factus est sacerdos in a ternum Christ by the mystery of Bread and Wine is made a Priest for over S. Chrysostom (c) Comment in Psal 110. vel 109. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Why did he say a Priest after the Order of Melchisedeck Even because of the mysteries because he also brought out Bread and Wine to Abraham Isidore of Sevil (d) In Genesin cap. 12. Non secundùm Aaron pecudum Victimas sed oblationem panis vini id est corporis sanguinis ejus Sacramentum in Sacrificium offeramus Let us not offer the 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 (e) 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 (f) 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 atque 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 (g) 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 upâ—n the Cross that he suffers in the oblation for thy sake and suffers himself to be broken that he may fill us all This cannot be meant of any thing but what represents his Body torn and rent viz. Bread. So S. Austin (h) 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 (i) 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 (k) 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 unusquisque 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 (l) 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 (m) Hom. 83. in Matth. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Who says expresly When our Lord delivered the mysteries he delivered Wine S. Austin (n) 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 (o) 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 CHAP. XI The Eleventh Difference The Fathers make the Bread and Wine to be the Sacrament Sign Figure Type Antitype Image c. of Christs Body and Blood. They of the Church of Rome make either the Accidents subsisting without a Subject or the Body of Christ latent under those Accidents to be the Sacrament Sign Figure c. and not the substance of Bread and Wine which they say is abolished Therefore they have no Sacrament such as the Fathers assert 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 (p) De iis qui initiant c. 9. Vera utique caro Christi quae crucifixa est quae sepulta est verè ergo carnis illius est
CAVE D. D. Octavo An Answer to Mr. Serjeant's Sure Fooring in Christianity concerning the Rule of Faith With some other Discourses By WILLIAM FALKNER D.D. 40. A Vindication of the Ordinations of the Church of England in Answer to a Paper written by one of the Church of Rome to prove the Nullity of our Orders By GILBERT BVRNET D. D. Octavo An Abridgment of the History of the Reformation of the Church of England By GILB BVRNET D. D. Octavo The APOLOGY of the Church of England and an Epistle to one Signior Scipio a Venetian Gentleman concerning the Council of Trent Written both in Latin by the Right Reverend Father in God JOHN JEWEL Lord Bishop of Salisbury Made English by a Person of Quality To which is added The Life of the said Bishop Collected and written by the same Hand Octavo The Life of WILLIAM BEDEL D. D. Bishop of Kilmore in Ireland Together with Certain Letters which passed betwixt him and James Waddesworth a late Pensioner of the Holy Inquisition of Sevil in Matters of Religion concerning the General Motives to the Roman Obedience Octavo The Decree made at ROME the Second of March 1679. condemning some Opinions of the Jesuits and other Casuists Quarto A Discourse concerning the Necessity of Reformation with respect to the Errors and Corruptions of the Church of Rome Quarto First and Second Parts A Discourse concerning the Celebration of Divine Service in an Unknown Tongue Quarto A Papist not Misrepresented by Protestants Being a Reply to the Reflections upon the Answer to A Papist Misrepresented and Represented Quarto An Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England in the several Articles proposed by the late BISHOP of CONDOM in his Exposition of the Doctrine of the Cathelick Church Quarto A Defence of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England against the Exceptions of Monsieur de Meaux late Bishop of Condom and his Vindicator 40. A CATECHISM explaining the Doctrine and Practices of the Church of Rome With an Answer thereunto By a Protestant of the Church of England 80. A Papist Represented and not Misrepresented being an Answer to the First Second Fifth and Sixth Sheets of the Second Part of the Papist Misrepresented and Represented and for a further Vindication of the CATECHISM truly representing the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome Quarto The Lay-Christian's Obligation to read the Holy Scriptures Quarto The Plain Man's Reply to the Catholick Missionaries 240. An Answer to THREE PAPERS lately printed concerning the Authority of the Catholick Church in Matters of Faith and the Reformation of the Church of England Quarto A Vindication of the Answer to THREE PAPERS concerning the Unity and Authority of the Catholick Church and the Reformation of the Chursh of England Quarto Mr. Chillingwarth's Book called The Religion of Protestants a safe way to Salvation made more generally useful by omitting Personal Contests but inserting whatsoever concerns the common Cause of Protestants or defends the Church of England with an exact Table of Contents and an Addition of some genuine Pieces of Mr. Chillingworth's never before Printed viz. against the Insallibility of the Roman Church Trassubstantiation Tradition c. And an Account of what moved the Author to turn Papist with his Consutation of the said Motives The Pillar and Ground of Truth A Treatise shewing that the Roman Church falsly claims to be That Church and the Pillar of That Truth mentioned by S. Paul in his first Epistle to Timothy Chap. 3. Vers 15. 4º The Peoples Right to read the Holy Scripture Asserted 4o. A Short Summary of the principal Controversies between the Church of England and the Church of Rone being a Vindication of several Protestant Doctrines in Answer to a Late Pamphlet Intituled Protestancy destitute of Scripture Proofs 4o. Two Discourses Of Purgatory and Prayers for the Dead An Answer to a Late Pamphlet Intituled The Judgment and Doctrine of the Clergy of the Church of England concerning one Special Branch of the King's Prerogative viz. In dispensing with the Penal Laws 4o. The Notes of the Church as laid down by Cardinal Bellarmin examined and confuted 4o. With a Table to the Whole Preparation for Death Being a Letter sent to a young Gentlewoman in France in a dangerous Distemper of which she died By W. W. 12o. The Difference between the Church of England and the Church of Rome in opposition to a late Book Intituled At Agreement between the Church of England and Church of Rome A PRIVATE FRAYER to be used in Difficult Times A True Account of a Conference held about Religion at London Sept. 29 1687 between A. Pulton Jesuit and Tho. Tennison D. D. as also of that which led to it and followed after it 4o. The Vindication of A. Cressener Schoolmaster in Long-Acre from the Aspersions of A. Pulton Jesuit Schoolmaster in the Savoy together with some Account of his Discourse with Mr. Meredith A Discourse shewing that Protestants are on the safer Side notwithstanding the uncharitable Judgment of their Adversaries and that Their Religion is the surest Way to Heaven 4o. Six Conferences concerning the Eucharist wherein is shewed that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation overthrows the Prooss of Christian Religion A Discourse concerning the pretended Sacrament of Extreme Vnction with an account of the Occasions and Beginnings of it in the Western Church In Three Parts With a Letter to the Vindicator of the Bishop of Condom The Pamphlet entituled Speculum Ecclesiasticum or an Ecclesiastical Prospective-Glass considered in its False Reasonings and Quotations There are added by way of Preface two further Answers the First to the Desender of the Speculum the Second to the Half-sheet against the Six Conferences
Old Test did eat the same spiritual meat with us because they ate it by Faith. Page 127 4 Consid They represent Christs Body as dead and that so it must be taken Ergo spiritually Page 128 Two remarkable sayings of S. Austin to prove all this Page 130 CHAP. XIII The Thirteenth Difference The Fathers assert that the Faithful only eat Christs Body and drink his Blood not the wicked the Ro. Church extends it to both Page 131 The Church of Rome will have not only the wicked but bruit Creatures to eat it Page 132 The Cautions of the Mass suppose this ibid. The Fathers will not allow the wicked to partake of Christs Body Page 133 Two remarkable Testimonies of St. Austin Page 136 CHAP. XIV The Fourteenth Difference The different practices and usages of the two Churches argue their different opinions about the Eucharist Page 137 Eight Instances of their differing practices given 1 Instance The Ancient Church excluded Catechumens Penitents c. from being present at the Mysteries enjoining all present to communicate ibid. In the Ro. Ch. any may be Spectators tho' none receive but the Priest Page 139 2 Inst The old practice was to give the Communion in both kinds Page 140 Transubstantiation made this practice cease 141. New devices for security against profaning Christs Blood. Page 142 No reason why the Fathers have not been as cautious in this as the Ro. Church but their different belief Page 143 3 Inst The Elevation of the Host that all may adore it the Roman practice Page 145 This not used in the first Ages at all when used afterwards not for Adoration Page 145 146 4. Inst The Rom. Church allows not the people to receive the Sacrament with their Hands but all is put by the Priest into their Mouths contrary to the Ancient Practice Page 147 5 Inst The Anc. Church used Glass Cups for the Wine which would be criminal now Page 148 6 Inst They mixed of old the Consecr Wine with Ink which would now be abhorr'd Page 149 7 Inst In the Reservation of the Eucharist Three differences herein consider'd 1 Difference The Anc. Church took no care to reserve what was not received in the Eucharist but the Ro. Church reserves all 151 c. 2 Differ What had been publickly received the Anc. Church allowed liberty to reserve privately 156. The present Ch. in no case allows such private reservation 157. 3. Differ They put what was so reserved to such uses of old as the Ro. Church would think profane Page 157 158 c. 8 Inst The infinite sollicitous caution to prevent accidents in the administration of the Sacrament their frights and strange expiations when they happen all unknown and strangers to the Ancient Church 160 c. Which is proved positively from the continued practice of Communicating Infants till Transubstantiation abolished it Page 165 This still a practice in the Eastern Churches that submit not to the Roman Church Page 167 CHAP. XV. The Fifteenth Difference About their Prayers in two particulars 1. That the old Prayers in the Canon of the Mass agree not with the Faith of the now Ro. Church Page 168 2. That their New Prayers to the Sacrament have no Example in the Anc. Church Page 175 CHAP. XVI The Sixteenth Difference That our ancient Saxon Church differ'd from the present Rom. Church in the Article of the corporal presence Page 182 c. The Saxon Easter-Sermon produc'd as a Testimony against them Page 183 184 c. Two Epistles of Elfric the Abbot declare against that Doctrine Page 187 188. A Remarkable Testimony also of Rabanus Archbishop of Mentz alledged Page 189 CHAP. XVII The Conclusion of the whole Shewing that Heathens and Jews reproached not the Ancient Christians about the Eucharist 191. Transubstantiation occasion'd new Calumnies from both 194. The Jew's Conversion seems to be hopeless whilst this is believed by them to be the common Faith of Christians 195. That the Jews have better explained Christs words of Institution agreed better with the Ancient Church in understanding the Sacrament in a figurative sense and have confuted Transubstantiation by unanswerable Arguments proved by Instances from p. 196. to the end Faults Escaped PAge 5. line 16. marg r. Serm. 5. p. 10. l. 7. marg r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 39. l. 11. r. supposes p. 53. l. 2. marg r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 68. l. 26. marg r. Serm. 5 p. 69. l. 10. r. thou art wholly changed in the inward Man Ibid. l. 12. marg r. totus in interiore homine mutatus es p. 73. l. 6. marg r. qui p. 98. l. 5. à fine r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 149. l. 26. r. Paten p. 152. l. 10. r. Evagrius p. 171. l. 23. r. that of Abel CHAP. I. The First Difference The Church of Rome is forced to assert a continued Series of Miracles to justifie her Doctrine of Transubstantiation But the Fathers never mention any Miracles in the Eucharist save only the Effects of God's powerful Grace working great Changes in us and advancing the Elements in the use of them thereunto without changing their Nature and Substance 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 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.
Baptism avail In another place (e) 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 (f) 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 (g) 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 (h) 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 (i) 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 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 (k) 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. (l) 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 (m) Lib. 2. Operis Paschal speaking of the Offerings of the Wise Men that came to Christ says Ipsae etiam ut possent Species ostendere Christum Aurea nascenti fuderunt munera Regi Thura dedere Deo Myrrham tribuere Sepulchre That is They point to Christ even by the Gifts they bring Gold they present unto him as a King Incense as God Myrrh for his Burying The things they present are you see his Species Salvian's words are plain (n) 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 (o) 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 Rupertus Abbas (p) 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 (q) 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 (r) 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 (s) 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
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 (o) Diatypos c. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We are not to consider our Baptism with sensitive but with Intellectual Eyes Or as S. Austin says (p) 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 (q) De his qui initiantur c. 3. Quod vidisti aquas utique sed non solas Levitas illic ministrantes summum Sacerdotem interrogantem consecrantem Primo omnium docuit te Apostolus non ea contemplanda nobis quae videntur sed quae non videntur c. Non ergo solis corporis tui oculis credas Magis videtur quod non videtur quia istud temporale illud aeternum aspicitur quod oculis non comprehenditur animo autem mente cernitur speaking of Baptism As to what thou hast seen to wit the Waters and not those alone but Levites there ministring and the Bishop asking Questions and Consecrating First of all the Apostle has taught thee That we are not to look upon the things that are seen but on the things that are not seen c. Do not therefore only believe thy bodily Eyes That is rather seen which is not seen because that is Temporal this is Eternal which is not comprehended by our Eyes but is seen by our Mind and Understanding S. Chrysostom (r) In Joan. Hom. 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaking also of Baptism thus breaks out Let us believe God's Affirmation for this is more faithful than our Sight for our Sight often is deceived that is impossible to fall to the Ground It is so frequent an Expression of S. Chrysostome That God's Word is more to be credited than our Eyes that he applies it not only to the Sacraments but even to the Case of Alms giving For thus he says (s) Hom. 89. in Matth. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let us be so affected when we give Alms to the Poor as if we gave them to Christ himself For his Words are more sure than our Sight Therefore when thou seest a poor Man remember the Words whereby Christ signified that he himself is fed For tho' what is seen is not Christ yet under this shape he receives thy Alms and asks it Ans 3. The Fathers in the matter of Signs and Sacraments therefore call upon us not to listen to our Senses and credit them because in such Cases they would have us to consider things beyond and above their information such as relate to their Use and Efficacy these being spiritual things signified by what is visible wherein they place the Mystery and which Sense can neither discover nor judge of S. Austin has a Rule (t) De Doctr. Christ l. 2. c. 1. De signis disserens hoc dico ne quis in eis attendat quod sunt sed potius quod signa sunt id est quod significant Signum est enim res praeter speciem quam ingerit sensibus aliud aliquid ex se faciens in cogitationem venire in this Case I say this treating of Signs in which none ought to attend to what they are but rather that they are Signs that is that they signifie For a Sign is a thing which besides what appears affecting the Senses do's of it self make somewhat else to come into our thoughts So also Origen (u) In Joan. tom 18. ad finem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 describes a Sign to be a Note of another thing besides that which the Sense gives testimony to But none has so fully declared this Matter and answered the former Objection as S. Chrysostome in the place forecited whose Words deserve to be set down at large (x) In 1 Cor. Hom. 7. Edit Savil. Tom. 3. p. 280. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Where treating of Baptism the Eucharist and other Mysteries after he has told us as we heard before what a Mystery is viz. When we do not meerly believe what we see but see one thing and believe another he goes on thus I and an Infidel are diversly affected with them I hear that Christ was crucified I presently admire his Benignity He hears the same and he counts it Infirmity I hear that he was made a Servant and I admire his Care He when he hears the same counts it Infamy And so he goes on with his Death and Resurrection and the different Judgment is made of them and proceeds to speak of the Sacraments 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Skill hears an absent Person speak 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and discourses with him and speaks what he pleases to him again by his Letters Just thus it is in a Mystery Unbelievers hearing seem not to hear but the Believers being taught Skill by the Spirit perceive the Power of the hidden things This Discourse of S. Chrysostome's explains a Place of S. Cyril of Jerusalem (y) Catech. 4. Mystag 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. and teaches us how to understand it where speaking of the Eucharist he says Do not consider it as bare Bread and Wine for it is the Body and Blood of Christ according to our Lord's Affirmation And altho Sense suggests this to thee let Faith confirm thee Do not judge of the Matter by thy Taste but by Faith be undoubtedly persuaded that thou art honoured with the Body and Blood of Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And afterwards Being fully persuaded that the visible Bread is not Bread tho' the Taste perceive it such but the Body of Christ and the visible Wine is
(s) Id. ibid. c. 18. Quomodo corporaliter ascendit in coelum in suis fidelibus praedicatur effe in terra si non est in illo divinitatis immensitas quae coelum implere possit terram How did he corporally ascend into Heaven and yet is said to be in the Faithful on Earth unless the Immensity of the Divinity be in him which can fill Heaven and Earth Yes a Romanist would have told him of another way That even his Body could be present in Heaven and Earth after the manner of a Spirit Vigilius Taps (t) Contr. Eutych l. 1. Hoc crat ire ad patrem recedere à nobis auferre de mundo naturam quam susceperat à nobis Nam vide miraculum vide utriusque proprietatis mysterium Dei filius secundùm humanitutem suam recessit à nobis secundùm divinitatem suam ait nobis Ecce vobiscum sum omniòus diebus c. Quos reliquit à quibus decessit humanitate sua non reliquit nec deseruit divinitate sua This was to go to the Father and recede from us to take from the World the Nature that he had taken from us For see the Miracle see the Mystery of both Natures distinct not a Word of the Mystery of a Body being in more places than one The Son of God according to his Humanity departed from us according to his Divinity he says to us Behold I am with you always c. Those whom he left and departed from by his Humanity he did not leave nor forsake by his Divinity Again (u) Id. ibid. l. 4. Quando in terra fuit non erat utique in coelo nunc quia in coelo est non est utique in terra c. Quia verbum ubique est caro autem ejus ubique non est apparet unum eundemque Christum utriusque esse naturae esse quidem ubique secundùm naturam divinitatis suae loco contineri secundùm naturam humanitatis suae Haec est Fides Confessio Catholica quam Apostoli tradiderunt Martyres roborarunt Fideles nunc usque custodiunt When Christ was on Earth he was not in Heaven and now because he is in Heaven he surely is not on Earth c. Because the Word is every where but his Flesh is not every where it appears plainly that one and the same Christ is of both Natures and that he is every where according to the Nature of his Divinity and contained in a Place according to the Nature of his Humanity which would be a bad Argument if his Body were in Heaven and in the Eucharist at the same time And then he concludes This is the Catholick Faith and Confession which the Apostles delivered the Martyrs confirmed and the Faithful now still keep and preserve Leo Magn. (x) Serm. 2. de Ascens Dom. Christus coram Discipulis elevatus in coelum corporalis praesentiae modum fecit Christ being raised up to Heaven in sight of his Disciples he put an end to his bodily Presence So he explains it that he was to remain at the Right-hand of his Father till he should come again to judge the Quick and Dead Bede (y) Com. in Marc. 13. Christus ad Patrem post resurrectionem victor ascendens Ecclesiam corporaliter reliquit quam tamen nunquam divinae praesidio praesentiae destituit manens in illa omnibus diebus usque ad consummationem seculi Christ ascending after his Resurrection into Heaven as a Conqueror left the Church as to his bodily Presence which yet he never left destitute of the security of his Divine Presence remaining in the Church always to the end of the World. This may abundantly suffice to prove the First Position 2 Position The Fathers distinguish the Presence of Christ's Body from the Sacrament of it which they make to be a Memorial and Pledge of Christ as gone away and absent S. Chrysostome (z) In 1 Cor. 11.29 expounding those words He that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment and asking how that Table which is the Cause of so many good things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and flows with Life should be made Cordemnation to any resolves it thus That this happens not from its own Nature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but from the Purpose of him that approaches this Table For says he as Christ's Presence which brought those great and unspeakable Blessings to us did condemn those the more that did not receive it so also the Mysteries-make way for greater Punishments to these that unworhily partake of them A remarkable Testimony because we see he distinguishes the Presence of Christ from the Sacrament of it compares the one with the other and because of the Relation that the Mysteries have to Christ and that both are intended to convey great Blessings therefore they both when unworthily treated occasion greater Punishments S. Austin (a) Contr. Faust l. 20. c. 21. Hujus sacrificii caro sanguis ante adventum Christi per victimas similitudinum promittebatur in passione Christi per ipsam veritatem reddebatur post ascensum Christi per Sacramentum memoriae celebratur The Flesh and Blood of this Sacrifice before Christ's coming was promised by Victims of Resemblance in the Passion of Christ it was exhibited in the Truth it self after Christ's Ascension it is celebrated by the Sacrament of Remembrance Where you see the Sacrament of Remembrance is opposed to the Exhibition of the Truth Author Comm. in Epistolas Pauli inter Hieronymi Opera (b) In 1 Cor. 11. Hoc est benedicens etiam passurus ultimam nobis commemorationem five memoriam dereliquit Quemadmodum si quis peregrè proficiscens aliquod pignus ei quem diligit derelinquat ut quotiescunque illud viderit possit ejus beneficia amicitias memorari quod ille si perfecte dilexit sine ingenti desiderio non possit videre vel fletu upon those words He took Bread and after he had given thanks he brake it That is says he blessing us even when he was about to suffer he left his last Memorial with us Just as if one travelling into another Country should leave a Pledge with him whom he loved that whensoever he look'd upon it he might call to mind his Favours and Friendship which such a Person if he perfectly lov'd him could not behold without a great passion or weeping It will be very hard to reconcile this Pledge of Absence with such a constant Presence of his Body as the Church of Rome teaches even there where we are required to look upon that Pledge and remember our absent Friend Sedulius has the same Exposition of the Place almost in the same words Primasius also confirms it (c) In 1 Cor. 11. upon those words The same night that our Lord was betrayed he took Bread. He left says he Ultimam nobis commemorationem reliquit Salvator Deus
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 an Ascent by Contemplation Before this will I present my self on this will I offer acceptable things Sacrifice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Oblation and Holocausts so much more excellent than the things now offered as Truth excels a Shadow If Christ's Body were corporally present it is not conceivable what better Oblation than that we could present no more than of what other Oblation this should be only a Type and Shadow Oecumenius (p) In Heb. 10. v. 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon those words Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of Faith says thus Seeing there remains nothing visible neither the Temple that is Heaven nor the High Priest that is Christ nor the Sacrifice that is his Body it remains that we have need of Faith. I shewed before that the Fathers never make Christ's Body invisible but only from its distance and absence And so it must be understood here that he and his Body the Priest and the Sacrifice are invisible being both in Heaven at that distance which makes Heaven it self and its Inhabitants invisible to us and therefore he recommends Faith which can only make them present to us Author imperfecti Operis in Matthaeum (q) Hom. 11. Si ergo vasa sanctificata ad privatos usus transferre sic periculosum est in quibus non est verum corpus Christi sed mysterium corporis ejus continetur quanto magis vasa corporis nostri quae sibi Deus ad habitaculum praeparavit non debemus locum dare Diabolo agendi in eis quod vult among the Works of Chrysostome in Latin has this Saying If therefore it be so dangerous a thing to turn the Sanctified Vessels to private Uses in which is not the true Body of Christ but only the Mystery of his Body is contained therein how much more as to the Vessels of our Body which God has prepared for himself to dwell in we ought not to give place to the Devil to act in them what he pleases One may trust an Adversary as to his Opinion of what makes against him These Words were look'd upon as so considerable an Objection that an Attempt to corrupt them was practised long ago The Learned Archbishop Usher in the Preface of his Answer to the Jesuit's Challenge has observ'd That those words in quibus non est verum corpus Christi sed mysterium corporis ejus continetur were left out wholly in an Edition at Antwerp 1537. and at Paris 1543. and in another at Paris apud Audoenum Parvum 1557. Dr. James in his Corruption of True Fathers p. 53. says Those words are found in all the ancient Copies at Oxford as Archbishop Usher says they were extant in the ancienter Editions as in 1487. And I my self have seen one Paris Edition even in the Year 1536. apud Claud. Chevallonium where those words are extant So that I conclude That the Antwerp Edition first mentioned apud Joan. Steelfium 1537. was the first that made the Alteration But then I further observe That in the large Paris Edition in Latin of S. Chrysostome 1588. which I have by me those words are inferted indeed in the Text but inclosed within two Brakets with this Note in the Margin Haec in quibusdam exemplaribus desunt which is very fine work when they themselves had omitted them in the forenamed Prints They have plaid the same Prank with the same Author in another of his Homilies viz. Hom. 19. whose Words were not favourable to the Real Presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist The words are these Perhaps thou wilt object Sed forte dices quomodo dicere illum possum non esse Christianum quem video Christum confitentem altare habentem Sacrificium panis vini offerentem baptizantem c. How can I say that he is not a Christian whom I see confessing Christ having an Altar offering the Sacrifice of Bread and Wine baptizing c. In the Paris Edition apud Audoenum Parvum An. 1557. as Dr. James Notes those words Sacrificium panis vini are changed into these Sacrificium corporis sanguinis Christi The Paris Edition of 1588. before mentioned tho' it had more Conscience than to insert this Change into the Text yet so far complied with the Cheat as to put in the Margin aliàs Sacrificium corporis sanguinis Christi If this Trade had gone on successfully they might have had in time a Consent of Fathers on their side but it can never be without it I will conclude this Particular with one Observation more of what the Reader may find at large discoursed of in a late Learned Dissertation of Monsieur Allix (r) Dissert de Sanguine D. N. Jesu Christi ad Epist 146. S. Augustini Utrum nunc corpus Domini ossa sanguinem habeat upon occasion of an Epistle of S. Austin to Consentius who enquired of him Whether now the Body of Christ has Bones and Blood The very reading of that 146th Epistle of S. Austin wherein he plainly in his Answer to that Question betrays his doubting of it as well as in other of his Works his distinguishing betwixt Christ's having a true Body after his Resurrection and his having Flesh and Blood the Testimonies there of other of the Ancients especially of Origen and his Followers that seem plainly to make both the glorified Body of Christ and also of Believers to be of another Composition than that of proper Flesh and Blood these I say are a Demonstration that the Ancient Fathers did not believe any Presence of true Flesh and Blood to be now in the Eucharist Neither do I think the Answer given to this Dissertation by Monsieur Boileau Dean of Sens (s) Disquisit Theolog. de Sangu Corporis Christi post resurrectionem to be a satisfactory one in this Particular For tho' I should grant which yet I see not sufficiently cleared by him that generally the Fathers and S. Austin also did believe that Christ had a Body after the Resurrection of the same Substance tho' differing in Qualities from what he had before yet there are Three things that he has by no means said any thing material to in his Answer 1. That he has given no Account of S. Austin's studious declining to determine any thing in particular about the Blood of Christ when he had never so fair an occasion to
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 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 (o) 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 (p) 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 The words also of Job Semeca the Author of the Gloss upon the Canon-Law (q) 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 (r) 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 (s) 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 (t) 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 (u) 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 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 (x) Soto ibid. Sed si ob aliquem morbum species descenderent consequenter ipsum corpus descenderet emitteretur Pudor
of him who is our God and Lord no more in Sacrament as Believers but in the thing it self and in Truth as Spectators Neither is that of Isidore of Sevil (o) De Officiis Eccles l. 1 c. 15. to be passed over who mentions this Prayer in the Liturgy of his Time Ut oblatio quae Domino offertur sanctificata per spiritum sanctum corpori sanguini Christi conformetur not confirmetur as the last Colen Edition absurdly has printed it An. 1617. That the Oblation which is offered to God being sanctified by the Holy Spirit may be conformed to the Body and Blood of Christ Which very Phrase shews a difference betwixt what we receive in the Eucharist and the true Body and Blood of Christ Else it would not be Conformity but Identity as Monsieur Claude has well observed 3 Consideration They say That the Fathers under the Old Testament did eat the same spiritual Meat with us and give this as the Reason why it is spiritual Meat Because it is not eaten corporally but by Faith. Therefore both they and we must eat the same Meat only spiritually not corporally S. Austin has said so much in this Argument that I need go no further And I might insist upon many Passages I have upon other occasions named before as that in his Treatise upon S. John's Gospel (p) Tract 45. in Ev. Joan. Videte fide manente signa variata Ibi petra Christus nobis Christus quod in altari Dei ponitur Et 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 where explaining that of the same spiritual Drink the Fathers drank he has such Expressions as these See the Signs are varied Faith remaining the same There the Rock was Christ in Sign to us that which is laid on the Altar is Christ and they drank of the Water that flowed from the Rock for a great Sacrament of the same Christ what we drink the Faithful know If you regard the visible Species or Nature it is another thing if the spiritual or intelligible Signification they drank the same spiritual Drink In another place (q) Idem in Psal 77. Idem in mysterio cibus potus illorum qui noster sed significatione idem non specie Quia idem ipse Christus illis in petra figuratus nobis in â—â—â—ne manifestatus est Their Meat and Drink was the same with ours in Mystery not in Substance or Species the same but in Signification Because the same Christ who was figured to them in the Rock is manifested to us in the Flesh To add but one place more which fully comprehends the whole sense of the Argument (r) De Vtilit Penitentiae cap. 1. Where S. Austin explaining the same words of our Fathers eating the same spiritual Meat c. he discourses thus The Apostle says Apostolus dicit Patres nostros non patres infidelium non patres impiorum manducantes morientes sed patres nostros patres fidelium spiritalem cibum manducasse ideo cundem Erant enim ibi quibus plus Christus in corde quam Manna in ore sapiebat Quicunque in Manna Christum intellexerunt cundem quem nos cibum spiritalem manducaverunt Sic etiam eundem potum Petra enim erat Christus Eundem ergo potum quem nos sed spiritalem id est qui fide capiebatur non qui corpore hauriebatur Eundem ergo cibum sed intelligentibus credentibus non intelligentibus autem illud solum Manna illa sola aqua c. That our Fathers not the Fathers of Unbelievers not the Fathers of the Wicked that did eat and die but our Fathers the Fathers of the Faithful did eat spiritual Meat and therefore the same For there were such there to whom Christ was more tasteful in their Heart than Manna in their Mouth Whosoever understood Christ in the Manna did eat the same spiritual Meat we do So also the same Drink For the Rock was Christ Therefore they drank the same Drink we do but spiritual Drink that is Drink which was received by Faith not what was swallowed down by the Body They ate therefore the same Meat the same to those that understand and believe but to them that do not understand it was only that Manna only that Water c. Here you see S. Austin calls that Spiritual Drink which Faith receives not which the Body takes down And thus whether Christ be come or be to come it 's all one as he says a little after Venturus venit diversa verba sunt sed idem Christus because Faith can apprehend what shall be as well as what is But if our Eating be Christ's natural Body swallowed down our Bodies then their Meat and ours were not the same For Christ could not be thus their Meat because then he had not taken Flesh upon him therefore those old Fathers could not take it down in the oral Sense 4 Consideration The Body and Blood are to be eaten and drunk and to be received as they are represented and set before us in the Sacrament But there the Body of Christ according to the Fathers as well as the Scriptures is set before us as broken and dead and his Blood as poured out of his Veins Therefore it can be eaten and drunk by us only figuratively and spiritually If the Reader look back to Chap. 10. Posit 4. he will find a great many Testimonies especially out of S. Chrysostome to prove that the Fathers considered Christ's Body in the Sacrament as slain and dead and his Blood poured out of his Veins and separated from his Body And how S. Chrysostome at the same time when he tells us that Christ has given us leave to be filled with his Holy Flesh (i) Hom. 51. in Matth. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he has proposed and set himself before us as slain This I shall now give a further account of seeing the Fathers speak nothing more plainly and fully than this S. Austin (t) In Psal 100. Nos de cruce Domini pascimur quia corpus ipsius manducamus not only tells us in general That we are fed from our Lord's Cross because we eat his Body but more expresly says (u) Serm. 9. de 40. edit à Sirmondo Qui se pro nobis in mensa crucis obtulit sacrificium Deo Patri donans Ecclesiae suae Catholicae vitale convivium corpore suo nos videlicet satians inebrians sanguine That Christ offered himself a Sacrifice for us to God the Father on the Table of the Cross giving to his Catholick Church a vital Banquet viz. by satiating us with his Body and inebriating us with his Blood. But all this by looking upon him on the Table of the Cross