Sacramen­tum Baptismi, Sacramentum Eucharistiae. Opera nostra bo­na vident & Pagani, Sacramen­ta vero occultantur illis. in like manner. What is it that is hidden and not publick in the Church? The Sa­crament of Baptism, and the Sacrament of the Eu­charist. The very Pagans see our good works, but the Sacraments are hid from them.

[Page 45]S. Chrysostome In 1 Cor. 15. Hom. 40. (upon those words, why are they then Baptized for the dead) says, I have a mind to speak it openly, but I dare not, [...]because of them that are not initiated. [...]For they make our Ex­position more difficult, compelling us either not to speak plainly, or to declare to them things that ought to be conceal'd.

Upon this account they concealed what was apt to be de­spised (whether they did well or no in this I shall not here question) scarce vouchsafing to name the visible Elements, but mentioning them with more glorious Titles, such as could not be disregarded. Thus they called Baptism by the name of [...], illumination; and they called the Eucharist, the Sacrifice, quod norunt fideles, which the faithful know, (thus concealing it) or the Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ. They call the Lords Table an Altar, and the Ministers Priests, tho' all these are to be understood in a figurative and impro­per sense.

Thus S. Austin says De verb. Dom. Serm. 53. Penè quidem Sacramentum omnes corpus ejus dicunt., Almost all call the Sa­crament the Body of Christ. Which very phrase shews, that the Sacrament is not in substance Christs natural Body. For who would phrase it so, almost all call it, in giving a proper name to a thing? ex. gr. would any say, that almost all call a House a House, or a Man a Man? but to say, that almost all call Kings Gods, tells you, that however for certain Reasons, Kings are called Gods, yet they are not really and properly so.

The same Father De Trinit. l. 3. c. 4. —Sed illud tantum quod ex fructibus terrae acceptum & pre­ce mystica consecratum, ritè sumimus ad salutem spiritua­lem, &c. speaking of several things, whereby Christ may be signified and set forth, either by words written, or spoken, &c. he says, We do not call these the Body and Blood of Christ, but that only, which being taken from the fruits of the earth, is rightly received by us to our spiritual health, &c.

If the other things had been called so, any one would have understood it must be improperly so called, and so must this too, as his following words tell us, Non sanctificatur ut sit tam magnum Sacramentum, nisi o­perante invisibiliter Spiritu Dei. that even this is not sanctified to become so great a Sacrament, but by the invisible operation of the Spi­rit of God.

[Page 46]So Isidore of Sevil Orig. Lib. 6. cap. 19. Eo (sc. Christo) jubente, corpus Christi & sanguinem dicimus, quod dum fit ex fructibus ter­rae, sanctificatur, & fit Sacramen­tum, operante invisibiliter Spi­ritu Dei. gives the same ac­count, By the command of Christ, we call the Bo­dy and Blood of Christ, that which being made of the fruits of the earth, is sanctified and made a Sa­crament by the invisible operation of the spirit of God.

2. Observ. The Fathers oft-times in their very manner of speak­ing concerning the Body and Blood of Christ, point at another thing than his Natural Body; so that we need no Commentary up­on their words to explain them, for they carry at first hearing our sense and meaning in them, and not that of the Romanists. To give a few instances.

S. Cyprian Epist. 63. ad Caecilium. Cùm dicat Christus, ego sum vitis vera, sanguis Christi non aqua est uti (que) sed vinum — Quomodo nec Corpus Domini potest esse farina sola, aut aqua sola, nisi utrum (que) adunatum fuerit & copulatum, & panis unius compagine folldatum. discoursing against those that Consecated and drank only Water in the Sa­crament, says, When Christ says, I am the true Vine, the Blood of Christ it's plain is not Water but Wine. — So neither can the Lords Body be flour alone, or water alone, unless both of them be united, and coupled and kneaded tegether into one Loaf.

Where no Body can doubt of S. Cyprian's meaning, that by Christs Body he understands not his natural Body, but the Sacrament of it.

And so the Council of Carthage, Pandect. Canon. p. 565. [...]. decreed against the Armenians (who made use of Wine only in the Eucharist) That nothing shall be of­fered, but the Body and Blood of Christ, as the Lord himself delivered it, (the phrase carries its sense in the face of it, if they had said no more, but they add) that is, Bread and Wine mixed with Water.

What can be more plain than that of Theo­doret Dialog. 1. [...], &c., when he says, That our Saviour changed the names, and on his Body he put the name of the sign (or symbol) and on the sign the name of his Body? A little before he shows how. You know, says he, that God called his Body Bread, and elsewhere he called his flesh Wheat ( [...]), except a Corn of Wheat fall to the Earth and die, Matth. 12. But in the delivery of the mysteries, he called Bread his Body, and that which is mixed ( [...]) Blood. Is it not clear, that neither in one case, nor the other, these [Page 47]sayings are to be understood properly, but figuratively? E­specially when Theodoret, before all I now have cited, makes this comparison. As after Consecration, Ib. [...].we call the mystical fruit of the Vine the Lords blood; so he (Jacob) called the Blood of the true Vine, the Blood of the Grape. Both the one and the other must be figuratively understood.

When S. Cyprian in the forecited Epistle Epist. 63. Hoc quis ve­retur, ne per saporem vini re­doleat sanguinem Christi. says, that some might make it an Objection, that by partaking of the Communion early in the Morning, they might be discovered to the Heathen Per­secutors by the smell of the Wine, he expresses it thus, One fears this, lest by tasting Wine he should smell of Christs Blood.

S. Jerome has such another saying, which cannot well be mistaken to express any other sense but ours, when speaking of Virgins Epist. ad Eustochium. E­brietati sacrilegium copulantes aiunt, absit ut ego me abstine­am à sanguine Christi. that were repro­ved for drinking Wine to excess, he says, they made this excuse, (joining sucrilege to their drun­kenness) and said God forbid that I should abstain from the Blood of Christ.

Either they said nothing to the purpose, or they took that which they called the Blood of Christ, for Wine pro­perly.

Thus also S. Chrysostome Epist. 1. ad Innocent. [...]. speaking of the rudeness of the Souldiers in the Church, says, that in the tumult, the most holy Blood of Christ was shed upon the Souldiers Cleths. Which could be nothing but Sacramental Wine.

Leo the Great, speaking of the Manichees, that for fear of the Laws came to the Communion of the Catholicks, and di­recting how to discover them, he says Serm. 4. de Quadrages. Ita in Sacramentorum commu­nione se temperant, ut inter­dum tutiùs lateant; Ore indig­no Christi Corpus accipiunt, sanguinem autem redemptio­nis nostrae haurire omninò de­clinant., They so behave themselves in the Communion of the Sa­craments, that they may sometime be more safely concealed; with an unworthy mouth they take the Body of Christ, but altogether decline drinking the Blood of our redemption.

In the sense both of Leo and the Manichees, the Body and Blood here must be taken figura­tively; for such bad men as they, in the sense of the Anti­ents, could not eat, or any way receive Christ's Body in a [Page 48]proper sense, but being understood of the Type of it, viz. of the Sacramental Bread, that they would receive; but not the Type of his Blood; viz. the Wine, because, as S. Austin De Heres. 46. Vinum non bibunt, dicentes fel esse prin­cipum tenebrarum. observes, they drink no Wine, say­ing, it is the Gall of the Prince of darkness. They had no more prejudice against the Blood than the Body of Christ, only they took it to be Wine, which they abhorred.

3. Observ. The Fathers speak of Christ's Body and Blood in the Eucharist, with such terms of restriction and diminution, which plainly tell us, that they understood it not of his substantial and na­tural Body, but in a figurative sense. Thus Origen Contr. Celsum l 8. p. 399. Edit. Cantabr. [...]. says, That Bread in the Eucharist is made by Prayer a certain holy Body.

And S. Austin In Psal. 33. conc. 2. Ac­cepit in manus quod norunt fi­deles & ipse se portabat quo­dammodo, cùm diceret hoc est Corpus meum., Christ took in his hands what the faithful understand, and after a sort, carried himself when he said, This is my Body.

Bede In Psal. 33. Christus quodammodo ferebatur in ma­nibus suis. upon the same Psalm, has the same term of restriction, Christ after a sort, was car­ried in his own hands.

S. Austin elsewhere Epist. 23. ad Bonifac. Se­cundum quendam modum Sa­cramentum Corporis Christi, Corpus Christi est; Sacramen­tum sanguinis Christs, sanguis Christi est., In a certain sense, the Sacrament of the Body of Christ is Christ's Body; and the Sacrament of the Blood of Christ, is Christ's Blood. Just as at Easter we say, this day Christ rose, because it is a memorial of it.

S. Chrysostome Epist. ad Caesarium. Dig­nus habitus est Dominici Cor­poris appellatione. says of the Consecrated Bread, That it has no longer the name of Bread (tho' the nature of it remains) but is counted worthy to be called the Lord's Body.

Theoderet in like manner Dialog. 1. [...]., He honoured the visible Symbols with the appellation of [...] Body and Blood.

Facundus Hermian. In defens. 3. capit. l. 9. — Non quod propriè Corpus cjus sit panis, & poculum san­guis, &c. is most express. We call, says he, the Sacrament of his Body and Blood, which is in the Consecrated Bread and Cup, his Body and Blood; not that properly the Bread is his Body, and the Cup his Blood, &c.

So also is S. Chrysostome In Gal. 5.17. Vol. 3. Sa­vil. p. 755. in another place; where he shows, that the word Flesh; is not always taken for the [...], the nature [Page 49]and substance of the Body (which is the only proper sense) and he gives other instances which are improper; [...] as that flesh signifies a de­praved will. [...] And adds two other improper sen­ses, in these words. By the name of Flesh, the Scripture is wont also to call the mysteries; he adds also, that it calls the Church so, when it calls it the Body of Christ.

The very phrase of being wont to call, shows, that of which it is affirmed to be improperly so called, as the phrase of be­ing thought worthy of the name (as we heard before) argues the name not properly to agree to it.

4. Observ. The Fathers, knowing, that the Eucharist was not in a proper sense Christs Body, give us several reasons why it is called his Body. But no body uses to give a reason why he calls a thing by its proper name. I shall not name all the reasons here, but reserve some to another place; when we consider the Sacrament, as a Sign, Figure, Type, Memo­rial, &c.

1. One reason they give is from its likeness and resemblance, either in respect of what it consists of, or from the likeness of its effects.

S. Austin's saying is remarkable Epist. 23. Si Sacramen­ta quandam similitudinem ea­rum rerum non haberent qua­rum Sacramenta sunt, omninò Sacramenta non essent. Ex hac autem similitudine plerun (que) e­tiam ip [...]arum rerum nomina ac­cipiunt., If the Sacraments had not a resemblance of those things of which they are Sacraments, they would not be Sa­craments at all: But from this resemblance they take commonly the name even of the things them­selves which they resemble.

Bede also gives In Cap. 6. Epist. ad Roman. Lib. 4. cap. 4. Fortê dicis, speciem sanguinis non video. Sed habet similitudinem. Sicut enim mortis similitudinem sumpsisti, ita etiam similitudi­nem pretiosi sanguinis bibis, &c. the same reason in his Commentary on the Romans.

The Author of the Book of Sacraments un­der S. Ambrose his name, speaks thus. Thou mayst say perhaps, I do not see the substance of Blood. Well, but it has its likeness. For as thou hast received the likeness of his death, so thou drink­est the likeness of his pretious Blood.

S. Cyprian Epist. 76. ad Magnum. Quando Dominus Corpus suum panem vocat, de multorum granorum adunatione conge­stum, populum nostrum quem portabat indicat adunatum: & quando sanguinem suum vi­num appellat de botris at (que) aci­nis plurimis expressum at (que) in unum coactum, gregem item nostrum significat commixtione adunatae multitudinis co­pulatam.. When Christ called Bread, made up of many united grains of Corn, his Body, he shewed the unity of Christian people whom he bore; and when he call'd Wine pressed out of many Grapes, [Page 50]and put together his Blood, he signified also the uni­ting of a multitude of the Christian flock toge­ther.

So Rabanus Maurus De Instit. Cleric. c. 31. Propterea Dominus noster Cor­pus & sanguinem suum in eis rebus commendavit, quae ad u­num aliquid rediguntur ex mul­tis five granis five acinis, & Sanctorum Charitatis unitatem significaret.. Therefore our Lord commended his Body and Blood in those things, which consisting of many Grains or Grapes, are brought to­gether into one, whereby he might signify the unity of the Charity of Saints.

Others again from the likeness of its effects.

Thus Isidore of Sevil De Offic. Eccles. l. 1. cap. 18. Panis quia confirmat Cor­pus, ideo Corpus Christi nun­cupatur; vinum autem quia sanguinem operatur in carne, ideo ad sanguinem Christi refertur.. Bread, because it strengthens the Body, is therefore called the Body of Christ; and Wine, because it produces Blood in the Flesh, is therefore referred to the Blood of Christ.

The same reason is also given by Rabanus Maurus, in his Commentary upon the 26 Chap. of S. Matthew.

2 Reason. Another reason, why they call the Eucharist Christs Body, is, because it supplies the place, is instead of it, is its representative, its pledge and pawn.

Tertullian Lib. 6. de Orat. Corpus ejus in pane censetur, Hoc est corpus meum.. His Body is reputed to be in the Bread, This is my Body.

S. Austin Tract. 45. in Joan. Vi­dete, fide manente, signa variata. Ibi Petra Christus, nobis Chri­stus quod in altari Dei ponitur.. See how the signs are varied, Faith remaining the same. There (in the Wilderness) the rock was Christ, to us that which is placed on Gods Altar is Christ.

Again elsewhere more fully De Civit. Dei, l. 18. c. 48. Quodammodo omnia signifi­cantia videntur rerum quas sig­nificant sustinere personas, si­cut dictum est ab Apostolo, Pe­tra erat Christus, quoniam Pe­tra illa de qua hoc dictum est, significabat uti (que) Christum.. All things intended to signify, seem in a sort to sustain the per­sons of those things which they signify, as the Apo­stle says, The Rock was Christ, because that Rock of which this is spoken, did signify Christ.

Cyril of Jerusalem Catech. Mystag. 4. — [...], &c. says, Wherefore with all assurance, let us receive it (viz. The Bread and Wine) as the Body and Blood of Christ; for in the type of Bread his Body is given thee, and in the type of Wine his Blood.

Proclus of Constantinople Orat. 18. — [...].. Instead of the Man­ger let us venerate the Altar; instead of the Infant [Page 51]let us embrace the Bread that is blessed by the Infant, (viz. Christ.)

Victor Antiochen. In Marc. 14. Citante Bu­lingero adv. Casaub. [...]. [...].When the Lord said, this is my Body, this is my Blood, it was fit that they who set forth the Bread, should, after giving of thanks, reckon it to be his Body, and partake of it, and account the Cup to be instead of his Blood.

The Author of the Commentaries attributed to S. Jerome In 1 Cor. 11. Ultimam nobis commemorationem five memoriam dereliquit, quem­admodum si quis peregrè pro­ficiscens, aliquod pignus ei quem diligit derelinquat, ut quotiescun (que) illud viderit, pos­sit ejus beneficia & amicitias memorare.. Christ left to us his last remem­brance, just as if a person taking a Journey from home, should leave some pledge to one whom he loves, that as oft as he look'd upon it, he might call to mind his kindnesses and friendships.

So also Amalarius De Offic. Eccles. l. 3. c. 25. Edit. Hittorpii, p. 425. Christus, inclinato capite, emisit spiritum. Sacerdos inclinat se, & hoc quod vice Christi immolatum est, deo Patri commendat.. Christ bowing his head gave up the Ghost. The Priest bows himself, and commends to God the Father this which is offered as a Sacrifice in the place of Christ.

5. Observ. That altho', for the Reasons given, the Fathers call the Sacrament Christs Body, yet they plainly say, that what is distributed in the Eucharist is without any life or sense, which cannot be said of Christs natural Body.

Epiphanius In Anchorat. [...]. — [...] &c. — [...].. We see what our Saviour took in his hands (viz. Bread) and having given thanks said, This is mine, and that; and yet we see, that it is not equal to it nor like it, not to the in­carnate Image, not to the invisible Deity, not to the Lineaments of members; for this (the Bread) is of a round form, and insensible as to any power.

Theophilus of Alexandria Epist. Paschal. 2. Non recogitat a juas in Baptismate mysticas adventu Sp. Sancti­consecrari, panem (que) Domini­cum, quo Salvatoris Corpus o­stenditur, & quen, frangimus in Sanctificationen, nostri, & S. calicem, quae in mensa Ecclesiae collocantur, & utique inanima sunt, per invocationem & ad­ventum Spiritûs S. sanctificari., discoursing a­gainst Origen, who did not believe that the H. Ghost did operate upon things inanimate, says, He (Origen) do's not remember, that the mystical waters in Baptism are consecrated by the coming of the H. Ghost, and that the Lords Bread, whereby the Body of our Saviour is shown, and which we break for our sanctification, and the H. Cup, which are all placed upon the Table of the Church, and are [Page 52]indeed without life, yet are Sanctified by the Invo­cation and advent of the H. Ghost.

S. Jerome Epist. ad Theoph. Alex. Ut discant qui ignorant cruditi te­stimoniis Scripturarum, qua debeant veneratione Sancta suscipere & Altaris servitio de­servire; sacros (que) calices & san­cta velamina, & caetera quae ad cultum pertinent Dominicae Passionis, non quasi inanima & sensu carentia Sanctimoniam non habere, sed ex consortio corporis & sanguinis Domini, ea­dem qua Corpus ejus & San­guis Majestate veneranda. commending the foresaid work, and admiring at the profit the Churches would reap thereby, says, They they who are ignorant, being instructed by Scripture-Testimonies, may learn, with what veneration they ought to meddle with holy things, and serve at the Altar; and that the H. Chalices and H. Veils, and the rest of the things that appertain to the Celebration of our Lord's Pas­sion, are not to be look'd upon as having no san­ctity, as being without life and sense, but by rea­son that they accompany the Body and Blood of our Lord, are to be venerated with the same majestick regard, that his Body and Blood is.

6. Observ. That the Fathers speak of Divisions and parts of the Eucharist, which cannot be truly said of the natural Body of Christ, which the Rom. Church confesses to be impassible, but only of the Sacramental Bread and Wine.

Cyprian Lib. de Lapsis. Quidam alius & ipse maculatus, sacrifi­cio à Sacerdote celebrato, par­tem cum caeteris ausus est la­tenter accipere, sanctum Do­mini edere & contrectare non potuit.. Another who was also defiled, the Sacrifice being Celebrated by the Priest, was so bold, as privily to take a part of it with others, but he could not eat and handle the Holy (Body) of the Lord.

Clemens Alexandr. Strom. l. 1. — [...].. When the Bishop, accord­ing to custom had divided the Eucharist, they suf­fered every one of the people to take a portion of it.

Origen Hom. 13. in Exodum. Cùm suscipitis Corpus Domini, cum omni cautela & veneratio­ne servatis, ne ex eo parum quid decidat, ne consecrati­muneris aliquid dilabatur, &c. (if they be his genuine words) says, When ye receive the Lords Body, ye keep it with all caution and veneration, lest any little por­tion of it should fall down, lest any thing of the con­secrated gift should slip down to the ground, &c.

S. Basil Epist. 289. ad Caesariam. showing, that they that have re­ceived the Communion in the Church may re­serve it, and Communicate themselves at home with their own hand, and that the practice was thus in Alexandria and Egypt; adds, that when the Priest has distributed the Sacrifice, he that re­ceives [Page 53]it whole, [...]and takes daily a part of that which was so given him, ought to believe that he rightly receives it. — It is the same in virtue, whether a person receive a single part from the Priest, or many parts together.

S. Ambrose agrees with it, Epist. 1. ad Justum. Etsi parum sumas, etsi plurimum haurias, eadem perfecta est om­nibus mensura redemptionis. speaking of the Blood of Christ. Whether thou takest, says he, a little, or drinkest a larger draught, there is the same perfect measure of redemption to all.

So also S. Austin Epist. 59. ad Paulin. — Ad. distribuendum comminui­tur. speaking of that upon the Lords Table which is blessed and sanctified, (which is Bread) he says of it, that it is broken into little parts to be distributed. Which cannot be said of Christs proper Body.

And elswhere Epist. 86. ad Casulanum. De agni immaculati corpore partem sumere. his phrase concerning communicating is, to take a part from the body of the immaculate Lamb.

Also in another place, he says De Verb. dom. serm. 33. In accipiendo novimus quid co­gitemus, Modicum accipimus & in corde saginamur., In recei­ving we know what we think. We receive a little portion, and are fatted at heart.

Cyril of Alexandria In Joan. 6.57. [...]. says, The least part of the Consecrated Bread (which he calls the Eulo­gy) mingles the whole Body into it self, and fills it with its own energy, and thus both Christ is in us, and we again are in him.

Eusebius Eccles. Hist. l. 6. c. 36. — [...]. tells the story of the Presbyter, that when Serapion was a dying, sent him, by a Boy, a little bit of the Eucharist.

And Prosper Dimidium temporis. c. 6. — Brevem portiunculam Cor­poris Dominici. has a like story of a pos­sessed Woman, that received a short and small portion of our Lords Body.

And P. Pius I, in an Epistle attributed to him (and made use of by Bellarmine De Euchar. l. 2. cap. 5. Si quid de sanguine Domini stillaverit in terram.) speaks of some of the Blood of Christ dropping and distil­ling on the ground, and directs what is to be done in that case.

[Page 54]7. Observ. The Fathers speak of making the Body of Christ in the Eucharist, in a sense quite different from that of the Ro­manists.

S. Jerome frequently uses the phrase of making Christs Body, and speaking of the Presbyters that succeeded to the Apostles, in one Epistle Epist. 1. ad Heliodor. Qui Christi Corpus Sacro ore con­ficiunt. he says, they make the Body of Christ with their Holy Mouth.

And in another Epistle Ad Evagrium. Ad quo­rum preces Christi Corpus san­guis (que) conficitur. says of them, That upon their Prayers the Body and Blood of Christ is made.

Also in a third Epistle Ad Fabiolam. Sequester Dei & hominum, & carnes ag­ni sacro ore conficiens. he describes a Priest to be one that mediates betwixt God and Men, and one that makes the flesh of the Lamb with his holy mouth.

Here now they of the Church of Rome take care to ad­vance the Priesthood, tho' even with words of Blasphemy. One crys out Stella Clericorum. Qui creavit me sine me, creatur mediante me., He that created me without me, is created by my means.

So also Biel In Canon. Missae, Lect. 4. Qui creavit me (si fas est di­cere) dedit mihi creare se, & qui creavit me sine me, crea­tur mediante me.. He that created me (if I may be bold to say it) has given me power to create himself, and he that created me without me, is created by my means.

Biel also (in the same Lecture) makes a comparison be­tween the Priests and the Bl. Virgin, and makes them to carry it from her in this matter.

She by pronouncing eight words, Illa prolatis octo verbulis, Ec­ce Ancilla Domini, fiat mihi se­cundùm Verbum tuum, semel concepit Dei filium & mundi Redemptorem. Isti à Domino consecrati, quin (que) Verbis eun­dem Dei Virginis (que) filium ad­vocant quotidie corporaliter. Attendite, O Sacerdotes, in quo gradu & dignitate sitis constituti.Behold the Handmaid of the Lord, &c. Conceived once the Son of God and the Redeemer of the World. They (viz. the Priests) being consecrated by the Lord, by speaking five words, do call the same Son of God, and the Virgin, bodily before them every day. And then crys out. Consider, O Priests, in what high degree and dignity you are placed.

[Page 55]But now the Fathers they sufficiently explain themselves, that this of making Christs Body, cannot be understood of the natural and proper Body of Christ. For

First, They lay it down as a Rule, that whatsoever is made, was not before it was made.

Thus Athenagoras De resurrect. [...]. says, That which is al­ready is not made, but that which is not.

Tertullian in like manner says Lib. contr. Hermog. cap. 19. Nihil quod fieri habet sine initio est, quin initium sit illi dum incipit fieri. Nothing that has a fieri, is without a beginning, but it begins to be while it begins to be made.

Athanasius Contr. Arian. Orat. 3. [...].It is the property of Creatures and works, that they are said to exist out of non-en­tities, and not to be before they are made.

Greg. Nyssen Contr. Eunom. l. 9. [...].. If he made it, he made that which was not at all.

S. Hilary De Trin. l. 12. Omne quod fit, antequam fiat non fuit.. Every thing that is made, was not before it was made.

S. Ambrose De Incarn. l. 3. Quod fit incipit.. That which is made begins to be.

S. Austin De moribus Manich. c. 7. Facere enim est quod omninò non erat.. To make is true of that which was not at all.

Cyril Alexand. Thesaur. Assert. 20. [...].. It cannot be, that what al­ready exists, should be brought into being, but what do's not exist.

Vigilius also Lib. 3. cont. Eutychen. Fieri, ejus soleat esse propri­um, qui nunquam ante substi­terat.. To be made, is the usual pro­perty of him, who never subsisted before.

Cassianus also Lib. 7. de incarn. c. 2. Quae orta jam fuerint, redire in id rursum non queant ut no­vâ creatione generentur.. Things already sprung up, can­not return into that state; that they should be gene­rated by a new creation.

These sayings do very ill accord with the Doctrine of the Roman Church Catechis. ad Paroch. de Eucharist. n. 39. Sine ulla Do­mini nostri mutatione; ne (que) enim Christus aut generatur, aut mutatur, aut augescit., which teaches, that the Conversion in the Eucharist is made, without any change in our Lord; for nei­ther is Christ generated, or is changed, or increased.

Secondly, They so speak of making Christs Body, that it cannot be understood of any other than his typical and my­stical Body. For the Fathers say, That Bread is made his Body.

[Page 56] Tertullian Cont. Ma [...]c. l. 4. c. 40. Acceptum panem & distribu­tum discipulis, Corpus suum illum fecit, hoc est Corpus meum dicendo.. Christ when he had taken Bread, and distributed it to his Disciples, made it his Body, saying, This is my Body.

Eusebius Demonst. Evang. lib. 8. [...].. Christ commanded his Disciples (speaking of the Symbols of the Divine Oeco­nomy delivered to them, i. e. Bread and Wine) to make the image of his Body.

Cyril of Jerus. Catech. Mystag. 1. [...].. When the Invocation is over, the Bread is made the Body of Christ, and the Wine the Blood of Christ.

Greg. Nyssen Orat. in Christi Baptisma. [...]. says, At first the Bread is com­mon Bread, but after the mystery has consecrated it, it is called and is made the Body of Christ.

S. Austin Serm. de diversis, 87. Non omnis panis, sed accipi­ens benedictionem Christi, fit Corpus Christi. Canon Misse. Quam oblatio­nem tu Deus in omnibus, quae­sumus, benedictam, adscrip­tam, ratam, rationabilem, ac­ceptam (que) facere digneris, ut nobis Corpus & sanguis fiat di­lectissimi tui filii Domini nostri J. Christi, &c.. Not all Bread, but only that which receives Christ's blessing, is made the Body of Christ.

Canon of the Mass. Which Oblation, O Al­mighty God, we beseech thee vouchsafe to make bles­sed, allowable, firm, rational, and acceptable, that it may be made to us the Body and Blood of thy most dear Son our Lord Jesus Christ, &c.

Also the Fathers say still more expresly, that the Body and Blood of Christ, is made of Bread and Wine.

Thus the Author of the Book of Sacraments under S. Ambrose's name Lib. 4. de Sacram. c. 4. Tu fortè dicis, meus panis est usitatus: sed panis iste panis est ante verba Sacramentorum, ubi accesserit consecratio de pane fit caro Christi.. Perhaps thou wilt say, My Bread is usual Bread: but tho' that Bread be Bread before the Sacramental words, yet upon Consecration, of Bread is made the Flesh of Christ.

Gaudentius In Exod. trac. 2. Ipse na­turarum Creator & Dominus, qui producit de terra panem, de pane rursus, qui po [...]est & promisit, efficit proprium cor­pus, & qui de aqua vinum fecit, & de vino sanguinem suum.. The Creator and Lord of nature himself, who produces Bread out of the Earth, of Bread again (seeing he is oble, and has promised it) he makes his own Body; and he that of Water made Wine, made also of Wine his Blood.

Now all this can be meant of nothing else, but what we heard out of Eusebius before, of the Image of his Body, which he commanded his Disciples to make.

[Page 57]S. Jerome also explains it of the Sacramental Bread and Wine, upon those words of the Pro­phet In Jerem. 31.12. De quo conficitur panis Domini, & san­guinis ejus impletur typus, & benedictio Sanctificationis o­stenditur., They shall flow together to the goodness of the Lord, for Wheat, and for Wine and Oil. He adds, Of which the Lords Bread is made, and the type of his Blood is fulfilled, and the blessing of san­ctification is shown.

And in another place In cap. 9. Zachar. De hoc tritico efficitur ille panis qui de Coelo descendit & confortat cor hominis. Of this Wheat the Bread that descended from Heaven is made, and which strengthens the heart of man. Which must be understood of the Bread received in the Eu­charist.

So Tertullian Antea citat. Corpus suum illum (sc. panem) fecit, hoc est Corpus meum dicendo, id est, Figura Corporis mei. explains himself. He made Bread his Body, saying, This is my Body, That is, the Figure of my Body.

And Leo Magn. Epist. 88. Nec licet Pres­byteris nisi eo (sc. Episcopo) jubente, Sacramentum Corpo­ris & sanguinis Christi conficere.. Neither may the Presbyters, without the Bishops Command, make the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ.

S. Chrysostom Hom. 29. in Genes. [...]. speaking of Wine, says, By this the matter of the good things for our Salvation is perfected. Where by those good things, he plain­ly means the Wine in the Eucharist.

It is also very observable, that the Fathers sometimes call this the mystical Bread and Wine, and sometimes the mystical Body and Blood of Christ.

Thus S. Austin Contr. Faust. l. 20. c. 13. Noster panis & calix certâ con­secratione, mysticus fit nobis, non nascitur. says, Our Bread and Cup is made mystical to us, by a certain consecration, and does not grow so.

S. Chrysostom De r [...]surrect. mort. Hom. 33. [...]. thus. The mystical Body and Blood is not made without the grace of the spirit.

When S. Ambrose Lib de iis qui initiant. c. 9. Hoc quod conficimus Cor­pus ex Virgine est. Sacramentum illud quod ac­cipis sermon [...] Christi confici­tur. Vera uti (que) caro Christi quae crucifixa est, quae sepulta est. Verè ergo car [...]is illius Sacra­mentum est. had said, This Body which we make is of the Virgin. He explains this phrase by another before it, viz. That Sacra­ment which thou receivest is made by the Word of Christ. And also by another saying of his that follows. It was true Flesh of Christ that was Cru­cified and buried; it is therefore truly the Sacra­ment of his Flesh. Where you see he distinguishes these two, the Flesh of Christ Crucified, and that in the Sacrament, which is only mystically so.

[Page 58] Hesychius In Levit. lib. 6. — Cor­pore mystico non vescetur. speaking of Jews, Pagans, and Hereticks, says, that the Soul in Society with them may not eat of the mystical Body, that is, of the Eucharist.

And elsewhere Id. ibid. lib. 2. Christus bibens ipse, & Apostolis bibere dans sanguinem intelligibilem. speaking of the Cup in the Sacrament, uses this phrase, Christ drinking him­self and giving to the Apostles the intelligible Blood to drink. Where intelligible Blood is the mystical Blood in the Eucharist, according to his con­stant use of that word.

Procopius of Gaza In Esa. cap. 3. upon those words of the Prophet, of Gods taking away the Staff of Bread and stay of Water; and telling us, that Christs Flesh is meat indeed, and his Blood drink indeed, which they that have not, have not the strength of Bread and Water; he adds, there is another enlivening Bread also taken from the Jews, [...] &c. where he means the Eucharist, di­stinguishing it from Christs proper Flesh and Blood.

S. Ambrose De benedict. Patriarch. c. 9. Hunc panem dedit (Jesus) Apostolis, ut dividerent populo credentium, hodie (que) dat nobis eum, quem ipse quotidie sa­cerdos consecrat suis verbis. Hic panis factus est esca San­ctorum. Possumus & ipsum Do­minum accipere, qui carnem suam nobis dedit, sicut ipse ait, Ego sum panis vitae. makes the same distinction, where speaking of the Benediction of Asser, that his Bread was fat, &c. and that Asser signi­fies riches; he adds, Jesus gave this Bread to the Apostles, that they should divide it among believing people, and he now gives it to us, being that which the Priest daily Consecrates with his words. This Bread is made the food of Saints. We may also un­derstand thereby the Lord himself, who gave his Flesh to us, as he says, I am the Bread of Life.

What can be more clear, than that he distinguishes here between the Eucharistical Bread (which he calls the Saints food) and Christ himself the Bread of Life?

8. Observ. The Fathers speak of Christ's Body sanctified and sacrificed in the Eucharist; which cannot be understood of any thing, but his representative and Typical Body.

S. Austin Epist. 59. Quod in Do­mini mensa est — ‘— benedicirur & sanctificatur.’ speaking of that which is upon the Lords Table (which the Church of Rome will have to be Christ's Natural Body) says, that it is blessed and sanctified.

[Page 59]And Gaudentius In Exod. tract. 19. Per singulas Ecclesiarum domos in mysterio panis & vini reficit immolatus, vivificat creditus, consecrantes sanctificat conse­cratus., speaking of Christ, whom he compares to the Paschal Lamb, says, Through all the Houses of the Churches, in the mystery of Bread and Wine, being sacrificed he refreshes, being believed on he quickens, being consecrated he sancti­fies them that consecrate.

This can be only true in representation, which is said of Christ's being sacrificed and sanctified (or consecrated) by us; for the proper and natural Body of Christ can neither be san­ctified in a proper sense, nor sacrificed by us, as I shall now show.

IT is acknowledged by us, That the Fathers speak fre­quently of a Change of the Bread and Wine, and their passing into, and being converted into Christ's Body and Blood. It is needless therefore to cite their Testimonies to this purpose; but I shall evidently prove, that they do not understand this Change and Conversion in the Sense of Tran­substantiation.

To give some Order to their Testimonies, I shall not cite them in a heap, but as Proofs of several Assertions of theirs, which overthrow the Change by Transubstantiation.

1 Assertion. The Fathers make a difference betwixt the Change or Conversion of a Thing, and its Abolition. When they affirm the one, they at the same time deny the other. But Tran­substantiation supposes the Elements, as to the Matter and Substance of them, to perish and to be destroyed, when they are said to be changed.

You cannot well imagine that the Fathers, if they thought of Miracles wrought in the Sacrament, yet should ever dream of any such as had no agreement with all the Mira­cles that God ever wrought before. They well knew, (and our Adversaries do not deny it) that in all other Supernatu­ral Changes, there was only the introducing of a new Form, the Materia substrata (the common Matter) remaining. So it was when Moses's Rod was turned into a Serpent, when the Waters were turned into Blood, Lot's Wife into a Pillar of Salt, the Wine in Cana of Galilee changed into Water; in all these, neither the old Matter was lost, nor new Matter created. The Fathers therefore laugh at any such Change where the Things changed utterly perish.

[Page 63] Tertullian De Resurrect. Carn. c. 55. Quasi demutari, sit in totum & de pristino perire. charges it as a great Absurdity against the Marcionites, that, according to them, To be changed, was to perish whelly, and as to what they were before.

He has many smart Sayings against them, for denying the same Bodies to appear and rise at the Resurrection; and urges that of 1 Cor. 15. shewing that there will be a Change, not a Destruction of our Flesh. For, says he, Aliud est demutatio, aliud perditio. Peribit autem demu­tata, si non ipsa permanserit in demutatione quae exhibita fue­rit in resurrectione. A Change is one thing, and Destruction is another. But it will perish in the Change, if that Flesh do not remain in the Change which shall be exhibited at the Resurrection.

— As therefore that which is destreyed, —Quomodò ergo quod perdi­tum est, mutatum non est, ita quod mutatum est perditum non est. Perisse enim, est in to­tum non esse quod fuerit; mu­tatum esse, aliter esse est. Sed porrò dum aliter est, id ipsum potest esse; habet enim esse quod non perit; mutationem e­nim passum est, non perditionem.is not changed; so that which is changed, is not destroyed. For, to perish, is wholly not to be what it had been; but to be changed, is to be otherwise than it was. Moreover, by being otherwise, the thing may still be; for it has a Being which perishes not; for it only suffered a Change, not a Destruction.

Gelasius De duabus Naturis. also disputing against the Euty­chians, who thought that the Humanity was converted into the Divinity, so that nothing of the other remained, (just as with them the Bread is converted into Christ's Body, Nec videatur glorificata no­stra conditio unione Deitatis, sed potius esse consumpta, si non eadem subsistit in gloria, sed solâ existente Deitate, hu­manitas illic esse jam desti­tit, &c. nothing of its Substance remain­ing) says thus: Neither do's our Condition by the Union of the Deity seem to be glorified, but ra­ther to be consumed, if it do's not subsist the same in Glory, but the Deity existing alone, the Huma­nity now ceases to be there, &c.

—By this way, —Per hoc non sublimata, sed abolita potius invenitur.it will not be found to be sub­limated, but abolish'd.

The thing is so clear against Transubstantia­tion, that Scotus In 4. dist. 11. art. 1. sec. ad propositum. Dico proprie loquen­do, quod transubstantiatio non est mutatio. confesses it. I say, properly speaking, That Transubstantiation is not a Change.

2 Assertion. When the Fathers speak of converting a thing into another thing that was before, they suppose an Accession and an Augmentation made to that, into which the Conversion is made. Just as it is in Nourishment of our Bodies, the Food con­verted into them, makes an Increase of them.

[Page 64] Cyril. of Alexandr. Epist. 1. ad Succensum. arguing against those Hereticks who thought the glorified Body of Christ was converted into his Divinity, he says, Thus we derogate from the Divinity, [...]. [...].as if it were made, and as receiving something into it self, which is not proper to its Nature. And he makes this Conversion to be impossible upon this account.

Gelasius De duabus Naturis.— Accesserit, accreveritque Dei­tati. uses the same Phrases, of Accessi­on and Increase to the Deity, and that by the trans­fusion of the Humanity added to it,— transfusione humanitatis adjectae velut aucta videatur.the Divinity would seem to be increased.

Thus the later Greeks thought it was in Christ's Body, into which the Bread was changed.

Damascen Epist. ad Zachariam, & in Hom. de Corp. & Sang. Domini., speaking of the Body of Christ which we partake of: I declare, says he, it can­not be said,— [...].there are two Bodies of Jesus Christ, there being but one alone. For, as the Child, as soon as it is born, is compleat, but receives his growth from eating and drinking; and tho' he grows there­by, yet cannot be said to have two Bodies, but only one; so, by greater reason, the Bread and Wine, by the Descent of the Holy Spirit, are made one only Body, and not two, by the Augmentation of the Body of Christ.

Theophylact In cap. 6. Joan. expresses it thus: The Bread is changed ( [...]) into the Flesh of Christ by the ineffable Words, [...]the mystical Benediction, and coming of the Holy Spirit upon it. No Man ought to be troubled in being obliged to believe that Bread becomes Flesh: For when our Lord was conversant in Flesh, and received his Nourishment from Bread, this Bread he did eat was changed into his Body, being made like to his holy Flesh, [...]and contributed to augment and sustain it after a humane manner: And thus now is the Bread changed into our Lord's Flesh.

See more Testimonies of the following Greeks in Monsieur Claude's Catholick Doctrine of the Eucharist, in answer to Mon­sieur Arnaud, Lib. 3. cap. 13. pag. 228, 229. in Fol.

[Page 65]3 Assertion, (and the most remarkable) is this. The Fa­thers use the same Terms of passing into, being changed, converted, becoming another thing, &c. in other Cases besides the Eucharist, wherein all agree there is no Change of Substances made. There­fore there is no Argument can be drawn from such Expres­sions in favour of Transubstantiation, no not when the Word Nature or Substance is exprest in the Change.

Tertullian De Resur. Carn c. 55. Si transfigurationem & conversio­nem in transi [...]um substantiae cu­jusque defendis, ergo & Saul in alium virum conversus de corpore suo excessit, &c. has dashed this out of counte­nance, when he says to Marcion, If thou defend­est a Transfiguration and Conversion as far as the passing of the Substance of a thing into another, then Saul, who was turned into another Man, went out of his Body, &c.

—Again, It's possible to be changed, says he, Ibid. Ita & in resurrectionis eventum mutari, converti, re­formari licebit, cum salute sub­stantiae. to be converted and reformed into what shall hap­pen at the Resurrection, and yet the Substance be preserved.

But this will more fully appear, by the Axioms the Fathers lay down, and by the Instances they give.

Their Axioms are such as these.

Cyril. of Alexandr. Thesaur. Assert. 20. [...].. For a thing to be made, do's not always signifie a change of Nature.

Cyril. of Jerus. Catech. Mystag. 5. [...].. Whatsoever the Holy Spirit touches, that is always sanctified and changed.

S. Jerome In cap. 43. Ezekiel. Per ignem Spiritus sancti omnia quae cogitamus, loquimur ac facimus in spiritualem substantiam convertuntur.. By the Fire of the Holy Spirit, all that we think, speak, and act, are changed into a Spiritual Substance.

If these Sayings be strictly scann'd, they will amount to no more than a producing new Vertues and Qualities, which were not before.

Their Instances also shew the same.

THe former is the Assertion of the Roman Church in the Trent Council, in which an Anathema is pronounced 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 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 shew, that the Fathers advance such Positions as plainly contradict this Doctrine.

WE have seen before that the Fathers say plainly, that it was Bread which Christ called his Body, when he blessed it. Now we shall see, that the Fathers are as positive, that after Consecration, and the change made by it, yet still the Bread and Wine remains.

I begin with that famous Testimony of S. Chrysostome a­gainst the Apollinarians; produced first by P. Martyr; by some of our Adversaries charged upon him as his Forgery, because it was so full against them; by others shifted off to another John of Constantinople, and denied to be S. Chryso­stome's; but vindicated for his, See Append. to the Defence of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England, p. 142, 143, &c. by the Learned Bigotius, who had transcribed it out of the Flo­rentine Library of S. Mark's Monastery, and prepared it for the Press, in his Edition of Pal­ladius; then suppressed by some Doctors of the Sorbonne, and the printed leaves taken out of the Book; but now lately recovered and published to their shame [...] A pas­sage of which (the subject of this great contest) I shall here set down.

Christ is both God and Man: God, Deus & homo Christus: De­us propter impassibilitatem, Ho­mo propter Passionem. Unus Filius, unus Dominus, idem ip­se proculdubus unitarum natu­rarum unam dominationem, u­nam potestatem possidens, eti­amsi non consubstantiales exi­stunt, & unaquae (que) in commix­tam proprietatis conservat ag­nitionem, propter hec quod inconfusa sunt, [duo] dico. Sicut enim antequam sanctificetur Panis, Panem nominamus, divina autem illum Sanctificante gratiâ, mediante sacerdote, liberatus est quidem appellatione panis, dignus autem habitus est dominici corpo­ris appellatione, etiamsi natura panis in ipso permansit, & non duo corpora, sed unum corpus filii praedicatur. Sic & hic Divinâ [...], id est, inundante corporis naturâ, unum filium, unam personam, utra (que) haec fe­cerunt. Agnoscondum tamen inconfusam & indivisibilem rationem, non in unâ solùm natura, sed in dimbus perfectis. for that he is impassible, Man for that he suffered. One Son, one Lord, he the same without doubt, having one Dominion, one power of two united natures: not that these (natures) are consubstantial, seeing each of them do's re­tain without confusion its own properties, and being two are inconfused in him. For as (in the Eucharist) before the Bread is consecrated, we call it Bread, but when the grace of God by the Priest has consecrated it, it has no longer the name of [Page 94]Bread, but is counted worthy to be called the Lords Body, altho' the nature of Bread remains in it, and we do not say there are two Bodies, but one Body of the Son. So here, the divine nature being joined to the (humane) Body, they both toge­ther make one Son, one Person; but yet they must be acknowledged to remain without con­fusion, and after an indivisible manner, not in one nature only, but in two perfect natures.

Another remarkable Testimony, is in Theodoret's Dialogues; some part of which I hope the Reader will not think it tedi­ous to be inserted here, since by observing the thread of his Discourse, he will see his undoubted sense to be, that the substance of the Bread and Wine remain in the Eucharist, and the change is by addition not annihilation; and I will add his Greek where it is needful.

Orthodoxus. Dial. 1 Do you not know that God called his Body Bread? Erannistes. I know it. Orth. Elsewhere also he call­eth his Flesh Wheat. Eran. I know that also. Unless a Corn of Wheat fall into the ground and die, &c. Orth. But in the de­livery of the mysteries, he called the Bread his Body, and that which is mixed (viz. Wine and Water in the Cup) Blood. Eran. He did so call them. Orth. But that which is his Body by nature ( [...]) is also to be called his Body, and his Blood (viz. by nature) Blood. Eran. It is confess'd. Orth. [...] But our Saviour changed the names, and on his Body he imposed the name of the symbol (or sign) and on the symbol he put the name of his body; And so having called himself a Vine, he called the Symbol Blood. Eran. Very right. But I have a mind to know the reason of this change of names. Orth. The scope is manifest to those that are initiated in Divine things. [...] For he would have those that participate the divine mysteries, not to attend to the nature of those things that are seen, but upon the changing of the names, to believe the change that is made by grace. For he that called his Body, that is so [Page 95]by nature, Wheat and Bread, [...] and again termed himself a Vine, he honoured the visible Symbols with the appellation of his Body and Blood, not al­tering nature, but to nature adding grace.

Proceed we now to the next Dialogue.

Orth. Dial. 2 The mystical Symbols offered to God by the Priests, pray tell me what are they signs of? Eran. Of the Lords Body and Blood. Orth. Of his Body truly or not truly such? Era. Of that which is truly (his Body). Orth. Very right. For there must be an original of an Image ( [...]) for Painters imitate nature, and draw the Images of vi­sible things. Era. True. Orth. [...] If then the divine mysteries are Antitypes of a true Body, then the Lords Body is a true Body still, not changed into the nature of the Deity, but filled with Divine Glory. Era. You have seasonably brought in the Discourse of the Divine Mysteries; for thereby I will shew that the Lords Body is changed into another Nature. Answer therefore my Question. Orth. I will. Era. What call you the Gift that is offered before the Priests Invocation? Orth. I may not openly declare it, for perhaps some here present may not be initiated. Era. Answer then Aenigma­tically. Orth. I call it the food that is made of a certain grain. Era. How call you the other Symbol? Orth. By a common name that signifies a kind of drink. Era. But how do you call it after Consecration? Orth. The Body of Christ, and the Blood of Christ. Era. And do you believe you partake the Body and Blood of Christ? Orth. Yes, I believe it. Era. As then the Symbols of Christs Body and Blood are one thing before the Priests Invocation, but after the In­vocation, are changed and become another thing; so the Lords Body, after his Assumption, is changed into a Divine Essence. Orth. [...] You are caught in a Net of your own weaving. For after san­ctification, the mystical Symbols do not depart from their own nature; for they remain still in their for­mer substance, and figure and form, and may be seen and touched just as before. But they are under­stood to be that which they are made, and are be­lieved and venerated, as being those things they are believed to be.

[Page 96]How shamefully Mr. Sclater has attempted to pervert these last words of Theodoret, he has been told sufficiently by his Answerer.

The next Testimony is of Gelasius De duābus naturis in Chri­sto. Certè Sacramenta quae su­mimus, corporis & sanguinis Christi, divina res est, prop­ter quod & per eadem divinae efficimur consortes naturae; & tamen esse non definit substan­tia vel natura panis & vini; & certè Imago & similitudo cor­poris & sanguinis Christi in actione mysteriorum celebran­tur. Satis ergo nobis evidenter ostenditur, hoc nobis in ipso Christo Domino sentiendum, quod in ejus imagine profite­mur, celebramus & sumimus; ut sicut in hanc, sc. in Divinam transeunt Spiritu S. perficiente substantiam, permanente ramen in suae proprietate naturae, sic illud ipsum mysterium princi­pale, cujus nobis efficientiam Virtutem (que) veraciter reprae­sentant, ex quibus constat pro­priè permanentibus, unum Christum, quia integrum ve­rum (que) permanere. Bishop of Rome. The Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Christ which we take, are surely a divine thing; for which reason we become by them partakers of the Divine nature; and yet the substance or nature of Bread and Wine do's not cease to be; and indeed the Image and likeness of the Body and Blood of Christ are celebrated in the action of the mysteries: therefore it appears plainly enough to us, that we ought to think that of our Lord, which we profess and celebrate and receive in his image; that as they (viz. the Elements) pass into that Divine sub­stance, the H. Spirit effecting it, their nature still remaining in its own property; so that principal mystery whose efficiency and virtue these (the Ele­ments) truly represent to us, remains one entire and true Christ; those things of which he is compounded (viz. the two natures) remaining in their pro­perties.

Ephrem Antiochenus Apud Photii Biblioth. cod. 229. [...]. treating of the two Natures (which he calls palpable and impalpa­ble, visible and invisible) united in Christ, adds, Thus the Body of Christ which is received by the faithful, do's not depart from its sensible substance, and yet remains unseparated from the intellectual grace. So Baptism becoming wholly spiritual and one, it preserves its own sensible substance, I mean Water, and do's not lose what it is made to be.

Our Adversaries, to testify the respect they have for the Fathers, when they do not speak as they would have them, they try to make them speak so as no Body shall understand their true sense. And as the Putney Convert did by Theodoret, so the Jesuit Andr. Schottus (not for want of skill, but ho­nesty) has dealt with this of Ephrem, making it, by his tran­slation, obscure, or rather unintelligible nonsense. For the [Page 97]first words [ [...]] he translates [sensibilis essentiae non cognoscitur, it is not known of a sensible nature,] and the other expression about Baptism [ [...]] he turns it thus. [Hoc (que) sub­stantiae sensibilis proprium est per aquam, inquam, servat. And this is the property of sensible substance, it keeps, I say, by Water.] A good Man cannot take more pains to find out Truth than this Man do's that it may be lost.

The next Testimony, is of Facundus, Lib. 9. defens. 3. capit. cap. 5. Sacramentum adoptio­nis suscipere dignatus est Chri­stus, & quando circumcisus est & quando baptizatus est: & potest Sacramentum adoptionis adoptio nuncupari, sicut Sacra­mentum corporis & sanguinis ejus quod est in pane & poculo consecrato, corpus ejus & san­guinem dicimus; non quod propriè corpus ejus sit panis, & poculum sanguis, sed quod in se mysterium corporis san­guinis (que) contineant. Hinc & ipse Dominus benedictum panem & calicem, quem discipulis tra­didit, corpus & sanguinem suum vocavit. the African Bishop. Christ vouchsafed to receive the Sacrament of Adoption, both when he was Circumcised and when he was Baptized: and the Sacrament of Adoption may be called Adoption, just as we call the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, which is in the Con­secrated Bread and Cup, his Body and Blood. Not that properly Bread is his Body, and the Cup his Blood, but because they contain in them the mystery of his Body and Blood. Hence it is, that our Lord himself called the Bread and Cup he blessed, and gave to his Disciples, his Body and Blood.

Nothing can be more positive than these five Testimonies, that the Bread and Wine remain in their substance after Con­secration. And I cannot but here add the remarkable Con­fession of an Adversary, concerning two of them.

For thus Card. Alan De Euchar. Sacram. l. 1. c. 35. De duobus, Gelasio & Theodoreto, facilè mihi per­suadeo, eos solos esse ex omni Antiquitate, qui inclinaverunt in communem posteà multo­rum errorem, ut ita defende­rent veram conversionem pa­nis, ut materiam Elementi, si­cut in caeteris naturalibus trans­mutationibus fieri videbant, relictam esse concederent, &c. says, Concerning these two, Gelasius and Theodoret, I readily persuade my self, that they are the only persons in all Anti­quity (tho' I have already produced three more of their mind) who inclined to that, which was afterwards a common errour, so to defend the true Conversion of Bread, that they granted the matter of the Element to remain, as they saw it did in all other natural transmutations.

[Page 98]But we will try whether the rest of the Fathers did not also speak the same thing.

Justin Martyr Dial. cum Tryph. [...]. speaking of the oblation of fine Flour for those that were cleansed from Leprosy, says, It was a type of the Bread of the Eucharist, which our Lord J. Christ commanded us to make in memory of his passion. What we make (as was show'd, cap. 8. observ. 7.) can be only Bread, not Christs Body in a proper sense.

Again Apol. 2. [...] — telling us of the Bishops praying and giving thanks over the Elements, he adds, that the Deacons give to every one present leave to take of the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist.

That this was his sense appears further, by another Character he gives of it in the same place, [...] when he calls it Food by which our Flesh and Blood by a change are nourished.

What he says in another place Dial. cum Tryph. p. 345. Edit. Paris. 1615. [...]. of Chri­stians remembring their Lords Passion by their dry and wet food, can agree only to Bread and Wine, which therefore must be supposed to re­main.

S. Irenaeus L. 5. adv. haeres. c. 2. Ex quibus augetur & consistit car­nis nostrae substantia. asserts with Justin, that the Bread and Cup of the Eucharist is that, by which the substance of our Flesh is nourished and consists.

In another place Ibid. l. 4. c. 34. Carnem quae à corpore Domini & san­guine alitur. Quemadmodum qui est à ter­ra panis, percipiens invocatio­nem Domini, jam non commu­nis panis est, sed Eucharistia ex duabus rebus constans, ter­rena & coelesti, &c. he not only says, that our Flesh is nourished by the Body and Blood of our Lord, but adds, As the Bread that is from the Earth, perceiving the Lords Invocation, is not now common Bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two things, an Earthly and an Heavenly, &c. Tho' not common Bread, yet Bread still, because else it would consist only of one thing, viz. Christs Body, and no earthly thing besides.

Origen Comm. in Matth. 15. v. 15. p. 254. Edit. Huet. — [...].. If every thing that enters into the mouth gees into the Belly and is cast into the draught, then also the food that is sanctified by the word of God and Prayer, as to the material part of it (which can be nothing but Bread) goes into the [Page 99]Belly, &c. but in respect of the Prayer that is super­added — it becomes profitable, &c. [...] Nor is it the matter of the Bread, but the word that is said over it that profits him that eats it not unworthily of the Lord.

Cyprian Epist. ad Caecilium, l. 2. Ep. 3. alias 63. Invenimus ca­licem mixtum fuisse quem Do­minus obtulit, & vinum fuisse quod sanguinem suum dixit.. We have found that it was a mixed Cup which our Lord offered, and that it was Wine which he called his Blood.

Macarius Homil. 27. [...].In the Church is offered Bread and Wine, the Antitype of his Flesh and Blood, and they that are partakers of the visible Bread, do spi­ritually eat the Flesh of the Lord.

Epiphanius In Compend. fidei. [...]. in a place I before cited, speak­ing of the Eucharist, says, that the Bread is food, but the virtue that is in it, is for begetting Life. It do's not cease to be food, tho' the quickening power is all from the grace and spi­rit of God in it.

S Ambrose De Benedict. Patriarch. c. 9. Hunc panem dedit Apo­stolis, ut dividerent populo cre­dentium, hodié (que) dat nobis e­um, quum ipse quotidiè sacer­dos consecrat suis verbis. Hic panis factus est esca Sanctorum. speaking of the Benediction of Assur, Her Bread is fat, &c. says, Christ gave this Bread to the Apostles, to divide it among be­lieving people, and now he gives it to us, whenas the Priest daily Consecrates with his words. This Bread is made to be the food of Saints.

S. Austin L. 3. de Trin. c. 4. Cor­pus Christi & sanguinem dici­mus illud tantum, quod ex fru­gibus terrae acceptum & prece mysticâ consecratum, rite su­mimus ad salutem spiritualem in memoriam pro nobis Domi­nicae Passionis; quod cùm per manus hominum ad illam visi­bilem speciem perducitur, non sanctificatur ut sit tam magnum Sacramentum nisi operante in­visibiliter Spiritu Dei.. We only call that the Body and Blood of Christ, which being taken from the fruits of the Earth, and Consecrated by mystical Prayer, we rightly receive to our spiritual health in memory of our Lords Passion. Which, when it is by the hands of men brought to that visible substance, is not sanctified to become so great a Sacrament, unless the spirit of God invisibly operate.

Again Idem Ibid. c. 10. Panis ad hoc factus in accipiendo Sacra­mento consumitur.. Bread made for this purpose is con­sumed in receiving the Sacrament. But it is nei­ther received nor consumed till it be Consecra­ted, nor then but when eaten.

And again elsewhere Serm. 9. de divers. cap. 7. Eucharistia panis noster quoti­dianus est; sed sic accipiamus illum, ut non solum ventre sed & mente reficiamur. The Eucharist is our daily Bread; but let us so receive it, that we may not only have refreshment for our bellies, but for our minds.

[Page 100]Upon this account it is, that looking upon the Sacrament as a refreshing food to our Bodies (as S. Austin here speaks) the Ancients believed, that by partaking of the Eucharist, they Broke their Fasts; this appears beyond all question in what Tertullian Lib. de Orat. c. 14. ad fi­nem. Stationum diebus non pu­tant pleri (que) sacrificiorum ora­tionibus interveniendum, quod statio solvenda sit accepto cor­pore Dominico. says; who in resolving a doubt that troubled some minds, what they should do, when it happened that by a private vow they undertook a strict Fast (which obliged them not to take any refresh­ment till Evening) and this fell out upon a station day (which was usually Wednesdays and Fridays) when the Fast was ended at three a Clock by receiving the Communion. Most think, says he, that on the station days they ought not to be present at the Prayers of the Sacrifices (when the Eucharist was administred) because the Fast was broken upon receiving the Lords Body. Tertullian excepts not against this reason, but grants it, and finds out such an expedient as would be coun­ted ridiculous in the Roman Church (where this of the Sacra­ments breaking the Fast is not believed) which is, to be pre­sent, and to take the Sacrament, and reserve it to be eaten at night.

By receiving the Lords Body, Accepto corpore Dominico & reservato, ucrum (que) salvum est, & participatio Sacrificii & executio officii. says he, and re­serving it, both is salved, both the partaking of the Sacrifice (i. e. of the Eucharist given at three a Clock) and the execution of their duty (he means of fasting till Evening, according to their Vow, and eating the Sacrament then, and not before.) But to pro­ceed with our Testimonies.

Hesychius 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 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?

[Page 101]Again Id Tract. in Joan. 26. Pa­tres manducaverunt spiritua­lem uti (que) 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 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 Tract. 26. in Joan. Nam & nos hodie accepimus visibi­lem cibum; sed aliud est Sacramentum, aliud est virtus Sacramenti.. We have received to day the visible food; but the Sacrament is one thing, and the virtue of the Sacrament is another.

That which he calls here cibus visibilis (the visible food) a little after S. Austin calls it visibile Sacramentum (a visible Sa­crament) where he distinguishes this again from the Virtus Sacramenti (the Virtue of the Sacrament) so that the visible food, and the visible Sacrament, with him are the same.

I have already produced the Testimonies (vid. chap. 8. Ob­serv. 5.) where the Fathers make what is distributed in the Eucharist to be without Life or sense; which can be true of nothing else but of the Bread and Wine. So that unless we make them distribute what they had not consecrated, the Bread and Wine must remain after Consecration.

The same is also evidently proved from another common assertion of the Fathers, that Christ offered the same oblation with Melchisedek.

S. Cyprian 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 [Page 102]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.

Isidere Peleusiota Lib. 1. Epist. 431. ad Pallad. [...].. Melchisedeck performed his sacred Office in Bread and Wine, by which he foresignified the type of the divine mysteries.

Eusebius 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 Epist. ad Evagrium. Mel­chisedec pane & vino simplici puro (que) sacrificio, Christi dedi­caverit Sacramentum.. Melchisedeck by Bread and Wine, which is a simple and a pure Sacrifice, did dedicate Christs Sacrament.

S. Austin 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 L. 17. de civit. Dei, c. 17. — Ex eo quod jam nusquam est Sacerdotium & Sacrificium secundum ordinem Aaron, & ubi (que) 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 In Psal. 109. Christus per mysterium panis & vini fa­ctus est sacerdos in a ternum.. Christ by the mystery of Bread and Wine, is made a Priest for over.

S. Chrysostom 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.

[Page 103] Isidore of Sevil In Genesin cap. 12. Non secundùm Aaron pecudum Vi­ctimas, sed oblationem panis & vini, id est, corporis & sangui­nis ejus Sacramentum in Sacri­ficium offeramus.. Let us not offer the Victims of Beasts according to Aaron, but let us offer in Sacrifice the oblation of Bread and Wine, that is the Sacrament of Christs Body and Blood.

Bede Hom. de 55. in Vigil. S. Jo. Bapt. Redemptor noster ideo sacerdos esse dicitur se­cundùm Ordinem Melchisedec, quia, ablatis victimis legalibus, idem sacrificii genus in myste­rium sui corporis & sanguinis in N. Testamento offerendum instituit.. Our Redeemer is therefore called a Priest, after the Order of Melchisedeck, because ta­king away the legal Sacrifices, he instituted the same kind of Sacrifice (viz. Bread and Wine) should be offered under the N. Testament, for the mystery of his Body and Blood.

What the Scriptures acquaint us with, that after the Bles­sing of the Bread, Christ brake it and gave it to his Disciples, is also insisted on by the Fathers as done in the Eucharist, in order to the distributing of it to the receivers.

But Bellarmine says expresly L. 1. de Missa, c. 27. No­stra fractio non fit ad distri­buendum, sed ad certum my­sterium significandum.. That our breaking is not made for distribution, but to signify a certain mystery. Therefore in the Roman Church, that which they give in the Sacrament to the people is whole, and not broken off from any other thing. Wherein they differ from the Fathers, for their Eucharist was what the Apostles call breaking of Bread, Act. 2 46. and the Jesuit Lorinus upon that place observes, that it was the manner of the Primitive Church, Lorinus in Act. 2. v. 46. Pa­nem unum conficere, at (que) il­lum consecratum in tot partes frangere, quot erant commu­nicantes, sicut & Christus in coena fecit. to make one Loaf, and when they had consecrated it, to break it into so many parts as there were Communicants, as Christ also did in his Supper. And thus as it is 1 Cor. 10.17. There is one Bread, &c. and we being many are one Body, for we all partake of one Bread.

This Fraction, tho' the Fathers express it as if it were done to the proper Body of Christ, yet they mean it only of the Bread that represents it: and therefore that must remain, for there is nothing else to be broken.

When therefore S. Chrysostome Hom. 24. in 1 Cor. Tom. 3. Edit. Savil. p. 397. [...]. says, that upon the Cross a Bone of him was not bro­ken, but what Christ did not suffer up [...]n the Cross, that he suffers in the oblation for thy sake, and suf­fers himself to be broken, that he may fill us all. [Page 96] [...] [Page 97] [...] [Page 98] [...] [Page 99] [...] [Page 100] [...] [Page 101] [...] [Page 102] [...] [Page 103] [...] [Page 104]This cannot be meant of any thing but what represents his Body torn and rent, viz. Bread.

So S. Austin Epist. 59. — Et ad di­stribuendum comminuitur. speaks of that upon the Lords Table, which is blessed and sanctified, and broke in small pieces to be distributed. Which can be only Bread.

And this elsewhere Epist. 86. — Sicut fran­gitur in Sacramento Corporis Christi. he expresses more plainly. Paul, says he, broke Bread that night, as it is broken in the Sacrament of the Body of Christ.

Again August. apud Bedam in 1 Cor. 11. Manducemus Chri­stum; vivit manducatus, quia surrexit occisus: nec quando manducamus, partes de illo fa­cimus, & quidem in Sacramen­to id fit; & norunt fideles quemadmodum manducent carnem Christi, unusquis (que) accipit partem, &c. S. Austin thus exhorts. Let us eat Christ; he lives tho' eaten, for he arose tho' slain. Neither when we eat him, do we make parts of him; so indeed we do in the Sacrament, and the faithful know how they eat the Flesh of Christ (there.) Every one takes a part, &c.

This is a very remarkable Testimony, because of the di­stinction he makes between Christ's proper Body, and that in the Eucharist, affirming quite different things of them, as this of taking and eating a part, which is only true of the Bread. For as for the true Body of Christ, we are informed by another,

Chrysologus Serm. 159. Non potest Christus edi & dividi. Integer à credentibus sumitur, integer in ore cordis recipitur.. Christ cannot be eaten and divi­ded. He is taken whole of Believers, he is received whole in the mouth of the heart.

I will conclude this Chapter with the sayings of three great persons among the Fathers, who positively assert what I have been proving, that the Bread and Wine remain in the Eucharist.

S. Chrysostom Hom. 83. in Matth. [...].. Who says expresly, When our Lord delivered the mysteries, he delivered Wine.

S. Austin De Civ Dei, lib. 17. cap. 5. Manducare panem, est in N. Te­stamento sacrificium Christia­norum.. To eat Bread, is the Sacrifice of Christians in the N. Testament.

Fulgentius De fide ad Petrum, cap. 19. Christo nunc, id est, tempore N. Testamenti, cum Patre & Spiritu Sancto, cum quibus una est illi Divinitas, Sacrificium pa­nis & vini in fide & charitate Sancta Ecclesia Catholica per universum orbem terrae offerre non cessat.. Now; that is, in the time of the N. Testament, the Holy Catholick Church, through­out the whole Earth, do's not cease to offer in Faith and Charity, the Sacrifice of Bread and Wine to Christ, with the Father and H. Spirit, who have one Divinity together with him.

I Might give in here a very large Collection out of the Fa­thers, calling the Bread and Wine by all those names a­bove mention'd; but to avoid tediousness, I shall only select some few of them (enow to prove the Truth of what I have asserted) under the several heads.

S. Ambrose De iis qui initiant. c. 9. Vera uti (que) caro Christi, quae crucifixa est, quae sepulta est, verè ergo carnis illius est Sa­cramentum.. It is the true Flesh of Christ that was buried; therefore it (viz. the Eucha­rist) is truly the Sacrament of his flesh.

S. Austin Serm. ad recen. Batis. Quomodo est panis corpus e­jus, & calix, vel quod habet ca­lix, sanguis ejus? Ista, fratres, ideo dicuntur Sacramenta, quia in iis aliud videtur, aliud intel­ligitur.. How is the Bread his Body, and the Cup, or what the Cup contains, his Blood? These, Brethren, are therefore called Sacraments, because in them we see one thing, and understand another.

Again In Psal. 68. conc. 1. Cùm veniret Dominus ad coenam, qua commendavit Sacramen­tum corporis & sanguinis sui.. When the Lord came to the Supper, wherein he commended the Sacrament of his Body and Blood.

Facundus Defens 3. capit. l. 9. Christi fideles Sacramentum corporis & sanguinis ejus acci­pientes, corpus & sanguinem Christi rectè dicuntur accipere. — non quod propriè corpus e­jus sit panis & poculum sanguis, sed quod in se mysterium cor­poris sanguinis (que) contineant.. Christs faithful ones, receiving the Sacrament of his Body and Blood, are rightly said to receive his Body and Blood. And he had said before, Not that the Bread is properly his Bo­dy, and the Cup his Blood, but because they contain in them the mystery of his Body and Blood.

Isidore De Offic. Eccles. l. 1. c. 18. Haec duo sunt visibilia, sanctifi­cata autem per Spiritum Sanctum in Sacramentum Divini Corporis transeunt. speaking of the Bread and Wine, says, These two are visible, but being sancrified by the Holy Spirit they pass into a Sacrament of his Di­vine Body.

[Page 106] They call them also Symbols.

Origen Comm. in Matth. 15. [...].. Having discoursed (as we hear [...] before) of the Eucharist, concludes thus. Thu much may suffice concerning the Typical and symbo lical Body. And distinguishes it from the word that was made Flesh, which he calls true food.

Eusebius Dem. Evang. l. 1. cap. 10. [...], &c.. Having received a command to celebrate the memory of this Sacrifice upon the Table, by the Symbols of his Body and saving Blood, ac­cording to the Ordinances of the N. Testament.

Theodoret Comm. in 1 Cor. 13. [...]., not only in the large Testi­mony produced out of him in the last Chapter, calls the Bread and Wine the Symbols of Christs Body and Blood, but says thus elsewhere. In the most H. Baptism we see a type of the resurrection, then we shall see the resurrection it self. Now we see the Symbols of the Lords Body, there we shall see the Lord himself.

They call them Signs.

S. Austin Contr. Adimant. c. 12. Non dubitavit Dominus dicere hoc est corpus meum, cùm da­ret signum corporis sui.. Our Lord did not doubt to say, This is my Body, when he gave the sign of his Body.

S. Ambrose De iis qui init. c. 9. Ante benedictionem verborum Coe­lestium alia species nominatur, post Consecrationem Corpus Christi significatur. of the Bread. Before the Bene­diction of the Heavenly words, another species is named, after the Consecration the Body of Christ is signified.

S. Cyprian Nec potest videri san­guis ejus quo redempti & vivi­ficati sumus, esse in calice, quùm vinum desit calici, quo Christi sanguis ostenditur. Epist. ad Cae­cilium.. Neither can the Blood of Christ, whereby we are redeemed and quickned, be seen to be in the Cup, when Wine is wanting in the Cup, whereby the Blood of Christ is shown. Speaking a­gainst those that used only Water.

Tertullian — L. 1. adv. Marcion. Nec panem reprobavit, quo ipsum Corpus suum reptaesen­tat.. Neither did he reject Bread, whereby he represents his own Body.

S. Jerome In Matth. 26. — Ut quomodo in praefigura­tione ejus Melchisedec summi Dei sacerdos panem & vinum offerens fecerat, ipse quo (que) veri­tatem sui corporis & sanguinis repraesentarer [...]. Christ, says he, took Bread that comforts mans heart, and proceeded to the true Sacrament of the Passover, That like as Melchisedeck the Priest of the High God had done, when he offered Bread and Wine, so he also might represent the truth of his Body and Blood.

[Page 107]It's a very trifling objection that our Adversaries make both to this and the former Testimony in Tertullian, that the word repraesentare (to represent) signifies very often to exhibit a thing, and make it present; for tho' it should be granted, it would not help their cause, since they both say, that it is Bread that represents his Body, which therefore must remain, since that which is not cannot act any thing: but then I add, that tho' in some Cases to represent is to exhibit, yet never in the Case of Sacraments and Signs, for their Essence consists in signification, therefore their representation as Signs, must be to denote and show rather something absent which they represent, than to make it present.

They call them also Types.

Cyril of Jerus. Catech. Mystag. 4. — [...]. He bids us receive the Bread and Wine with all certainty, as the Body and Blood of Christ: for in the Type of the Bread his Body is given to thee, and in the type of Wine his Blood.

Greg. Nazianzen In Pasch. Orat. 43. Ed. Basil. Gr. [...].We. shall receive the Pass­over now in a Type still, tho' more clear than that of the old Law (for the legal Passover, I am beld to say it, was an obscure Type of a Type) but with­in a while we shall receive it more perfect and more pure.

S. Jerome In Jerem. 31. upon those words of Jerem. 31. They shall flow unto the goodness of the Lord, for Wheat, and Wine and Oyl, adds, — De quo conficitur panis Domini, & sanguinis ejus im­pletur typus, & benedictio san­ctificationis ostenditur. Of which is made the Lords Bread, and the Type of his Blood is filled, and the Blessing of Sanctification is shown.

Theodoret Dialog. 3. — [...]. calls the Eucharist, The vene­rable and saving Type of Christs Body.

Another name is Antitypes, signifying the same with the former.

Author Constitutionum Lib. 5. cap. 13. — [...]. under the name of Clemens Roman. Christ delivered to us the mysteries which are antitypes of his precious Body and Blood.

[Page 108]Again Lib. 7. c. 26. O our Father, we give thee thanks for the precious Blood of Jesus Christ shed for us, — [...]. and for his precious Body of which we celebrate these Antitypes.

Eustathius of Antioch In Proverb. 9. citat. in Cenc. Nic. 2. Act. 6. [...]., expounding those words, Eat my Bread, and Drink the Wine that I have mingled, says, He speaks these things, by Bread and Wine preaching the Antitypes of Christs Bodily Members.

Macarius Homil. 27. [...].. In the Church is offered Bread and Wine, the Antitype of Christs Flesh and Blood.

Greg. Nazianzen Orat. 11. telling the story how his Sister Gorgonia was Cured of a desperate Ma­lady, [...], &c. by applying the Sacrament mixed with tears to her Body, he expresses it thus. Whatso­ever of the Antitypes of the precious Body and Blood of Christ her hand had treasured up, &c.

Cyril of Jerus. 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 Dialog. 2. [...].) calls the Divine Mysteries, the Antitypes of the True Body of Christ.

And in another place 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 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 Lib. 3. adv. Maricion. Tanem corpus suum appellans, ut hinc etiam intelligas corpo­ris sui figuram pani dedisse.. Calling Bread his Body, that thou mayst thence understand, that he gave to the Bread the Figure of his Body.

[Page 109]Again Lib. 4. adv. Marcion. c. 40. Acceptum panem & distri­butum discipulis, corpus suum illum fecit, hoc est corpus meum, dicendo, id est, figura corpo­ris mei.. The Bread which he took and distri­buted to his Disciples, he made it his Body, saying, This is my Body, that is, the Figure of my Body.

Ephrem Syrus Tract. de nat. dei curiosè non scrutanda. Diligenter intue­re, quomodo in manibus pa­nem accipiens, benedixit & fregit in figuram immaculati corporis sui, calicem (que) in figu­ram pretiosi sanguinis sui bene­dixit dedit (que) 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 In Psal. 3. Adhibuit (Judam) ad convivium, in quo corporis & sanguinis sui figu­ram discipulis commendavit & tradidit.. He admitted Judas to the Ban­quet, in which he commended and delivered to his Disciples the figure of his Body and Blood.

Bede In Psal. 3. Nec à Sacra­tissimâ coena, in quâ figuram Sacrosancti corporis sanguinis (que) 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 In Luc. 22. Pro agni carne vel sanguine suae carnis sanguinis (que) Sacramentum in panis & vini figurâ substituens, ipsum se esle monstraret, cui juravit Dominus, Tu es sacerdos in aeternum secundùm Ordinem Melchisedec., Christ instead of the Flesh or Blood of a Lamb, substituting the Sacrament in the Figure of Bread and Wine, showed that it was he, to whom the Lord sware, Thou art a Priest for ever after the O [...] of Melchisedeck.

The words of the Ambrosian Office are very remarkable, as they are set down by the Author of the Book of Sacra­ments under his name, where he asks this Question.

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.

[Page 110]Lastly, The Fathers call the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist, the Image of Christs Body.

Eusebius 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 Tract. de duabus Naturis. Certè Imago & Similitudo cor­poris & sanguinis Christi in actione mysteriorum celebran­tur. Satis ergo nobis eviden­ter ostenditur, hoc nobis in ipso Christo Domino sentien­dum, quod in ejus imagine profitemur, celebramus & sumimus, &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 Comm. in 49 Genes. expounding these words spoke [...] [...] Juda, His Eyes shall be red with Wine, and his Teeth [...] Milk (Gen. 49.12.) he applies it to the Eucharis [...] [...] gladness which is obtain'd by the [...] first tasted, and had his Disciples take and [...] Milk may signify the purity [...] food, [...] for he gave the [...]ge of his [...] his Disciples, no longer requiring the bl [...]dy [...] of the Law, and by the white teeth be denoted the purity of the Bready by which y [...] are nourished.

Author Dialog. adv. Marcionitas inter opera Ori­ginis 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. 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 [Page 111]Flesh should be made a Divine Body, being sanctifi­ed by the coming of the Holy Ghest, 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 Cont. Marcion. l. 2, c. 9. Imago veritati non usquequa (que) adaequabitur, aliud enim est se­cundùm veritatem esse, aliud ipsam veritatem esse.. The Image cannot be every ways adequate to the Truth; for it is one thing to be ac­cording to Truth, another to be the Truth it self.

Athanasius Contr. Hypocr. Milet. [...].That which is like to another is not that thing it self to which it is like.

Hilary De Synodis. Ne (que) enim sibi ipsi quisquam imago est.. Neither is any one an Image of him­self.

S. Ambrose De fide l. 1. cap. 4. Ne­mo potest sibi ipsi imago fuisse.. None can ever have been an Image of Himself.

Gr. Nyssen 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 De Trinit. l. 7. c. 1. Quid absurdius quàm Imaginem ad se dici?. What can be more absurd, than to be called an Image with respect to ones self.

Gaudentius In Exod. tract. 2. Figura non est veritas, sed imitatio veritatis.. A Figure is not the Truth, but an imitation of the Truth.

Theodoret In Dan. l. 2. c. 2. [...].. An Image has the Figures and lines, not the things themselves.

Cyril of Alexand. In Amos. cap. 6. [...].. A Type is not the Truth, but rather imports the similitude of the Truth.

Bertram De corp. & sang. Domini. Pignus & Imago alterius rei sunt, id est, non ad se, sed ad aliud aspiciuu [...]. A pledge and an Image are of ano­ther thing; that is, they do not look to themselves, but to something else.

[Page 112]This Epiphanius the Deacon 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 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. Chrysostem 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 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 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 In Cant. Hom. 15. [...].. The Original is plainly seen in the likeness of it.

Hilary 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.

[Page 113]Which plainly confutes those mens fancies in the Church of Rome 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 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, Lib. de carne Christi c. 11. Nemo ostendere volens homi­nem, cassidem ant personam introducit. No one that intends to show a man, brings in a Helmet, or a Vizard. Which, we know, hide him from our sight.

Irenaeus 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 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 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 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 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 In 1 Cor. 11.26. [...].. After his coming there will be no 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.

[Page 114]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 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, 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 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.’

‘We see how vast a difference there is between the mystery of Christs Body and Blood which the faithful now receive in the Church, P. 117.and that Body which was born of the Virgin Mary, which suffered, 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 Refurrection, &c.’

[Page 115]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.

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 De Eucharist. Sacram. adv. Berengar.; which because the Nubes Testi­um (tho' it has set down two other. Forms) durst not give us, I will therefore here tran­scribe out of him.

I Berengarius, Ego Berengarius indignus Diaconus Ecclesiae S. Mauritii Andegavensis, cognoscens ve­ram Catholicam & Apostoli­cam Fidem, anathematizo om­nem Haeresin, praecipue eam de quâ hactenus infamatus sum; quae astruere conatur panem & vinum quae in altari ponun­tur, post consecrationem so­lummodo Sacramentum, & non verum corpus & sanguinem Dom. nostri Jesu Christi esse; nec posse sensualiter, nisi in solo Sacramento, manibus Sa­cerdotum tractari, vel frangi, aut fidelium dentibus atteri. Consentio autem S. Romanae Ecclesiae & Apostolicae sedi, & ore & corde profiteor de Sacramentis Dominicae mensae, eam fidem tenere, quam Do­minus & Venerabilis Papa Ni­cholaus & haee 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 aeterno anathe­mate dignos esse pronuncio, &c. unworthy Deacon, &c. know­ing the true Catholick and Apostolick Faith, do anathematize all Heresie, especially that for which I have hitherto been defamed; which endeavours to maintain, that the Bread and Wine placed on the Altar, after Consecration, are only a Sacrament (or Sign), and not the true Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ; and cannot, save only in the Sign, be handled or broken by the Priest's Hands, or be ground by the Teeth of the Faithful. But I agree with the Holy Roman Church, and the Apo­stolick Seat, and do with my Mouth, and from my Heart profess, That I hold the same Faith concern­ing the Sacraments of the Lords Table, which our Lord and Venerable Pope Nicholas and this Holy Synod, by Evangelical and Apostolical Authority, has delivered to me to hold, and confirmed to me, [Page 117]viz. That the Bread and Wine which are placed on the Altar, after Consecration, are not only a Sacra­ment, but also the true Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, and is sensibly, not only in the Sign and Sacrament, but in truth, handled and broken by the Priests Hands, and ground by the Teeth of the Faithful: Swearing this by the Holy and Co-essen­tial Trinity, and by the most Holy Gospels of Christ. And as for those that oppose this Faith, I judge them, with their Opinions and Followers, worthy of an eternal Anathema, &c.

This we may look upon as the Belief of that Church then, and this to be the manner of eating the Body of Christ: since, as Bellarmine well obferves De Sacr-Euchar. l. 3. c. 21. Nec coguntur ulli abjurare & anathematizare sententias du­bias, sed eas tantùm quae dam­nantur ab Ecclesia, tanquam haereses exploratae., None are compelled to abjure and anathematize du­bious Opinions, but only such as are condemned by the Church as known Heresies.

But however Infallible this Pope and that Ge­neral Council were, this way of eating Christ's Body, by tearing it with the Teeth, was quickly opposed, (as a late Learned Preface to the Determination of Joh. Parisiensis shews at large.)

Peter Lombard could not digest it Sentent. lib. 4. dist. 12, Fractio & partes quae ibi vi­dentur fieri, in Sacramento fiunt, i. e. in visibili specie. Ideoque illa Berengarii verba ita distinguenda sunt, ut sensu­aliter, non modo in Sacra­mento, sed in veritate dicatur corpus Christi tractari mani­bus Sacerdotum: Frangi verò & atteri dentibus, verè quidem sed in Sacramento tantum.. For tho' the Pope and Council defined, That both the handling, and also the breaking and tearing with the Teeth of Christ's Body, were not only in the Sign and Sacrament, but in Truth per­formed; he makes a distinction, and in ex­press words (cited in the Margin) says, That Christ's Body is handled indeed, not only in Sacrament, but in Truth; but that it is broken and torn with the Teeth truly indeed, but yet on­ly in Sacrament. That is, in the visible Species, as he before explains that Phrase. Directly con­trary to Berengarius's Recantation.

[Page 118]The words also of Job. Semeca, the Author of the Gloss upon the Canon-Law Gloss. apud Gratian. de Consecr. Dist. 2. c Ego Berengarius. Nisi sanè intelligas verba Be­rengarii in majorem incides Haeresin quam ipse habuit; & ideo omnia referas ad species ipsas; nam de Christi corpore partes non facimus., are very bold against it. Unless you understand the words of Berengarius in a sound sense, (and there can be no other, the words are so plain, but what must contradict it) you will fall into a greater Heresie than he was guilty of; and therefore you must refer all to the Species, (that's directly con­trary to the Pope and Council) for we do not make Parts of Christ's Body.

In fine, all the great Writers, especially the Jesuits, have forsaken this Definition, as not to be maintained, and this Eating in the most proper sense is wholly dis­carded; and we are told De Sacr. Euchar. l. 1. c. 11. Ad rationem manducationis, non est necessaria attritio, sed satis est sumptio, & transmissio ab ore ad stomachum per in­strumenta humana & naturalia, i. e. linguam & palatum. by Bellarmine, That grinding with the Teeth is not necessarily required to Eating; but it suffices that it be taken in, and transmitted from the Mouth into the Sto­mach by humane and natural Instruments, viz. the Tongue and Palate.

This way, in plainer terms, is swallowing the Body of Christ without chewing. And indeed without this Descent of it into the Body, there could no Account be given of that Prayer in the Roman Missal Corpus tuum, Domine, quod sumpsi, & sanguis quem potavi, adhaereat visceribus meis.: Lord, let thy Body which I have taken, and thy Blood which I have drunk, cleave unto my Entrals.

They have also determined how long this Sacred Body makes its stay there. Aquinas (whom they all now follow) says In 3. part. quaest. 76 art. 6. ad 3. Corpus Christi rema­net in hoc Sacramento, quous­que species sacramentales ma­nent. Quibus cessantibus desi­nit esse corpus Christi sub eis., The Body of Christ remains in this Sacrament, so long as the Sacramental Species remain: When they cease to be, the Body of Christ ceases to be under them.

Thus also Domin. Soto In 4. dist. 12. qu. 1. art. 3. Est indubiè tenendum quod corpus (sc. Christi) descendit in stomachum. — Cùm dige­stio fiat in stomacho illic desi­nunt esse species, atque adeo corpus, quare non descendit in ventrem.. We ought undoubt­edly to hold, That Christ's Body descends into the Stomach. — Since Digestion is made in the Sto­mach, there the Species cease to be, and so also Christ's Body, and therefore will not descend into the Draught.

[Page 119]But now comes a scurvy Case, that will force out the whole Truth. Suppose, by reason of any Disease, the Spe­cies should descend further than the Stomach; as in a Flux, when there is no Digestion of the Species, nor time to do it in the Stomach, but they are presently carried downward whole, or else brought up immediately, as in case of sudden Vomiting. This also is resolved by the same Principles. So the last-named Author Soto ibid. Sed si ob ali­quem morbum species descen­derent, consequenter & ipsum corpus descenderet & emittere­tur. Pudor enim non debet esse in causa negandi veritatem.. If by reason of any Disease the Species should descend, (into the Draught, he means) the Body also it self would descend and be sent forth. For Shame ought not to be a Reason for denying the Truth.

To which S. Antoninus Part. 3. tit. 13. cap. 6. sect. 3. Igitur corpus Christi & sanguis tamdiu manet in ventre & stomacho vel vomitu & quo­cunque alibi, quamdiu species manent, sicut substantia conver­sa mansisset. Et si species incor­ruptae evomuntur, vel egrediun­tur, est ibi vere corpus Christi. agrees, (citing Paludanus in the case.) Therefore the Body and Blood of Christ remains so long in the Belly and Stomach, or Vomit, or any where else, as the Spe­cies remain, just as the converted Substance (viz. Bread and Wine) would have remained. And if the Species are vomited up whole, or go forth (downwards) there is truly the Body of Christ.

And he tells us of S. Hugo Cluniac. how he commended one Goderanus, who (by a strange fervor) swallowed down the Particles of an Host, which a Leper had vomited up with vile Spittle, saying, That S. Laurence his Gridiron was more tolerable.

If these Consequences seem horrid and detestable to the Reader, the Doctrine, from which they necessarily flow, ought to be look'd upon much more so.

But now, to return to the Fathers, and their Sense of Eat­ing the Body of Christ.

It is evident to any that will impartially consult their Writings, that they were perfect Strangers to all these Cases that are thus currently resolved in the Roman Church.

That Christ's Natural Body should enter into ours, is too gross and carnal a Thought, to be attributed to them; and fits only the Imaginations of a Carnal Church, and of those Capernaites, who in the Sixth of S. John ask, How can this Man give us his Flesh to eat?

Christ tells them, That the Words he spoke to them were Spirit and Life. And so the Fathers always understood the [Page 120] eating of Christ's Body and drinking his Blood, not in a literal and proper, but in a figurative and spiritual Sense; as I shall now prove from their Writings. Wherein it may not be amiss to take notice, first, What their Sense is about understanding things carnally and spiritually.

S. Chrysostome Hom. 46. in Joan. [...]. asking this Question, What is it to think (or understand) carnally? He an­swers, Simply to look upon the things proposed, and to think of no more.—But we ought to view all Mysteries with our inward Eyes: for this is spi­ritually to view them.

S. Austin De Doctr. Christ. l. 3. c. 5. Cùm figuratè dictum sic acci­pitur, tanquam proprie dictum sit, carnaliter sapitur. gives the same account. We have a carnal Taste, when we take that which is figuratively spoken, as if it were properly spoken.

And elsewhere Serm. 44. de diversis. Omnis figurata & allegorica le­ctio vellocutio, aliud videtur so­nare carnaliter, aliud insinuare spiritualiter.. Every figurative and al­legorical Reading or Speech, seems to sound one thing carnally, and to insinuate another thing spiritually.

S. Austin De Doctr. Christ l. 3. c. 16. Si praecepriva est locutio, aut flagitium aut facinus yetans, aut beneficentiam jubens, non est figurata. Si autem flagitium aut facinus videtur jubere, aut utilitatem aut beneficentiam vetare, figurata est. Nisi man­ducaveritis carnem filii hominis, &c. facinus vel flagitium vide­tur jubere: Figura ergo est, praecipiens passioni Domini esse communicandum, & suaviter atque utiliter in memoria con­dendum, quod caro ejus pronobis crucifixa & vulnerata est. further gives a Rule when to understand a thing literally, and when to un­derstand it figuratively and spiritually. If the Speech be by way of command, either forbidding a Crime or heinous Wickedness, or bidding a benefi­cial or good thing to be done, it is not figurative: But if it seems to command a Crime or heinous Wickedness, or forbid an useful and beneficial thing, it is figurative. And then he gives the Example of his Rule, in those words of Christ, Except ye eat the Flesh and drink the Blood of the Son of Man, ye have no Life in you. Now this, says he, seems to command a Crime or horrid thing; therefore it is a Figure, commanding us to commu­nicate in the Passion of our Lord, and sweetly and profitably to treasure up in our Memory, that his Flesh was crucified and wound­ed for us.

Origen said the very same before him Hom. 7. in Levitic. non solùm in Veteri Testamento oc­cidens Litera deprehenditur, est & in N. Testamento Litera quae occidit cum qui non spi­ritualiter quae dicuntur adver­terit. Si enim secundùm lite­ram sequaris hoc ipsum quod dictum est, Nisi manducaveritis carnem meam, & biberitis sanguinem meum, occidit haec litera., and gives the same Instance. Not only in the Old Testament is found the killing Letter; there is also in the New Testament a Letter that kills him who do's not spiritually consider what is said. For [Page 121]if thou follow this according to the Letter which was said, Unless ye eat my Flesh and drink my Blood, this Letter kills.

And in another place In Joan. Tom. 10. [...], &c. — [...].. We are not to eat the Flesh of the Lamb, as the Slaves of the Letter do, &c. To which he opposes those who re­ceive the Spirituals of the Word.

Such as those whom S. Austin mentions In Joan. tract. 26. Quia visibilem cibum spiritaliter in­tellexerunt, spiritaliter esurie­runt, spiritaliter gustaverunt, ut spiritaliter satiarentur., who pleased God and died not (i. e. eternally). Because they understood the visible Food (Manna) spiritually, they hungred spiritually, they tasted spiritually, that they might spiritually be satisfied.

Or, as he expresses it a little after Ibid. Qui manducat in­tus non foris, qui manducat in corde, non qui premit dente., He that eats inwardly, not outwardly; that eats in his Heart, not he that presseth it with his Teeth. And therefore elsewhere Serm. 33. de Verb. Dom. Nolite parare fauces, sed cor. exhorts them, Do not pre­pare your Jaws, but your Heart.

This is what Clemens Alexandr. Strom. l. 1. [...]. requires, when he says, That Christ, when he broke the Bread, set it before them, that we may eat it rati­onally, i. e. spiritually.

So S. Austin again De Verb. Apost. Serm. 2. Tunc vita unicuique erit cor­pus & sanguis Christi, si quod in sacramento visibiliter sumi­tur, in ipsa veritate spirituali­ter manducetur, spiritualiter bibatur.. The Body and Blood of Christ will then be Life to every one, if what is visibly taken in the Sacrament, be in truth spiritu­ally eaten and spiritually drunk. Where he makes this to be eating in Truth, and the other but Sa­cramental.

So Macarius Homil. 27. having called the Bread and Wine the Antitype of Christ's Flesh and Blood, he adds, — [...]. They which are Partakers of the visible Bread, do spiritually eat the Flesh of the Lord. He should rather have said orally, ac­cording to the Doctrine of our Adversaries.

S. Athanasius Tract. in illud Evang. Quicunque dixerit verbum con­tra filium hominis. expounding those words, What if ye see the Son of Man ascending where be was before? It is the Spirit that quickneth, the Flesh profiteth nothing, &c. adds, — [...]. He affirmed both of himself, the Flesh and Spirit, and made a diffe­rence [Page 122]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 De Resurr. c. 37. Quia & sermo caro erat factus, pro­inde in causam vitae appeten­dus, & devorandus auditu, & ruminandus intellectu, & fide digerendus. Advice. Since the Word was made Flesh, he is to be long'd for that we may live, to be devoured by Hearing; to be chewed by Under­standing, and digested by Faith.

It is an excellent Comment on this, which Euebius gives us Lib. 3. Eccl. Theol. c. 12. [...].— [...]. upon those words of John 6. The Flesh profits nothing, &c. Do not imagine that I speak of that Flesh I am encompassed withal, as if you must eat that; nor think that I command you to drink sensible and corporeal Blood: But know, that the very Words that I have spoken to you are Spirit and Life. So that these very Words and Speeches of his, are his Flesh and Blood; where­of whoso is always Partaker, being nourished as it were with beavenly Bread, shall be a Partaker of heavenly Life.—Let not the hasty hearing of those things by me,— [...].of Flesh and Blood, trouble you; for things senfibly heard profit nothing, but it is the Spirit that quickneth them that can spiritually hear them.

S. Basil [...]. 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. 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 [Page 123]then understnad it. For, says he, Quod si mysterium intellexis­set, hoc potius diceret, Domine, cur abeamus non est, cum cre­damus nos corporis & sanguinis tui fide salvandos. if he had understood the Mystery, he should rather have said, Lord, there is no reason we should go away, fince we believe we shall be saved by Faith in thy Body and Blood. He means his Death and Passion, which is his Sense of eating Christ's Body and Blood.

Theodorus Heracleot. 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 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 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 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 Prolog. in Cantic. Est materialis hujus hominis, qui & exterior appellatur, cibus potusque naturae suae cognatus, corporeus iste, sc. & terrenus. Similiter autem & spiritualis hominis ipsius, qui & interior dicitur, est proprius cibus, ut panis ille vivus qui de caelo de­scendit, &c. — Rerum vero proprietas unicuique discreta servatur, & corruptibili cor­ruptibilia praebentur, incorrup­tibili verò incorruptibilia pro­ponuntur. words (for I see no good reason to question they are his) are enough to con­vince effectually all such carnal Jews and Chri­stians. There is a Meat and Drink for this ma­terial and outward Man, as we call him, agree­able to his Nature, viz. this corporeal and earthly Food. There is likewise a proper Food for the [Page 124]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 Hom. 1. in Cantie. [...], &c. also well expresses it thus. There is an Analogy betwixt the Motions and Operations of the Soul and the Senses of the Body, &c.

—Wine and Milk are judged of by the Taste; — [...].but these being intellectual, the Power of the Soul that apprehends them must be altogether intel­lectual.

S. Chrysostom Homil. 26. in Matth.— [...]. said well, That Christ gave himself to us for a spiritual Feast and Banquet.

And Procopius Gazaeus 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 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 Tract. 26. in Evang. Joan. Non ad Christum ambulando currimus, sed credeudo: nec motu corporis, sed voluntate cordis accedimus. —Sic se tangi voluit, sic tan­gitur ab eis à quibus benè tan­gitur, ascendens ad patrem, ma­nens cum patre, aequalis patri., We run to Christ, not by walking, but by believing; nor do we approach him by the Motion of our Bodies, but by the Will of our Hearts.

And afterwards.—Thus he would be touched, and thus he is touched by all that rightly touch him, ascending to the Father, remaining with the Father, equal to the Fath. r.

And in the next Tractate Idem Tract. 27. in Joan. Quid est hoc? Hinc solvit illud quod non noverant— Illi e­nim putabant eum erogaturum corpus suum, ille autem dixit, se ascensurum in coelum, utique integrum. Cùm videritis fili­um hominis ascendentem ubi crat priùs, certè vel tunc vide­bitis quia non co modo quo putatis erogat corpus suum, cer­tè vel tunc intelligetis, quia gratia ejus non consumitur morsibus. upon those words, What if ye see the Son of Man ascend, &c. What do's this mean? He hence resolves that which they did not know—For they imagined, that he would bestow his Body upon them; and he told them, that he would ascend into Heaven en­tire and whole. When you shall see the Son of Man ascending where he was before, then surely you will see, that be do's not bestow his. Body after [Page 125]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 Contr. Eutych. l. 4. Cre­dere in filium Dei, hoc est vi­dere, hoc est audire, hoc est odorari, hoc est gustare, hoc est contrectare eum. therefore said well: To believe on the Son of God, this is to see him, this is to bear him, this is to smell, this is to taste him, and this is to handle him.

These Testimonies, one would think, are sufficient to tell us the Sense of the Fathers in this Matter; yet, with the Reader's leave, I will add a few Considerations more, to put it out of all doubt.

THIS Assertion, being a necessary consequence of the foregoing one, will make my work the shorter for its proof.

What the Church of Rome holds in this matter, cannot be questioned. The Trent Catechism speaking of such a Per­son that makes no distinction betwixt the Sacrament and other common food, expresses it thus Catechis. ad Paroch. Part. 2. n. 27. — Qui impurè su­mens corpus Domini, quod in Eucharistia occultè later —. — Who impurely taking the Body of the Lord, which lies hid in the Eucharist — there it is hid, they mean, under the species, and the wicked take it.

Therefore Dom. Soto (who was one of the Council of Trent) says In 4. dist. 12. qu. 1. art. 3. —Est indubiè tenendum quòd corpus (sc. Christi) descendit in Stomachum, etiamsi ab ini­quo sumatur.; We must undoubtedly hold, that the Body of Christ descends into the sto­mach, tho' a wicked man takes it.

So Aquinas Part. 3. quaest. 80. art. 3. conclus. Cùm corpus Christi in Sacramento semper permaneat, donec species Sacramentales corrumpantur, etiam injustos homines Christi corpus mandu­care consequitur.. Seeing the Body of Christ al­ways remains in the Sacrament, till the Sacramen­tal Species are corrupted, it follows, that even wicked men do eat the Body of Christ.

Alensis Part. 4. Qu. 11. memb. 2. art. 2. sec. 2. taking notice of the opinion of some that thought that as soon as the Body of Christ was touched by a Sinners lips, — Illud sentire erroneum est & manifestè contra sanctos: & ideo communiter tenetur quod in hoc non est differentia inter justum & injustum, quia uter (que) ipsum verum corpus Christi sumit in Sacramento, &c. — Unde concedendum, quod mali sumunt rem Sacra­menti, quod est corpus Christi verum, quod natum est de Vir­gine, &c. it with­drew it self, says, This is an errour, and mani­festly against the Saints; and therefore it is held commonly, that in this there is no difference betwixt the just and unjust, for both of them receive the very Body of Christ in the Sacrament.

And a little after. It must be granted, that the wicked receive the thing which the Sacrament is a sign of, which is Christs true Body, born of the Virgin, &c.

[Page 132]This ought not to seem a strange Doctrine to be held by those, who say that brute Creatures may devour Christs Bo­dy. Which is the current opinion.

So Aquinas Loc. citat. ad Tertium. Di­cendum, quod etiamsi mus vel canis hostiam consecratam manducet, substantia corporis Christi non definit esse sub spe­ciebus, quamdiu species illae ma­nent.. We must say, that altho' a Mouse or a Dog should eat a consecated Host, yet the sub­stance of Christs Body do's not cease to be under the species, so long as the species remain.

Alensis Ibid. sec. 1. loco citat. Si canis vel porcus deglutiret ho­stiam consecratam integram, non video quare vel quomodo Corpus Domini non simul cum specie trajiceretur in ventrem canis vel porci. is as positive and more plain. If a Dog or a Hog should swallow a whole consecra­ted Host, I see not why nor how the Body of our Lord would not, together with the Species, be con­veyed into the Belly of that Dog or Hog.

It is also remarkable, that among three Ar­ticles which P. Gregory XI. an. 1371. prohibi­ted to be taught See Pref. to the determ. of Jo. Paris. p. 32. Si hostia consecrata à mure corrodatur, seu à bruto sumitur, quod re­manentibus speciebus, sub iis definit esse Corpus Christi, & redit substantia Panis. under pain of Excommu­nication (which was also repeated by P. Cle­ment VI.) one of them was this. If a Consecra­ted Host should be gnawed by a Mouse, or taken by a Brute, that then the species remaining, the Body of Christ ceases to be under them, and the substance of the Bread returns.

This he would not let pass for good Divinity.

Nor can it at this Day, when this is one of the Cautions to be observed in the Celebrating of the Mass.

De Defect. Missae, sec. 10. n. 5. ante Missal. Roman. Si post confecrationem ceciderit musca, aut aliquid ejusmodi, & fiat nausea Sacerdoti, extra­hat eam & lavet cum vino, fi­nitâ Missa comburat, & combu­stio ac lotio hujusmodi in Sacra­rium projiciatur. Si autem non fuerit nausea, nec ullum periculum timeat, sumat cum sanguine. That if a Fly, or any such animal fall into. the Chalice after Consecration, if the Priest nauseats it, then he must take it out and wash it with Wine, and burn it when Mass is ended, and the ashes and the wash be thrown into the H. Repository. But if he do not nauseate to swallow it, nor fears any danger, let him take it down with the Blood.

What is all this for, but to tell us, that they look upon it still to be Christs Blood, and that its better it should be in the Belly of a Priest than of a Brute?

So also they give us another Case. Ibid. n. 14. Si Sacerdos evomat Eucharistiam, si species integrae appareant, reverenter sumantur, nisi nausea fiat: tunc enim species consecratae cautè separentur, & in aliquo loco sa­cro reponantur, donec corrum­pantur, &c. If a Priest should vomit up the Eucharist, and the species appear entire, they must be taken down reverently, unless nauseated; but in that case the Consecrated [Page 133]Species must be cautiously separated, and put in some H. Place, till they are corrupted, &c.

But I beg the Readers Pardon for presenting him with such nauseous stuff; God grant that they who thus unwor­thily represent their Saviour, may have grace to repent, that the thoughts of their hearts may be forgiven them.

As for the Fathers, if by their plain words we can under­stand their sense, they assert, that only the Faithful, and not the wicked, eat the Body of Christ, and drink his Blood in a proper sense

S. Jerome In Oseam c. 8.—Cu­jus caro cibus credentium est. calls the Flesh of Christ the food of Believers.

And Isidore of Sevil In Genes. c. 31. —Caro ejus qui est esca Sanctorum. Quam si quis manducaverit, non mo­rietur in aeternum. that it is the meat of the Saints. And he adds (which makes it their food, and of none else) which if any one eat, he shall not die eternally. They therefore often call it the Bread of Life, and Life it self.

S. Ambrose In Psal. 118. Serm. 18. Hic est panis vitae: qui mandu­cat vitam mori non potest; quo­modo enim morietur, cui cibus vita est?. This is the Bread of Life: he that eateth Life cannot die; for how should he die whose Food is Life?

S. Austin says the same Serm. de verb. Evangel. apud Bedam in 1 Cor. 10. Quando Christus manducatur; vita man­ducatur — quando manducatur reficit.. When Christ is ea­ten, Life is eaten. — When he is eaten he refreshes.

Again in another place Serm. 44. de Diversis. Filii Ecclesiae habent à rore coeli & fertilitate terrae, &c. — à fertilitate terrae om­nia visibilia Sacramenta. Visibi­le enim Sacramentum ad ter­ram pertinet. Haec omnia com­munia habent in Ecclesia boni & mali. Nam & ipsi habent, & participant Sacramentis, & quod norunt fideles à tritico & vino. distinguishing the Portion of Saints and Sinners, he makes the true Sons of the Church to partake both of the Dew of Heaven, and the fatness of the Earth. This fat­ness of the Earth he explains to be all visible Sa­craments, for they pertain to the Earth. All these, he says, the good and bad in the Church have in common. For the bad have and partake of the Sa­craments, and what the Faithful know made of Bread-Corn, and Wine.

If then the visible Sacrament, and that which has its ori­ginal from Earth, be all that evil men partake of, to be sure they have nothing to do with Christ, the Heavenly Bread, or his Body, which (to use his Phrase) do's not pertain to Earth at all, but is a Divine Food.

Which none has more admirably and fully spoke to than [Page 134] Origen In Matth. c. 15. v. 15. p. 253. Ed. Huet. [...].. Who having said a great deal about Christs Typical and Symbolical Body (which S. Austin called before the visible Sacrament) he goes on thus. Many things also might be said concerning that word which was made Flesh, and the true Food, which whosoever eats shall surely live for ever, no wicked Man being capable of eating it. For if it were possible, that a wicked man, continu­ing such, should eat him that was made Flesh, seeing he is the Word, and the living Bread, it would not have been written, That whosoever eats this Bread shall live for ever.

This is that which Macarius Homil. 14. discourses of so largely and piously. Telling us, that as a great rich Man, having both Servants and Sons, gives one sort of meat to the Servants, — [...]— [...]—and another to the Sons that he begot, who being Heirs to their Father, do eat with him.—So, says he, Christ the true Lord, himself created all, and nourishes the evil and unthankful; but the Children begotten by him, who are partakers of his grace, and in whom the Lord is formed; — [...], &c.he feeds them with a peculiar refection, and Food, and Meat and Drink, above and besides other men, and gives himself to them that have Conversation with their Father, as the Lord says, He that eateth my Flesh, and drinketh my Blood, abides in me, and I in him, and shall not see death.

With whom S. Jerome In c. 66. Esaiae. Dum non sunt sancti corpore & spi­ritu, nec comedunt carnem Je­su, ne (que) bibunt sanguinem e­jus, de quo ipse loquitur; Qui comedit carnem meam & bibit sanguinem meum, habet vitam ae­ternam. agrees, speaking of voluptuous men; Not being holy in Body and Spirit, they neither eat the Flesh of Jesus, nor drink his Blood; concerning which he says; He that eat­eth my Flesh, and drinketh my Blood, hath Eternal Life.

S. Austin also Contra Donatist. post col­lat. c. 6. De ipso pane & de ip­sa Dominica manu, & Judas par­tem & Petrus accepit. says. Of that Bread, and from our Lords own Hand, both Judas and Peter took a part.

But then he Tract. 59. in Joan. E­vang. Illi manducabant Panem Dominum, ille Panem Domini con­tra Dominum, illi vitam, ille poenam. makes the distinction him­self, that Judas received only the Bread of the Lord, when the other Disciples receiv'd the [Page 135] Bread that was the Lord. Which is directly contrary to Tran­substantiation; for according to that, even such a one as Judas, must eat the Lord, and no Bread, when this Father says, that he ate the Bread and no Lord.

Neither is S. Austin singular in this Phrase of the Bread of the Lord, to signifie the real substance of that Element that is eaten in the Sacrament, and not the proper Body of Christ.

For so S. Jerome uses it In Jerem. c. 31. Conflu­ent ad bona Domini super fru­mento, de quo conficitur Panis. Domini.. When he speaks of Corn, of which the Bread of the Lord is made.

It is also very observable, that as the Council of Trent (as we heard before) makes eating Christ Sacramentally and re­ally to be the same, and spiritual eating to be of another sort, not real, but one would think, rather imaginary. On the quite contrary, the Fathers distinguish the sacramental eating from the real, and make the spiritual and real eating to be the same; and they will grant that a bad Man may eat Christ Sacramentally (that is, in sign) but not really; for so none but the faithful can do it.

For thus S. Austin Serm. 2. de verb. Apost. Tunc autem hoc erit, id est, Vita unicui (que) erit Corpus & sanguis Christi, si, quod in Sa­cramento visibiliter sumitur, in ipsa veritate spiritualiter man­ducetur, spiritualiter biba­tur.. Then will this be, that is, the Body and Blood of Christ will be Life to every one, if that which is visibly taken in the Sacrament, be in the Truth it self spiritually eaten, and spiritu­ally drank.

Which in another place Tract. 26. in Joan. Quod pertinet ad virtutem Sacramen­ti, non quod pertinet ad visi­bile Sacramentum. he expresses by the visible Sacrament, and the virtue of the Sa­crament.

Again most expresly De Civit. Dei. l. 21. c. 25. Ipse dicens, qui mandacat car­nem meam & bibit sanguinem meum in me manet & ego in eo, ostendit quid sit, non Sacra­mento. tenus, sed revera Corpus Christi manducare & sangui­nem ejus bibere.. Christ saying, He that eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him, shows what it is, not sacramentally, but really and in truth, to eat Christs Body, and drink his Blood.

And therefore in the same Chapter Ibid. Ne (que) enim isti di­cendi sunt manducare Corpus Christi, quoniam nec in mem­bris computandi sunt Christi. speak­ing of wicked men, he says. Neither can they be said to eat the Body of Christ, since they are not to be accounted Christs Members.

S. Austin again distinguishes the Sacramentum rei (the Sacrament of the thing) from the res Sacramenti, the thing of which it is a Sacrament. [Page 136] Tract. 26. in Joan. Hu­jus rei Sacramentum — in Do­minica Mensa praeparatur & de Dominica Mensa sumitur, qui­busdam ad vitam; quibusdam ad exitium. Res vero ipsa cujus & Sa­cramentum est, omni homini ad vitam, nulli ad exitium qui­cun (que) ejus particeps fuerit. The Sacrament of this thing — is prepared on the Lords Table, and received from the Lords Table, to some to Life, and to others to destruction. But the thing it self of which it is a Sacrament, is for Life to every one that partakes of it, and to none for destruction.

For as S. Chrysostom Catena in Joh. 6.49. [...]. phrases it, He that re­ceives this Bread, will be above dying?

I will conclude this Chapter with two remarkable places of St. Austin.

The first is cited by Prosper Lib. Sentent. ex August. sententia (mihi) 341. vel 339. Escam vitae accipit & aeternita­tis poculum bibit, qui in Christo manet & cujus Christus habita­tor est. Nam qui discordat à Christo, nec carnem ejus man­ducat, nec sanguinem bibit; etiamsi tantae rei Sacramentum ad judicium suae praesumptionis quotidiè indifferenter accipiat. who has ga­thered S. Austin's Sentences. He receives the food of life, and drinks the Cup of Eternity, who abides in Christ, and in whom Christ inhabits. For he that disagrees with Christ, neither eats his Flesh nor drinks his Blood; altho' he takes indifferently every day the Sacrament of so great a thing to the Condemnation of his presumption.

The other place is, upon the sixth Chapter of S. John Tract. 27. in Joan. in ini­tio. Exposuit (Christus) modum attributionis hujus & doni sui, quomodo daret carnem suam manducare, dicens, Qui man­ducat carnem meam, & bibit san­guinem meum, in me manet & ego in illo. Signum quia manducat & bibit, hoc est, si manet & manetur, si habitat & inhabi­tatur, si haeret ut non desera­tur.. Christ, says he, expounded the manner of his assignment and gift, how he gave his Flesh to eat, saying, He that eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood, dwelleth in me and I in him. The sign that he eateth and drinketh is this, if he abides in Christ and Christ in him, if he dwells in him and is inhabited by him, if he cleaves to him so as not to be forsaken by him.

And he concludes with this Exhortation Ibid. propè finem. Hoc ergo totum ad hoc nobis valeat, dilectissimi, ut carnem Christi & sanguinem Christi non eda­mus tantum in Sacramento, quod & multi mali; sed us (que) ad Spiritus participationem manducemus & bibamus, ut in Domini corpore tanquam mem­bra maneamus, ut ejus spiritu vegetemur, &c.. Let all that has been said, Beloved, prevail thus far with us, that we may not eat Christs Flesh and Blood in Sacrament (or sign) only, but may eat and drink as far as to the participation of the Spi­rit, that we may remain as Members in our Lords Body, that we may be enlivened by his spirit, &c.

IT is possible this Argument may have as good an effect to open Mens Eyes, as any I have urged before, tho', I think, I have urged very cogent ones. For tho' some Men have a Faculty eternally to wrangle about the Words and Sayings of others, and to shift off an Argument of that kind, yet they cannot so easily get rid of an Objection from Matter of Fact, and a plain Practice. I shall therefore try, by several Instan­ces of Usages and Forbearances, in the cases above-named, whether we may not see as clearly as if we had a Window into their Breasts, that the Ancient Church, and the present Church of Rome, were of different Minds and Opinions in this Matter.

1. Instance.

It was a part of the Discipline of the Ancient Church, to ex­clude the uninitiated, (Catechumens) the Energumeni, (acted by evil Spirits) and Penitents, from being present at the Mysteries, and to enjoin all that were present to communicate.

It is so known a Case, that the Deacons in the Churches cried aloud to bid such depart, as I before named, when they went to the Prayers of the Mass, (which was so called from this dismission of Catechumens, Penitents, &c.) that I [Page 138]shall not stay to prove it. (See the Constitutions attributed to Clemens, l. 8. cap. 6, 7, 9, 12. and S. Chrysostom, Hom. 3. in Ep. ad Ephes.)

By the same Laws of the Church, those that remained, after the exclusion of the rest, were all to communicate; whom the Author of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, under the name of Dionysius the Areopagite Hurarch. Eccles. c. 3. [...]. calls, Persons worthy to behold the Divine Mysteries, and to communicate.

For this (because it is not so universally acknowledged as the former) I shall refer the Reader to the Second Canon of the Council of Antioch Can. 2. Concil. Antioch. — [...], &c., which says, That they which enter into the Church of God, and hear the Holy Scriptures, and do not communicate in Prayers with the People, or turn away from receiv­ing the Eucharist through any disorderliness, are to be cast out of the Church, till they confess their Sin and repent, &c.

Which is the same in sense with that Canon Canon. Apostol. 9. [...]. which is very ancient, (tho' not Apostolical, as it pretends) That all the Faithful that enter, and hear the Scriptures, and do not continue at Prayer, and also at the Holy Communion, are to be separa­ted, as those that bring disorder into the Church.

S. Chrysostom discharges a great deal of his Zeal as well as Eloquence, against those Persons that were present at the Eucharist, and did not communicate Chrysost. Hom. 3. in Ep. ad Ephes. [...].—In vain, he tells them, do's the Priest stand at the Altar when none participates; in vain is the daily Sacrifice.—He minds them, that the Cryer had said indeed, — [...]. That those that were in penitence (or penance) should depart—but thou, says he, art not of that number, but of those that may participate (i.e. — [...]— not being hindred by any Church-Censures as Penitents were) and regardest it not. — [...];— [...]. He says, That the King at the Marriage-Supper, did not ask, Why didst thou sit down? but why didst thou enter? And adds, That whosoever (being present) does not receive the Mysteries, stands there too boldly and impu­dently. [Page 139]The rest is well worthy the reading in that Ho­mily.

Gregory the Great also tells us, Dialog. l. 2. cap. 23. Si quis non communicat, det locum. it was the custom in his Time, for a Deacon to cry aloud, If any do not Communicate, let him depart. There must be no Spectators, that is, unless they were Communicants. For as Justin Martyr Apolog. 2. Of [...]. acquaints us, it was the usage of his Time, That the the Deacons reach to every one present of the con­secrated Bread, and Wine, and Water, that they may communicate.

If we now look upon the practice of the Roman Church, we shall find all quite contrary. There they may have as many Spectators as please to come, when there is but one alone that receives the Eucharist, I mean the Priest. Any one that knew nothing of the Matter, would conclude, when he saw their Masses, that they came thither about another Business ordinarily, than to eat and drink in remembrance of their Saviour; which was the only use that the Ancients understood of it. They considered it as a Sacrament, by Institution de­signed to represent Christ's Passion and Crucifixion; these consi­der the presence of his Glorified Body and his Divinity there, and are taken up with adoration more than any thing else. That they will not abate, every day you are present, when the Host is shown for that end: But as for the other, the re­ceiving of the Eucharist, they are satisfied if it be done but once a Year. The Ancients look'd upon it as an Invitation to a Table, where the Sacrament was to be their Meal; but here you are called to look upon the King present, and sitting in state; and chiefly to take care that, upon the Sign given, all may fall down together and worship him.

S. Chrysostom Loc. citat. [...]; calls it, a contumely against him that invites one to Feast, to be present and not to partake of it; and asks, Whether it had not been better for such a one to have been absent?

But the Council of Trent was of another mind, and their Opinion is Conc. Trid. Sess. 22. c. 6. Non propterea Missas illas in quibus solus sacerdos Sacra­mentaliter communicat, ut privatas & illicitas damnare, sed probare, at (que) adeo com­mendare., That those Masses in which the Priest communicates sacramentally alone, are not to be condemned as private and unlawful, but to be approved and commended.

[Page 140]And not content with this, they thunder out an Anathema Ibid. Can. 8. Si quis dixerit Missas, in quibus so­lus sacerdos Sacramentaliter communicat, illicitas esse adeo (que) abrogandas, anathe­ma sit. against those that say, (and let S. Chrysostom look to himself) that such Masses are unlawful and to be abrogated.

At these Masses the Novices and Catechumens may be pre­sent, and no Deacon cries out to them to withdraw; for tho' indeed they may not eat, yet they may worship: And the Pe­nitents that were excluded, while their Penance lasted, from so much as seeing the Sacrament in the Ancient Church; in this Church, the oftner they come for this purpose, the more welcome; and by direction, when publick Penance has been enjoined, the Holy Altar has been the place chosen before which to perform it; as their Annals Annal. Ja­pon. ad An. 1579. tells us of one Sangunus, a noted Courtier in Japan, that for the expiation of a Crime, came and fell down at the Altar, in the Church of the Royal City, and there before the Holy Sacrament, claw'd his Back with Scourges so long, as one of the Seven Peniten­tial Psalms was recited.

These Practices, tho' so contrary to one another, are yet natural enough, and well-suited to the Principles of each Church; but then, it is plain, their Principles and Opinions concerning the Sacrament, were widely different; and that such things were never practised of old, was not because Christians then wanted their Devotion, but their Faith.

2. Instance.

A second practice of the Christian Church of old, was, giving the Communion in both kinds; the Cup, that is, as well as the Bread; tho' now, by a Law of the Roman Church, (in the Council of Constance and Trent) abolished.

That the ancient Practice was to deliver it in both Kinds, has been often proved by Learned Men on our side, and parti­cularly by an excellent late Dicourse against the Bishop of Meaux Discourse of the Commu­nion in one kind, in Answer to the Bishop of Meaux's Trea­tise. upon this Subject; and has been also acknowledg'd by the Learned Men of the Roman Communion, such as Cassander, Wi­celius, Petavius, &c. Which makes it needless to insist further upon the proof of it.

We are sure it continued thus even to the Age when Tran­substantion was established by the Lateran Council, since we [Page 141]find a whole Army of Charles King of Sicily, (as the Historian Apud Du Chisn. Tom. 5. Hist. Franc. p. 840. citante Dallaeo, de cultib. Latin. lib. 5. c. 12. Cum exercitus esset in procinctu, Decanum Melden­sem, associatis sibi Monachis, corpus & sanguinem Christi­regiis militibus dedisse. tells us) just before they went to the Fight against Manfred, Ann. 1265. (or 1266, as other Historians will have it) all re­ceived the Body and Blood of Christ. Aquinas a­grees, That it was the ancient Custom of the Church, That all that communicated of the Body, communi­cated also of the BloodIn Joan. 6. Propter periculum effusio­nis.But for to prevent spilling the Blood, he says, in some Churches the practice is, that the Priest alone communicates in the Blood, and the rest in the Body of Christ.

We see then about what time this grand Sa­crilege, as P. Gelasius calls it Speaking of some Persons that taking the Body, abstained from the Cup of the Holy Blood, says, Aut integra Sacramen­ta percipiant, aut ab integris arceantur, quia divisio unius ejusdem (que) mysterii sine gran­di Sacrilegio non potest per­venire. Apud Gratian. decrit. 3. part. 2. dist. of dividing one and the same Mystery, made a more publick en­try into the Church; it was, when Transubstan­tiation had been newly made an Article of Faith; and it was very natural, that this practice should, within a while, by easy steps, be a Consequent of that. For Transubstantiation makes Christ's Flesh and Blood (the same which he took of the Virgin, and which he had when he was crucified) to be actually and corporally present in the Eu­charist, and that in a glorified State, to which Divine Ado­ration is due; this is apt to beget a profound Veneration, and a mighty Concern, lest any thing contumelious should happen to that which Men justly account so very precious. Now it being certain, that the Blood which is under the Spe­cies of Wine, is subject to those Casualties, by reason of its fluidity, which the other Species is not so liable to; and that in the glorified State, the Body and Blood are inseparable; and therefore that one Species (viz. that of the Bread) contains under it both the Body and Blood together; what could be more agreeable to such Sentiments as these, than that Men should willingly part with their Right, in a Matter wherein they seem not to be much wrong'd (being only deprived of a few Accidents of Wine, when the Blood was secured to them) to secure the Honour of their Saviour. It is true in­deed, that the Stream of the contrary Custom, made it dif­ficult to remove that at once, notwithstanding this danger of effusion of the Blood, which they had been wont in all [Page 142]preceding Ages to receive; therefore the Wits of Men being set on work by a new Transubstantiating Doctrine, found out some new Devices, practised first in the Cells of the Monks; but afterwards, about the time of Berengarius, brought into the Churches to secure that dreadful Danger, and yet not deprive the People of communicating in the Blood of Christ.

One was the Device of Intinction, or steeping the Bread in the Wine, and thus receiving both at once, which as Card. Cusanus informs us Epist. 3. ad Bohem. Non parva altercatio in prin­cipio mutationis illius prio­ris—tamen universalis Ecclesia, quia ita tempori congruebat, populum cum intincto pane communicare permisit. tho' it went not down without great contention at the first change from the old Practice, yet the Uni­versal Church, complying with the Times, per­mitted it.

But it was not long it was thus suffered, for by a Decree of Pope Ʋrban 2. in the Council of Clermont, and by an enforcement of it by his Successor P. Paschal 2. (whose Epistle to Pontius Abbot of Cluny concerning this Matter, Baronius has given us Baronius Append. ad Tem. 12. ad An. 1118.) this practice was abroga­ted.

A second Device also, about the same time, was brought into play, Of sucking the Consecrated Wine through little Pipes or Canes (called Pugillares) like Quills; concerning which Cassander (de communione sub utra (que)) gives us an account, and that some of them were to be seen in his Time. And indeed, this seems to be a sufficient security to the danger of Effusion, and also prevents that great Offence of any drops of Blood sticking to the Beards of People when they drank out of the Cup: and yet even this would not satisfy, nor any thing else be a sufficient Caution against the prophanation of the Blood, but only debarring the People wholly of it. Yet this way is still used by the Pope him­self, (and I think he has the sole privilege to do it) who in that which is called the Missa Papalis, when he himself celebrates and commu­nicates, he sucks part of the Blood through a gol­den Quill Cum pontifex Corpus Christi sumpserit, Episcopus Cardinalis porrigit ti calamum, quem Papa ponit in Calice in manibus Dia­coni existente, & Sanguinis par­tem sugit. Sacrarum Ceri­mon. lib. 2. cap. de Missa Majori, Papa personaliter ce­lebrante..

[Page 143]But neither do's he always thus communicate, for their Book of Sacred Ceremonies acquaints us, Ibid. cap. Si Papa in nocte Nativitatis personaliter celebrat, Non sugit sangai­nem cum calamo, sed more com­muni. That when He celebrates personally on the Night of the Nativity of our Lord, that all things are observed, that are described in the Papal Mass, except that he communicates at the Altar alone, and not in his eminent and high Seat, and do's not suck the Blood with a Quill, but takes it after the common manner.

But now, after all, what account can we give of the An­cient Fathers? they apprehended it necessary to receive in both Kinds in all their Publick Communions, and so they practised. Must we not then accuse them, either of great Dulness, or Indevotion? either that they wanted Sagacity, in not appre­hending the imminent danger they in their way exposed the Blood of Christ to; or that they were guilty of a strange carelesness and indifferency, in not preventing it by any of those Methods which the Roman Church hath found out to do it? Truly, for my part, I am inclined to have as great, if not a greater opinion of them, in both respects, (especial­ly for their Devotion) than I can have of the Roman Church; and I am the more perswaded hereto, because the Apostles themselves must come in to the side of the Ancient Church, their practice being the same: not to insist upon the Deference that ought to be paid to that Holy Spirit that we are sure acted them; who if there had been any such real danger of propha­nation, by receiving in both kinds, or ever was likely to be any such, would not have failed to have given directions to them how they should avoid it; and we cannot think the Apo­stles would not have set down those Directions to us in some of their Writings. But they have not done it; no not the Zealous St. Paul, who yet says so much to the careless Corin­thians about this Argument, and tells them, that they came together, not for the better, but the worse; charges them with unworthy receiving, and being thereby guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord, (1 Cor. 11.) and that for this cause many were weak and sick among them, and were judged of the Lord for their prophanations, &c. But this is none of the Charges against them, nor does he direct them to any of the wise Methods of the Roman Church for preventing this Danger; [Page 144]tho' he says, What he received of the Lord he delivered to them.

There is nothing then remains, but that we assign the true Cause of this different Practice; which can be none other, but the Roman Churches innovating in their Faith a­bout the Sacrament, and altering so their Opinions about the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist, that they re­quire a different Conduct for their Devotion; so that neither the Practice of the Primitive Fathers, nor the Rules of the Apostles, will suit and agree with their Perswasions and Ap­prehensions. But now the Faith of the Ancient Church in this Matter was such, as neither requires nor can admit of any Alteration like what the Church of Rome has made in communicating the People only in one Kind. For, as I have before proved, they look'd upon this Sacrament, not as an actual Exhibition and Presentation of the Natural and Glo­rified Body of our Saviour, which they believed to be ab­sent and contained in the Heavens, but as a Representation of his Crucified Body, where his Blood was separated from his Body, and poured out of his Veins; and that not only the Elements, but the Sacramental Actions of breaking the Bread, and pouring out the Wine, and our eating and drink­ing were instituted to shew forth this painful Death of our Lord, and the shedding of his most precious Blood for the Remission of Sins.

By the presence of his glorified Body there, (as the Roman Church believes) this cannot be done, no breaking, nor no parts to be made of that, nor no separation of Blood, as out of the Body. But all can be done in the Representative Body of Christ, which is the Eucharist, all the Ends of the Institution can be there fully effected, and the Sacrifice on the Cross, in this Image of it, made present to our Faith, and to our Minds, and set livelily before us; and by the Effects of this upon our Hearts, while we partake of the Elements, through the powerful Grace of God's Holy Spirit, we may be prepared to receive all the Blessed Fruits and Benefits of his Passion.

According to these Perswasions, it's plain, there can be no abatement of communicating in the Cup; because, without that, there is no representation of a Crucified Body; for the [Page 145]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 a­dores it. Then raising himself as high as he is able, he lifts up the Host on high, and fixing his Eyes upon it, (which he do's also in the Eleva­tion of the Cup) he shows the Host reverently to the People to be adored.

This is the present Practice; which the Coun­cil of Trent Sess. 13. c. 5. Nullus dubitandi locus relinquitur, quin omnes Christi fideles pro more in Ecclesia Catho­lica semper recepto, latriae cultum qui vero Deo debe­tur, huic sanctissimo Sacramento in veneratione adhibeant. endeavours to countenance, by telling us, That there is no doubt but that all Chri­stians, according to the Custom always received in the Catholick Church, ought to give the Worship of Latria (which is supreme Worship) to the most Holy Sacrament in their worship of it.

By which Sacrament (as their best Interpreters explain it) is meant, Totum visibile Sacramentum, all that is visible there, (together with Christ) and is one entire Object, consisting of Christ and the Species, and must be together adored. But whatsoever, besides Christ who is invisible, is visible there, call it what you please, is a Creature; and I am sure the An­cient Church never practised the adoration of any such; and it is strange impudence to talk of the Custom of the Catho­lick Church in this Matter. Neither can it be shown, by any good Testimonies of the Ancients, that this their Elevation, in order to Adoration, was ever used by them: No not so much as any Elevation for any purpose, is mentioned by those Fathers, who on set purpose have given an account of the Rites of communicating in the first Ages of the Church, nei­ther by Justin Martyr, nor the Author of the Constitutions cal­led Apostolical; nor Cyril of Jerusalem, nor the pretended [Page 146] Denis the Areopagite, or any other before the Sixth Cen­tury.

A dilligent Searcher of Antiquity, tells us Dallaeus de relig. cult. ob­ject. l. 2. c. 5., That he cannot find, among all the Interpreters of Ecclesiastical Of­fices in the Latin Church, the mention of any sort of Eleva­tion before the Eleventh Century, (that is, the Age of In­novation in the Faith about the Eucharist).

As for the Greeks of later date, in them we may meet in­deed with an Elevation of the Eucharist, but for quite other purposes than Adoration. One of the Ends of their Elevation, is mentioned by Germanus Patri­arch of Constantinople In Tom. 2. Bibl. Pat. Gr. Lat. — [...]., which was, to repre­sent Christ lifted up upon the Cross, and his Death upon it, and the Resurrection it self.

Another reason they give is, by the showing of this Food of the Saints, to invite and call them to partake of it. Which Nic. Cabasilas gives a full account of In Expos. Liturg. apud Bibl. Pat. Gr. Lat. Tom. 2. [...]., saying, That after the Friest has been partaker of the sanctified Things, he turns to the People, and showing them the Holy Things, (i. e. the Bread and Wine) calls those that are willing to communicate. Or, as he still more fully explains it, The Life-giving Bread be­ing received (by the Priest) and shown, he calls those that are likely to receive it worthily, saying, Holy Things are for the Holy [...].. Behold the Bread of Life which ye see. Run therefore you that are to partake of it; but it is not for all, but for him that is Holy, &c.

It is certain then, that the Roman Practice (when for Ado­ration they elevate and show the Host) is an Innovation; and that it proceeded from the Novel Doctrines then set on foot in the church, is highly probable; not only because they com­menced about the same time; but also because their practice suits so exactly with, and springs so freely from those Do­ctrines, it being so natural, when such a glorious Body as our Sa­viour's is believed to be made present where it was not before, to be wholly taken up with thoughts of Adoration and Wor­ship above any thing else; as it is notoriously true in this Church, where the main End of the Eucharist, viz: com­municating [Page 147]in the Body and Blood of Christ is strangely neg­lected; and they are more concerned, in carrying the Sacrament in Processions, in praying to it before their Altars, in prepa­ring splendid Tabernacles where it may repose, decking and a­dorning the places of its Residence, and the like, than in engaging Men to receive it; which was the main thing the Ancient Church designed, that they might worthily partake of it; and when this was not designed, their way was wholly to conceal it.

4. Instance.

Another Practice of the Roman Church, different from that of the Ancient Church, is, that now the Communicants Hands are unimployed in receiving the Eucharist; and all is put by the Priest into their mouths.

Their Hands indeed may bear a part in their Adoration and showing some Signs of that, but otherwise they are use­less. For now since Christ's Body is believed to lie hid un­der the Species of Bread and Wine, that is thought too sacred to be touched by the Hands of any, but the Priests. We may therefore conclude fairly, that if the Fathers had not this care to forbid this touching by the Peoples Hands, they had not this Faith of the Roman Church, that the Natural Bo­dy of Christ is in the Eucharist: since if this had been their Opinion, in all probability their practice would have been the same, Since that they had an equal concern for their Saviour's Honour, cannot well be doubted of.

Now that they gave the Sacrament into the Peoples Hands, for the space of eight hundred Years or more, is clear by their Testimonies. Of which I'll mention only three or four out of an hundred that might be given.

Clemens of Alexandria Stromat. lib. 1. [...]. says, That when the Priests have divided the Eucharist, they permit every one of the People to take a portion of it.

Tertullian Lib. de Idol. Cap. 7. —Eas manus admovere Cor­pori Domini, quae Daemoniis corpora conferunt. reproaches the Christian Sta­tuaries, That they reached those hands to the Lord's Body, which had made Bodies for Devils.

[Page 148]St. Ambrose Apud Theodoret. Hist. Ecclesiast. Lib. 5. c. 19. — [...]; Story is a known one, how he repelled Theodosius from the Holy Table, af­ter the slaughter he had made at Thessalonica, with these words; How wilt thou extend thy hands, yet dropping with the Blood of an unjust slaughter? How with those hands wilt thou receive the Lord's most Holy Body?

He that will consult Cyril of Jerusalem's 5th Mystagogical Catechism, will find him there directing the Communicant how to order his Hands and Fingers in taking the Sacrament into them. Which a Roman Master of the Ceremonies would not have said a word about, being only concerned about the Mouth.

That this manner of receiving was used in the 9th Cen­tury, appears by the Capitulary of Carolus Mag. Capit. Car. M. Lib. 7. Placuit ut omnes qui Sacram acceperint Eucharistam, & non fumpserint, ut sacrilegi repellantur. who ordered, That all that received the Eucharist (acceperint, that is, into their Hands) and did not take it (sumpserint, that is, into their Mouths) should be kept back as sacrile­gious Persons. If they had received it by their Mouths only, this distinction could not have been made.

5. Instance.

Another Practice, very unagreeable with the belief of Transubstantiation, is this, That the Ancient Church was not afraid to administer the Eucharistical Wine in Glass Vessels and Cups: tho' now it would be a great Crime in the Church of Rome to do so.

For that Ancient Practice, I might urge that of Tertullian Lib. de pudicit. c. 7, & 10. Procedant ipsae picturae cali­cum vestrorum, si vel in il­lis perlucebit interpretatio pecudis illius, utrumne Chri­stiano an Ethnico peccatori de restitutione conliniet. Cap. 10.—At ego ejus Pasto­ris. Scripturas haurio, qui non potest frangi., who reflecting upon the Church's Indulgence to Sinners, mentions the Picture of the Shepherd carrying the Lost Sheep on his Back, drawn on the Chalices, which might be seen by all, being pellucid.

To which he opposes, afterwards, the Scri­ptures of that Shepherd that could not be bro­ken.

As also that of St. Jerom Epist. 4. ad Rusticum. Ni­hil illo ditius, qui Corpus Do­mini canistro vimineo, san­guinem portat in vitro., where speaking of S. Exuperius, he says, Nothing is richer than he who carries the Lord's Body in a wicker Basket, and his Blood in a Glass.

[Page 149]But it is needless to add more Testimonies, because the thing is confessed by Baronius Notis ad Martyrol. Rom. in August. 7. A temporibus Apostolorum vitreus Calix in usu fuisse videtur., in his Notes upon the Acts of S. Donatus, who confesses, That Glass Chalices seem to have been in use from the Times of the Apostles. And says a great deal more than I have mentioned, to confirm it.

And that this Custom continued long in the Church, may be concluded from hence, That Baronius can find no earlier prohibition of it, than that of the Council of Rhemes, which he says was held in the Days of Charles the Great. I have no­thing to do with the Commendation he adds of this Prohi­bition, (being concerned only in the Matter of Fact) saying, That it was very laudable; but I do not think it was so meer­ly for his Reason, [ob periculum quod immineret materiae fra­gili] because of the imminent danger in such brittle Matter. For if the Custom was as ancient as the Apostles, how came they to want that quick Sense the Roman Church now has to prevent that Danger? But we may be certain, that they, and the Church after them, that used such Glasses, had not the present Perswasions of this Church, about a hidden Deity, and the latent glorified Flesh and Blood of Christ in the Eucha­rist, else they would have had both the Discretion and Devo­tion to have provided him a better place of reception.

Now they have done it in the Canon Law Can. ut Calix. dist. 1. de Consecrat. —De aere aut aurichalco non fiat Calix, quia ob vini vir­tutem aeruginem parit, quae vomitum provocat. Nullus autem de ligneo, aut vitreo calice praesumat missam can­tare., enjoining, that the Cup and Patent be, if not of Gold, at least of Silver, (allowing only Pewter in case of great Poverty) but in no wise the Cup must be of Brass or Copper, the virtue of the Wine causing a rust that procures Vomiting, (which yet one would think the Blood of Christ, where there is no Wine, should not cause) but over a Wooden or a Glass Cup, none may presume to say Mass. All is very agreeable to their several Per­swasions.

6. Instance.

To this let me add another Instance, more difficult still to be reconciled with the belief of Transubstantiation, viz. The mixing the Blood of Christ with Ink, for writing things of mo­ment. So I call the consecrated Wine, according to the usual [Page 150]Language of the Fathers, giving it the name of Christ's Blood; but it's not possible to believe that they who thus used it, thought it to be so, any otherwise than by representation: since you can hardly think of a higher profanation, by any mixture, than this, of blending the true Blood of Christ with Ink, unless I except the case of mixing it with Poison, for the destruction of Persons; and thus P. Victor 2. and P. Victor 3. and Henry 7. Emperor, all died by receiving Poison in the Sacra­ment, as is attested by numerous and credible Historians.

Taking it therefore for granted, that no Body will have the confidence to assert, that they who thus mixed it with Ink, did believe Transubstantiation, I shall now set down three re­markable Instances of a Pope, a General Council, and a King, that thus used it.

The first is of Pope Theodorus, who as Theophanes (whose words Baronius Ad an. D. 648. Sec. 14. has given us) relates, when Pyrrhus the Monothelite departed from Rome, and was come to Ravenna, and returned like a Dog to his Vomit; and when this was found out, P. Theodorus Calling a full Congregation of the Church, came to the Sepulchre of the Head of the Apostles, and asking for the Divine Cup, he dropped some of the Life-giving Blood into the Ink; and so, with his own hand, made the deposition of ex­communicated Pyrrhus. Thus Theophanes.

The next Instance, is, the doing of the same in the Con­demnation and Deposition of Photius Patriarch of Constantino­ple, by the Fathers of the 4th Council of Constantinople (which the Romanists call the 8th General Council) which is thus related by Nicetas in the Life of Ignatius Apud. Concil. Labbe. Tom. 8. pag. 1231. [...].. The Bishops subscribed his Deposition, not with bare Ink, but, which may make one tremble (as I have heard it attested by those that knew it) dipping the Pen in the very Blood of our Saviour; thus they con­demned and exauthoriz'd Photius, and with him, all that had been ordained by him. All this was Anno. Dom. 869.

The last Example is, of a Peace or Agreement struck up between Charles the Bald, and Bernard count of Barcelona, in in the same Age, related by Odo Aribert; (whose Fragment [Page 151] Baluzius has given us) Notis ad Agobardum, p. 129. who tells us, That Agreement at Tholouse, was confirmed and signed between the King and the Count, Sanguine Eucharistico, with the Blood of the Eucharist. Tho' notwithstanding this Charles stabb'd Bernard with his own hand.

7. Instance.

The next Instance shall be, The different Practices of the Ancient Church and the Present Roman, with reference to the Reservation of the Eucharist, after the Communion was ended, and what they did with the Remains not received.

Concerning which, for methods sake, I shall refer all to three remarkable differences.

1. Difference.] What was not received in the Eucharist by the Communicants, the Ancient Church took no care to reserve it; But the new Roman Church reserves all publickly that is unre­ceived, and puts little of it to any uses that are Sacramental.

I will not say that there was no reservation of the Re­mains, after the Eucharist was over, of what had been con­secrated, and not received, even before the Innovations took place, which were introduced by the Roman Church, because there may perhaps be some Instances given of communicating the Sick out of such Remains; and among the Greeks there was also communicating, ex praesanctificatis, of what had been consecrated before; but these, I say, were but later Customs of the 6th and 7th Centuries, and both before and after the contrary Custom did prevail; and where these Reservations were, they employed them to the ends of the Sacrament, for to be eaten and not to be adored.

But as to the most Ancient Custom of the Church, it is truly given by the Author of the Commentary up­on S. Paul's Epistles, among S. Jerom's Works Tom. 9. Edit. Froben. in 1 Cor. 11. In Ecclesia con­venientes suas separatim of­ferebant, & post communio­nem quaecun (que) eis de sacrifi­ciis superfuissent, illic in Ec­clesia communem coenam co­medentes pariter consume­bant.. Who on those words of S. Paul (1 Cor. 11.) This is not to eat the Lord's Supper, &c. says thus, Meeting in the Church, they separately made their Oblations, and after the Communion, what­soever remained of the Sacrifices there in the Church, eating a common Supper, they consumed them together.

[Page 152]But when these common Meals ceased, and this way of con­sumption with them; The Ancient Church had other ways to do it. Witness the Practice mentioned by He­sychius Lib. 2. in Levit. cap. 8. Quod nunc videmus in Ec­clesia sensibiliter fieri, igni (que) tradi quaecunque remanere contigerit inconsumpta., who explaining that place of the Law, which required, That whatsoever of the Flesh and Bread remained, should be burnt with Fire; adds, which we see also now sensibly done in the Church; that whatsoever happens to remain (of the Eucharist) unconsumed, is burnt.

Evagerius Histor. Lib. 4. c. 36. [...]— [...]— [...]. mentions another different usage, but with the same effect, at Constantino­ple, where, he says, It was an old Custom, that when a great deal of the Holy Parts of the Imma­culate Body of Christ our God remained, they sent for some Youths that went to School, of an unripe Age, who eat them up.

Nicephorus Callistus says, That this continued so to his Time, and that he himself had been one of those Youths that ate up those Particles Lib. 17. Hist. c. 25..

Neither was this a Practice of the Eastern Church only, but also of the Western, as ap­pears by a Canon of a Synod of Mascon Concil. Matiscon. Can. 6. apud Tom. 5. Conc. Labb. p. 982. Quaecunque reliquiae Sacrifi­ciorum, post peractam Mis­sam in Sacrario supersede­rint, quarta & sexta feria in­nocentes, ab illo cujus inte­rest, ad Ecclesiam adducan­tur & indicto eis jejunio eas­dem reliquias conspersas vi­no percipiant., An. 505. Whatsoever Reliques of the Sacrifices shall remain in the Repository after Mass is ended, on Wednesdays and Fridays the Officer shall bring little Children to Church, and appointing them to Fast, they shall receive the said Remains sprinkled with a little Wine.

If Transubstantiation had been their Belief, these had been lewd Prophanations of the Lord's Body.

The Roman Church therefore having this Belief, have or­dered Matters quite otherwise, all is reserved that remains; the Pretence I know is, that they may have the Sacrament al­ways in readiness to communicate the Sick withal; but they have been often told, that this is altogether needless, when the Priests with their portable Altars, have leave, upon less Occasions, to celebrate Mass privately; and when so many hundred Masses in the great Churches are daily celebrated, how easily may the Sacrament immediately (without being [Page 153]reserved) be conveyed from one of their Altars to such sick Persons.

But whatsoever is pretended, they intend other things more suitable to that Presence, which they suppose to be there included; stately Tabernacles they prepare upon the Altars for his repose, with lighted Torches burning Day and Night before it; they come thither, even out of the Times of the Assemblies to make their Prostrations; for so Card. Bellarmine De cultu Sanct. l. 3. c. 4. S. Quinta ratio. Quia in Templis ordinariè praeter Dei praesentiam, quae est ubique, est etiam prae­sentia Mediatoris Christi cor­poraliter in Eucharista, quae certè auget spem & fiduciam orantis., among the Encourage­ments to make private Prayers in Temples, gives this as one Reason, because ordinarily in them, be­sides the Presence of God which is every where, there is also the Presence of Christ our Mediator corporally in the Eucharist, which increases the Hope and Trust of him that prays.

This is a new way of increasing Faith and Hope, which the Ancients were not acquainted with; they waited indeed at the Altar for that end, when the Eucharist was admini­stred, and the evident representation and setting forth of Christ before their Eyes as crucified, was very proper to increase their Faith and Hope: And there in a Sacramental Sense, while they thus received, in the Phrase of Op­tatus Lib. 6. adv. Donatist. Quid vos offenderat Chri­stus, cujus illic per certa mo­menta corpus & sanguis habi­tabat?, the Body and Blood of Christ did inha­bit for certain Moments. But these certain Mo­ments will not do the Business of this Church, which requires a more constant and fixed Resi­dence. They do not think their very Temples holy and venerable enough without it; for among the things that make a Temple so, and moreover endue it with a kind of a Divine Virtue, the forenamed Cardinal Ibid. cap. 5. sec. Tertio pro­batur. reckons the presence of the Body of Christ in the Eucharist. So that it seems by their Opinions and Practice, the reserved parts of the Sa­crament, are as necessary as those that are received.

Especially if you remember that these reserved Parts are de­signed, not only to receive their Adorations, when they come to say their Prayers before it in the Churches, but also when it travels abroad, as it do's upon many occasions, when none have occasion to receive it, nor think of saying their Pray­ers, being engaged in the Streets about their Secular Affairs; [Page 154]yet even there, when they happen to meet the Eucharist go­ing in a solemn Procession, they must kneel and adore it. We know also that there is a peculiar Feast instituted (tho' of a late Date, An. 1264.) on Corpus-Christi Day, on which, with the greatest pomp and state imaginable, it is carried about the Streets and publick Places to be seen and worship­ped. Not to mention some extraordinary contingences, such as the breaking out of a great Fire suddenly, occasioning the drawing it out of its Retirement, to oppose against and stop its fury.

Besides, the Pope himself has often need of the reserved Host, not to Take and eat (according to the Institution) but to take along with him when he, in his Pontificals, rides to any Church, or takes a Journey to a City, this always accompa­nies him; and the Book of Sacred Ceremonies, will give you an account of the Horse, and the colour of it, upon which it is set, with the Bell about his Neck, and the pompous Train, the Canopy carried over it, and lighted Torches before it, &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 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 [Page 155]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 Nic. Trigautii exped apud Sinas, l. 5. c. 7. p. 503. Neque domi loco convenien­ti celebrari poterat, neque pro majestate per vicos de­ferri: solabantur igitur illum socii necessaria peccatorum confessione perfunctum, posse sine viatico, quod legitime impeditus minimè suscipe­ret, coelestem gloriam in­troire., at Pekin in China; One Fabius who had been con­verted and 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 [Page 156]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 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 Ibid. [...]. — [...], &c.; 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 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 Lib. 2. ad Ʋxor. 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' [Page 157]they never took it; against whom Learned Men think those Councils made those Canons, which anathematized those that received, but did not take it down, but reserved it. How­ever the foresaid Custom still prevailed in other Places, as might be shown, if it were needful, as far as the 11th Centu­ry. As for the present Church this is wholly a Stranger to them; they will have no Remains kept any where but upon the pub­lick Altars, where no Hand must touch them but the Priest's. The Council of Trent Sess. 25. cap. 10. will not allow the Sanctimoniales, the very Nuns in their Quires, or in any places within their Cloister (intra chorum vel septa Monasterii) to keep it by them, but only in publica Ecclesia, notwithstanding any former Grants and Privileges. And a Great Man Petavius de Poenit. l. 1. c. 7. Si quis nunc Laicus simile quid auderet, is apud nos censeretur gravi poena expi­andi criminis reus, veluti sanctissimi Sacramenti pro­fanus temerator. speaking of the former Usages, says, If any Lay-man now should dare to do so, he would be accounted guilty of a Crime to be expiated by a grievous punishment, as a profane Violator of the most Holy Sacrament.

But if it be so great a Crime with them to reserve it when they have received it; What will they say to the next Dif­ference I shall now mention?

3. Difference. That among the Ancients, what was so pri­vately reserved, was put to such uses as the present Roman Church must abhor, because they are direct Affronts to the belief of Tran­substantiation, and the corporal Presence.

It appears by S. Cyprian, (libr. de Lapsis) that the very Wo­men in his Time had liberty to take the Eucharist home with them, and dispose of it as they pleased; and the Woman he there speaks of, that lock'd it up in her Chest, had not the Ro­man Opinion of a Latent Deity, which such usage ill agrees with, or rather affronts.

Neither had Cyril of Jerusalem Catech. Mystag. 5. [...].their Per­swasions, when he advises his Communicant, whilst his Lips were wet and dewy, with what he had drank in the Cup, with his Hands to touch his Eyes and Forehead, and the rest of the Organs of his Senses for their Sanctification.

But what Gorgonia, Nazianzen's Sister, did with the Remains of the Antitypes of Christ's Body and Blood, exceeds it; [Page 158]when as he reports of her, to her commenda­tion Orat. 11. [...], &c., she mixed them with her Tears, and anointed her whole Body with it, for the reco­very out of a grievous Disease.

A like Story to which, S. Austin gives us Lib. 3. secundi op. adv. Jul. Ne (que) hoc permisisse religio­sam matrem suam, sed id effecisse ex Eucharistiae cata­plasmate. of the Mother of one Acatius, who was born with closed Eyes, which a Physician advised should be opened with an Instrument of Iron; but she refused, and cured him with a Cataplasm, or Plaster made of the Eucharist.

In honour to our Saviour, we find a Woman anointing his Body; but to make his Body an Ointment for hers, or to make it into a Medicine, is but course usage of it, and such as none would adventure upon that was perswaded it was a dei­fied Body.

The old Custom which Eusebius mentions Lib. 5. Hist. Eccles. c. 24. [...]. of fending the Sacrament from one Bishop to a­nother, as a Token of Peace and Communion, seems to argue but little good Manners, (with the Church of Rome's Opinions concerning it); for tho' God sent his Son on a blessed Errand and Embassy, it look too saucy for us to send him on ours.

What Indecencies would this Church justly fear the Body of Christ would be subject to, if there were that permission that was granted of old to carry the Eucharist along with them in their Voyages at Sea? Yet this P. Gregory the Great tells us was practised by Maximianus and his Commpanions re­tuining from Constantinople to Rome; and being in a Tempest in the Adriatick Sea Dial. l. 3. c. 36.—Sibimet pacem dedisse, corpus & san­guinem Redemptoris acce­pisse; Deo se singulos com­mendantes. They Blood of their Redeemer, recommending every one himself to God.

But that which S. Ambrose informs us Orat. de obitu fratris. Priusquamperfectioribus esset initiatus mysteriis, in naufra­gio constitutus—ne va­cuus mysterii exiret è vita, quos initiatos esse cognove­rat, ab his Divinum illud fidelium sacramentum poposcit—ligari fecit in orario, & orarium involvit in collo, at (que) ita se dejecit in mare. of his Brother Satyrus, was still more bold; Who being Shipwrack'd at Sea, and not yet having been baptized, lest he should die without the Mystery, he begg'd of some of those that were baptized, to let [Page 159]him have that Divine Sacrament of the Faithful, (the Custom then being to have it reserved about them) which they grant­ing, he put it up in his Handkerchief which he then tied about his Neck, and so threw himself into the Sea.

Whatsoever Conceits Satyrus might have when he borrowed it, yet those that bestowed it, could never think fit (with the foresaid belief) to deliver it into the Hands of one not yet a perfect Christian, nor to be tied about his Neck in a cloth that I suppose was no Corporal (as they call it) to be expo­sed to the dashing of Sea-waves, like a Bladder or a Cork to keep him from drowning.

But there is a more irreconcileable Practice of the Ancients with the present Belief, with which I shall end this Particular about reservation of the Sacrament. It is the Custom of bury­ing the reserved parts of it with their dead Bo­dies. The Author of the Life of S. Basil Vita Basil. c. 6. [...]., tells us, That he kept a Particle of the Eucharist to be buried with him; and left it so to be by his last Will.

St. Gregory Dialog. l. 2. c. 24. —Quibus vir Dei manu sua protenus communionem Do­minici corporis dedit, dicers, Ite at (que) hoc Dominicum cor­pus super pectus ejus ponite, & fic sepulturae eum tradite. Quod dum factum fuisser, sus­ceptum corpus ejus terra te­nuit, nec ultra projecit. tells a strange Story of Youth that was a Monk, who going out of S. Benet's Monastery without his Benediction, suddenly was found dead; and being buried, the next day was forced out of his Grave, and a second Time was found so after Burial: Where­upon, says he, they ran weeping to S. Benet, praying him to bestow his Blessing upon him. To whom that Man of God gave the Commu­nion of the Lord's Body, saying, Go and lay this Body of our Lord upon his Breast, and so bury him. They did so, and then he kept in his Grave, and the Earth threw him out no more.

I know that there are several Canons of Councils, made against this Practice, (as the 20th Canon of the Council of Carthage, and the 83 Canon of the 6th General Council at Con­stantinople in Trullo); upon which last Canon, Zonaras observes, [...], &c. That it was an ancient Custom to deliver the Lord's Body to Dead Bodies.

But then methinks it's very observable, that the reason why the Fathers prohibit it, is not such a one as would be given [Page 160]in the Roman Church, from the horrible Profanation and con­tumely in thus using the Lord's Body (as it would be if it were truly and properly there, and no Bread remaining): But their Reason is from hence, Because it is written, Take and eat; But dead Carcases can neither take nor eat.

But notwithstanding all these Prohibitions, the old Custom continued afterwards; for those that write the Lives of Saints, and tell us of the translating of their Bodies from one place to another, inform us that they have found pie­ces of the Eucharist uncorrupted lying in their Grave: As Surius Surius vit. Othmar. ad Nev. 16. Eas venerabiliter assumens sacro corpori apposuit. tells us in the Life of Othmarus, That when he came to be translated some Years after he was buried, they found un­der his Head, and about his Breast, little pieces of Bread, which were with much reverence laid by his Body again.

The like do's Amalarius Di div. Offic. l. 4. c. 41. Oblata super pectus Sanctum posita, vestimento Sacerdo­tali indutum, &c. report, (citing Bede for it) that the same was practised when S. Cutberd was buried, his Head bound with a Nap­kin, the Eucharist laid upon his Holy Breast, with his Sacerdotal Habit upon him, &c.

It is little less than a Demonstration, that they that thus treated the Sacrament, did not believe it contained a hidden Deity under the species of Bread and Wine; for sure they would not then have thus used the Lord of Life and Glory, to imprison him, as it were, and suffer him to lie buried with the putrid Carcases of the Dead.

8. Instance.

The last Instance of differing Practices in the two Churches, shall be, In their over-sollicitousness to prevent any Accidents that might happen in the Administration of the Eucharist; their Frights when any such thing do's happen, and the Expiations required for negligence to purge such Crimes; such as we have no foot-steps of in any of those cases, in the Ancient Church.

As to the first of those Cases, I have somewhat prevented my self, in what I before have shown, of their Devices of Intinction, sucking the Sacrament through Pipes; and, which is worst of all (out of this abundant caution) denying the People the Cup. Here therefore I shall mention other Cautions, such as those which tend to prevent any Fragments falling off [Page 161]from the Bread of the Eucharist, that no Crumbs may have any dishonour done to them, by being left unregarded, but either may be received or reserved.

To this end, they have altered the Ancient Custom of pro­viding common Bread, such as is of ordinary use, for the Sa­crament, and required that it be unleavened, because this is less apt to break into Crumbs, and cleaves better together in its Parts. And tho' they do not say that there is no Sacra­ment where leavened Bread is used, yet the Missal De defecti­bus, c. 3. n. 3. Conficiens graviter pec­cat. affirms, That he that consecrates in this, do's grievously Sin; and here­in they have raised (since the days that Transubstantiation was forming into a Doctrine of Faith) and maintained a great Controversy with the Greek Church, which do's not use their Azyms, no more than the Anclent Church did. They have also invented, about the same Time, and still use, those lit­tle round Wafers (as they are commonly called) which is that which they consecrate for the Bread of the Sacrament, and take care hereby to prevent breaking into Crumbs; for they never break them for distribution, but put them whole into the Communicants Mouths; whereas the Ancient Practice was, to provide one whole Loaf of Substantial Bread, and to di­vide this into parts, and break it for to be distributed among them all. But these Hostiolae, little Hosts, are brought to such a tenuity, that they are the next door to what they call species, having scarce any substance, and deserve not pro­perly the name of Bread, as a learned Man Vossius in Thes. Theol. Disp. 19. de S. Coenae Syusb. has shown. The very Missal (Loc. citat. n. 7.) supposes, that they may easily disappear, and that a Wind may carry them away, for that is one of the cases it mentions, (aut vento, aut miraculo, vel ab aliquo animali accepta.)

It is easy to show, that all this caution to prevent falling Crumbs, is perfect nonsense, according to their principles, since the True Body of Christ cannot be broken or crumbled into Bits, which is the only substance remaining; the rest, which they call Species, being Mathematical Lines and Colours only, and no matter under them; a whole World of them can never make up a Crumb of Bread, or any Fragment. And yet these are they about which such superabundant Caution is used; which are mentioned in the Missal.

[Page 162]To name a few. When the Priest that celebrates do's com­municate himself, it is then only that he breaks the Host into three parts, one of which he puts into the Cup; and after he has taken the other two which are upon the Patin, he is directed Missal. Ron. ritus celtor. Missam, c. 10. Sect. 4. to take the Patin, to view the Corporal, (or Cloth spread under it) to gather up the Fragments with the Patin, if there be any on it, and with his Thumb and Fore-finger of his right Hand, to wipe the Patin carefully over the Chalice, and also his Fin­gers, lest any Fragments remain on them.

Then for the Hosts that are reserved to another time, after the Priest has taken them off from the Corporal, and put them into the Vessel appointed for them, he is directed to mind carefully Ibid. Sect. 15., lest any Fragment, the lest imaginable, remain up­on the Corporal; and if there be any, carefully to put them into the Chalice.

When he has taken the Cup, with the 3d Particle of the Host put into it Ibid. Sect. 5., he must purify himfelf, drinking some wine poured into the Cup by the Minister that attends; then with Wine and Water must wash his Thumbs and Fore-fingers over the Cup, and must wipe them with the Burificatory; then he must drink off the Oblation (wherein he washed) and wipe his Mouth and the Chalice with the Purificatory.

Such-like also are the Cautions given when the People have communicated Ibid. Sect. 6.. If the Hosts were laid upon the Corporal, the Priest wipes it (or sweeps it) with the Patin; and if there were any Fragments on it, he puts them into the Chalice. The Minister also holding in his right Hand a Vessel with Wine and Water in it, and in his left a little Napkin (Mappulam), do's reach the Purification (to wash their Mouths) to them, a little after the Priest, and the little Napkin to wipe their Mouths.

The Communicants also are directed See the Rom. Ritual, de S. Eucharist., after receiving, not presently to go out of the Church, or talk, or look about care­lesly; nor to spit, nor read aloud Prayers out of a Book, left the Species of the Sacrament should fall out of their Mouths.

All this is preventing Care: But now when Accidents do happen, they seem, by their ordering Matters, to be in a frightful Concern; and strange things are to be done, if possi­ble, to make an honorable amends.

[Page 163]In the last Chapter I have given the Reader some Instances of those strange Things, and will here only add two Cases which the Roman Missal provides for.

The first is, If a Consecrated Host, or any part of it, should fall to the Ground, the direction is Missal. Ram. de defect. Misae, c. 10. Sect. 15., That it be reverently ta­ken up, and the place where it fell must be cleansed, and a little scraped away, and such dust or scrapings must be put in the Holy Repository. If it fell without the Corporal upon the Napkin (Mappam) or any ways upon any Linen Cloth, such Napkin, or Linen, must be carefully washed, and that Water poured out into the Holy Repository.

The second Case is, When by negligence Ibid. c. 10. Sect. 12.any thing of the Blood is Spilt. If it fell upon the Earth, or upon a Board, it must be licked up with the Tongue, and the place scraped sufficiently, and such scraping be burnt, and the Ashes laid up in the Repository. But if it fell upon the Altar-stone, the Priest must sup up the Drop, and the place be well washed, and that water cast into the Re­pository. If it fell upon the Altar-Cloths, and the Drop sunk as far as the second or third Cloth, those Cloths must be thrice wa­shed where the Drop fell, putting the Cup underneath to receive the Water, and that Water thrown into the foresaid place. And so it directs to such washing when it falls upon the Corporal alone, or the Priest's Garments, &c.

I cannot but here annex also the Constitution which the Reader may find in the Appendix to the History of the Church of Peterburgh, Pag. 344. (being the first of two there set down) directing what is to be done, when any negligence happens about the Lord's Body and Blood, and how to expi­ate the Crime.

Thus I have given a sufficient Specimen of the strange Cau­tion and Fears the Roman Church are under, lest any thing should happen, even to the very least Particle or Drop of the Sacrament, that is dishonourable: And indeed, their Caution is very agreeable to their Perswasions, as I have before often hinted.

But now if we turn our Eyes upon the Ancient Church, tho' we cannot question, either their Devotion or reverent Behaviour in all Acts of Religious Worship, and particularly in this great One; yet there is not to be found any such scrupulosities about minute things; nor such frightful apprehen­sions in the case of unforeseen Accidents, nor such Expiations as we have before heard of. They did not forbear to use the Common Bread (as I said before) tho' it might be more lia­ble to crumble; they took their Share from one Common Loaf; they received the Wine without intinction, or sucking it through Pipes, &c. Which are all later Inventions, since the Faith was innovated concerning the Eucharist.

But because this is only a Negative Argument, I will there­fore add a Positive one, to demonstrate that the Ancients were far from these Scrupulosities; and also that they came into the Church with Transubstantiation, and not before; viz. The Practice of Communicating Infants. It is not my Busi­ness here to prove, that this was the common Usage in the Church, from the Times of S. Cyprian at least, even to later Ages, which has been done effectually by o­thers See Mr. Chillingworth's Additional Treatises, in 4 to., and is acknowledged by our Adver­saries.

Maldonate Comm. in Joan. 6.53. the Jesuit owns, that it con­tinued in the Church for six hundred Years.

And Card. Perron De loc. August. c. 10. grants, That the Primitive Church gave the Eucharist to Infants as soon as they were baptized: And that Charles the Great, and Lewis the Pious, both testify that this Custom remained in the West in their Age, that is, in the 9th Century in which they lived. But it went down lower, even to two Ages after Charles the Great. For [Page 166]that Epistle of P. Paschal 2. (which I mentioned in another Chapter) given us by Baronius, at the end of his last Tome, (Ad Ann. 1118. when that Pope died) wherein he forbids Intinction of the Bread in the Wine, and requires that the Bread and Wine should be taken separately; gives us also this exception, (praeter in parvulis ac omnino infirmis qui panem ab­sorbere non possunt) that it may be allowed to little Children, and those extreamly weak, that cannot get down the Bread: Which had been a needless provision for them, if Infants had not then received the Sacrament.

This being then a certain and confessed thing, that Infants received the Eucharist, I refer it to the Conscience of any Romanist, whether he can think the Ancients had any of their aforesaid Fears, and nice Scrupulosities, about the Accidents that might happen to the consecrated Elements, which in that Practice could not be prevented; it being impossible, where sucking Children receive either Bread or Wine, to hinder the happening of something which the Church of Rome will call highly dishonourable to the Sacrament. For to instance in a Case which S. Cyprian Lib. de Lapsis. mentions, of a Christian lit­tle Girl, that by her Nurses Wickedness had receiv'd polluted Bread in an Idol's Temple, and afterwards was brought by the Mother, knowing nothing, into the Church to receive the Com­munion. He relates how the Child, when its turn came to receive the Cup, turned away its Face, shut its Lips, and refused the Cup. But the Deacon Ibid. Perstitit Diaco­nus, & reluctanti licet de Sa­cramento Calicis insudit. Tunc sequitur singultus & vo­mitus; in Corpore at (que) ore violato Eucharistia perma­nere non potuit.persisted, and though it strove against it, did infuse into it of the Sacrament of the Cup. Then followed sighing and vomiting; the Eucharist could not re­main in a Body and Mouth that had been pro­phaned.

How would a Romanist start at the thoughts of pouring the Sacrament, as this Deacon did (who sure was a Zuing­lian) into the Mouth of a strugling Child? But here is no mention of any concern about that, or what happened upon it; from whence it is natural to conclude, that the Ancients in this common Case having none of this Church's Scruples and Fears, that they had none of their Faith; for they must have had more Caution, if they had had their Opinion about the Eucharist.

[Page 167]It is also very observable, to confirm what I have said, that though we can trace the Custom of Communicating Infants, as far as to the Age when the Transubstantiating Doctrine was set on foot, and ready to be formed into an Article of Faith; yet here we are at a full stop, and can go no further, for this begat such Scruples and Fears, that made this quickly give place and vanish, which had so many Hazards attending it, and we hear no more of it since that in the Latin Church; but other great Churches, that have not made This an Arti­cle of their Faith, still retain the old Custom (though they err therein) of Communicating Infants. As the Greek Churches, the Muscovites, Armenians, Habassins, Jacobites, &c. concerning which see Dallée de Cultib. Latin. l. 5. c. 4. Thomas à Jesu de Convers. gentium, l. 7. c. 5. & c. 18. Ludolfi Histor. Aethiop. l. 3. c. 6. Sect. 37, 38. Histor. Jacobitarum, Oxon. cap. 9. See also Father Simons Critical History of Re­ligions, concerning the Georgians, cap. 5. p. 67, 71. Ne­storians, p. 101. Cophties, p. 114. Armenians, c. 12. p. 128.

IT is to no purpose to enquire, who was the Author of the Canon of the Mass, when Wallafridus Strabo De reb. Ec­clesiast. cap. 22. Quis primus ordinaverit nobis ignotum est. Auctum tamen fuisse, non semel sed saepius ex partibus additis intelligimus. (who lived in the middle of the 9th Century) tells us, It was a thing to him unknown. Seeing also he adds, That it had been enlarged, not only once but often; it is as vain to ask after its Age.

The same also the Abbot Berno Berno Ab. Augiens. de re­bus ad Missam spectant. c. 1. Attamen ipsum Canonem non unus solus composuit totum, sed per tempora aliud alius interposuit vel adjecit. says, It was not one Man that composed the Canon all of it, but at several times another interposed and added another thing.

And as they added, so also I doubt not but they altered many things, as we may guess by that remarkable Difference, betwixt what the Author of the Book of Sacraments, under the name of S. Ambrose Lib. 4. de Sacram. cap. 5. Fac nobis hanc Oblationem adscriptam, rationabilem, ac­ceptabilem, Quod est Figura corporis & sanguinis Domini nostri Jesu Christi. Quam Oblationem tu Deus in omnibus quaefumus bene­dictam, adscriptam, &c. fa­cere digneris, Ʋt nobis cor­pus & sanguis fiat dilectissimi tui Filii D. N. J. Christi., cites as the Prayer in his Time, and what we now find in it. (speak­ing of the Oblation) it was, then, Make this Oblation to us allowable, rational, acceptable, Which is the Figure of the Body and Blood of Christ our Lord: Which now is turned into this Prayer, That the Oblation may be made to us the Body and Blood of thy dear Son our Lord.

But yet to take the Canon as now it is, we shall find the Prayers of it, not capable of being reconciled with the pre­sent Faith of the Roman Church, and with Transubstantia­tion.

[Page 169]To give some Instances.

Thus they pray in the Canon, immediately af­ter the words of Consecration. Can. M [...]ss. Unde & memores, Domine, nos servi tui, sed & plebs tua sancta ejusdē Christi Filii tui D.N. tam beatae passi­onis, necnon & ab inferis re­surrectionis, sed & in coelos gloriosae ascensionis; Osseri­mus praclarae majestati tuae de tuis donis ac datis, Hostiam pa­ram, hostiam immaculatam, Pa­nem sanctum vitae aeternae, & Calicem salutis perpetuae. Supra quae propitio ac se­reno vultu respicere digne­ris: & accepta habere, sicuti accepta habere dignatus e [...] munera pueri tui justi Abel, & sacrificium Patriarchae no­stri Abrahae, & quod tibi ob­tulit summus Sacerdos tuus Melchisedeck, sanctum Sacri­ficium, immaculatam Hostiam. Supplices te rogamus, omni­potens Deus, jube haec perfer­ri per manus sancti Angeli tui in sublime Altare tuum, in conspectu Majestatis tuae, ut quotquot ex hac altaris par­ticipatione Sacrosanctum Fi­lii tui corpus & sanguinem sumpserimus, omni benedicti­one coelesti & gratia replea­mur. Per eundem J. Christum D. N. Nobis quoque peccatori­bus—partem aliquam & so­cietatem donare digneris cum tuis sanctis Apostolis — intra quorum nos consortium, non estimator meriti sed veniae, quaesumus, largitor adinitte. Per Christum D. N. Per quem haec omnia, Do­mine, semper bona creas, san­ctificas, vivificas, benedicis & prastas nobis.

Wherefore we, O Lord, thy Servants, and yet thy Holy People, being mindful, as well of the Bles­sed Passion, as also of the Resurrection from the Dead, and of the glorious Ascension into Heaven, of the same thy Son our Lord Jesus Christ; do of­fer to thy most excellent Majesty, out of thy own Do­nations and Gifts, a pure Sacrifice, an Immaculate Sacrifice, the Holy Bread of Eternal Life, and the Cup of Everlasting Salvation.

Ʋpon which (Gifts) vouchsafe to look, with a propitious and serene Aspect: and to accept them, as thou didst vouchsafe to accept the Gifts of thy Child, the Righteous Abel, and the Sacrifice of our Patriarch Abraham; and the Holy Sacrifice, the immaculate Hostie, which thy High Priest Melchi­sedeck did offer to thee.

Almighty God, we humbly beseech thee, command these things to be carried by the Hands of thy Holy Angel to thy High Altar, before thy Majesty, that as many of us, as by this partaking of the Altar, have received the most holy Body and Blood of thy Son, may be filled with all Heavenly Benediction and Grace, by the same Jesus Christ our Lord.

Vouchsafe also to bestow on us Sinners — some part and society with thy Holy Apostles, &c. — into whose society we intreat thee to admit us, not weighing our Merit, but bestowing Pardon on us. Through Christ our Lord.

By whom, O Lord, thou dost always create, san­ctify, quicken, bless, and bestow on us all these good things.

What we have taken with our Mouth, Quod ore sumpsimus, Domi­ne, pura mente capiamus: & de munere temporali fiat nobis remedium sempiter­num.O Lord, may we receive with a pure Heart: and of a tem­poral Gift, may it be made to us an Eternal Re­medy.

Let thy Body, O Lord, which I have taken, and thy Blood which I have drunk, cleave to my Entrals, and grant that the stain of my Crimes may not re­main in me, whom pure and Holy Sacraments have refreshed.

Who livest, &c.

All these Prayers I have cited, the Reader must remember are after Consecration; upon which immediately, according to the present Faith of the Roman Church, the Substance of Bread and Wine is destroyed, and nothing but the Species and Shadows of them remain; and now Christ, instead of them, becomes present there in his Body, and Soul, and Di­vinity. This is their Faith. But it is impossible to reconcile this to those foregoing Prayers. For at the be­ginning of the Canon, they pray, Supplices rogamus ac pe­timus uti accepta habeas & benedicas, haec dona, haec munera, haec sancta sacrificia illibata. That God would accept and bless these Donations and Gifts, these holy undefiled Sacrifices; that is, the Oblati­ons of Bread and Wine, which are no more than so, till the words of Consecration.

After this (as you heard) they pray, That this Oblation may be made to us, the Body and Blood of thy dear Son Jesus Christ. Which do not imply a change of Substances; for those words (fiat nobis) be made to us, may very well consist with the Oblations remaining in Substance what they were before, only beging the Communication of the Virtue and Efficacy of Christ's Passion to themselves.

And that this is the sense of the Canon, appears by those words after Consecration, when they say, We offer to thy Ma­jesty a pure Sacrifice of thy Donations and Gifts. Which words [Page 171]plainly suppose, that they are in Nature what they were, God's Creatures still, not the appearance and shadow of them only. But they call them now the Bread of Eternal Life, and the Cup of Salvation; because, after they are blessed and made Sacraments, they are not now to be look'd upon as bodily Food, but as the Food of our Souls, as representing that Bo­dy of Christ, and his Passion, which is the Bread of Eter­n [...] Life.

If they had understood nothing to remain now after con­secration, but Christ's Natural Body, they would not have called this thy Gifts in the Plural Number, but expressed it in the Singular, thy Gift. Neither can they refer to the remain­ing Accidents, because they are no real Things, and rather tell us what God has taken away, (the whole Substance of them) than what he has given.

But then what follows, puts it out of all doubt Supra quae propitio ac se­reno vultu respicere digne­ris.; Ʋpon which (still in the Plural) look pro­pitiously. If it had been, Look upon us propitious­ly for the sake of Christ, it had been well enough. Or, to desire of God to look upon these things pro­pitiously which they offer; if they mean (as he that made the Prayer did) that God would accept this Oblation of Bread and Wine, as he did of Abel and Melchisedeck, (which lat­ter was indeed Bread and Wine) this had been very proper. But to make that which we offer to be Christ himself, (as they that believe Transubstantiation must expound it) and to desire God to look propitiously and benignly upon him, when there can be no fear that he should ever be unaccepta­ble to his Father, nor none can be so foolish as to think that Christ stands in need of our recommendation to God for ac­ceptance, this sense can never be agreeable to the Prayer. Therefore the most Ancient of all the spurious Liturgies, I mean, that attributed to Clemens in his Constitutions Lib. 8. c. 12. [...]— [...] &c., has given us the true sense of it; We offer to thee this Bread and this Cup— and we beseech thee to look favourably upon these Gifts set before thee, O God, who standest in need of nothing; and be well pleased with them for the ho­nour of thy Christ, &c.

[Page 172]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 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 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, [Page 173]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 [...]., 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 [...], &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 [...]., 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.