that People for their Unbelief had deserved Moses and Aaron and several others of the People that pleased God ate that heavenly Bread and did not die that everlasting Death tho' they died the common Death They saw that the heavenly Food was visible and Corruptible but they understood that visible thing spiritually and they tasted it spiritually Jesus said Whoso eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood hath Eternal Life He did not command them to eat that Body which he had assumed nor to drink that Blood which he shed for us but by that Speech he meant the Holy Eucharist which is Spiritually his Body and his Blood and whosoever tasteth this with a believing Heart shall have that Eternal Life Under the old Law the Faithful offered divers Sacrifices to God which had a future signification of the Body of Christ which he hath offered in Sacrifice to his heavenly Father for our Sins This Eucharist which is now consecrated at God's Altar is a Commemoration of the Body of Christ which he offered for us and of his Blood which he shed for us As he himself commanded Do this in remembrance of me Christ once suffered by himself but yet his Passion by the Sacrament of this Holy Eucharist is daily renewed at the Holy Mass Wherefore the Holy Mass is profitable very much both for the Living and also for the Dead as it hath been often declared c. The rest of the Sermon being of a moral and allegorical Nature I omit Besides this Sermon in Publick we have also two other Remains of Elfrike the Abbot in the Saxon Tongue * Published at the end of the foresaid Sermon printed by John Day Also in the Notes on Bede's Eccl. Hist p. 332 333 334. which speak the very same Sense and deserve to be inserted as far as they concern this Argument of the Eucharist and the change made in it The first is an Epistle to Wulffine Bishop of Shyrburn in which is this Passage The Eucharist is not the Body of Christ corporally but spiritually not the Body in which he suffered but that Body when he consecrated Bread and Wine for the Eucharist the night before his Passion and said of the Bread he Blessed This is my Body and again of the Wine he blessed This is my Blood which is shed for many for the Remission of Sins Now then understand that the Lord who was able to change that Bread before his Passion into his Body and that Wine into his Blood Spiritually that the same Lord by the Hands of the Priests daily consecrates Bread and Wine for his Spiritual Body and for his Spiritual Blood. The second an Epistle of Elfricke to Wulfstane Arch-Bishop of York in which among other things against too long reserving the Eucharist he says thus Vid. p. 334. Hist Eccles Sax. Lat. Bedae Christ himself consecrated the Eucharist before his Passion he blessed Bread and brake it saying thus to his Apostles Eat this Bread it is my Body and again he blessed the Cup filled with Wine and spake thus to them Drink ye all of this it is my Blood of the New Testament which is shed for many for the Remission of Sins Our Lord who consecrated the Eucharist before his Passion and said that Bread was his Body and Wine truly his Blood he also daily consecrates by the Priests hands Bread for his Body and Wine for his Blood in a Spiritual Mystery as we read in Books Yet notwithstanding that Lively Bread is not the same Body in which Christ suffered nor that Holy Wine the Blood of our Saviour which was shed for us in bodily thing or sence in re corporali but in a Spiritual sence in ratione Spirituali That Bread indeed was his Body and also that Wine his Blood just as that heavenly Bread which we call Manna which fed God's People forty Years viz. was his Body and that clear Water was his Blood that then flowed from the Rock in the Wilderness As Paul writes in his Epistle They all ate the same spiritual Meat and drank the same spiritual Drink c. The Apostle that says what you have heard They all ate c. he do's not say corporally but spiritually Christ was not as yet born nor his Blood shed then it was the People of Israel did eat that Spiritual Meat and drank of that Rock neither was that Rock Christ Corporeally tho' he spake so The Sacraments of the Old Law were the same and did spiritually signify that Sacrament or Eucharist of our Saviour's Body which we now consecrate This Last Epistle Elfricke wrote first in the Latin Tongue to Wulfstane containing tho' not word for word yet the whole Sence of the English Epistle and that Paragraph of it which I have inclosed between two Brackets was look'd upon as so disagreeable to the present Faith of the Roman Church that some had rased them out of the Worcester Book but the same Latin Epistle being found in Exceter Church it was restored I was once about to have added some Citations here out of Bertram's Book de corpore sanguine Domini out of which many passages in the Saxon Sermon foregoing were taken But they are so many that I must have transcribed and the Book it self is small and so well worth the reading especially with the late Translation of it into English and a Learned Historical Dissertation before it giving a large account of the Difference betwixt his Opinion and that of Transubstantiation printed An 1686 that I shall rather refer the Reader to it where he may abundantly satisfy himself Instead of it I will only add one Testimony more out of Rabanus Arch-bishop of Mentz in an Epistle to Heribaldus * Epist ad Herib c. 33. de Eucharist Which we are beholden to the Learned Baluzius for giving it us entire in Appendice ad Reginonem p. 516. a Passage having been rased out of the Manuscript out of which it was first published Thus he says As for the Question you put Quod autem interrogastis utrum Eucharistia postquam consumitur in secessum emittitur more aliorum ciborum iterum redeat in naturam pristinam quam habuerat antequam in Altari consecraretur superflua est hujusmodi Quaestio cùm ipse Salvator dixerit in Evangelio Omne quod intrat iâ—â—s in ventrem vadit in secâ—ssum emittitur Sacramentum Corporis Sanguinis ex rebus visibilibus corporalibus conficitur sed invisibilem tà m corporis quà m arimae efficit sanctificationem Quae est enim ratio ut hoc quod stomacho digeritur in secessum emittitur iterum in statum pristinum redeat cum nullus hoc unquam fieri asseruerit Nam quidam nuper de ipso Sacramento corporis sanguinis Domini non ritè sentientes dixerunt hoc ipsum corpus sanguinem Domini quod de Maria Virgine natum est in quo ipse Dominus passus est in Cruce resurrexit
concerning this Matter Baronius has given us (e) Baronius Append. ad Tom. 12. ad An. 1118. this practice was abrogated A second Device also about the same time was brought into play Of sucking the Consecrated Wine through little Pipes or Canes called Pugillares like Quills concerning which Cassander de communione sub utraque gives us an account and that some of them were to be seen in his Time. And indeed this seems to be a sufficient security to the danger of Effusion and also prevents that great Offence of any drops of Blood sticking to the Beards of People when they drank out of the Cup and yet even this would not satisfy nor any thing else be a sufficient Caution against the prophanation of the Blood but only debarring the People wholly of it Yet this way is still used by the Pope himself and I think he has the sole privilege to do it who in that which is called the Missa Papalis when he himself celebrates and communicates he sucks part of the Blood through a golden Quill * Cum pontifex Corpus Christi sumpserit Episcopus Cardinalis porrigit â—i calamum quem Papa ponit in Calice in manibus Diaconi existente Sanguinis partem sugit Sacrarum Cerimon lib. 2. cap. de Missa Majori Papa personaliter celebrante But neither do's he always thus communicate for their Book of Sacred Ceremonies acquaints us (**) Ibid. cap. Si Papa in nocte Nativitatis personaliter celebrat Non sugit sanguinem cum calamo sed more communi That when He celebrates personally on the Night of the Nativity of our Lord that all things are observed that are described in the Papal Mass except that he communicates at the Altar alone and not in his eminent and high Seat and do's not suck the Blood with a Quill but takes it after the common manner But now after all what account can we give of the Ancient Fathers they apprehended it necessary to receive in both Kinds in all their Publick Communions and so they practised Must we not then accuse them either of great Dulness or Indevotion either that they wanted Sagacity in not apprehending the imminent danger they in their way exposed the Blood of Christ to or that they were guilty of a strange carelesness and indifferency in not preventing it by any of those Methods which the Roman Church hath found out to do it Truly for my part I am inclined to have as great if not a greater opinion of them in both respects especially for their Devotion than I can have of the Roman Church and I am the more perswaded hereto because the Apostles themselves must come in to the side of the Ancient Church their practice being the same not to insist upon the Deference that ought to be paid to that Holy Spirit that we are sure acted them who if there had been any such real danger of prophanation by receiving in both kinds or ever was likely to be any such would not have failed to have given directions to them how they should avoid it and we cannot think the Apostles would not have set down those Directions to us in some of their Writings But they have not done it no not the Zealous St. Paul who yet says so much to the careless Corinthians about this Argument and tells them that they came together not for the better but the worse charges them with unworthy receiving and being thereby guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord 1 Cor. 11. and that for this cause many were weak and sick among them and were judged of the Lord for their prophanations c. But this is none of the Charges against them nor does he direct them to any of the wise Methods of the Roman Church for preventing this Danger tho' he says What he received of the Lord he delivered to them There is nothing then remains but that we assign the true Cause of this different Practice which can be none other but the Roman Churches innovating in their Faith about the Sacrament and altering so their Opinions about the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist that they require a different Conduct for their Devotion so that neither the Practice of the Primitive Fathers nor the Rules of the Apostles will sâ—it and agree with their Perswasions and Apprehensions But now the Faith of the Ancient Church in this Matter was such as neither requires nor can admit of any Alteration like what the Church of Rome has made in communicating the People only in one Kind For as I have before proved they look'd upon this Sacrament not as an actual Exhibition and Presentation of the Natural and Glorified Body of our Saviour which they believed to be absent and contained in the Heavens but as a Representation of his Crucified Body where his Blood was separated from his Body and poured out of his Veins and that not only the Elements but the Sacramental Actions of breaking the Bread and pouring out the Wine and our eating and drinking were instituted to shew forth this painful Death of our Lord and the shedding of his most precious Blood for the Remission of Sins By the presence of his glorified Body there as the Roman Church believes this cannot be done no breaking nor no parts to be made of that nor no separation of Blood as out of the Body But all can be done in the Representative Body of Christ which is the Eucharist all the Ends of the Institution can be there fully effected and the Sacrifice on the Cross in this Image of it made present to our Faith and to our Minds and set livelily before us and by the Effects of this upon our Hearts while we partake of the Elements through the powerful Grace of God's Holy Spirit we may be prepared to receive all the Blessed Fruits and Benefits of his Passion According to these Perswasions it 's plain there can be no abatement of communicating in the Cup because without that there is no representation of a Crucified Body for the distinct partaking of the Blood not as supposed to be contained and received in the other Species is that which alone shows as I said before the separation that was then made of his Body and Blood. 3. Instance Another Practice of the Roman Church differing from the Ancient is The Elevation of the Eucharist that all present may at once adore it For thus the Missal (*) Ritus celebr Missam cap. 8. Dicit hoc est enim Corpus meum Quibus prolatis celebrans Hostiam tenens inter pollices indices genuflexus eam adorat Tunc se erigens quantum commodè potest elevat in altum Hostiam intentis in eam oculis quod in Elevatione Calicis facit populo reverenter ostendit adorandam directs That when the Priest comes to the words of Consecration and has said This is my Body then holding the Host as he is directed he kneels down
3.5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says The sensible Water is transelemented into a Divine Virtue for the Fathers make Changes in Baptism as well as the Eucharist and sanctifies those in whom it is Nay he affirms That the Water differs only from the Spirit in our manner of Conception for it is the same in Energy Cyril of Jerusalem (u) Catech. Mystag 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 calling the Flesh and Bread in the Feast of Idols defiled by the Invocation of impure Devils he illustrates it thus As the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist before the Invocation of the adored Trinity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is bare Bread and Wine but after Invocation the Bread is made the Body of Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Wine the Blood of Christ so also in the same manner those Meats of the Pomp of Satan in their own Nature being simple things yet by the Invocation of Devils they become impure That 's the Change here That those Meats are in Quality not in Substance made impure and so if the Comparison hold the Change in the other is That they are Hallowed Bread and Wine in Use and Efficacy different from what they were before The Author under Cyprian's Name (x) De Vnct. Chrysinat Inest Veritas signo Spiritus Sacramento speaking of Chrysm says Truth is in the Sign and the Spirit in the Sacrament Thus S. Ambrose (y) De iis qui init c. 9. in fine understands the Body of Christ for that Divine Substance and Presence of the Spirit which is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Christ's Body Christ is in that Sacrament In Illo Sacramento Christus est quia corpus est Christi Non ergo corporalis esca sed spiritalis est Corpus enim Dei corpus est Spiritale Corpus Christi corpus est divini Spiritus quia Spiritus Christi sc est because it is the Body of Christ It is not therefore Corporeal but Spiritual Food For the Body of God is a Spiritual Body The Body of Christ is the Body of the Divine Spirit not his natural Body because it is the Spirit of Christ. Here Corpus Dei is Corpus Spiritale that is Substantia Spiritalis Spiritus The Author under his Name (z) De Sacram. lib. 4. cap. 4. Quomodo potest qui panis est corpus esse Christi Consecratione Ergo ut tibi respondeam Non erat corpus Christi ante consecrationem sed post consecrationem dico tibi quod corpus est Christi Ipse dixit factum est ipse mandavit creatum est Tu ipse eras verus creatura posteaquam consecratus es nova creatura esse coepisti c. How can that which is Bread be the Body of Christ By Consecration To answer thee therefore It was not the Body of Christ before Consecration but after Consecration I tell thee it is the Body of Christ. He said it and it was done he commanded and it was created Thou thy self wast an old Creature but after thou wast consecrated thou beganst to be a new Creature c. So that according to this Author as in Regeneration by Baptism Man changes his Nature so do's the Consecrated Bread in the Eucharist change its Nature Therefore it is no substantial Change because the other confessedly is not so Druthmarus (a) Comm. in Math. 26. speaking of a Person taking a long Journey and leaving a Pledge behind him to remember him by Ita Deus praecipit agi à nobis transferens spiritualiter panem in corpus vinum in sanguinem ut per haec duo memoremus quae fecit pro nobis de corpore suo c. he adds Thus also God has commanded us to do spiritually changing the Bread into his Body and the Wine into his Blood that by these two things we may remember what he hath done for us with his Body and Blood c. 5 Assertion The Fathers express in the same manner and as fully our substantial Change into Christ's Body as of the Bread into Christ's Body Yet none will from such Expressions assert the former and there is the same reason not to do the latter Gr. Nyssen (b) Orat. Catech. cap. 37. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As a little Leaven according to the Apostle likens the whole Mass to it self so the Body of Christ put to death by God coming into our Body do's change and convert the whole into it self And again a little after His immortal Body being in him that receives it changes the whole into its own Nature Cyril of Alexandria (c) In Joan. lib. 4. cap. 3. says He that receives me by a participation of my Flesh shall have Life in himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being wholly transelemented into me P. Leo Magn. (d) De Nat. Dom. Serm. 10. Christi caro de utero virginis sumpta nos sumus We are the Flesh of Christ taken from the Womb of the Virgin. And elsewhere (e) Id. de Passion Serm. 14. Non aliud agit Participatio corporis sanguinis Christi quà m ut in id quod sumimus transeamus Ipsum per omnia spiritu carne gestemus The Participation of the Body and Blood of Christ intends nothing else but that we should pass into that which we receive That we may carry him in all things both in Spirit and Flesh Not as Bellarmine and others pervert the Sense reading gustemus Again in another place (f) Epist 23. In illa mysticâ distributione spiritualis alimoniae hoc impertitur hoc sumitur ut accipientes virtutem coelestis cibi in carnem ipsius quia caro nostra factus est transeamus In that mystical Distribution of Spiritual Food this is bestowed on us this is taken that receiving the Virtue of the Celestial Meat we should pass into his Flesh who was made our Flesh See more Testimonies to this sense in the Chapter following Position 3. CHAP. IX The Ninth Difference The Fathers differ from the Church of Rome in their Belief of Christ's Presence in the Eucharist The Church of Rome asserts the substantial Presence of Christ's Natural Body there but the Fathers deny it THe former is the Assertion of the Roman Church in the Trent Council in which an Anathema is pronounced (g) Conc. Trid. Sess 13. cap. 6. Can. 1. against such as deny That in the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist is contained truly really and Substantially the Body and Blood of Christ but shall say That he is in it only as in a Sign or Figure or Virtue And the Catechism ad Parochos (h) Part. 2. de Eucharist n. 25. says That the True Body of our Lord Christ the same that was born of the Virgin and sits in the Heavens at the Right-hand of the Father is contained in this Sacrament I will now
aright and are of a confirmed Faith must be persuaded that tho' Christ he absent from us in the Flesh having undertaken a long Journey to God and the Father that yet he compasses all things by his Divine Power and is present to them that love him c. And again (e) Ibid. in v. 36. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It seemed to them intolerable to be separated from Christ tho' he was always present with them by the Power and Efficacy of the Spirit Elsewhere (f) In Joan. 14.27 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he lays it down as a Rule That Christ's Spirit dwelling in the Saints supplies the Presence and Power of Christ in his absence And many more Places I might name out of him Their Sense is well exprest in that short Saying of the Author under S. Cyprian's (g) De Vnct. Chrysmat Inest veritas signo Spiritus Sacramento Name which I 'le again repeat Truth is in the Sign and the Spirit in the Sacrament S. Ambrose (h) De Spir. Sanct. l. 1. c. 10. propè finem knows of no other Presence of Christ now but what makes the Father to be present with him too and that is the Presence of the Spirit and of Grace His Words are very remarkable The Spirit then so comes Sic ergo venit Spiritus quemadmodum venit Pater dixit enim Filius Ego Pater veniemus mansionem apud eum faciemus Nunquid corporaliter Pater venit Sic ergo Spiritus venit in quo cum venit Patris Filii plena praesentia est Paulo post Probavimus igitur unam praesentiam esse unam gratiam esse Patris Filius Spiritus Sancti quae tam coelestis divina est ut pro eagratias agat Patri Filius c. as the Father comes For the Son said I and my Father will come and make our abode with him What do's the Father come corporally And the same may be ask'd too of the Son by what follows The Spirit so comes as that in him when he comes is the full Presence of the Father and the Son. A little after We have therefore proved that there is one Presence and that there is one Grace which explains what the Presence is of the Father Son and Holy Ghost which is so Celestial and Divine that the Son gives thanks to the Father for it c. Bede (i) Hom. ast de temp feria 6. Pasch observing how many times Christ appeared to his Disciples after his Resurrection says Hac ergo frequentia corporalis suae manifestationis ostendere voluit Dominus ut diximus in omni loco se bonorum desideriis divinitùs esse praesentem Apparuit namque ad monumentum lugentibus aderit nobis absentiae ejus recordatione salubriter contristatis Apparuit in fractione panis his qui se peregrinum esse putantes ad hospitium vocaverunt aderit nobis cùm peregrinis pauperibus quaecunque possumus bona libenter impendimus Aderit nobis in fractione panis cùm Sacramenta corporis ejus videlicet panis vivi casta simplici conscientia sumimus He designed to shew by these frequent Appearances that he would be spiritually or divinely present in all Places at the Desire of the Faithful He appear'd to the Women that wept at the Sepulcher he will be likewise present with us when we grieve at the remembrance of his absence He appear'd whilst they broke Bread to those who taking him for a Stranger gave him entertainment he will be likewise with us whilst we liberally receive the Poor and Strangers He will be likewise with us in the Fraction of Bread when we receive the Sacraments of his Body which is the Living Bread with a pure and chaste Heart All this speaks only the Presence of his Divinity and no other For as Alcuinus (k) In Joan. lib. 6. cap. 35. Et idem ipse Christus homo Deus Ergo ibat per id quod homo erat manebat per id quod Deus erat Ibat per id quod in uno loco erat manebat per id quod ubique Deus erat says The same Christ who is Man is likewise God he left them as to his Manhood but remained with them as to his Godhead He went away with reference to that by which he is but in one place N. B. yet tarried with them by his Divinity which is every where All Liturgies when the Eucharist is celebrated call aloud 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sursum corda Lift up your Hearts The meaning of which we are told by S. Austin (l) De bono Persev l. 2. c. 13. Quod ergo in Sacramentis fidelium dicitur ut sursum corda habeamus ad Dominum munus est Domini ut ascendat quae sursum sunt sapiat ubi Christus est in dextra Dei sedens non quae super terram c. What therefore is said in the Sacraments of the Faithful that we should lift up our Hearts to the Lord it is a Gift of the Lord. And he explains it That by the Divine Aid the Soul is helped to ascend and set its Affections upon things above where Christ is sitting at God's right Hand and not upon things on the Earth S. Jerom's Words (m) Ad Hedybiam qu. 2. Ascendamus cum Domino coenaculum magnum stratum mundatum accipiamus ab eo sursum calicem N. Testamenti ibique cum eo Pascha celebrantes inebriemur ab eo vino sobrietatis are very emphatical Let us with our Lord ascend the great upper Room prepared and made clean and receive from him above the Cup of the New Testament and there celebrating the Passover with him be inebriated by him with the Wine of Sobriety All you see is above and our Presence too with him there S. Chrysostome (n) Hom. 24. in 1 Cor. 10. speaking how we ought to approach to the tremendous Sacrifice with Concord and ardent Charity says From thence we become Eagles and so fly to Heaven it self For where the Carcase is thither will the Eagles come 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He calls his Body the Carcase because of his Death and he calls them Eagles shewing that he who comes to this Body ought to be sublime and have nothing common with Earth nor be drawn downward and creep but continually fly upward and look to the Sun of Righteousness and to have the Eye of his Mind quick-sighted For this is a Table for Eagles not for Jackdaws Gr. Nazianzen (o) Orat. 28. contr Maxim. speaking of his Adversaries says Will they drive me from the Altars I know another Altar 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whose Types the things now seen are upon which no Ax has been lift up no Iron Tool or other Instrument has been heard but is wholly a Work of the Mind 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and
(l) Tract in illud Evang. Quicunque dixerit verbum contra filium hominis expounding those words What if ye see the Son of Man ascending where he was before It is the Spirit that quickneth the Flesh profiteth nothing c. adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He affirmed both of himself the Flesh and Spirit and made a difference betwixt the Spirit and the Flesh that not only believing that of him which was visible but what was invisible they might learn that those things which he spake were not carnal but spiritual 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For to how many could his Body have sufficed for Meat that it should be made the Food of the whole World But therefore he mentions the Son of Man's Ascension into Heaven that he might draw them from this corporal Conceit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and hereafter might learn that the Flesh he spake of was celestial Meat from above and spiritual Nourishment to be given by him c. It will suffice all the World if we follow Tertullian's (m) De Resurr c. 37. Quia sermo caro erat factus proinde in causam vitae appetendus devorandus auditu ruminandus intellectu fide digerendus Advice Since the Word was made Flesh he is to be long'd for that we may live to be devoured by Hearing to be chewed by Understanding and digested by Faith. It is an excellent Comment on this which Eusebius gives us (n) Lib. 3. Eccl. Theol. c. 1◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon those words of John 6. The Flesh profits nothing c. Do not imagine that I speak of that Flesh I am encompassed withal as if you must eat that nor think that I command you to drink sensible and corporeal Blood But know that the very Words that I have spoken to you are Spirit and Life So that these very Words and Speeches of his are his Flesh and Blood whereof whoso is always Partaker being nourished as it were with heavenly Bread shall be a Partaker of heavenly Life 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let not the hasty hearing of those things by me of Flesh and Blood trouble you for things sensibly heard profit nothing but it is the Spirit that quickneth them that can spiritually hear them S. Basil (o) In Psal 33. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says the same There is an intellectual Mouth of the inward Man whereby he is nourished who receives the Word of Life which is the Bread that descended from Heaven Facundus Hermian (p) Lib. 12. Defens 3. capit c. 1. takes this of eating Christ's Flesh to be a Mystery and that S. Peter when he answered Lord whither should we go thou hast the Words of Eternal Life did not then understand it For says he Quod si mysterium intellexisset hoc potius diceret Domine cur abeamus non est cûm credamus nos corporis sanguinis tui fide salvandos if he had understood the Mystery he should rather have said Lord there is no reason we should go away since we believe we shall be saved by Faith in thy Body and Blood. He means his Death and Passion which is his Sense of eating Christ's Body and Blood. Theodorus Heracleot (q) Catena in Joan. 6.54 55. refers this eating Christ's Flesh to the sincere embracing the Oeconomy of his Incarnation These says he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon the reasoning of their Minds by assenting to it as it were tasting the Doctrine do rationally or spiritually eat his Flesh and by Faith partake of his Blood. S. Chrysostom (r) Hom. 46. in Joan. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. upon those words It is the Spirit that quickneth the Flesh profiteth nothing reckons up some of those carnal Doubts that profit nothing as It is a carnal thing says he to doubt how Christ descended from Heaven and to imagine him to be the Son of Joseph and how he can give us his Flesh to eat All these are carnal which ought to be mystically and spiritually understood Cyril of Jerusalem (s) Catech. Mystag 4. says That the Jews for want of understanding spiritually Christ's words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 imagined that Christ exhorted them to devour his Flesh which is hard to be distinguish'd from the Roman Churches Oral Manducation This carnal Fancy might well make them shrink and cry out This is a hard Saying who can hear it For as S. Austin (t) Cont. advers Legis l. 2. c. 9. Horribilius videatur humanam carnem manducare quam perimere humanum sanguinem potare quam fundere well observes It seems more horrible to eat Humane Flesh than to kill it and to drink Mans Blood than to shed it Origen's (u) Prolog in Cantic Est materialis hujus hominis qui exterior appellatur cibus potusque naturae suae cognatus corporeus iste sc terrenus Similiter autem spiritualis hominis ipsius qui interior dicitur est proprius cibus ut panis ille vivus qui de coelo descendit c. Rerum vero proprietas unicuique discreta servatur corruptibili corruptibilia praebentur incorruptibili verò incorruptibilia proponuntur words for I see no good reason to question they are his are enough to convince effectually all such carnal Jews and Christians There is a Meat and Drink for this material and outward Man as we call him agreeable to his Nature viz. this corporeal and earthly Food There is likewise a proper Food for the spiritual or as we call it inward Man as that living Bread that came down from Heaven c. But the Property of things is reserved to each distinct and corruptible things are given to that which is corruptible and incorruptible things are proposed to that which is incorruptible Greg. Nyssen (x) Hom. 1. in Cantic 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also well expresses it thus There is an Analogy betwixt the Motions and Operations of the Soul and the Senses of the Body c. Wine and Milk are judged of by the Taste but these being intellectual the Power of the Soul that apprehends them must be altogether intellectual S. Chrysostom (y) Homil. 26. in Matth. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 said well That Christ gave himself to us for a spiritual Feast and Banquet And Procopius Gazaeus (z) Comment in Exod. Coelestis seu divinus Agnus animarum solet esse cibus The Celestial and Divine Lamb is wont to be the Food of Souls S. Austin (a) Tract 1. in Epist Joan. Ipsum jam in coelo sedentem manu contrectare non possumus sed fide contingere indeed tells us We cannot handle him who now sits in Heaven yet says he we may touch him by our Faith. For as he says elsewhere (b) Tract 26. in Evang. Joan. Non ad Christum ambulando currimus sed credendo nec motu
Word of God we believed the true Flesh of Christ to be eaten with the Mouth of our Bodies But whether with or without the Word of God they believed such a corporal eating of Christ's Flesh had been all one to the Heathens if they knew that this was their Belief and it would rather have strengthned their Reproach if they knew that they were bound thus to believe But then what he adds is very remarkable Nam id semper infideles stultissimum paradoxum aestimârunt ut notum est de Averroe aliis That Infidels always counted this a most foolish Paradox as appears from Averroes and others I believe indeed that they must always count this a foolish Paradox which Averroes charged Christians withal in that known Saying of his (b) Se Sectam Christianâ deteriorem aut ineptiorem nullam reperire quam qui sequuntur ii quem colunt Deum dentibus ipsi suis discerpunt ac devorant That he found no Sect worse or more foolish than the Christians who tear with their Teeth and devour that God whom they worship But why was not this cast always in the Teeth of Christians if this was always their professed Doctrine Was Celsus or Julian or Lucian less sagacious or less malicious than Averroes that not a word of this foolish Paradox was ever so much as hinted by them to the reproach of Christians then But the Cardinal has instanced the most unluckily in the World in naming only Averroes for this Calumny when all acknowledg that this Philosopher P. Innocent 3. who establish'd Transubstantiation lived in the same Age and some very learned Men prove from the Arabian Accounts that those two were Contemporaries And as for his aliis others I should be glad to see any named that urged what Averroes did to the Christians reproach before the days of Berengarius After that indeed we can meet with a Follower of Mahomet who as a Learned Man (c) Hottinger in Eucharistia de â—ensa Sect. 14. p. 220. Ahmad bin Edris ita scribit verba autem Isa sic Arabes Christum vocant super quo pax Qui edit carnem meam bibit sanguinem c. Christiani literaliter intelligunt Atque sic Christiani atrociores sunt in Christum quà m Judaei Illi enim Christum occisum reliquerunt hi carnem ejus edunt sanguimem bibunt quod ipso teste experientia truculentius est gives us his words says thus Those words of Christ He that eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood he is in me and I in him c. Christians understand them literally and so Christians are more cruel against Christ than Jews for they left Christ when they had slain him but these eat his Flesh and drink his Blood which as experience testifies is more savage After the Roman Church's declaring for Transubstantiation though not before we meet with the Oppositions of Jews testifying their abhorrency (d) Ibid. Joseph Albo de Ikkarim lib. 3. cap. 25. Nam panis est corpus Dei ipsorum Aiunt enim corpus Jesu quod est in Coelis venire in Altare vestiri pane vino post pronunciata verba Hoc enim est Corpus meum à sacrificulo qualiscunque ille demum fuerit sive pius sive impius omnia fieri Corpus unum cum corpore Messia c. Repugnant hic omnia Intelligibilibus primis ipsis etiam sensibus of a Doctrine which talks of a Sacrifice and makes Bread to be the Body of their God which he means in the sence of Transubstantiation by being turned into it and cloathed with its Accidents whose Body that is in Heaven comes upon the Altar and upon the pronouncing these words For this is my Body by the Priest whether good or wicked is all one all things are made one Body with the Body of the Messias c. Which things are all repugnant to the first Principles of Reason and to our very Senses themselves As he afterwards shows in several Instances And now we are told that it is a common Bye-word to reproach a Christian by among the Turks to call him Mange Dicu All these took their rise plainly from Transubstantiation and not from the Faith of the Ancient Church For if one of it (e) Theodoret. Interrog 55. in Genes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may speak for the rest the Old Christians agreed in the Abhorrence and called it the extreamest stupidity to worship that which is eaten And again Id. qu. 11. in Levit. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 How can any one of a sound Mind call that a God which being offered to the True God is after wards eaten by him But now after all the saddest Consideration is that the Prejudices are so great against this and another Twin-Doctrine of the Roman Church about the worship of Images that a perpetual Stumbling-block seems to be laid before the Jews and it may be look'd upon as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which will always hinder and obstruct their Conversion whilst it is believed by them to be the common Sence and Faith of Christians and they have too great a Temptation to believe so when they have seen this Church which has got the most worldly Power into its hands persecuting not only Jews but Hereticks as they call all other Christians that deny this Doctrine to the Death for gainsaying it and when that Work will cease God only knows The Jews can never be supposed to get over this hard Chapter whilst they who call themselves the only Catholick Christians hold such things about the Body of Christ and remember that it is about a Body which as the forenamed Jos Albo (f) Ibid. Ista talia sunt quae mens non potest concipere neque os eloqui neque auris audire speaks No Man's Mind can conceive nor Tongue utter nor any Ear can hear He means by reason of their absurdity So that the Case of the Jews and their Conversion seems to be hopeless and desperate according to all humane guesses till there be a change wrought not in the substance of the Bread and Wine this Church dreams of but in the Romanist's Belief And though this also may seem upon many accounts to be as hopeless as the former yet for a Conclusion I will try whether as once the Great Apostle thought it a wise method Rom. 11.14 by the Example of the Gentiles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to provoke the Jews to Emulation so it may not be as proper to propose the Example of the Jews themselves to the Romanists to provoke their Emulation whom they may see better explaining as blind as they are Christ's words of Institution and agreeing better with the Ancient Church in the matter of the Eucharist than themselves and raising such Arguments and Objections against the Transubstantiating Doctrine as can never to any purpose be answered The Instances of this are very remarkable in a Book called Eortalitium