receive it is that they cannot receive the benefit of Christs Presence without a lively Faith but should rather Eat and Drink their own Damnation as is more fully express'd in the next Article and also that the expressions of a Heavenly and Spiritual manner are only to oppose that Carnal and Gross manner which a Natural Body has as having local extention c. which Body as such cannot possibly be in more places then one as St. Augustin affirms and to which that part of the Article in Edw. Sparrow's Canons pag. 49. the Sixths days to which this has succeeded do's allude If he think I impose upon their Church I desire him to let us know by some Authentic Testimony what is the meaning of that part of the Article and to shew us how it can stand with the Doctrine deliver'd in the Church Chatechism which affirms as I have told you that The inward thing signified is the Body and Blood of our Lord JESUS CHRIST which is verily and indeed taken and receiv'd by the Faithful it do's not say by Faith but by the Faithful As also how it agrees with these words of the same Article The Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of CHRIST and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of CHRIST If then he admit with King James Causab Ep. ad Card. Per. that they believe JESUS CHRIST to be as really present in the Sacrament as Roman Catholics do but only know not the manner Pag. 61. What becomes of all his Sarcasms of Worshipping a Deity whose substance they first form'd and then spake it into a God c. He knew full well that such Objections were the very Calumnies of the Heathens who did not only object to Christians their eating of their God but also of eating Mans Flesh in their Sacrifices of drinking Childrens Blood and several other such like accusations all which proceeded from some imperfect knowledge they had got of the Christian Sacrifice notwithstanding all the care the Primitive Christians took to conceal that Adorable Mystery from Infidels and even Catechumens What becomes of all the Arguments brought from pretended contradictions and an impossibility of being present in many places at once Do's not their real Participation if as the Bishop says there be any Sence in the Words fall under the same censures And what becomes of all his Objections rais'd from the difference betwixt some Schoolmen who endeavour to explicate the manner of his presence and the free acknowledgment of others that we are ignorant of it Do not they themselves profess the same And if we cannot comprehend how God can be three and one or the Divinity be Incarnate must we necessarily therefore deny the Blessed Trinity or the Incarnation In a word what will become of all the Arguments in General brought against Transubstantiation substantiation Adoration Sacrifice of the Altar Communion under one Species c. seeing Learned Protestants themselves confess that if the words of the Institution be taken in a Literal Sence without which a Real Presence can never be admitted they must yield up the Cause in all those Points to Roman Catholics This Brerelay has shown in his Liturgy of the Mass Printed Anno 1620. pag. 225 339. from several of their own Authors But he tells us that many of our Schoolmen acknowledge there is not in the Scripture any formal proof of Transubstantiation that there is not any Texts that without the declaration of the Church would be able to evince it that it was not a matter of Faith till the Council of Lateran and then triumphs as if these expressions were a perfect yielding up of our Cause But I would gladly have him to consider upon what account it is these Learned Men use those expressions and examine a little their Reasons and then I doubt not but if he observe the Connection of their Discourse he will not find such an occasion of triumphing It is an usual thing with Novelists to pretend nothing must be admitted as a matter of Faith but what can be manifestly proved from plain Texts of Scripture This Catholics deny and tell them such a proposition destroys all our Faith because no body can prove for example by Scripture the Books of the Gospels or the Epistles of St. Paul to be the Word of God or Divine Revelation and if they cannot prove those Scriptures to be Divine but by Tradition and the Interposition of the Church and yet tell us Tradition and Church Authority are not sufficient what will become of all the Articles contain'd in those Books Nay further Catholics tell them that if they rely only upon the bare words of Scripture without having recourse to the Authority of a Church and the Consent of Pastors and Teachers in all Ages and Places they will never be able to demonstrate any one Doctrine that is they can never prove it so clearly as to convince those who rely wholly upon their Reason and will admit of nothing for a proof in such weighty matters but what is so clear that whoever understands the Terms and Propositions must necessarily consent to the Conclusion drawn from them The Schoolmen do not only instance the Real Presence and Transubstantiation in proof of this but the Trinity also and Incarnation and in a word all the Articles of our Creed And the very opposition which Heretics in the several Ages of the Church have form'd against those Doctrines is a clear proof of this seeing they upon all occasions pretended Scripture for their grounds and because Catholics could not bring any Text of Scripture against them so clear but they could elude it by some seeming Exposition therefore Scripture alone could never decide the Controversies but the voice of the Church in her Councils was in all Ages esteem'd necessary to stop their Mouths and her Decisions and Declarations of the Sence of Scripture was that which confounded all their Errors Thus it was that Arius and his followers were condemned by the Council of Nice not by the sole words of Scripture but by the words of Scripture as understood and explicated by the consent of the Catholic Church and thus it was that Berengarius and his followers were condemned by the Council of Lateran and several others and that Condemnation confirm'd by that of Trent He tells us moreover That this Doctrine was no matter of Faith till the Council of Lateran Pag. 56 1200 years after CHRIST and had not That and the Council of Trent interposed it would not have been so to this very day And cites Lombard Scotus Gabriel and Bellarmine for this Assertion Let us examine his Quotations but first we will represent the State of the Question as the best Method to understand their Meanings We must therefore take notice that the word Transubstantiation was first publicly used in the Council of Lateran as the word Consubstantial was in the first Council of Nice but that
steer his Course resolving not to deviate from its Sence being that of the Catholic Church but meerly to separate Matters of Faith from such Opinions as are neither necessarily nor universally receiv'd Expos p. 2. And therefore he declar'd Secondly That they who would go about to Answer his Exposition ought not to undertake to Confute the Doctrine contain'd in it Expos p. 43. seeing his Design was only to Propose it without going about to Prove it That it would be a quitting the Design of his Treatise to Examine the several Methods which Catholic Divines make use of to Establish or Explicate the Doctrine of the Council of Trent and the different Consequences which particular Doctors have drawn from it That it would avail them nothing Advert p. 20. either to object against us those Practises which they call general or the particular Opinion of Doctors because it suffices in one word to say That those Practices and Opinions be they what they will which are not found conformable to the Intent and Decisions of the Council are nothing to Religion nor to the Body of the Catholic Church nor ought by Consequence as the pretended Reform'd do themselves avouch Daillè Apol c. 6. p. 8. to give the least pretence to Separate from us because no one is oblig'd either to approve or follow them Expos p. 43. Lastly That to urge any thing solid against his Treatise and which may come home to the Point it must be prov'd that the Churches Faith is not faithfully Expounded in it and that by Acts which the same Church has oblig'd her self to receive or else it must be shown that this Explication leaves all the Objections in their full force and all the Disputes untouch'd or in fine it must be precisely shown in what this Doctrine subverts the Foundation of Faith So that if they who Answer'd his Book brought only Arguments against the Doctrine deliver'd in it from private Authors holding particular Scholastic Opinions and not from Authentic Acts receiv'd by the Catholic Church or did not manifestly show the Bishop of Condom to have left out the chief Matters in Dispute and touched only lesser Difficulties or did not demonstrate how the Doctrine as Expounded by him subverted the remaining Maxims wherein both Protestants and we agree the Bishop might justly esteem their Answers not worthy his Reflection and that every Judicious Reader would grant his Pieces were as this Author terms them tho' in derision of a spirit and force sufficient to despise whatever Attempts could be made upon them of that nature Pref. p. 16. How true it is that nothing solid of this kind was objected by the Pretended Reform'd in France appears by his Advertisement And what our Author of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England has Propos'd is now our Province to Examine And first as to his Preface He tells us of a first Edition suppress'd and another with Corrections publish'd in its place because the Sorbon refus'd to Approve the first He tells us of one Imbert and a Pastor of Mechlin Condemn'd the one by the Archbishop of Bourdeaux and the other by the Faculty of Lovain tho' they both alledg'd the Bishop of Condom's Exposition for proof of their Doctrines He tells us that Cardinal Capisucchi and Father Crasset have taught Doctrines contrary to that of the Exposition c. But suppose all he there says should be true what force can his Argument bear against the Doctrine as now Explicated in the later Editions of the Exposition what if some particular Persons have sustain'd Scholastic Opinions which in some sence seem to thwart the Doctrine of the Exposition as to such Scholastic Opinions and others like drowning Persons have grasp'd at any thing to save themselves whether for them or against them It follows not that the Exposition gives us not the Doctrine of the Church But to show the World what has been imposed upon them on this account by those who in their own Countries studied to maintain old Calumnies by new Inventions I shall here insert the Copy of a Letter lately sent me by that Learned and Pious Prelate in which they will see the true Matter of Fact as to those things alledg'd against his Exposition Very Reverend Father IT will not be difficult to answer your Letter of the Third Instant nor to solve the Objections drawn from Matters of Fact sent you out of England against my Exposition of the Catholic Doctrine The English Minister who has oppugn'd it and whose Objections you have sent me has done nothing but gather'd together the vain Inventions which our Huguenots endeavor'd to publish here and which are come to nothing of themselves without my being oblig'd to combat them This Author first tells us the Sorbon would not Approve to my Book But all the World here knows I never so much as thought of asking it The Sorbon is never us'd to Licence Books in Body If it did I should not need its Approbation having that of so many Bishops and being Bishop also my self That Venerable Company knows better what is due to Bishops who are naturally and by their Character the true Doctors of the Church than to think they have need of the Approbation of her Doctors when moreover most of those Bishops who have approv'd my Book are of the Body of the Sorbon and I my self also partake of that Honor. It is a great weakness to require of me to produce the Approbation of Sorbon when they see in my Book that of so many Learned Bishops that of the whole Clergy of France in the General Assembly of 1682 and that of the Pope himself You see by this Sir that it is a manifest Falsity to say that a first Edition of my Book was suppress'd because the Doctors of Sorbon had something to say against it I never did publish nor cause to be Printed any other Edition but that which is in the Hands of every one to which I never added nor diminish'd one Syllable and I never yet fear'd that any Catholic Doctor could find in it any thing worthy of Reprehension This to the first Objection of the English Author As for what he adds in the Second place That a certain Catholic whose Name he designs by a Capital Letter had written against me suppose it had been true so much the worse for that ill Catholic But this is as the rest an Invention of their own Heads Our Huguenots have in vain endeavour'd to vend such false Wares here no body ever yet heard of that Catholic they could never name him and all the World has scoffed at them for going about it In the Third place he tells us That Father Crasset a Jesuit has oppugned my Doctrine in a Book Entituled La veritable Devotion envers la Sainte Vierge I have not read that Book but neither did I ever hear it mention'd there was any thing in it contrary to mine and that
from granting this to them that on the contrary we always accuse them of Innovations and denying those Articles which are Fundamental and as necessary and as plainly revealed as many of those others which they admit We always affirm We are in possession of our Doctrines and our Practices that these have been delivered down to us by our Predecessors as Truths revealed to the Prophets and Apostles we always tell them We have the Decisions of a Church in our behalf a Church I say 1 Tim. 3.15 which is the Pillar and Ground of Truth Matth. 16.18 a Church against which the Gates of Hell by the express Promise of JESUS CHRIST was never to prevail Eph. 4.11 12 c. and in which Pastors and Teachers were to remain for ever lest we should be led away with every wind of Doctrine We tell them He who denies one Article revealed by God and proposed by his Church as so revealed is as guilty of the Breach of Faith as he who denies them all because he rejects God's Veracity upon which that Faith is grounded And by consequence we cannot but tell them That whilst they renounce those Articles which we believe are revealed Truths they are guilty of Fundamental Errors and hold not the Ancient and Vndoubted Foundation of the Christian Faith So that the true State of the Controversie in general betwixt Catholics and Protestants is whether they or we do Innovate they in refusing to believe those Doctrines we profess to have receiv'd with the Grounds of Christianity or we in maintaining our Possession And the Dispute is Whether Roman Catholics ought to maintain their Possession for which many Protestants themselves grant they have a Prescription of above 1000 Years or whether the Authorities brought by Protestants against the Roman Catholic Doctrine be so weighty that every Roman Catholic is oblig'd to renounce the Communion of that Church in which he was bred up and quit his Prescription and Possession Which certainly they are not obliged to do unless it can be plainly prov'd they have innovated or taught such Doctrines as overthrow those Truths which are on both Sides allow'd to be Divine This the Bishop of Condom knew they could never do and that our Doctrines when truly represented were so far from contradicting those mutually-received Articles of our Faith that on the contrary they confirm'd our Belief of them And therefore he undertook to separate the Articles of our Faith from what was falsly imputed to us and resolved to propose them according to the received Sence of the Church declared in the Council of Trent And whether he has faithfully perform'd this Undertaking or no is our present Question which we are to examine in these following Articles What do's it therefore avail this Author to tell us Pag. 6. he will in the following Articles endeavour to give a clear and free Account of what they can approve and what they dislike in the Doctrines of the Catholic Church unless he first shew us and that by some Authentic Acts of the Church that those are her Doctrines and secondly give us some assurance of greater Authority then the Prescription of the Roman Catholic Church that they are Novelties or Erroneous ART II. Religious Worship is terminated only in God THat all Religious Worship is terminated in God alone is the Biship of Condom's Assertion Art 2. and the Churches Doctrine to which both this and another later Author agree Answer to a Discourse entituled Papists Protesting c. but both of them will have the Invocation of Saints and the Honour which we pay to Images and Relics to be inconsistent with that Maxim What the Bishop has said is enough to satisfie any one who is not obstinate his Words are these The same Church teaches us Expos p. â— That all Religious Worship ought to terminate in God as its necessary End and that if the Honour which she renders to the Blessed Virgin and to the Saints may in some sence be call'd Religious it is for its necessary relation to God From which Words it is plain the Bishop thought Religious Honour or Worship might be taken in a double sence the first strict and that he acknowledges is only due to God the other in a larger sence which may be paid to Creatures But how this other may be called Religious Honour he tells us is because of the reference which it has to God Thus that Civil Honour or Obedience which we pay to Magistrates if we do it for Conscience sake that is purely to obey the Ordinance of God may be not improperly call'd a Religious Honour or Obedience because by Honouring or Obeying them for God's sake we Honour and Obey God Thus to visit the orphan and the widow in their tribulations is called by St. James a clean and unspotted Religion James 1.27 But if we take Religion in a stricter sence for a Supreme and Sovereign Honour or an adhesion to an Independent Being with all the Powers of our Soul c. it is only proper to God and cannot be paid to Creatures and in that sence the Honour which we pay to our Blessed Lady and other Saints is far from being a Religious Honour Let Mary be Honoured Epiph. Haer. 79. but let God be Adored was the Saying of an ancient Father not with Divine Honour for that is due to God alone Soli Deo honor gloria but with an Inferiour Honour which if our Authors will not have us call Religious we will not dispute about the Name We ought not to deprive God of any thing that is due to him alone that we may give it to his Creatures neither Honour nor Worship nor Prayer nor Thanksgiving nor Sacrifice But yet we may honour those whom God has honoured we may give an inferiour Degree of Worship to those who are in some Degree of Honour above us in this World and why not to the Invisible Inhabitants of the other so it elevate them not above the State of Creatures We may pray to our Friends and Parents here on Earth to pray for us without derogating from our Duty to God and why the same may not be addressed to Saints and Angels who are no less our Friends without robbing God of what is his due is I must confess to me unintelligible If you tell me the first is only Civil or if it may be called a Religious Love or Honour Answ to Papist Protest p. 38. when it is done for God's sake yet it is but an extrinsecal Denomination from the Cause and Motive not from the Nature of the Act and therefore cannot make Gods of them we affirm the same of the second and renounce any other sort of Religious Worship which is so from the nature of the Act and by consequence only due to God This Distinction reflected on will be sufficient to answer all the Objections brought against our Doctrine by both those Authors And we cannot
not defire to add any thing to it That they Advise even Private Confession upon many accounts which the Bishop of Meaux has remarked and which they willingly allow as very useful to the Penitent that is I suppose he allows with the Bishop the Penitential Court of Judicature to be a curb to Liberty Expos pag. 18. a plentiful sourse of Wise Admonitions and a sensible consolation for Souls afflicted for their Sins all which he acknowledges render it very useful and convenient even to those who have no doubt nor scruple But yet he will not have this so beneficial an exercise to be necessary where the Sinner can quiet his Conscience without it but calls it an unnecessary Rack to Mens Consciences So that if a Man be either insensible of his sins or have brought his Conscience to such a pass that it checks him not or be presumptious of Gods Mercies and upon that think himself secure of a Pardon it seems it is not necessary with them he should either have that Curb or those Admonitions whereas we think those Persons have most need of all the helps imaginable and doubt not but that God who gave so large a Commission to his Priest to bind or loose did not exempt those who stand in need of it from a due submission to that Tribunal We assirm therefore that Penance is necessary not for every Man in particular but to those only who have offended mortally after Baptism That true Contrition which must vertually include all the parts of it is sufficient in case of a non-possibility of performing some of them That Confession which is one of the parts of it either public or private is necessary to be performed to a Priest that they who have Authority to bind or loose may know upon what it is they are to pronounce Sentence That tho' our Sentence be absolute yet since we cannot know when the Penitent has those due Dispositions which are required to receive the Benefit of it neither also can we be sure that God always confirms our Sentence These are our Doctrines this we have always held and practis'd and this we affirm to be conformable to the practice of the most Antient and Orthodox Churches and we cannot but be astonished why they should be rejected and no better grounds brought than we suppose Pag. 43. or we must beg leave with assurance to say that such Doctrines ar directly contrary to the Tradition of the Church and to many plain and undoubted places of Holy Scripture If he say he only undertook an Exposition of their Doctrine and therefore was no more oblig'd to prove it than the Bishop of Meaux himself I must tell him the difference is great for the Bishop of Meaux undertaking to Expound a Doctrine establish'd in the Church that very Possession was a sufficient proof of its Antiquity and Universality it being a constant maxim in our Church that no particular Opinions or Practises ought ever to be establish'd as necessary to all and that nothing can be declared as an Article of our Faith which was not materially so before that is which was not handed down to us by universal Tradition as a reveal'd Truth Whereas this Author undertaking to give us an Exposition of a Doctrine which dissents from ours so establish'd and of which we are in possession if he would have it bear any weight he ought to have given some solid Reasons for their defection from those Doctrines which had been establish'd in England for above a Thousand Years from the very time that Pagan Idolatry was rooted out by St. Augustin the Benedictin Monk he ought I say to have given some solid Reasons such as were no less than Domonstrations or manifest Revelations to which and to no other those who are in Possession of a Doctrine so establish'd ought to submit and without which all Arguments for a Reformation dwindle into this which is very inefficacious we suppose we have a just reason to reform we think we are in the right we are persuaded it is according to Scripture c. but we are not certain ART XII Of Extream Vnction AS to the Sacrament of Extream Vnction Art 13. p. 44. this Author cannot deny but the words of St. James If any man be sick James 5.14 15. let him call for the Priests of the Church and let them pray over him anointing him with oyl in the Name of our Lord. And the prayer of Faith shall save the sick and our Lord shall lift him up and if he be in sins they shall be remitted to him I say he cannot deny but these words exhibit to us an outward Visible Sign and an Inward Spiritual Grace but yet he will not have the meaning of this Passage to reser at all to a Sacrament but only to the miraculous Cures of the Apostles contrary to the express words of Scripture and to the sence of them received and delivered to us by Antiquity The Grace of Curing the Sick was not given to all Priests or Elders alike but only to some select Persons these did not only cure the Sick but the Lame and the Blind their Power of Miracles was not tied to the Ceremony of Unction only all those that were anointed were not cured neither had all they who were cured by them who had the Gift of Healing any assurance by that Cure of the Forgiveness of their Sins Yet St. James here speaks of those only that are Sick he appoints them to call in the Priests in general and not them only who had the Gift of Healing he speaks only of anointing them with Oyl and not of any other Ceremonies used by CHRIST or his Apostles in order to the curing of the Sick He promises The prayer of faith shall save the sick adn the Lord shall lift him up which if it had been meant of Bdily Health those only would have died in the Apostles time who either neglected this Advice or whose Deaths prevented the accomplishment of that Ceremony And lastly he pronounces That if they be in sins they shall be remitted which shews plainly enough it cannot belong only to Bodily Cures as he would have it But he tells us The Rituals of the Roman Church for above Eight hundred years understood it plainly of Bodily Cures and that Cardinal Cajetan himself freely confesses that it can belong to no other Had he only told us that the ancient Roman Rituals shew this Ceremony had a respect to Bodily Cures as well as to the Cures of the Mind he had told us nothing but what our Rituals at this day manifest and what may be gathered from the Council of Trent as the Bishop of Meaux observes Sess 14. de Sac. Extrem Unc. cap. 2. which speaking of the Effects of this Sacrament tells us That the Sick Person do's sometimes by it obtain Health of Body when it is expedient for the Salvation of the Soul Had he told us also only that
But the second continues he which the Gospel has not explicated we have expresly received from the Church that is the Conversion of Bread into the Body of CHRIST which he says we have not only received from the ancient Doctors of the Church but from the Council of Lateran under Pope Innocent the Third De Summa Trinit Fide Cath. Firmiter credimus where both Points are expressed viz. That the Body and Blood of CHRIST are truly contained in the Sacrament of the Altar under the species of Bread and Wine which regards the first And it follows The Bread bein transubstantiated into his Body and the Wine into his Blood by Divine Power After this he speaks of the Reality of CHRIST's Body in the Eucharist and of the Manner how it becomes there viz. by Conversion and of the first he says Sciendum est omnes circa primam novitatem continentiae re voce consensisse dum omnes communiter fatemur corpus Christi prius non contentum sub hac hostia modo veraciter contineri quamvis circa modum quo continetur variae sint opiniones i.e. We must know that all Persons are at perfect agreement both as to the manner of Expression and as to the thing it self when we speak of the first new Change which is there made of the thing contained seeing we all commonly confess that the Body of CHRIST which was not at first contained under this Host is now truly there contained tho there be various Opinions concerning the manner how he is there contained Then summing up several of those Opinions as Whether it be by such a Change as is made by Nutrition or Whether the Bread be Annihilated or Whether it be by a true Conversion he undertakes to prove that it is by a Conversion which do's produce and effect the Presence of CHRIST in the Host and freely confesses that this Conversion is not explicitly mentioned in the Gospel but only deduced from the words This is my Body by the Doctors of the Church After which returning to his first Point in which he had concluded that the Body of CHRIST was truly in the Sacrament he tels us In hoc omnes fideles conveniunt sed modus quo est in disputationem vertitur All the Faithful agree in this but as to the manner how he is there that is a disputable Question This is in short the Intent of that Article which is far from what this Author has imposed upon him Next he tells us That the generality of our Commanion confess that if the Words of Consecration refer to the Bread which is changed by them they must be taken in their Figurative sence Pag. 74 75. But this has been sufficiently cleared already Lastly He tells us That this Doctrine was no matter of Faith till the Council of Lateran 1200 years after CHRIST and that had not That and the Council of Trent since interposed it would not have been so to this very day What Doctrine do's he here mean Not that of the Schools concerning the manner of CHRIST's Existence in the Sacrament for a little after he tells us That Anathema's have been pronounced against them and they esteemed Heretics and Schismatics for opposing it But the Church never yet proceeded so far as to declare the Manner or censure any Opinions concerning it By this Doctrine then which he tells us was not of Faith till the Council of Lateran he must understand the Doctrine of the Church and say That the Body and blood of JESUS CHRIST was not till then believed to be truly really and substantially present under the species or appearances of Bread the Substance of Bread being not so present after Consecration But how do's he prove this He first brings Scotus cited by Bellarmine but we have already examined his Concessions pag. 84. which make but little for our Adversary Then he quotes Gabriel cited by Suarez T. 3. Disp 50. sect 1. But Suarez there undertaking to prove two Assertions the first That the Sacrament of the Eucharist is made by a true Conversion of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of CHRIST which he tells us is of Faith and the second That this Sacrament is made by a true Transubstantiation of the Bread into the Body and of the Wine into the Blood of CHRIST he tells us That the word Transubstantiation taken in its proper and strict sence signifies transitum seu conversionem totius substantiae in totam substantiam a Transition or Conversion of a whole Substance into a whole Substance After which he concludes thus From this Doctrine of Faith we may gather first That the Scholastics as Scotus and Gabriel are to be corrected and secondly That the thing it self was ancient and perpetually believed in the Church Non suerit tam apertè explicata sicut mode est tho perhaps in former times it was not so fully explicated as now it is In the last place he quotes Lombard L. 4. Dist 11. Lit. A. But it is manifest that Lombard speaks there only of a Scholastic Tenet Which to the end you may see as also what was esteemed of Faith in his time before the Council of Lateran I will give you a short account of his whole Doctrine as to this Point He begins his eighth Distinction telling us Lomb. in 4. dist 8. Lit. B. That the Blessed Sacrament was instituted when JESUS CHRIST after the Typical Lamb gave to his Disciples his Body and Blood in the Last Supper Then speaking of the Form This is my Body c. Lit. C. he tells us Cum haec verba proferuntur conversio fit panis vini in substantiam corporis sanguinis Christi That when these words are pronounced there is made a Conversion of Bread and Wine into the Substance of the Body and Blood of CHRIST Then speaking of a Sacrament as being the Sign of a Sacred thing Lit. D. he tells us what is the sign and what is the Thing in this Sacrament The Form i.e. Appearance says he of Bread and Wine in the Sacrament is the Sign of the Sacred thing So that the species bear the Name of the Things which they were before that is of Bread and Wine But the thing signified is twofold the one contained under those species and signified by them the other signified but not contained The thing contained and signified is the Flesh of Christ which he took from the Blessed Virgin and the Blood which he shed for us But the thing which is signified and not contain'd is the Unity of the Church in those who are Predestinated Called Justified and Glorified So that there are says he three things to be distinguish'd one which is only a Sacrament and not the thing viz. the visible species of Bread and Wine another which is the Sacrament and the thing viz. the proper Flesh and Blood of Christ and a third which is the thing and not the Sacrament viz.