ant his quibus sacrum fieret c. Alex. ab Alex. genial dier l. 4. c. 17. the Heathen Festivals were so many standing Monuments of those kindnesses which their supposed Deities had done for them whether they were recoveries from Plagues or deliverances from Tyrants or the building of Cities or victories in War and the like These things they were wont to Commemorate solemnly and to rehearse them at their Sacrifical Banquets in Honour of their Gods adding divers sorts of Hymns and Praises and shewing all manner of thankfulness for them Now this Christian Mystery being a Religious Feast upon a sacrificed Saviour the very Nature and Analogy thereof doth sufficiently shew this to be one purpose and end of it that we should publish declare and commemorate the exceeding riches of Gods Grace by his kindness to us in Jesus Christ and that we should testifie the sense we have of it by all manner of Eucharistical acts and expressions of Affection For the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 importeth a great deal more than a bare Commemoration It signifies here such an outward Profession as is attended with inward Heartiness and with the intensest actions of Grateful and Fervent Souls The Apostle speaking of the Mosaical Oblations which were to be once a year upon the Day of expiation saith in Heb. 10. 3. that in those Sacrifices there was yearly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or a Remembrance of sins He doth not mean a bare acknowledgment of sin but such an acknowledgement as was accompanied with Compunction with Repentance or with solemn Deprecations of Gods Wrath. Paulus Fagius hath noted In Levit. 16. the form of that Confession which the High Priest was wont to use upon that great and solemn day according to the account which the Hebrew Doctors give of it It was saith he a threefold Confession i. e. he confest his own sins and the sins of the Sons of Aaron and the sins of all the Children of Israel and it was to this effect O Lord I and my house and the sons of Aaron and all thy people the house of Israel have sinned have done iniquity have prevaricated before thee I beseech thee O Lord forgive the sins the iniquities the prevarications whereby I and my house and the sons of Aaron and all thy people the house of Israel have sinned have done iniquity have prevaricated before thee By Sins the Hebrews mean all acts of Ignorance by Iniquities all Presumptuous and willful transgressions and by Prevarications all kinds of Rebellion and Apostacy from God and with this threefold confession a general Fast was to be joyned and the Law required them all to afflict their Souls nothing that Remorse and Anguish of Spirit which Priest and People were to be under at that time and these hearty expressions of Penitence and contrition is that which the Author to the Hebrews calls the Remembrance of Sins Thus should the Commemoration of Christs death for Sin be full of Life and Vigour accompanied with such mortifications of Flesh and Spirit as are undeniable arguments both of that bitter sense we ought to have of our own Vileness and of those ravishing apprehensions of the Divine love which the Commemoration of our Saviours sufferings is apt to beget in us Briefly though the Holy Jesus was about to die when he instituted this Mystery yet his design was to live for ever in the hearts of his Disciples and because nothing is more common among men albeit nothing unbecomes men more than to let the Remembrance of Gods mercies slide away from them and to Bury his favours in Oblivion therefore to help our infirmities Christ ordained a perpetual use of this Holy Banquet that his Fathers and his own Love might be had in everlasting remembrance For nothing serveth more to perpetuate the memory of any signal and remarkeable Event than when Men assemble themselves solemnly to Eat and Drink together by Occasion and upon the Score of that Event This was the ground and Reason of all the fixt Festivals among the old Heathens that by means thereof the memory of those great atchievements which their reputed gods had done might be transmitted and handed down from one generation to another And this was one great reason why the Paschal Supper was instituted that it might be a Memorial unto the Jews Exod. 12. 14 And lest through the negligence of men the deliverance which God at that time wrought should at any time after be forgotten God added this command at the 26 and 27 Verses of that Chapter It shall come to pass when your Children shall say unto you what mean you by this service that ye shall say it is the Sacrifice in memory of the Lords Passeover who passed over the Houses of the Children of Israel in Egypt when he smote the Egyptians It is very observable that the incredulous and stiff necked Jews do now expect to be redeemed again out of all their thraldome by the Messiah just at the self same time of the year when their Fathers were redeemed of Id quod patet ex ipsorum verbis quae apud illorum Cabalistas in hunc modum leguntur in eadem die viz. quintadecima die mensis Nisan scilicet Martis redimendus est Israel in diebus Messiae quemadmodum redempti sunt eo die de quo scribitur in diebus egressionis tuae ex Egypto estendam mirabilia P. Jag. in Exod. 12. Old by God out of the house of Bondage For to this purpose saith my Author we read in the Cabalists In the same day viz. on the fifteenth day of Nisan that is in March the Israelites shall be redeemed in the days of the Messiah as they were formerly redeemed on that day at their departure out of Egypt What those fond people expect still was accomplisht long ago For it was just at that time that the Lord Jesus that immaculate Lamb of God was slain to Redeem all Mankind And as the Passeover-Feast among the Jews was instituted for the Commemoration of one deliverance out of great Bondage so was this Feast now used by us instituted for the Commemoration of another deliverance from a greater and more intollerable servitude that Christ our Redeemer may never be out of our minds tho he be gone into Heaven but that we should most solemnly celebrate a perpetual memory of his infinite Love and unspeakable Condescention Accordingly the ancient Church was wont to be very Prolix in the Prayer of Consecration For Vide Const Apost lib. having made mention first of the Majesty and perfections of God then of the Creation of Angels of Man and of the whole World then of his Providence over Adam over Seth and Enoch over Noah over Abraham over the twelve Patriarchs and over all the Children of Israel and having concluded that part on this wise For all these things glory be to thee Lord God Almighty infinite Hosts of Angels and Archangels worship thee Thrones Dominions Principalities
Powers and innumerable Armies of Heavenly Spirits the Cherubim and six-winged Seraphim with thousands of thousands of Angels and Archangels that continually cry Holy Holy Holy Lord God of Sabbaoth Heaven and earth are full of thy Glory Glory be to thee unto everlasting Ages Then the Church was wont to go on to make mention of the Holy and only begotten Son of God of his love to Mankind of his Incarnation and Birth of a Virgin of his Life Laws Miracles and Humility of his Passion Crucifixon Death Burial Resurrection and Ascension into Heaven 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 said they we being mindful of and commemorating his sufferings do give thee thanks according to his command who in the night when he was betrayed took bread into his Holy hands and looking up to Heaven to thee his God and Father brake it and gave it to his Disciples and so forth This is that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which our blessed Redeemer meant and spake of not a Cold faint heartless speaking of that Love of his which was stronger than the most Torturing Agonies and than Death it self but such a Devout commemoration as is attended with Solemnity with admiration with active and vigorous Affections with the meltings and dissolutions of the hardest hearts with such Divine Raptures Extasies and Flights of mind as if our Souls had dropt their mantles of Flesh and were entred into Heaven to bear their parts in that Quire of Blessed Spirits above This was one End and reason for which the Holy Jesus appointed the use of this Mysterious Evangelical Banquet And before I let this point go out of my hands there are two things which I would note from this consideration 1. First that at this Blessed Sacrament there is not any New Sacrificing or offering up of Christ to expiate Sin but only a Commemoration of his Death a Memorial of that One Sacrifice which he offered unto his Father when he offered up himself upon the Cross for us The Romanists are strongly perswaded that as the substance of Christs Natural Body is really in the Host so he is really truly and literally Sacrificed there as a Propitiatory Oblation both for the living and the Dead too But 't is a modest censure to say for 't is the the least we can say of this conceit that 't is a very fond and groundless fancy because neither from our Saviours words at the Institution nor from St. Pauls Repeating the Story nor from the Nature and Analogy of this Feast can we gather any thing that gives Colour to this Principle it being apparent every way that Christ intended this Mystery not that he should suffer in it a fresh or be Sacrificed in it afresh but that we should thereby Commemorate and shew forth his Passion in Golgotha Indeed in some cases the same thing may be said to be a Commemoration of a Sacrifice and a true Sacrifice also as the Paschal Lamb at Jerusalem was truly a Sacrifice and a Memorial too of the Lamb that was sacrificed in Egypt But it cannot be said to be so in this case because 't is Contradictory to the Apostles argumentation in Heb. 10 where he shews that Christs Sacrificing of himself had this Prerogative this dignity above all Legal Oblations that it needed not as the others did any Repeating whereas the Sacrifices under the Law were offered year by year continually and every Priest stood Ministring and offering oftentimes the same Sacrifices Christ our High Priest offered one perfect Sacrifice for sins for ever and so sate down on the right hand of God by that one offering of himself having perfected for ever them that are sanctified and having sanctified them through the offering of his own Body once for all So that unless we will give the Apostle the Lie we cannot affirm any Propitiatory Sacrifice to be in this Mystery 'T is true this blessed Sacrament is called a Sacrifice or rather the whole Action and Rite is called so and it is so in some sense even as Prayer is called a * Vid. Tertull. p. 187. H. 104. Sacrifice Psal 141. 2. and as Praises are called a Sacrifice Heb. 13. 15. and as Righieousness and a broken Spirit are called Sacrifices Psal 51. 17. and as Almsdeeds are called Sacrifices Heb. 13. 16. and as the devoting our selves to the service of God is called the presenting of our Bodies a Living Sacrifice Rom. 12. 1. For at this Holy Sacrament we are bound to do all this to bless Gods Name therefore 't is called the Eucharist from our Praises and Thanksgivings to implore Gods goodness to offer up to him the Oblation of Penitent Hearts to present him with some of our Worldly substance to vow obedience to his Laws and to offer unto him our selves our Souls and Bodies as a reasonable Holy and lively Sacrifice as we profess in that excellent Prayer after the Communion It is Hence and upon these accounts not from any real Sacrificing of Christ but from the offering up of our Devotion of our selves and of our Goods that the Celebration of this Mystery is called a Sacrifice And hence it is too that the Lords Table is called an Altar as it was called in the * So Can. Apost 3. So S. Cyprian every where calls the Lords Table And so doth Tertullian Nonne solenior â—â—it statio tua si ad Aram dei steteris de Orat cap. 14. And I Suppose the ancient Christians took occasion of speaking thus from those words of our Saviour Matth. 5. 23 24. if thou bring thy gift to the Altar and there remembrest that thy Brother hath ought against thee c. which words doâ— certainly relate to those Oblations which Christ intended should be made and in the Apostolical times were made in the Church Ancient times of Christianity but that some weak men now love to quarrel with words and the Place too where the Table stood was called the || So the Author de Eccles. Hierarch c. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where he means the Sacrarium or Holy place where the Table stands And to the same purpose the word is used by Ignatius in those expressions of his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ep. ad Ephes And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ep. ad Tralles Where he urgeth that necessity which people are under to joyn with the Bishop and the rest of the Clergy in the Publick Prayers of the Church For Anciently Prayer was made in the Chancel at the Holy Table as 't is insinuated Ignat. Ep. ad Ephes And by Tertullian Exhort ad Castit cap. 10. Si Spiritus reus apud se sit conscientia erubescit quomodo audebit Orationem dicere ad Altare Hence Bishop Usher notes that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes signifie the same thing that is the Altar-place Unde in Polycarpi ad Philippenses Ignatio ad Tarsenses tribut â Epistold 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a vulgato Latino interprete Sacrarium Dei
Declaration of their Church probably they would have been contented that those words at the Institution should have born such a construction as would not have shook the Reason of men so notoriously 2. If we frame notions of things just according to the clink of a Phrase we must needs entertain very strange apprehensions of our Saviour himself because he is usually called a Lamb a Lyon a Shepherd a Rock a Door a Way a Vine and the like 3. As Christ saith here This is my Body so in Job 6. he saith also that he is the Bread of life and that his Flesh is Meat and his Bloud Drink He speaks as plainty and positively in the one place as he doth in the other Now if men affirm that the bread is changed into Christs Flesh because Christ saith positively This is my Body they have equally the same reason to affirm that Christs Flesh is turned into Bread and his Bloud into Drink because he said as positively My Flesh is meat indeed and my Bloud Drink indeed A latitude must be allowed to be as to the sense of those expressions or else men must fall into a Labyrinth of absurdities and contradictions which they can never wind themselves out of by the help of any clue 4. If we observe what our Saviour said to the Capernaites upon the like occasion we cannot but conclude that his meaning at both times was mystical The story we have in the 6th of S. John verily verily saith our Lord except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of man and drink his bloud ye have no life in you vers 53. This seem'd a very Harsh expression because they conceived as the Romanists do now that Christ intended his Flesh should be torn in pieces with their Teeth and that his Natural bloud should be suckt out of his veins with their mouths The bare apprehension of this matter turn'd their stomachs so that they were scandaliz'd presently and fell off from him Therefore to rectifie their mistakes he expounded himself telling them that they were not to understand him in a literal and carnal sense no the words that I speak unto you they are Spirit and they are life vers 63. meaning that he spake Mystically and that they were to interpret So that place was understood by the Ancients his words after a Spiritual manner and of a Spiritual and Divine way of feeding upon him and so we feed upon Christ who laughd at the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and so all good Christians fed upon him for many hundreds of years before that Doctrine was dreamt of or thrown about to debauch and intoxicate the world CHAP. VIII The Doctrine of Transubstantion inconsistent with and contrary to the Doctrine of the Primitive Church Proved by five Observations touching the common sense of Christian in the most ancient times A short account of the Doctrine of the Church in succeeding Ages till the twelfth Century 3. 'T Is true the Papists are wont to crack of Tradition and Antiquity as if all the ancient Fathers of the Catholick Church were on their side And nothing hath prevailed more with ordinary people to turn or continue Papists than an opinion that Transubstantiation was all along the Faith of the Christian Church I confess I wonder much that common people will pretend to be judges in this case when they understand little of Greek or Latine much less have skill to tell which of the Books that are ascribed to the Fathers are Genuine and which are supposititious But alass they are taught by their leaders to believe any thing and to talk by Rote like a sort of men among our selves who are readily perswaded to act any thing that is for the Cause for the Cause for their darling and dearly beloved Cause though they venture their Necks and their very Souls for an evil cause sake Therefore to clear this matter fully we will once for all try the point by unquestionable authorities and examine particularly what the sense of the Christian Church was chiefly in the Primitive times and ex abundanti in the times following And I am fouly mistaken if we do not find upon the whole enquiry that Tradition which the Romanists brag of so much is plainly against them for above a thousand years In the prosecution of this thing I beg leave to go a little out of the common rode not to trouble my self with an endless fatigue of collecting a world of sentences out of the Fathers a course which tho it be proper enough for a Disputant yet may be liable to a great many Cavils I shall rather chuse to argue from some observations that may be made upon those Controversies the Ancient Church had with Infidels and Hereticks which will evidently shew the sense of the Ancient Christians as to the point under our hands for this is certain that we can never better learn the sense of the Ancient Church than out of their Disputations especially when they go upon the same grounds and use the same way of Argumentation 1. Now first it is easie to observe what the sense of the Ancient Church was as to the eating of Humane Flesh and the drinking of Bloud The Pagans were wont for a long time to throw this in the teeth of the Primitive Christians that they celebrated Thyestean banquets and stories ran about that at their sacred Assemblies they killed a Child and then junketed together upon the tragical dish The Christians granted that the feasting upon Humane Flesh and Bloud was a most Barbarous and Flagitious crime but they proved themselves Innocent they abominated the very thoughts of any such detestable practice and in all their Apologies they declared their utter Abhorrence thereof so Justin Martyr in the Age next to the Apostles then Tatian after him Athenagoras and Theophilus Justin Martyr 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. Apolog. 2. Tatian Orat. cont Graec. P. 162. Athenagor legat pro Christian P. 4. 35 36. c. Theophil ad Autol. lib. 3 P. 119. 126. Tertullian Apologet. cap. 9. Origen cont Cels l. 6. P. 302. Minut. Felix in Octavio the Patriarch of Antioch After these Tertullian after him Origen and after him Minutus Faelix For an hundred years together were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Theop. ad Autolyc the Primitive Christians busie in vindicating themselves from that Atheistical and Savage Practice as Theophilus calls it of eating mans flesh And to make this evidently appear the ancient Christians did appeal to their very Enemies who could not but know that some Christians were wont to refrain from all flesh whatsoever that none of them would taste of that which was strangled or which was destroyed Tantum ab Humano sanguine cavemus ut nec edulium pecorum in cibis sanguinem noverimus Minut. Felix P. 34. Denique inter tentament a Christianorum botulos cruore distentos admovetis certissimi scilicet illicitum esse penes illos c. Tertull. Apol. c.
his word whereby our Flesh and Bloud are by alteration nourisht to be the Flesh and Bloud of our Incarnate Saviour As Christ was God and man by the union of two real and distinct Substances the Humane and divine Substance so must the Eucharist be believed to consist of two real and distinct Natures the visible and invisible nature which Joannes Langus observed to be so strong an Argument against Transubstantiation that the Expurgatory Indexes have ordered his Annotations upon those words of Justin to be Quod Transubstantiationem non agnoseit sed apertè contendat cum corpore sanguine Christi remanere veram panis vini Substantiam Ind. Belgic p. 76. blotted out So he that wrote the forementioned book of the Lords Supper affirmeth that as in the Person of Christ the Humanity was seen and the Divinity was hid so in the visible Sacrament the Divine Essence infuseth it self after an invisible and ineffable manner S. Augustin S. Hillary and others of the Antients use the very same similitude and conclude that the Mystery of the Eucharist where two real Vide Augustin in Gratian de Consecr Distinct 2. c. 72. Hilar. de Trin. 1. 8. Ibid. c. 82. Natures go together in the same Sacrament is like the Mystery of the Incarnation where two real Substances were united together in the same Person For the Romanists themselves dare not say that only the Accidents of Humanity were in our Lord at his Incarnation and therefore they ought not to say neither that only the Accidents of bread and wine are in the Eucharist after Consecration At least they ought not to appeal to Antiquity for this conceit it being plainly the sense of the Primitive Church that as the Nature of Man was neither abolisht nor changed into Christs Divinity when 't was united to it so neither is the nature of bread abolisht or changed into Christs Body when 't is administred with it 5. It is observable that whereas some Hereticks in the Ancient times denyed our Saviour to have two several Natures the Catholicks proved he had so by this known received Principle because there are two several Natures in the Sacrament which is a Figure of Christ This is a thing which requires particular observation because it will clearly and undeniably prove that the sense of the Church which I have shewn for the first 300. years was the same still and indeed more plain if possible for the two Centuries next following The occasion of their speaking so plainly was this Between the third and fourth Century there brake out the pestilent heresie of Apollinaris S. Aug. de Haeres c. 55. who held that our Lord took not his Body of the holy Virgin but that the Word was made Flesh so that the Deity was turned and transubstantiated into the Manhood Against this Heresie S. Chrysostom undertook the defence of the Catholick Faith that Christ at his Incarnation was both God and Man one Person of two Natures joyned together which are not one Substance but each hath its Properties distinct from the other And how doth he prove this Why he argues from the condition of the Holy Sacrament wherein there are two Natures so that neither is the Bread turned into Christs Flesh nor his Flesh into Bread but both are distinct Sicut enim antequam Sanctisicetur panis panem nominamus Divina autem illum Sanctificante gratia medinate Sacerdote liberatus est quidem ab appellatione Panis dignus autem habitus est Dominici Corporis â—appellatione ersi Natura panis in ipso Permansâ—t non duo corpora sed unum flii corpus praedicatur sic hîc divina insidente corpori natura unum filium unam personam utraque haec fecerunt S. Chrysoft Ep. ad Caesarium contra Appollinarem in themselves though they go As saith S. Chrysostom before the Consecration of the bread we call it bread but when the Grace of God hath sanctified it by the Priest it is delivered from the name of Bread and is exalted to the Lords Body though the Nature of Bread remaineth still and so two things make one Eucharist so here the Divine Nature is in the Body of Christ but these two Substances are distinct and make one Son and one Person This is a very plain testimony on our side Afterwards the Apollinarians were divided in their opinions for they shifted and were Unstable for want of truth and then Theodoret took up the quarrel against them all in his book entitled Polymorphos For then the Heresie of Eutyches appeared abroad whose opinion was that though Christ had at First two Natures yet after the Union of them the Humanity ceased was quite absorpt and Transubstantiated into the Divinity To prove this those Hereticks drew an argument from the Eucharist Christs Body said they was turned into his Deity at the Ascension even as the Bread and Wine are turned into his Flesh 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theodoret Dialog 1. and Bloud upon Consecration But to his Theodoret answered roundly that Christ honoured the visible Symbols with the name of his Body and Bloud not changing their Nature but to their Nature adding Grace And whereas it was urged again by those Hereticks that the Symbols of the Lords Body and Bloud are one thing before Invocation and another thing after Theodoret told them that they were taken in their own nets because the Mystical Signs do not Id. Dialog 2. depart from their own Nature after Sanctification but Remain in their former Substance aswell as in their Figure and form If this be not Home and Plain I know not what can be and yet we have a Further Testimony from the mouth of Gelasius who was Bishop of Rome too about 500 years after our Saviour He wrote an Excellent Book of the Two Natures of Christ against the Eutychians and Nestorians and how doth he argue Why he clears the Catholick Faith by arguing from the Eucharist too and these Gelas de duabus Naturis in Christo are his words Indeed the Sacraments of Christ Body and Bloud which we receive are a Divine thing for by them we are made partakers of the Divine Nature and yet it doth not cease to be the Substance or Nature of Bread and Wine The Image and Similitude of Christs Body and Bloud is in the Action of the Mysteries and by this it appears that we must think that to be in Christ which we Profess celebrate and take in the Image that as they pass into a Divine Substance by the Operation of the Holy Spirit the Nature of the things remaining still in their own Propriety so is the Principal Mysterie the Efficiency and Virtue whereof the Sacraments do Represent by their Continuing what they were it appears that they shew one entire and true Christ to continue also If this be not enough yet we will produce Ephraim the Patriarch for another witness after Gelasius He wrote very learnedly against
eo dictum est Ecce ego vobiscum sum usque ad consummationem seculi Secundum carnem vero quod verbum assumpsit secundum id quod de Virgine natus est secundum id quod a Hudaeis prebensus est quod ligno confixus quod de cruce depositus quod linteis involutus quod in sepulchro conditus quod in resurrectione manifestatus non semper habebitis vobiscum S. Aug. Tractat. 50. in John plainly in respect of that Body which was assumed by the Word which was born of the Virgin which was apprehended by the Jews which was nailed to the Tree which was taken down from the Cross and was wrapped up and laid in the Sepulchre in respect of that Body we have him not with us but in respect of his Majesty in respect of his Providence in respect of his Ineffable and invincible Grace that promise of his is fulfilled lo I am with you alwayes even unto the end of the world And speaking of the Eucharist he doth distinguish between Nam nos bodie accipimus visibilem cibum used aliud est Sacramentum aliud virtus Sacramenti S. Aug. Tractat. 26. in John Usque ad Spiritûs participationem manducemus bibamus Id Tract 27. the Sacrament it self and the virtue of the Sacrament calling that the Grace of Christ which is not consumed with our Teeth and the participation of the Spirit This is that which S. Austin elsewhere calls the Intelligible the Invisible the Spiritual Body of Christ that which Ireneus calls the Heavenly thing that which Clement and Jerome call the spiritual Flesh and Bloud of the Lord That which Pseudo-Cyprian calls the Divine Virtue the Divine Essence the Divine Majesty the participation of the Spirit the drink which flowes and streams from that Spiritual Rock Christ Jesus That which S. Ambrose calls the spiritual Aliment and the Body of a Divine Spirit that which others call the Lords Immortality his Divine Body the Truth of his Body the Nutriment of the Inward Man the vital Pulment of the Incarnate Deity and divers other expressions we meet with in old Authors signifying the wonderful vertues of Christs Glorified Humanity whereof every Faithful Soul is made Partaker S. Ifidore Pelusiot conceived that the roasting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Isidor Pelus Ep. 219. l. 1. of the Paschal Lamb with Fire did Typically fignifie that Christ the true Pasleover was to unite the Fire of the Divine Essence to his Flesh to be eaten of us That 's his Experssion and it shews his opinion that we receive the virtue of his Divine through his Humane Nature Among modern Foreign Writers none seems to me to have explained this thing better than the moderate and Judicious Author of the Diallacticon Eucharistiae a Book written about 130. years ago to compose all controversies Hoc corpus hunc sanguinem carnem hanc substantiam corporis non communi more nec ut humana ratio dictat accipi oportet sed it a nominari existimari credi propter eximios quosdam effectus virtutes proprietates conjunctas quae corpori sanguini Christi natura in sunt nempe quod Pascat animas nostras vivificet simul corpora ad resurrectionem immortalitatem praeparet Dialact pag. 33. 34. Non hic cogitandûm est nos crudas bominis carnes comedere vel sanguinem bibere Sed verba spiritalia esse spiritualiter intelligenda carnem quidem sanguinem nominari sed de Spiritu Vita idest vivifica dominicae carnis virtute debere intellagi c. Ibid. pag. 25. Quia figur a veri corporis panis est jure Corpus appellatur quia virtutem ejusdem vitalem conjunctam habet multo magis tum vero maxime quod utrumque complectitur Ibid. pag 54. Panis Domini Corpus Christi est quia gratiam virtutem ejus vitalem conjunctam habet Quod outem haec non commentitia aut nuper nata sententia est sed ab antiquis recepta approbata Scriptoribus claris ipsorum testimoniis confirmabimus Ibid. pag. 57. about the Sacrament and he too goes altogether this way shewing that that Body of Christ which is present with us is his spiritual Body and that we communicate thereof by deriving Efficacy Power and Vital Virtue from the Body of the Lord. And this account I am the better pleased and satisfied with because it was a Notion that was en tertained and really asserted by a very Learned Doctor of our own Church with Dr. Jack vol. 3. p. 325. Seq whose words I shall conclude this consideration we must not collect saith he that Christs Body because comprehended within the Heavens can exercise no real operation upon our Bodies or Souls here on Earth or that the live Influence of his Glorified Humane Nature may not be diffused through the World as he shall be pleased to dispense it no we must not take upon us to limit or bound the Efficacy of Christs Body upon the Bodies or Souls which he hath taken into his Protection there are Influences of Life which his Humane Nature doth distill from his Heavenly Throne And the Sacramental Bread is called his Body and the Sacramental Wine his Bloud as for other reasons so especially for this because the Virtue and Influence of his most Bloudy Sacrifice is most plentifully and most effectually distilled from Heaven unto the worthy Receivers and many more things he saith to the same effect By this account we may easily undergand the meaning of the sixth chapter of S. John which hath so puzled many Learned Interpreters and we may fairly give the reason of the Sentence of our Lords Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of man and drink his Bloud ye have no life in you For the Principle of life comes from our Lords Glorified Humanity and unless we receive into our Souls the vital Virtue which distilleth from it we can be in no other than a dead Condition I do not mean that 't is impossible to have life without receiving the Sacrament no there is that which Divines call a Sacramental and Spiritual receiving of Christ and a Spiritual receiving only when men eat and drink after a right manner they receive both the Sacrament and also the thing or virtue of the Sacrament but yet men may derive and by Faith do derive virtue from Christ without the Sacrament if they do not abstain through negligence or the love of sin and the like The Grace of God is not tyed to Sacraments so but that God may dispense it as he pleaseth nor are we to conceive that the Blessed Body of Christ doth quicken none but at the Communion CHAP. X. That Christs Spiritual Body is actually verily and really taken and received by the Faithful in the Lords Supper Proved from the Analogy thereof to other Sacrifical Feasts among Jews and Heathens From S. Pauls Viscourse 1 Cor. 10. and from the sense of