a Decree rather be assented to than the contrary Decree of the forementioned Synod called at London Now for a further Confirmation of This Doctrine I will here deliver Evident Testimonies of most Eminent Fathers and Doctors of the Church concerning it The Truth of the Eucharist and Real Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist Confirmed by the Testimonies of the Fathers MAny of the Holy Fathers have taught That the Faithful partake of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist not with a mental mouth by Faith only as Calvin would have it but even with a Bodily Mouth in the way of a true and proper Eating So St. Augustin l. 2. contra Adversarium legis Prophetarum c. 9. We receive with a faithful heart and mouth Christ Jesus giving us his Flesh to eat and his Blood to drink and St. Leo Serm. 6. de jejunio mensis septimi where he Writes thus We ought so to communicate at the holy Table as that there be no doubt of the truth of Christ's Body for the same is taken with the Mouth which is believed with the Heart In like manner Calvin's Errour is Excluded by St. John Damascen for he tells us De Orthodoxa Fide l. c. 14. The Bread and Wine are no figures of the Body and Blood of Christ far be this from us to imagine but the very Body of Christ our blessed Lord himself testifying this is not a sign of my Body but my Body nor a sign of my Blood but my Blood The like hath Theophylact in S. Matth. 26. and St. Mark 14. where explaining the self-same Words of Christ he adds He shews that the Host which is offered upon the Altar is the very Body of our Lord and no Figure for he said not this is a Figure of my Body but my Body hence is it that the Holy Fathers Teach that by receiving the Eucharist Christ is truly incorporated with us and not by Faith only or Figuratively but united to us indeed so speak the Holy Fathers For thus says St. John Chrysostom Homil. 3. on St. Matth. He incorporates himself says he with us and not by Faith only but he makes us his Body verily and indeed So St. Cyril of Alexandria in St. John l. 10. c. 13. tells us We are not only united to Christ spiritually by a true Faith and sincere Charity but Christ also dwells in us Corporally by Communication of the Flesh of Christ and that Corporal Union of Christ with the Faithful therein by participation of the Eucharist he Illustrates by this Instance Like as says he if one blends one piece of melted Wax with another so as one lump seems to be made up of both the pieces even so by Communication of the Body and Blood of Christ he is in us and we in him for the corruptable Nature of a Body cannot otherwise pass over to Life and Incorruption unless a body of Natural Life be joyned with it St. Gregory Nyssen uses another instance in Orat. Catech. cap. 37. where he speaks thus In like manner as a little Leaven as the Apostle Testifies 2 Cor. 11. Leavens the whole Lump even so that Life giving Body passing into our Bodies Translates it self wholly into us and changes us as it renders ours like it and immortal in due time for it is necessary that our Nature so far as may be should admit so Efficatious a power into our Bodies where he also teaches us that it behoves us to believe that like as the forbidden Fruit was corporally eaten by Adam even so that the Body of Christ is taken of us corporally and received in the Belly so that it is not only mentally by Faith or Figuratively as Calvin would have it so as the wholsom Medicine be in us be no otherwise in us than the Destructive poyson which was bodily received to Repeal the same by a contray Action Read that whole Chapter then which nothing can be more clearly against the Errours of the Calvinists maintaining the Body and Blood of Christ to be taken by us Spiritually and not Corporally Last of all the Holy Fathers Teach that the Sacrament of the Eucharist for the sake of Christ's being there is to be Adored but Adored it ought not to be nay such Adoration would be Idolatry if Christ be not truly and really there contained for that Worship or Adoration that is called Latria is to be given to God alone whence it is plain that in the opinion of the Holy Fathers Christ is truly and really contained in the Sacrament of the Eucharist now that the Holy Fathers every where teach that the Sacraments of the Eucharist is to be Adored because of Christs being there appears plainly from St. Austin Epist 120. cap. 27. Where he tells us That the Faithful came to the Table they eat and Adored the same he maintains in his Comment 82. that place Psalm xcviii upon Worship his Foot-stool where the Foot-stool he explains by the Earth and the Earth by the Flesh of Christ Because says he he walked here in our Flesh and gave his very Flesh to be eaten by us for our Salvation and no man eats that Flesh unless he hath first Adored it It is discovered how such a Foot-stool of our Lord may be Adored and we shall not only not Sin in Adoring but we Sin in not Adoring and St. Ambrge de Spiritu Sancto l. 13. c. 11. upon the same words says thus By the Foot-stool is meant the Earth and by the Earth the Flesh of Christ which we daily Adore in the Mysteries Thus St. Ambrose The like hath St. Chrysostom in Epist ad Eph. homil 3. where he hath it thus Adore this and Eat And St. Cyril of Hierusalem Catech. 3. Mystagog hath these words Make thy approach to the Chalice of his Blood in the manner of Adoration This the Church has constanty held from the beginning and hold even to this day as appears from the General Council of Trent Sess 13. Cap. 5. where it requires the Worship of Latria to be given to the Sacrament according to the custom ever received in the Church Many more Testimonies of the Holy Fathers are yet behind which to produce were easy if there were no pains in Transcribing them and those already produced are sufficient for the truth of the Eucharist and for the Real Presence of the Body of Christ there Jo. 6. v. 54. Who Eates my Flesh and Drinks my Blood hath Eternal Life and I will raise him up at the last day And the Council of Nice calls the Eucharist Symbolum Resurrectionis a token of the Resurrection and St. Ignatius M. Epist 14. ad Epes termes it Pharmacum Immortalitatis A Medicine of Immortality Now if you ask the manner how it serves as an incorruptible food for a Glorious Resurrection I Answer The Species being altered by the heat of the Stomach the Body of Christ ceases to be here but his Deity remains after a special
manner in the Soul as the virtue of Wheat remains in the corrupted grain to raise it again at Spring feeding it with Grace and at set times affording it new infusions of Actual Grace Divine Lights and Heavenly Affection and in the Resurrection raises again the Body and unites it to the Soul. Reformers Object that the same Body of Christ cannot be multiplied so often over We answer out of Gen. 2.21 Our Lord God cast a dead sleep upon Adam and when he was fast asleep he took one of his Ribs and filled up flesh for it and our Lord God built the Rib which he took of Adam into a Woman I ask how many times over must this Rib be multiplied before a whole Woman of a comely proper Stature could be made of it After the same manner God can of one ordinary Brick make a Pillar of many Foot high by Multiplying that one Brick in the like manner our Saviour Multiplied those five Barley Loves with which he fed above five Thousand Men. Jo. 6. For if he made new Loves he did not feed them with those five but with those many hundred new Loves which he made and yet the Scipture saith v. 12.13 After they were filled they gathered the Remnants and filled Twelve Baskets with the fragments of the five Barley Loves and not of any new Loves created by Christ So that the Bread which was eaten remained still to be eaten and it is worth our noting that our Saviour did this Miracle immediately before he did first declare this strange Doctrine of giving his flesh to be eaten like bread by every one that so when he should have no reason to disbelieve the possibility thereof For his Disciples seeing that he had done that Prodigious Miracle So very lately ought not presently to have said This is hard and who can hear it Neither ought they so soon to have walked a-part from him as there St. John saith They did but rather they ought to have said with St. Peter We believe and know thou art the Son of God able to make thy words good as thou wert able so to multiply so few Loaves Concerning the Exposition of these words THIS IS MY BODY WE say these words This is my Body prove clearly the Real Presence of Christ's Body in the Host Because they ought to be taken in their proper sense in which they would prove it clearly by the grant of our adversaries who therefore say they are to be taken Figuratively Now that they ought to be taken here in their proper sense I prove 〈◊〉 positively Positive Proofs WHen in a Speech a word is indifferent of it sellf to be taken in the literal or figurative sense you must look to the words that follow in the same Speech if they express the property of a figure the word is to be taken figuratively if the property of the real thing then the word is to be taken in the literal sense For Example when one tells me I have seen the King I know not yet what he means whether his person or picture but when he adds set in a frame of Gold I know he means his Picture because 't is the property of a Picture to be set in a Frame If he adds speaking with the Chancellour I know he means the King's Person because 't is the property of a person to speak with another Just so when Christ says Luke 22. v. 19 This is my Body I know not yet what he means whether his Real Body or only a figure of it But when he adds which is given for you I know he means of his true Body because 't is the property of a true body to be sacrificed for us 2. I prove again that these words of Christ This is my Body are to be taken in the literal sense by the Protestant Principle which is this When two passages relate to or speak of the same matter in Scripture the obscurer passage is to be explained by the clearer But these two passages relating to our Lord's Supper This is my Body and Do this in remembrance of me This latter is the obsecurer and that former the clearer then this latter ought to be explained by that former that is to say to the sense of that former viz. Christ having changed a piece of bread into his Body by his Almighty word says there to his Disciples Do ye for the food of other Souls what ye have seen me do for the food of yours Change ye likewise by pronouncing the words I have ordained for that end bread into my Body but do it with such circumstances that people standing by may be mindful of my death and passion But the clear Proposition ought not to be explained by the obscure one thus This is my Body that is to say this is a figure only or a remembrance of my body because he said after do this in remembrance of me for the thing was now done and he told them what it was in clear words afore he said Do this in remembrance of me He did not say this is a remembrance of me no but Do this in remembrance of me He did not speak of the substance of the thing but only of the manner of doing it By these words then in remembrance of me he only intimated that they should make at that same time a sensible expression of his passion to the people as is seen done in the Sacrifice of the Mass If by This he understood a figure or remembrance then he had said do or make aremembrance of me in remembrance of me or remember me to remember me which is ridiculous Now let any indifferent and judicious man be judge if these words do this in remembrance of me be as clear to prove that in the Euchrarist or the Lord's Supper is only a Figure of Christ's Body as these words This is my Body are clear to prove that the Eucharist is his true Body If you instance that as Christ said This is my Body so he said also I am a Vine and consequently as the latter Proposition must be taken figuratively so must also the former I answer it doth not follow there being a great disparity For we all Protestants as well as Catholicks avow that Propositions in the Holy Scripture cannot be taken in the literal sense if so taken they imply or intimate something contrary to Faith as this Proposition I am a Vine literally taken would do Por Protestants as well as Catholicks believe that the Divine Word hath assumed no nature but that of Man then he hath not assumed that of a Vine and consequently 't is against Faith to say in the literal sense Christ is a Vine But these words This is my Body taken in the literal sense imply nothing against Faith no more than he who shewing you a knife says This is a Knife for the term This and the term Knife suppose for the same thing and not for different natures so in Christ's Proposition
This is my Body This and Body suppose for the same thing not This for Bread but for The Body of Christ as well as the word Body supposes for it though in a different way of signifying This obscurely and Body clearly and distinctly Here I humbly intreat the Protestant Reader to reflect that in the mysteries of Religion we must captivate our understanding 2 Cor. 10.5 that is to say suspend it from asserting what it might judge had he nothing to rely upon but the sole relation of our senses to obey Christ God will have as an homage due to him and his veracity this proud faculty of man which is earnest to judge of all submit to his word The assent of my understanding by which I judge a thing to be because I see it with my eyes is an assent of science which is a knowledge quite different from the assent of Faith. In the mean time we Christians as Christians are called not Philosophers the Reasoners but the Faithful Fides est as we say credere quod non vides Faith is to believe that which thou dost not see This is the praise of Faith saith St. Aug. tract 29. in lo. If that which is believed be not seen Blessed are they said Christ Jo. 20. v. 29. who have not seen and have believed Faith is an argument or persuasion saith St. Paul of things not appearing If they appear and I assent that they are because I see them my Faith ceases Science coming in with Faith's Destruction If you say I belive that the Son of God became Man because God hath revealed it and my senses do not controul it your Faith is lame and not able to stand alone and consequently is an unworthy Sacrifice of your understanding to the word of God. What would the King say to that Noble man who should distrust his relation made in presence of all his Courtiers of a thing done by his Majesty upon his Royal word who should I say distrust it because he heard it controuled by a Foot-boy or some such mean person of as little credit As humane Faith requires I rely upon the sole testimony of a man so does divine Faith require I rely upon the sole Testimony of God shall I trust the word of a man sometimes contrary to sensible appearance as when I trust upon the word of a Doctor or a Chirurgion that that which I feel hurts me will do me good and shall not I trust the Word of God because my Senses seem to controul it But be not mistaken neither sense nor reason controuls the Real Presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist For sense after the Consecration finds its whole Object Colour Taste c. Just as before the Consecration unchanged and meddles not to judge whether the Body of Christ or the substance of Bread be under the Accidents as a thing belonging to the understanding and not within the compass of its Object And Reason tells us that although all the accidents of a substance be present nevertheless their substance is not there if the Author of nature has not revealed that he hinders its presence to them and therefore does not controul our saying that the substance of Bread is hot in the Eucharist after the Consecration because the Author of Nature hath revealed the contrary No more then it controuls Protestants saying that those three who appeared to Ahraham Genes 18. with all the accidents of Men were not Men but Angels because God has revealed it was so 3. Christ by his Almighty Power could change Bread into his flesh and he tells us Matth. 26. in these words This is my Body that he hath done it why shall not I believe it O but it seems strange to our apprehension must God then in that thing in which he will make to all men a memorial of his wonders Psal 110. v. 4. do nothing but what is within the reach of meaner wits and falls under their senses this claim is too proud therefore in humility Here I may say with S. Aug. Lib. 22. de Civit. Dei. Cap. 11. Ecce qualibus argumentis omnipotentiae Dei humana contradicit infirmitas quam possidet vanitas Behold with what arguments human Infirmity possessed with vanity opposes the almighty power of God. FINIS