more drink the Fruit of the Vine until I drink it with you in a new manner whereof you shall bear testimony for you shall see me after my Resurrection But wherefore continues S. Chrysostom did he drink Wine after his Resurrection and not Water it is because he would thereby destroy a pernicious Heresy For because there would be Hereticks that would only make use of water in the Mysteries be would represent the Mysteries he gave Wine and when after the Resurrection he eat his common Repast he drank Wine the Fruit of the Vine now the Vine doth produce Wine and not Water This Passage marketh in the first place That Jesus Christ drinking the Fruit of the Vine after his Resurrection and not Water he accomplish'd what he said in celebrating the Eucharist I will no more drink of this Fruit of the Vine until I drink it new in my Fathers Kingdom This shews that Jesus Christ drank true Wine in the Institution of the Eucharist for what is to be done again must needs be done before Secondly St. Chrysostom doth not only say that Jesus Christ drank Wine but he saith further That he distributed Wine amongst his Disciples and the Fruit of the Vine which doth not produce Water but Wine So that these words of St. Chrysostom import clearly That the Wine remains in the Eucharist The same Father on these words of the First to the Corinthians The Bread which we break is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ speaks thus What is the Bread it is the Body of Jesus Christ. What becomes of them which receive it they become the Body of Jesus Christ. Now this Proposition The Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ cannot be in a Literal Sense for saith Vasquez The Bread without a Figure cannot be called the Body of Jesus Christ nor the Body of Jesus Christ be called Bread. The same Father in his Commentary upon the Epistle to the Galatians Chap. 5. explaining these words of the Apostle The Flesh lusteth against the Spirit and the Spirit against the Flesh The Manicheans understood by the Flesh the substance of the Body and by the Spirit they understood the Soul and they said That the Apostle cut Man into two and intimated that Man was compos'd of two contrary Substances one bad which was the Flesh and the other good which was the Spirit which proceeded from the good God and the Body from the bad God S. Chrysostom answers That the Apostle in this place doth not call the Flesh the Body Apostolum non hic carnem appellare Corpus as the Manicheans supposed and saith That the Apostle do's not always mean by the Flesh the nature of the Body Naturam Corporis but that very often by the Flesh he means something else as evil Desires and having proved this by sundry passages of the Apostle and other holy Writers he proves it at last by the example of the Iucharist and of the Church which he saith is called Body in the Holy Scriptures he saith farther That the Scripture is wont to call by the name of Flesh as well the Church as the Mysteries saving It is his Body Rursum Carnis vocabulo Scriptura solet appellare tum Mysteria tum totam Ecclesiam dicens eam Christi Corpus esse It appears by these words of St. Chrysostom's That he did not believe that the Consecrated Bread and Wine were the same with the Body of Christ seeing he proves by the Eucharist that the Consecraeted Bread and Wine are called Flesh and that the Word Flesh in this place is taken for something else besides Body and that he puts the Term Flesh given to the Consecrated Bread and Wine which are the Mysteries in the rank of other Terms of Flesh given to evil Desires and to the Church which are mystical and figurative Terms So St. Chrysostom believed the Bread and Wine remained and are so called the Body of Jesus Christ mystically as the Church is called the Body of Jesus Christ. The same St. Chrysostom wrote a Letter to Caesarius which indeed is not inserted in his Works but is sound in Manuscript in the Library at Florence and it was also found in England in Archbishop Cranmer's Library it is mention'd in the Bibliotheca Patrum Printed at Collen 1618. in this Bibliotheque Tom. 4. there is found the Collections of an ancient nameless Author who wrote against the Severian and Acephalian Hereticks wherein is recited a Passage taken out of this Letter So also Monsieur de Marca Arch-Bishop of Paris acknowledges the truth of this Letter in his Posthume and French Treatise of the Eucharist witness the Abbot Fagget in his Letter to Monsieur de Marca President of the Parliament at Pan who saith also this Letter was found by Monsieur Bigot in a Library at Florence St. Chrysostom in this Letter writeth against Apollinarius and saith Jesus Christ is both God and Man God because of his Impassibility Man by his Passion one Son one Lord both Natures united making but one the same Power the same Dominion although they be two different Natures each conserves its own Nature because they are two and yet without confusion for as the Bread before it is sanctified is called Bread when by the intercession of the Priest Divine Grace has sanctified it it loses the name of Bread and becomes worthy to be called the Body of Jesus Christ although the Nature of Bread abides in it so that they are not two Bodies but one sole Body of the Son so the Divine Nature being united to the Humane Nature of Jesus Christ it did not make two Persons but one only Person and one Son. St. Chrysostom saith plainly That the Nature of Bread abideth after Consecration and this Father's Argument would be of no validity if this nature of the Bread was nothing but in shew for Apollinarius might have made another opposite Argument and say That indeed it might be said there were two Natures in Jesus Christ but that the Humane Nature was only in appearance as the Bread in the Eucharist is but in shew and hath only outward and visible qualities remaining in it whereby it is term'd to be Bread. The Author of the imperfect Work upon St. Matthew written in the time of the Emperour Theodosius did not believe Transubstantiation when he spake in these Terms in Homily Eleventh If it be dangerous to employ the holy Vessels about common uses wherein the true Body of Jesus Christ is not contain'd but the Mysteries of his Body how much rather the Vessels of our Bodies which God has prepared to dwell in That the Fathers of the FIFTH CENTURY did not believe Transubstantiation S. Jerom in his Epistle to Eustochium speaking of Virgins saith That when they were reproved for Drunkenness they excus'd themselves by adding Sacriledge to Drunkenness saying God forbid that I should abstain from the Blood of the Lord. In the Second Book against Jovinian
and ridiculous which happened every day It also seems that St. Austin had been too wide when he doubts in the 146th Ep. to Consentius Whether Jesus Christ has Blood when he saith on the 98th Psalm You shall not eat this Body which you see nor shall drink this Blood which those that shall crucify me shall shed I have given you a Sacrament c. And in the 20th Book against Faustus The Flesh and Blood of this Sacrifice was promised by Sacrifices of resemblance before the coming of Jesus Christ It was given by the verity in the Passion of Jesus Christ after the Ascension of Jesus Christ it is celebrated by the Sacrament of Commemoration To conclude St. Austin in his 33d Sermon on the Words of our Lord having said as hath been seen before That of things which are put to signify there are some that are to remain others to be destroy'd when the Ministry of their Signification is accomplish'd as the Bread of the Sacrament he adds But because these things are obvious to men as being practic'd by Men they may deserve our Veneration as being Holy and Religious things but they cannot cause any wonder in us as if they were miraculous Certainly if St. Austin had held Transubstantiation as it comprehends many things repugnant to natural Reason which are so many astonishing Miracles St. Austin could not have said That the Sacraments wherein he includes that of the Eucharist have something in them that deserves our Respect and Veneration but have nothing that deserves our Astonishment and Admiration These are some of the Reasons which made Monsieur De Marca Archbishop of Paris Predecessor to him that with so much Reputation now fills the chiefest See of France say That the Catholick Doctors are to blame when they pretend that St. Austin expounded the Text of the Institution of the Eucharist as it is done in the Schools And a little before that in St. Austin's Divinity This is my Body should be expounded in this manner This Bread is the Sign and Sacrament of my Body For according to St. Austin saith Monsieur De Marca The Bread to speak properly is but the Sign and Sacrament of the Body to which Jesus Christ made no scruple to give the name of the thing signified It is also the Judgment of Tertullian when he saith When Jesus Christ said this is my Body That is to say this is the Figure of my Body and saith Monsieur De Marca The Reasons that are given to the contrary are not satisfactory Bullenger writing against Casaubon recites this passage of Theodoret who was a Priest at Antioch in the year 411. As the King saith he and his Image are not two Kings so also the personal Body of Jesus Christ which Body is in the Heavens and the Bread which is his Antitype and is distributed to Believers by the Priest are not two Bodies It appears by this comparison That Theodoret did believe the Bread of the Eucharist is something else besides the Body of Christ and by consequence he believed that there remained true Bread in the Sacrament and not Bread in shew and appearance only Theodoret who in the year 423 was Bishop of Cyrus doth so fully explain himself hereupon that there is no doubt to be made of his Opinion He was pleas'd saith he that those who participated of the Divine Mysteries should not have any regard to the nature of the things that are seen but that they should believe by the change of Names the change that is made by Grace For having called his Body Wheat and Bread and having called himself a Vine he honours the visible Symbols with the name of his Body and Blood not in changing their Nature but in adding Grace to their Nature He could not more fully express that he did not hold Transubstantiation Arnobius the younger who wrote in the year 431. upon the 4th Psalm saith speaking of the Sacrament We have received Wheat in the Body Wine in the Blood and Oyl in the Chrism On the 22d Psalm and on the 51st and 54th Psalms Let us see what the Church keepeth She hath a Table from which she gives Bread to Believers She hath Oyl wherewith she refresheth the Head in libertatem conscientiae praesumenti c. On Psalm 103. We receive Bread because it strengthens the Body we receive Wine because it rejoyces the Heart and having received double comfort in the Heart our Faces are made shine by the Oyl of Chrism To conclude on Psalm 104. he saith these words speaking of the Lord That the Lord in the Eucharist gives us the Species of Bread and Wine as he doth the Species of Oyl in Baptism which cannot be understood of appearances and Accidents as the terms of Species of Oyl cannot be taken for the Accidents and appearances of Oyl Moreover he observes we receive in the Eucharist Bread and Wine as we receive Oyl in the Holy Chrism Now in the Holy Chrism it is true Oyl that we receive Arnobius then could not reason so if he believed Transubstantiation The Author of the Books of the Promises and Predictions of God attributed to St. Prosper by Cassiodorus and which were written about the year 450 under the Empire of Valentinian the 3d relates a History of a young unchast Girl that was possessed with the Devil who in Communicating had received a little morsel of the Lord's Body which the Priest had moistned it was half an hour before she could swallow it down till such time as the Priest touched her throat with the Chalice then she cried out instantly that she was healed After which prayers being made for her she received a portion of the Sacrifice and was restor'd to her former health These terms of some portion of the Sacrifice and of a little part of the moistned Body of the Lord by the Priest cannot be understood of the true Body of Jesus Christ of necessity then the Bread by this Author must be called by the name of the Body of Jesus Christ and by consequence he believed it remained in the Sacrament after Consecration Hesychius one of the Priests of the Church of Jerusalem in the year 480 saith in the second Book on Leviticus ch 8. This Mystery speaking of the Eucharist is at once Bread and Flesh Illud Mysterium simul panis caro In this same place he saith it was the custom of the Church of Jerusalem in his time to burn what remained after the Communion Procopius of Gaza who in all likelihood wrote in the end of the fifth Century expounding these words of Genesis where Jacob saith to Juda His eyes be red with wine and his teeth white with milk c. applying them to our Blessed Saviour in the Mystery of the Sacrament saith that 't is a Metaphor taken from those that having drank are the merrier for it c. and saith that the holy Scritures would
denote the gladness which the Lord left to his Disciples in giving them the Mystical Wine by the words of Institution Take drink ye all of this These words saith he do shew that Jesus Christ doth with mercy look on all those that believe in him because 't is the nature of wine to make every one merry And upon these words his teeth are white as milk milk saith he doth denote to us the whiteness and purity of the mystical nourishment for Jesus Christ gave to his Disciples the Image of his true Body not desiring any of the bloody sacrifices of the Law he would by the white teeth signifie to us the purity of the food wherewith we are nourished for according to holy David Sacrifice and burnt-offerings thou wouldest not but a Body hast thou prepared me When Procopius speaketh of the Mystical Wine that rejoyced the Disciples it being the nature of Wine to make merry this Mystical Wine is not the Blood of Jesus Christ for 't is not the nature of Blood to rejoyce It must therefore be meant that Procopius said by the Wine which Jesus Christ distributed to his Disciples was to be understood true Wine and by the whitness of the Mystical food he meant the whiteness of the Bread which is both food and Image which cannot be understood of the true Body of Jesus Christ which is neither the Image of himself nor bodily food nor of the accidents which cannot nourish the Body because nourishment proceedeth from matter The same Procopius in his Commentary on Esay expounding these words of the Prophet Chap. 3. The Lord of Hosts will take away from Judah and Jerusalem the staff of Bread and Water saith that in the first place these words of the Prophet may be understood of Jesus Christ and of his Flesh and Blood. The Bread being to be understood of him of whom David saith He gave them bread from Heaven and the waters of those of which Jesus Christ said to the Samaritan Whosoever drinketh of this water it shall be a fountain flowing unto everlasting Life Then he adds There is another bread which giveth life to the world which was taken from the Jews and another water which is that of Baptism Now by this other bread which was taken from the Jews he means that of the Eucharist and whereas he distinguishes it from the bread which is the Lord as he distinguisheth the water of Baptism from that which was given to the Samaritan it follows that the Bread of the Eucharist is something that is distinguisht from Jesus Christ himself the Bread of Heaven Gelasius Bishop of Rome in the year 492 wrote a Treatise of the two Natures against Nestorius and Eutyches and he excludes Transubstantiation when he saith that the substance or nature of Bread and VVine doth still remain This work is assuredly of Pope Gelasius As is confessed by Cardinal Du Perron because first Fulgentius cites four passages of this Treatise as being writ by Pope Gelasius And Pope John the Second in Epist. ad Amaenum also cites some passages of this Work as being writ by Gelasius and though he doth not give him the Title of Pope 't is because his name was well enough known at Rome when John the Second lived That the Fathers of the SIXTH CENTURY did not believe Transubstantiation SAint Fulgentius saith The Catholick Church doth continually offer to God the Father Son and Holy Ghost a Sacrifice of Bread and Wine throughtout all the World. For in the fleshly Sacrifices of the Old Testament there is a type of the Flesh of Jesus Christ which he was to offer without spot for our Sins but in this Sacrifice there is a Thanksgiving and commemoration of the same Flesh which he offer'd for us and of the Blood which he shed for us He saith That this Sacrifice consists in offering Bread and Wine there must then be true Bread and Wine in this Sacrifice to be offer'd Ephraem first a Lieutenant of the Eastern part of the Empire then made Bishop of Antioch in the Year 526. wrote Books which he intituled Sacred Laws in the first of which disputing against the Eutychians he saith When our Fathers said That Jesus Christ is compos'd of two Natures they meant two Substances as by two Substances two Natures No body of any sense but may say that the Nature of that which is to be felt and not felt in Jesus Christ is the same Nature Thus it is that the body of Jesus Christ which is received by Believers doth not quit its sensible Nature and remains without being separated from the intelligible Grace The which he confirms by the Example of Water which doth not lose its Nature by Consecration This Argument is of the same kind of that we see of Theodoret and of Gelasius whereby these three others prove that in the Incarnation the presence of the Word did not destroy the human Nature in Jesus Christ as the presence of the Holy Ghost doth not destroy the Substance of Bread and Wine in the Eucharist We may say of this Triple and same Argument Funiculus triplex difficile rumpitur Mons. de Marca saith in reference to this passage and of those we have instanced of Theodoret and St. Chrysostom that these three Authors have owned a real change of the Bread which nevertheless leaves the Species in their natural Substance Facundus Bishop of Hermiana in Africa in the year 552. whose Books which he wrote in Defence of the Three chapters of the Council of Chalcedon are justly praised by Victor of Tunes in his Chronology and by St. Isidore of Sevil and which Father Sirmond the Jesuit got out of the Vatican Library going about to excuse Theodore de Mopsuest who taught that Jesus Christ had taken the Adoption of the Children of God from whence it might have been concluded that he believed that Jesus Christ is only an adoptive Son saith Baptism which is the Sacrament of Adoption may be call'd Adoption as we call the Sacrament of his Body and Blood which is in the consecrated Bread and Wine his Body and Blood 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. Therefore as the faithful Servants of Jesus Christ receiving the Sacrament of his Body and Blood are very rightly said to receive his Body and Blood so also Jesus Christ having received the Sacrament of the Adoption of Children might very well be said to have received the Adoption of Children Certainly if the Sacrament of Bread and Wine is not properly the Body of Jesus Christ as Facundus saith but barely Body and Blood as Baptism is Adoption the Bread and Wine are not Transubstantiated into the Eucharist and are but simple signs and something that is distinguished from the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. Primasius Bishop of Adruemetum in Africa in his
they were not seen to propose nor deliberate nor advise nor prepare any of the Constitutions which were there in great numbers but they were presented to the Council ready drawn up it not appearing that the advice of the Assembly was taken on each of them as is usually practis'd in all free and lawful Councils Mathew Paris on the year 1215. speaks in these terms Every one being Assembled in the place abovesaid and each having according to the custom of the General Councils taken their place the Pope having first made an Exhortatory Sermon there was read in full Council Sixty Articles which were liked by some and disliked by others Godfry a Fryer of St. Pantalion at Cologne saith There was nothing worth the remembrance done at this Council only that the Eastern Church submitted to the Western which before was never known Naucerlus and Platina in the Life of Innocent the 3d. affirm the same for they mark that several things were there propos'd but that nothing was clearly determin'd And Kings and Princes have no Reason to allow of this Council because in the 3d Chap. of the said Council Power is given to the Pope to deprive Princes and Lords of their Lands and to give them to others Guy leGros Archbishop of Narbonne in the year 1268. did not believe Transubstantiation for being at Rome and discovering his mind to a certain Doctor being return'd to Narbonne Pope Clement the IV. wrote him a Letter telling him that a certain Doctor inform'd him that discoursing with him he held that the Body of Christ was not essentially in the Sacrament and no otherwise than as the thing signified is in the Sign and that he said also this Opinion was common at Paris This appears by the Register'd Manuscript of the Letters of Clement the IV. And to shew that the Arch Bishop of Narbonne said this Doctrine was very frequent at Paris we find that two years after that is to say in the year 1270. which was in the year St. Lewis died Stephen Bishop of Paris by advice of some Doctors in Divinity condemned those which held that God cannot make an Accident to be without a Subject because it is of its Essence to be actually in its Subject 2ly That the Accident without a Subject is not evident unless it be equivocal 3ly That to make the Accident subsist without its Subject as we think it does in the Eucharist is a thing impossible and implies a Contradiction 4ly That God cannot make the Accident be without its Subject neither that it should have several Dimensions Which Maxims being inconsistent with Transubstantiation doth plainly shew that even at that time Men were divided on the Subject of Transubstantiation One William saith the Fryer Walsingham in the Life of Richard the 2d King of England on the year 1381. Preached at Leicester on Palm-Sunday That the Sacrament of the Altar is real Bread after Consecration and that the Bishop of Lincoln going to punish him for it the People appearing concern'd for him made the Bishop not dare do any thing against him which doth plainly shew that in that time the Doctrine of Transubstantiation had not taken any deep root in the minds of the People Reginal Peacock Bishop of Chichester in England in the year 1457 did not hold Transubstantiation seeing Baleus reports on the Credit of Thomas Gasconius and Leland that he had no sound thoughts touching the Eucharist and that he asserted the Doctrine of Wickliff Now the Doctrine of Wickliff as is related by this Frier Walsingham and Thomas Waldensis was That after Consecration by the Priest in the Mass there remains true Bread and Wine such as they were before nevertheless saith Walsingham the Lords and Nobles of the Land favour'd Wickliff which shews plainly that the belief of Transubstantiation was not generally received Guy of Cluvigny Doctor in Divinity of the Order of Carmelites and Reader of the Sacred Palace did not hold Transubstantiation but held the Opinion of Rupert de Duits to wit the Impanation and said That this Opinion was so agreeable to him that if he were Pope he would establish it Thomas Waldensis reports the same thing having receiv'd it from John of Paris It 's certain that John of Paris teacheth so in his Manuscript Treatise in the Library of St. Victor having for its Title Determinatio fratris Joannis de Parisiis Praedicatoris de modo existendi Corpus Christi in Sacramento Altaris alio quam sit ille quem tenet Ecclesia The same John de Paris wrote the Treatise above mention'd about the year 1300. he was a Jacobin and Doctor of the Sorbon he held that the Eucharist is the Body of Christ as Rupert de Duits and Guy of Cluvigny did to wit by Assumption Jesus Christ having taken the Bread into the Unity of his Suppositum as he took the human Nature into the Unity of his Person And towards the end of the Manuscript it is said That the faculty thought fit that the manner of explaining the Eucharist by Assumption of the Bread or by Conversion was a probable Opinion but that neither the one nor the other was decided as a matter of Faith and that whoever said otherwise did not say well and run the risque of Excommunication In praesentia Collegii Magistrorum in Theologia dictum est says the end of the Manuscript utrumque modum ponendi Corpus Christi esse in Altare tenet pro Opinioni probabili approbat utrumque per. Et per dicta Sanctorum Dicit tamen quod nullus est determinatus per Ecclesiam idcirco nullus cadit sub fide si aliter dixisset minus bene dixisset qui aliter dicunt minus bene dicunt qui determinate assereret alterum praecise cadere sub fide incurreret sententiam Canonis vel Anathematis Thomas Waldensis attributes this Opinion to John de Paris There is commonly found in the Library of the Franciscan Friers a Book called the Poor's Reckoning writ by one called De Goris a Doctor of Tholouse and Native of Arragon he Dedicated his Book to Alphonsus of Arragon Arch-Bishop of Sarragossa He chargeth John de Paris with the Opinion of the Impanation and doth not condemn it It is on the 4th Book of Sentences Dist. 11. q. 3. The Continuator of William de Nangis his Manuscript Chronicle in the Library of St. German de Pres that John de Paris is stiled Doctor of great Knowledg and Learning Trythemius and Auctuar le Mire give him also the same Epithets I observe That in this Manuscript John de Paris to confirm his Opinion makes use of the Authority of the Master of the Sentences in 4th Sent. Dist. 21. I take it to be Dist. 12. as if the Master of the Sentences should there say That the Impanation is a probable Opinion He also cites to the same purpose Dominus Hostiensem c. Super Corpus juris extra de summa Trinit
it is said The Lord in the Type of his Blood did not offer Water but Wine These words are indeed Jovinian's but St. Jerom sinds no fault with them For he himself saith the same upon the 31 Chapter of Jeremy Vers. 12. on these Words They run after God's Creatures the Wheat the Wine and the Oyl the Bread and the Wine saith he whereof is made the Bread of the Lord and wherein is accomplished the Type of his Blood. Now saith St. Ambrose The Type is not the Truth but it is the shadow of the Truth There must then be in the Eucharist Bread and Wine distinct from the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ to be the Types and Figures of it The same Father in his Letter to Hedibia Let us hear that the Bread which the Lord broke and gave his Disciples was the Lord's own Body saying Take Eat This is my Body and a little after he saith If the Bread that came down from Heaven is the Body of the Lord and the Wine which he distributed among his Disciples his Blood c. St. Jerom saith That Jesus Christ brake and distributed Bread to his Disciples that he gave them Bread and that the Bread and Wine were his Flesh and Blood. It cannot then be said That what Jesus Christ gave in communicating his Disciples was not Bread and Wine and when he saith both the one and the other was his Body and Blood it cannot be understood but only figuratively for we see above in St. Cyprian that the Jesuites Salmeron and Bellarmine do confess That if Jesus Christ said of the Bread This is my Body it must be meant This Bread is the Figure of my Body the one not being capable of being the other but figuratively And the Reason is given by Vasquez when he saith If the Pronoun This in the words of Consecration be understood of the Bread undoubtedly by virtue of it there can be wrought no Transubstantiation because of necessity the Bread must needs remain Si Pronomen hoc in illis verbis demonstraret panem fatemur fore ut nulla conversio virtute illorum fieri posset quia panis de quo enunciatur manere debeat The same S. Jerom in his Commentary upon the 26 Chapter of St. Matthew saith Jesus Christ having eaten the Paschal Lamb took Bread which strengthens the Heart of Man and proceeded to the accomplishment of the Sacrament of the true Passover that as Melchisedeck had offered Bread and Wine in Figure he also himself would represent the truth of his Body According to this Father the Bread and Wine represent the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and therefore are not properly and truly the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ but are something else besides them and by consequence remain in the Sacrament For to say as the Author of the Second Book of the perpetuity of the Faith of the Eucharist doth against Monsieur Claude that St. Jerom means by representing to make a thing be present we before refuted this Fancy in Tertullian who speaks just as St. Jerom And the terms sufficiently declare that St. Jerom's meaning is That Jesus Christ made use of Bread and Wine to signifie and shew forth his Body and Blood as Melchisedeck had done that is to say as he had represented both the one and the other by the Oblation of Bread and Wine St. Austin in his Sermon to the newly Baptized which it's true is not found in his other Works but was preserv'd and is cited by St. Fulgentius de Baptismo Aethiop Cap. 7. What you see saith he upon the Altar of God you saw also the last Night but you were not yet aware of how great a thing it is a Sacrament That which you see is Bread and a Cup of Wine and it is also what your Eyes declare unto you but what your Faith should instruct you in is That the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ and the Cup his Blood. If you tell me Jesus Christ is born he was crucified he was buried he rose again and is ascended into Heaven whither he has carry'd his Body and is at present on the right hand of God from whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead how then can the Bread be his Body and the Cup his Blood these things my Brethren are called Sacraments because one thing is seen in them and another thing is understood by them what is seen hath a Corporeal Substance what is understood hath a Spiritual Fruit. If then you desire to understand what the Body of Jesus Christ is hearken to the Apostle which saith You are the Body of Christ and his Members If then you are the Body of Jesus Christ and his Members it is the Mystery of what you are which is upon the Holy Table it is the Mystery of the Lord which you receive in saying Amen you answer and subscribe to what you are All you that are united in Charity you make but one Body of Jesus Christ of which you are the Members which is what is signified by the Bread compos'd of several Grains and by the Wine which is made of sundry Grapes For as Bread to be made a visible Species of Bread is made of sundry Grains collected together in one and the Wine c. St. Austin saith That the Bread is the Body of Christ which cannot be but improperly and figuratively as hath been shewed above for by Confession of Roman Catholick Doctors every Proposition that saith of the Bread That it is the Body must needs be typical and figurative He saith what is seen is Bread as our Eyes declare to us now what our Eyes report to us is true Bread as when one says What you see is true Gold and Silver or Marble and 't is what your Eyes testifie that is to say That one sees true Gold and true Marble and that one makes use of their Eyes to confirm it In the same sense he saith That Jesus Christ although in Heaven yet the Bread is the Body and the Wine the Blood because they are the Sacraments of it He saith What one sees hath a bodily species now in this Passage by bodily species he means the very Substance and not the Accidents For he saith afterwards speaking of Bread in general as Bread to be a visible species of Bread must be made of several Grains reduced into one lump now by the species of Bread it is plain St. Austin there means true Bread and a true Substance He saith What you see is Bread and a Cup now by Cup he doth not mean the appearance of a Cup he means a true Cup. He saith this Bread is the Mystery of the Lord. Which is nothing else but that 't is the Figure of the Lord as when he saith This Bread is the Mystery of Believers Mysterium vestrum in Mensa Domini accipitis That is to say That the Bread and Wine are the Figure of