The Novelty of Popery Opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity, Book 7 · Controversy 11 · Chapter 4

The Novelty of Popery Opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity · Book 7 · Controversy 11 · Chapter 4

p. 710CHAP. 4. How and in what ſenſe the Fathers alleadged by the Cardinal, call the Sacrament the body of Chriſt, and ſay that Chriſts body is made in the Euchariſt, and that we eate his fleſh in it. Anſwer to the Cardinals depravations.

AFter we have heard the heavenly Oracle, and underſtood what was the inſtitution of the Lord Jeſus, if we would decide this difference by the teſtimonies of men, we ſhould offer a diſgrace to the eternal Son of God, and ſubject divine authority to mans judgement. Eſpecially ſeeing that the Word of God is ſo clear in this point, that bringing light to it from other places, is like lighting a candle to ſee whether it be day.

Wherefore we deſire the Reader not to miſtake our end, when we alleadge the Fathers, either in this, or in other queſtions. We do it not, to ground the heavenly truth upon the teſtimonies of men, but to defend the antient Fathers againſt the injuſtice of our Adverſaries, who wreſt the Fathers, and ſet them upon the rack, to force them to bear teſtimony for untruth, and make them ſpeak contrary to their mind.

Neither do we alleadge them in this queſtion, to be interpreters of the words of Chriſt and his Apoſtles. For where the Word of God interprets it ſelf, there needs no other interpretation. But we alleadge them, to wipe off from us the ordinary calumny, that we oppoſe the conſent of Antiquity, as though our belief were but of late date, or as if that which was from the beginning could be new. For although our belief be grounded upon the only Word of God, yet it is a ſingular delight and content unto us, when reading the Fathers of the firſt age, we find in them the ſame things that we teach, and perceive that we are hated for a doctrine which was believed by them, whom the Romaniſts make a ſhew to reverence.

Cardinal du Perron in the fourth chapter, brings many teſtimonies of Fathers for the real preſence of Chriſts body. He begins by Authors not to be received, Damaſcenus, Euthymius, Theophylactus, and Anaſtaſius Sinaita. Of whom the firſt writ about the year of Chriſt, 470. the ſecond in the year 1118. the third in the year, 1070. and the laſt about the year, 630. all long after the time of the four firſt Councils, to which the Cardinal had ſaid, that he would confine himſelf. Yet let us ſee whether they ſay any thing that may prejudice us.

Theſe Authors then obſerve, that the Lord ſaid not, This is the figure of my body, but this is my body. Who knows not that, ſeeing that all the Evangeliſts that ſpeak of this inſtitution, affirm ſo much? I ſay more. For I maintain that the nature of the action required that he ſhould ſpeak ſo. For he inſtituted a Sacrament, wherefore it was convenient that he ſhould uſe Sacramental words, and follow the ſtile of Scripture (which is to give unto the ſign, the name of the thing ſignified, when it ſpeaks of Sacraments.) And that in a figurative action, he ſhould uſe figurative words, conformable to the nature of the action.

He adds a teſtimony of Chryſoſtom, and another of Gaudentius, both to this purpoſe, Chriſt ſaid, This is my body; Let us believe it, and ſee it with the eyes of the Spirit. Truth knows not untruth. So much we alſo believe, but with the expoſitions which Scripture brings. And Scripture teacheth us, that Chriſt gave bread unto his Diſciples; That we eat bread in the Lords Supper; That the ſame bread is his body; That the cup is the New Teſtament in his blood, and by conſequent is not really his blood. That the bread which we break, is the Communion of the body of Chriſt; That the Diſciples came together to break bread, who yet neither could nor would break the natural body of the Lord; That the cup which the Lord drunk with his Diſciples, was the fruit of the Vine; That it is the remembrance of him; That we eat bread to announce his death; That Chriſt p. 711aſcended to heaven, and left the world, and is no more in the world; That heaven contains him; That he is like unto us in all things but ſin; That Chriſt did not lift up the Hoſt; And that his Diſciples, whoſe example we ought to follow, did not worſhip it. After that, alleadging Euthymius or Theophylactus, late Greek Authors, ſeparated from the communion of the Romā Church, is deriding God to abuſe men.

The Cardinal adds a place of Ambroſe, but he corrupts it, making Ambroſe to ſay, in the ninth chapter of the book of thoſe that are initiated into myſteries, The Lord Jeſus himſelf cryeth, This is my body; before the bleſsing of the heavenly words, he is named another kind, after the conſecration he is called the body of Chriſt, This paſſage is unfaithfully tranſlated. There is in Ambroſe, Ante benedictionem verborum coeleſtium alia ſpecies nominatur, poſt conſecrationem corpus Chriſti ſignificatur. That is, Before the bleſsing of the heavenly words, another kind is named; after the conſecration, the body of Chriſt is ſignified or repreſented. The Cardinal hath tranſlated, he is named another kind, inſtead of another kind is named, to make way for the depravation of the following Clauſe, where he tranſlateth ſignificatur, is called, inſtead of, is ſignified, or repreſented. Which falſification he coloreth with the allegation of another text of Ambroſe, which he quoteth not, where Ambroſe ſaith, that Chriſt was ſignified the Son of the higheſt; but there alſo ſignifying is not calling, but declaring or manifeſting. Should not that man ſhew himſelf to be out of his right ſenſe, that would ſay, that God is ſignified Almighty, inſtead of ſaying that he is called Almighty? Or that Virigil was ſignified Prince of the Poets, inſtead of ſaying that he is ſo called?

But that we may not loſe time in confuting all the allegations of the Cardinal out of the Fathers, where the Sacrament is called the body of Chriſt, and where they ſay that by the conſecration, the bread is made the body of Chriſt, it is neceſſary to ſhew the ſenſe & intent of the Fathers, & to know their ſtile. For they ſpeak ſo clearly of this matter, that they leave us no reaſon to doubt of their intention.

I ſay then, that the Fathers followin… the traces of the holy Scripture▪ ſpeak of three ſorts of bodies of Chriſt. Firſt of his natural body, which was crucified for us; and of two myſtical bodies, the one of them the Church, which Scripture often calls the body of Chriſt, the other his Sacramental body, which we receive in the Lords Supper. Wherein alſo the follow they ſtile of Scripture, which uſeth to give unto the ſigns, the name of things ſignified by the ſigns.

Auſtin in the third Book of the Queſtions upon Leviticus, qu. 57.(a)(a)Solet res quae ſignificat, ejus rei nomine, quam ſignificat, nuncupari. The thing that ſignifieth, uſeth to be named by the name of the thing that it ſignifieth. And in the 102. Epiſtle to Exodius, (b)(b)Aliquando res quae ſignificat, nomen ejus rei, quam ſignificat, accipit.Sometimes the thing that ſignifieth, takes the name of the thing that it ſignifieth.

The ſame Father applyeth this rule to the Euchariſt, in the 23. Epiſtle to Boniface, (c)(c)Nonne ſemel immolatus eſt Chriſtus in ſe ipſo? & tamen in Sacramento, non ſolum per omnes Paſchae ſolennitates ſed omni die populis immolatur. Si enim Sacramenta quandam ſimilitudinem earum, quarum Sacramenta ſunt, non haberent, omnino Sacramenta non eſſent. Ex hac autem ſimilitudine plerumque etiam ipſarum nomina accipiunt. Sicut ergo ſecundum quendam modum Sacramentum corporis Chriſti corpus Chriſti eſt, Sacramentum ſanguinis Chriſti ſanguis Chriſti eſt, ita Sacramen…um fidei, quod Baptiſmus intelligitur, fides eſt.Was not Chriſt once ſacrificed in himſelf? and yet he is ſacrificed unto the people in a ſacred ſign, &c. That man lyeth not, who being asked, anſwereth that he was ſacrificed. For had not the Sacraments ſome likeneſs unto the things of which they are Sacraments, they ſhould not be Sacraments at all. Now becauſe of that likeneſs, they take moſt often the names of the things themſelves.

And in the twelfth Chapter againſt Adimantus, (d)(d)Non enim Dominus dubitavit dicere, Hoc eſt corpus meum, cum daret ſ…gnum corporis ſui.The Lord made no difficulty to ſay, This is my body, when he gave the ſign of his body. Of which place we ſhall ſee hereafter a notorious depravation by our Cardinal.

The Roman Decree, in the ſecond Diſtinction of the Conſecration, in the Canon Hoc eſt, (e)(e)Co…leſtis panis qui Chriſti ca…o eſt, ſuo modo vocatur corpus Chriſti, cum re vera ſit Sacramentum corporis Chriſti, illius videlicet, quod palpabile mortale in cruce poſitum eſt; vocaturque ipſa imm…latio carnis quae ſacerdotis manibus ſit, Chriſti paſſio, mors, crucifixio, non rei veritate ſed ſignificante myſterio.The heavenly bread, which is the fleſh of Chriſt, is in its way, called the body of Chriſt, although to ſpeak truly, it be the Sacrament [or ſacred p. 712ſign] of the body of Chriſt, even of him who being viſible, palpable and mortal, was put on the Croſs. Then he brings an example, that the immolation of the fleſh of Chriſt, which is done by the hands of the Prieſt, is called the Paſsion, the Death, and Crucifixion of Chriſt, not according to the truth of the thing, but in a ſignificant myſterie. Upon which the Gloſs of the Doctors ſpeaks rarely,(f)(f)Et ibi Gloſſa. Coeleſte Sacramentum, quod verè repraeſentat Chriſti carne, dicitur corpus Chriſti ſed impropriè, verùm dicitur ſuo modo, ſed non rei veritate ſed ſignificante myſterio; ut ſit ſenſus, vocatur Chriſti corpus, id eſt, ſignificatur. The heavenly Sacrament (ſay they) which truly repreſenteth the fleſh of Chriſt, is called the body of Chriſt, but improperly. Yet it is ſo called, not according to the truth of the thing, but by a ſignificant myſterie. So that the ſenſe is, that it is called the body of Chriſt, becauſe it is ſignified. Certainly great is the ſtrength of truth, and I wonder how our Adverſaries ſuffer ſuch a Gloſs, in ſuch an authentick book, whereby their doctrine is ſo clearly condemned.

Wherefore Auſtin in the third Book againſt Maximin. chap. 22. layeth down that maxime about Sacraments.(g)(g)Haec enim Sacramenta ſunt, in quibus non quid ſunt, ſed quid oſtendunt, ſemper attenditur, quoniam ſigna ſunt rerum aliud exiſtentia, aliud ſignificantia. Theſe things (ſaith he) are Sacraments in which it is not regarded what they are, but what they ſignifie. For they are ſigns which are one thing and ſignifie another: That is, Baptiſm is water, and ſignifieth the blood of Chriſt; and the Euchariſt is bread and wine, and ſignifieth the body and blood of Chriſt.

Wherefore alſo, in the third Book of Chriſtian Doctrine, chap. 5. he giveth warning that Chriſtians ſhould take heed of miſtaking the ſigns for the things ſignified.(h)(h)Ea demum eſt miſèrabilis animae ſervitus ſigna pro rebus accipere. It is (ſaith he) a miſerable bondage of the ſoul, to take the ſigns for the things. And in the ninth Chapter, As to follow the letter, and to take the ſigns for the things ſignified, is a ſervile infirmity, ſo to interpret the ſigns uſeleſly, is an ill wandring. This is directly the ſickneſs of the Roman Church, which worſhippeth the Sacrament, as if it were Chriſt himſelf, and takes the ſign for the thing ſignified.

Theodoret is very pregnant upon this point. In his firſt Dialogue, entituled, the Immutable, he giveth the expoſition of theſe words, This is my body. (k)(k)foreign.The Lord (ſaith he) hath given unto th… …ign, the name of his body; and ſheweth how ſometimes the name of the thing ſignified is given unto the ſign, as when the Lord called bread his body, and ſometimes the name of the ſign is given to the thing ſignified, as when he calls himſelf the bread and the vine.(l)(l)foreign. Our Saviour (ſaith he) hath made an exchange of names, and hath given to his body the name of the ſign (that is, when he called himſelf the bread) and gave to the ſign the name of his body, (namely when he ſaid, This is my body) and ſo he who called himſelf the Vine, called the ſign (that is, the wine) his blood.

And a little after,(m)(m)foreign His will was, that thoſe that participate of the divine myſteries, ſhould not regard the nature of things that are ſeen, but that by the exchange of the words, (i)(i)Ut autem literam ſ…qui & ſigna pro rebus, quae his ſignificantur, accipere ſervitis infirmitatis eſt, ita inutiliter ſigna interpretari male vagantis erroris eſt.they ſhould believe the change that is done by grace. For the ſame that called his natural body meat and bread [John 6.] and called himſelf the Vine, [John 15.] the ſame hath honoured the viſible ſigns with the name of his body and blood, having not changed their nature, but added grace unto nature. Here two things are very conſiderable: The one, that he denyeth that in the holy Communion, Chriſt hath changed the nature of bread and wine: The other, that he makes theſe words, I am the Vine, like unto theſe, This is my body, and ſaith that it is an exchange of words, and that in the firſt the name of the ſign is given to the ſignified thing, and in the ſecond, the name of the ſignified thing, is given to the ſign.

For theſe cauſes, the Preface prefixed to the Roman Edition of the Dialogues of Theodoret, giveth this excuſe for Theodoret, (n)(n)Quanquam Theodoretus hoc fortaſſe nomine aliqua venia dignus videatur, quod de ea re ejus tempore, ab Eccleſia nondum fuiſſet aliquid promulgatum. Et minus mirandum eſt, ſi dum adverſus hareticos acerrimè diſputat, veritatis tuendae ſtudio longius provectus in alteram partem nimium quandoque declinat.Perhaps Theodoret may ſeem p. 713worthy of ſome pardon, becauſe in his time the Church had not yet publiſht any thing about that point. And it is leſs to be wondered at, if while he is diſputing vehemently againſt hereticks, being carried away with his zeal to defend the truth, he doth ſometimes lean too much on the contrary ſide. And the Jeſuit Gregorius de Valentia in the book of Tranſubſtantiation(o)(o)Cap. 7. §. Quod ſi. Theodoretus de aliis quibuſdam erroribus notatus eſt in Concilio Epheſino. Et paulo ante. Antequam quaeſtio illa de Tranſubſtantiatione in Eccleſia palam agitaretur, minime mirum eſt, ſi unus aut alter, aut etiam aliqui ex veteribus minus conſiderate & recte hac de re ſenſerint & ſcripſerint. doth reject the authority of Theodoret, and ſaith that Theodoret was alſo noted of other errors in the Council of Epheſus. And in the ſame place, Before that queſtion was openly agitated in the Church, it is no wonder if one or two, or ſome number alſo of the Antients have believed and written leſs conſiderately and truly of that matter. In the ſame place he puts Gelaſius and John of Conſtantinople among the Fathers that have ſpoken amiſs of that matter. Of whom we ſhall ſpeak hereafter.

We ow to the Jeſuit Jacobus Sirmundus the works of Facundus an African Biſhop, who lived in the time of the Emperor Juſtinian. in book 9. ch. 5. p. 404. he ſaith that it may be ſaid in ſome ſort, that Chriſt hath received the adoption of children, becauſe he received the Sacraments or ſacred ſignes of the ſame, when he was circumciſed, and when he was baptiſed. Which he illuſtrateth by the example of the holy Communion, in which the Sacrament of the body of Chriſt, is called the body of Chriſt, although it be not the body of Chriſt, but becauſe it contains the myſtery of his body. Theſe be his own words,(p)(p)Facun. l. 9. cap. 5. pag. 404. Sicut Sacramentum corporis & ſanguinis ejus quod eſt in pane & poculo conſecrato, corpus ejus & ſanguinem dicimus, non quod proprie corpus ejus ſit panis, & poculum ſanguis, ſed quod in ſe myſterium corporis ejus & ſanguinis contineant. Hinc & ipſe Dominus benedictum panem & calicem quem diſcipulis tradidit, corpus & ſanguinem ſuum vocavit. Quocirca ſicut Chriſti fideles Sacramentum corporis ejus & ſanguinem accipientes, corpus & ſanguinem Chriſti recte dicuntur accipere, ſic & ipſe Chriſtus ſacramentum adoptionis cum ſuſcepiſſet, potuit recte dici adoptionem filiorum ſuſcepiſſe. It is (ſaith he) as the Sacrament of Chriſts body and blood, which is in the conſecrateed bread and cup, is called his body and blood, not that this bread to ſpeak properly is his body, and this cup his blood, but becauſe theſe things contain the myſtery of his body & blood. Wherefore alſo the Lord himſelf called the bleſſed bread and cup which he gave to his Diſciples his body and blood. Wherefore as the godly receiving the Sacrament of his body and blood, are well ſaid to receive the body and blood of Chriſt, ſo Chriſt may well be ſaid to have received the adoption of Children, when he received the Sacrament of that adoption. I owe a commendation to the fidelity of this Jeſuit, for had he been of no better conſcience then his fellows, he would have ſuppreſt or corrupted that text; where theſe words eſpecially are to be obſerved, that the conſecrated bread is not (to ſpeak properly) the body of Chriſt, nor the cup his blood, but the myſtery or Sacrament, that is, the ſacred ſign of the ſame.

But nothing brings more light to the intelligence of the expreſſions of the Fathers, which ſay that what we receive in the Communion is the body of Chriſt, then to obſerve that they put a difference between the body which is received in the Sacrament, and the body which was crucified for us, and that in this matter (as I ſaid before) they take the word body of Chriſt in three ſenſes, ſometimes for his natural body which was crucified for us, ſometimes for his myſtical body which is the Church, ſometimes for his ſacramental body adminiſtred in the holy Communion.

Clemens Alexandrinus in the ſecond book of the Pedagogue ch. 2.(q)(q)foreign. There is a twofold body of Chriſt, the one his carnal body whereby we are redeemed from corruption; the other his ſpiritual, by which we are anointed; and participating with the Lords incorruption is drinking the blood of Jeſus.

Hierom upon the Epiſtle to the Epheſians,(r)(r)Ex. Hier. in Ep. ad Eph. lib. 1. Can. Dupliciter. Dupliciter intelligitur car… Chriſti, vel ſpiritualis illa atque divina de qua ipſe ait caro mea vere eſt eibus; vel caro ea qua crucifixa eſt, & ſanguis qui militis effuſus eſt lancea. The fleſh of Chriſt is underſtood two wayes, either that ſpiritual and divine fleſh, of which he ſaith himſelf, My fleſh is meat indeed; or that fleſh which was crucifyed, and that blood which was ſhed by the ſouldiers spear. And note that this place is alleadged in the Roman Decree in the ſecond Diſtinction of the Conſecration.

In the ſame Diſtinction theſe words of the ſame Father are alleadged,(s)(s)Ex Hieron. in Levit. Can. De hac. De hac quidem hoſtia quae in Chriſti commemoratione mirabiliter fit, edere licet. De illa vero quam Chriſtus in ara crucis obtulit, ſecundum ſe nulli edere licet. It p. 714is lawful indeed to eat of that hoſt, which is done wonderfully in commemoration of Chriſt. But it is lawful to none to eat that hoſt in it ſelf, which Chriſt offered on the altar of the Croſs.

And in the ſame place,(t)(t)Diſt. 2. de Conſecratione Can. Corpus. Corpus & ſanguinem Chriſti dicimus illud, quod de fructibus terrae acceptum & prece myſtica fructificatum recte ſumitur ad ſalutem ſpiritualem in memoriam Dominicae paſſionis. We call the body and blood of Chriſt, that which being taken from the fruits of the earth, and conſecrated by the myſtical prayer, is rightly taken by us for ſpiritual ſalvation, in memory of the paſſion of the Lord. Is there any thing of all that can be ſaid of the body crucified for us? Is it a body of Chriſt taken from the fruits of the earth? Can the crucified body of Chriſt be conſecrated by prayer? He ſpeaketh then of the Sacramental body of Chriſt.

Yea Pope Innocent the III. in book 4. of the Myſteries of the Maſs, ch. 36. diſtinguiſheth theſe two ſorts of fleſh or body of Chriſt. The form of bread (ſaith he) comprehendeth both the one and the other fleſh of Chriſt, the true and the myſtical.

Auſtin in many places calls that which we receive in the Lords Supper the body and blood of Chriſt. Yet upon Pſalm 98. he brings in Chriſt ſpeaking thus,(u)(u)Spiritualiter intelligite quod locutus ſum, Non hoc corpus quod videtis manducaturi eſtis, & bibituri ſanguinem quem fuſuri ſunt qui me crucifigent. Sacramentum aliquod vobis commendavi, quod ſpiritualiter intellectum vivificabit vos. You ſhall not eat this body which you ſee, and ſhall not drink the blood which ſhall be ſhed by thoſe that ſhall crucifie me. I have recommended a ſacred ſign unto you which being ſpiritually underſtood ſhall quicken you. Himſelf in Sermon 53. de Verbis Domini. Pene quidem ſacramentum omnes corpus ejus dicunt, Almoſt all call Chriſts body that which is the ſacrament or ſacred ſign of the ſame.

The Canon Hoc eſt in the ſame Diſtinction ſaith as much,(x)(x)Sicut ergo coeleſtis panis qui Chriſti caro eſt, ſuo mode vocatur corpus Chriſti, cum revera ſit Sacramentum corporis Chriſti, &c. non rei veritate ſed ſignificante myſterio. Et ibi Gloſſa: Dicitur corpus Chriſti, ſed imaroprie. Unde dicitur ſuo modo, ſed non rei veitate ſed ſignificante myſterio. The heavenly bread which is the fleſh of Chriſt is called the body of Chriſt in its way, although in truth it be the ſacred ſign of Chriſts body. Here we have plainly two bodies of Chriſt, the one natural which was crucified for us, the other Sacramental which is a ſign and ſacrament of the other; and as the Gloſs ſaith upon that Canon, It is named Chriſts body but improperly; wherefore it is ſaid, in its way, not according to the truth of the thing. Note that the Canon ſpeaks of a body which in ſome ſort is the body of Chriſt. Which would be abſurdly ſaid of the natural body of Chriſt, namely, that it is the body of Chriſt in ſome ſort.

Thus Auſtin upon Pſal. 33. ſaith,(y)(y)Aug. in Pſal. 33. Ipſe ſe portabat quodam modo cum diceret, Hoc eſt corpus meumPs 33 that the Lord carried himſelf in ſome ſort when he ſaid, This is my body. And in Epiſtle 23.(z)(z)Epiſt. 23. Secundum quendum modum ſacramentum corporis Chriſti corpus Chriſti eſt. The Sacrament of Chriſts body, is Chriſts body after a certain manner. Would any man ſay that Chriſts natural body is his body after a certain manner? Is it not as much as if Auſtin ſaid, that the Sacrament is not really the body of Chriſt?

Ephrem Patriarch of Antioch ſpeaks plainly of a body of Chriſt received in the Euchariſt, which is not in ſubſtance the natural body of Chriſt.(a)(a)Ex Phorii Bibliotheca Edition. Auguſt. pag. 415. foreign. The body of Chriſt (ſaith he) which the believers receive loſeth not his ſenſible ſubſtance (that is, the ſubſtance of bread) and is not ſeparated from the intelligible grace. Thus alſo Baptiſm being altogether ſpiritual and only, keeps the propriety of his ſenſible ſubſtance, even of water, and loſeth not that which it was. Note that he makes the body of Chriſt which changeth not ſubſtance, to be the ſame thing in the Euchariſt as the water in baptiſm.

Cyprian is very expreſs upon this, for ſpeaking of that body of Chriſt which is adminiſtred in the Sacrament, he aſcribes things to it which cannot be proper to the natural body of Chriſt. In Epiſtle 76.(b)(b)Dominus corpus ſuam panem vocat de mutrorum granorum adunatione congeſtum. Bread made and compoſed with the union of many grains, the Lord calls his body. It is then the body of Chriſt even when it is compounded with many grains. And he ſaith that by this body of Chriſt compounded with many grains, the people, that is, the Church muſt be underſtood; For ſuch was the opinion of that Father, and of Auſtin alſo p. 715(c)(c)Nam quando Dominus corpus ſuum panem vocat de multorum granorum adunatione congeſtum populum noſtrum quem portabat indicat adunatum. Et quando ſanguinem ſuum vinum appellat de botris atque acinis plurimis expreſſum atquein unum coactum, gregem item noſtrum ſignificat commixtione adunatae multitudinis copulatum. Si Novatianus huic pani Dominico adunatus eſt, ſi Chriſti poculo ipſo commixtus eſt, &c.When (ſaith Cyprian) the Lord calls his body the bread compounded with the union of many grains, it ſignifieth that our people, which he bore, is united together. And when he calls his blood the wine preſt out of many cluſters and grains, and gathered together, he ſignifieth our flock alſo which is gathered by the mixture of an united multitude. And upon that he asketh of the heretick Novatianus, Whether he be joyned to that bread of the Lord which is the Church, and whether he be mingled in that cup of Chriſt, that is, (as he expounds himſelf) If he retaines the unity of the Church? How remote is that language from the Doctrine of the Roman Church? He that believed that Chriſt in the Sacrament bore the people in his hands, and that this bread which he calls his body, and this wine which he calls his blood, was the Church, and would that every Chriſtian ſhould make part of that bread; was very far from believing that the bread was tranſubſtantiated into the natural body of Chriſt. It is plain then that he puts in the Euchariſt another body of Chriſt then his natural body which was crucified for us, even a myſtical and ſacramental body. Note that he ſaith not, that the bread made up of many grains is become his body, but that he calls his body that which is bread made up of many grains.

The ſame Father in the ſixty third Epiſtle, where he diſputes againſt thoſe that put nothing but water inſtead of wine in the cup of the Lords Supper, maintaineth that there muſt be water in the cup mingled with wine. One of his reaſons is, that by the wine Chriſt is underſtood, and by the water the people.(d)(d)Epiſt. 63. contra Aquarios ſeu Hydroparaſtatas. Si vinum tantum quis offerat, ſanguis Chriſti incipit eſſe ſine nobis. Si vero aqua ſit ſola, plebs incipit eſſe ſine Chriſto. If (ſaith he) one offers nothing but wine, the blood of Chriſt begins to be without us; but if the water is alone, the people begins to be without Chriſt. This Father puts the people in the cup as well as Chriſt. Now he was not ſo bereaved of reaſon as to think that the people was really within the cup. He did not then believe that Chriſt was in it really, ſince he puts Chriſt and the people alike in the cup.

Auſtin followed Cyprian in that opinion, when in the twenty ſixth treatiſe upon St. Johns Goſpel, ſpeaking of the words of the Jewes murmuring and ſaying, How can this man give us his fleſh to eate? He ſaith(e)(e)Litigabant utique ad invicem, quoniam panem concordiae non intelligebant. Et paulo poſt. Hunc itaque eibum & potum ſocietatem vult intelligi corporis & membrorum ſuorum quod eſt Eccleſiae praediſtinatis & vocatis, &c. They quarrelled among themſelves, becauſe they underſtood not the bread of concord. And a little after, ſpeaking of theſe words, He that eateth my fleſh, hath eternal life, he giveth this expoſition, By this meat and drink, the Lord will have the ſociety of his body and members to be underſtood, that is, his holy Church of the predeſtinated, &c. This Father ſaying that the body of Chriſt which we eate in the Lords Supper is the Church of the elect, ſaith by conſequent, that this body which we eate is not really the natural body of Chriſt, but another myſtical and Sacramental body.(*)(*)Ipſum ſacrificium eſt corpus Chriſti, quod non offertur ipſis, quia hoc ſunt & ipſi. And in book 22. of the City of God, ch. 10. he gives a reaſon why they make not the ſacrifice of Chriſts body to the martyrs, becauſe themſelves are the body of Chriſt.

Cyprian eſpecially ſeems to me to ſpeak very plainly, and to put in the Euchariſt another body of Chriſt then that which was crucified for us, and another blood then that which was ſhed on the Croſs, when he ſaith in the ſixty third Epiſtle,(f)(f)Nec corpus Domini poteſt eſſe farina ſola & aqua ſola, niſi utrum que adunatum fuerit & capulatum, & panis unius compage ſolidatum. The Lords body cannot be meal alone and water alone, unleſs both be joyned and kneaded together to make with them ſolid bread.

Who will think that this holy Doctor was ſo void of reaſon as to think that Chriſts natural body was made of meal? Yet his words are very expreſs, that Chriſts body is made up of meal. Whence it is plain that he ſpeaks of the Sacramental and myſtical body, not of the natural body of Chriſt.(g)(g)Sanguis Chriſti non aqua eſt utique ſed vinum. And in the ſame Epiſtle he ſaith, that the blood of Chriſt is wine not water.

Origen ſpake thus in the ſame time upon Matth. 15. where after a long p. 716diſcourſe of the holy Sacrament of the Lords Supper, and after he hath ſaid,(h)(h)Ille cibus qui ſanctificatur per verbum Dei perque obſecrationē, juxta id quod habet materiale, in ventrem abit & in ſeceſſum emittitur. that this meat which is ſanctified by the Word of God and by Prayer, deſcends, as for the matter, into the belly, and then is ſent out into the draught, he addeth, as for the cloſe,(i)(i)Et haec quidem de typico ſymbolicoque corpore. Let this be ſaid of the figurative and ſymbolical body. It was then another body then the natural.

The ſame appeareth, in that the Fathers ſay that the body of Chriſt which is diſtributed and eaten in the Lords Supper, is bread wherewith our bodies are ſed, and take increaſe by the digeſtion, which cannot be attributed to the natural body of Chriſt, nor to accidents without ſubſtance; For colors, lines, and figures cannot feed the body. But that is proper to the Sacramental body, which is the natural body of Chriſt in the Sacrament, in the ſame manner as the picture of Alexander, is the true Alexander repreſented. Juſtin Martyr towards the end of his ſecond Apology, deſcribeth the antient form of adminiſtring the Lords Supper among Chriſtians.(k)(k)foreign. They that among us are called Deacons, give to every one bread, and wine, and water, to be participant of the ſame, upon which bread and wine, thanksgivings were ſaid before, and they carry ſome of them to the abſent, and this food is called among us the Euchariſt. He calls bread and water, that which was given and adminiſtred to the people after the conſecration. Having ſpoken thus, he addeth,(l)(l)foreign. For we take not theſe things as common bread or common drink. But in the ſame manner as Jeſus Chriſt our Saviour being made fleſh by the Word of God, had both fleſh and blood to ſave us, likewiſe we have been taught that the food over which thanks were given by the prayer of the Word proceeding from him, by which our blood and our fleſh are fed by tranſmutation [of food] is the fleſh and blood of that Jeſus that was made fleſh. He ſaith expreſly enough, that the conſecrated bread is the fleſh of Chriſt, but in that he addeth, that with that conſecrated bread our bodies are fed by tranſmutation or digeſtion, he ſhews evidently, that he holds not that the natural body of Chriſt enters into our ſtomacks, but that the ſaid bread is made the body of Chriſt in a myſtical and Sacramental way. And the compariſon which he uſeth, brings us to it. For as the eternal Word was made fleſh without tranſubſtantiating the fleſh, and without tranſubſtantiating himſelf into fleſh, ſo Juſtin believed that the Lord Jeſus preſent by his divine vertue, made this bread his body, without tranſubſtantiating the ſame, and that it was bread ſtill, even when it was diſtributed. This bread then, according to Justin, is the body of Chriſt made fleſh, but ſo that it is bread ſtill, even in the diſtribution; that it is received into the ſtomack, that our bodies are fed with it, and that it turns into the ſubſtance of our fleſh. This bread is Chriſt made fleſh (as Auſtin and the Roman Decree told us) in its way, and in Sacrament, and by a ſignifying myſterie, not according to the truth of the thing.

M. du Perron (m)(m)Pag. 186.in his Book of the Sacrament of the Euchariſt, againſt Monſieur du Pleſsis, having not apprehended theſe two acceptions of the body of Chriſt, brings wild anſwers, which give no ſatisfaction about the things here alleadged. He expounds theſe words of Juſtin, proceeding from him, as if Juſtin ſpake of prayer proceeding from Chriſt, whereas he ſpeaks of the Word proceeding from the Father.

What was Juſtins belief in this point, Juſtin himſelf ſheweth ſufficiently in his Dialogue againſt Tryphon, ſpeaking thus,(n)(n)Juſtin. in Tryph. pag. 82. foreign. Chriſt gave the bread, that we might remember that he was made a body for them that believe on him, for whoſe ſake he was made paſsible, and the cup which he inſtituted for us, to do in remembrance of his paſsion.

And in the ſame Dialogue,(o)(o)foreign, &c. foreign, &c. foreign. The oblation of fine meal, was a figure of the p. 717bread of the Euchariſt, which Jeſus Chriſt our Lord hath appointed to be done in memory of his paſsion.

(p)(p)Quoniam membra ejus ſumus, & p…r creaturam nutrimur, creaturam autem nobis praeſtat, Solem ſuum oriri faciens, & pluens quemadmodum vult, eum calicem qui eſt creatura corpus ſuum confirmavit, ex quo noſtra auget corpora.Irenaeus in his fifth Book ſpeaks the ſame language. Becauſe we are his members, and are fed by the creature, and that he affords us his creature, making his Sun to riſe, and his rain to fall according to his pleaſure, he hath affirmed that the cup which is a creature, whereby he makes our bodies to grow, is his body. I enter not into an examination of the reaſon of Irenaeus, whereby he gathereth that the cup is the body of Chriſt, becauſe it is a creature whereby our bodies are fed and grow. Which Platonical opinion, that God is the ſoul of the world, and all creatures are Gods body, Auſtin confuteth in the fourth Book of the City of God, chap. 12. Only I ſay, that Irenaeus ſhews thereby that he believed that it was bread ſtill, not Chriſts natural body in ſubſtance. For it would be a prophane belief, to think that our bodies are fed and fattened, and growing with the ſubſtance of the body of Chriſt; That would be ſending Chriſt to the draught, and expoſing him to a ſtrange ignominy; And that without profit, ſince after that manducation, bodies will die nothing the leſs. The following words of Irenaeus, confirm the ſame thing.(q)(q)Quando ergo & inixtus calix & fractus panis percipit verbum Dei, fit Euchariſtia ſanguinis & corporis Chriſti, ex quibus augetur & conſiſtit carnis noſtrae ſubſtantia. When then the cup mingled and the bread broken receiveth the Word of God, it is made the Euchariſt of the body and blood of Chriſt, from which the ſubſtance of our fleſh is increaſed and made up. Truly our Adverſaries ſeem to me injurious to that Martyrs memory, affirming that he believed that our bodies are fed and made up with the fleſh of Chriſt received in the Sacrament. Obſerve theſe words, the blood and body of Chriſt, wherewith the ſubſtance of our bodies is increaſed and made up, that one may not think that he ſpeaks of the bread before it be conſecrated. This word increaſed eſpecially, is troubleſome to the Cardinal, wherefore he tranſlates it ſtrengthened, which is an evident corruption.

The ſame in the fourth Book, chap. 34. ſpeaking of the Euchariſt, ſaith, that(r)(r)Offerre Deo oportet primitias ejus creaturae. Et ibid. Hanc oblationem Eccleſia ſola puram offert fabricatori, offerens ei cum gratiarum actione ex creatura ejus. we muſt offer unto God the firſt fruits of his creature. And that the Church alone offereth that pure oblation unto the Creator, offering unto him of his creature with thanksgiving. To which words, whereby he expreſſeth plainly that what the Church offereth in the Euchariſt, is the creature and work of the Creator, and fruits of the earth, he addeth other words, that call theſe creatures, and theſe fruits of the earth (that is, bread and wine) the body of Chriſt.(ſ)(ſ)Quomodo autem conſtabit eis eum panem in quo gratiae actae ſunt corpus eſſe Domini ſui & calicem ſanguinem ejus, ſi non ipſum fabricatoris Mundi filium dicunt, id eſt, verbum ejus, per quod lignum fructificat, defluunt ſontes, & dat [terra] primo quidem foenum, poſt deinde ſpicam, deinde plenum triticum in ſpica? How (ſaith he) can they be certain that the bread upon which graces were ſaid, be the body of the Lord and the cup his blood, if they acknowledge him not the Son of the Maker of the world, that is, the Word by which the wood bears fruit, and ſprings run down, and the earth gives firſt the blade, then the ear, and then the full corn in the ear? This Father affirmeth, that our bodies are fed with the body and blood of the Lord, which cannot be attributed to Chriſts natural body, but to the Sacramental body, which Irenaeus deſcribes as a creature of God, who makes the ground to bear fruit. And note theſe words, that the bread upon which thanks or graces are ſaid, is the Lords body. For he ſaith not that the bread becomes or is changed into the body of the Lord, but that the bread is the body of the Lord, yea that bread which is a creature, and which the earth hath produced by the vertue of the Creator. I examine not here, whether the reaſon of Irenaeus be ſolid, whereby he inferreth that the bread is the body of Chriſt, becauſe Chriſt is the Word whereby the earth bears fruit, and brings Wheat, of which that bread is made; for by that reaſon all creatures, and the world in general, ſhould be the body of God, which is the opinion of the(t)(t)Plato Philebo & Timaeo, foreign, &c. Auguſt. l. 30. in Fauſtum Manichaeum. Cicero ſomnio Scipionis, & de natura Deorum. Aſpice hoc ſublime candens quod vocant Jovem. Virg. Aeneid. 6. Principio coelum & terras, &c. Platonicians, of Tully, of Pliny, of Virgil, that God is to the world, that which the ſoul is to the body. I ſay only that Irenaeus in the alleadged place ſpeaks of a body of Chriſt, which cannot be the body crucified for us, for the crucified body of Chriſt was not produced by p. 718the earth, is none of the fruits of the earth, and our bodies get neither food nor increaſe by it.

It is evident alſo, that he believed that theſe fruits of the earth, or creatures which he calls the body of Chriſt, have that vertue, that the thankſgivings or bleſſings which are ſaid over them in the Lords Supper, make the bodies which are fed thereby, to become partakers of immortality.

He addeth,(u)(u)Offerimus Deo quae ſunt ejus, &c. Quemadmodum enim qui eſt à terra panis, percipiens vocationem Dei, jam non communis panis eſt, ſed Euchariſtia, ex duabus rebus conſtās, terrena & coeleſti; ſic & corpora noſtra percipientia Euchariſtiam, jam non ſunt corruptibilia, ſpem reſurrectionis habentia. Offerimus ei non quaſi indigenti, ſed gratias agentes donationi ejus, & ſanctificantes creaturam. Quemadmodum enim Deus non indiget corum quae à nobis ſunt, ſic non indigemus offerre aliquid Deo. Sicut Solomon ait, qui miſeretur pauperis, foeneratur Deo. We offer unto God of his own goods, preaching conveniently the communication and unity of fleſh and ſpirit. For as the bread which is of the earth, receiving the vocation [or invocation] of God is no more common bread, but the Euchariſt compoſed of two things, the one earthly, the other heavenly; ſo our bodies receiving the Euchariſt, are no more corruptible, having the hope of reſurrection. He joyns in the Euchariſt, the earthly thing with the heavenly, wherefore alſo he ſaith, that this bread is no more common bread, but ſtill he calls it bread. To underſtand by the earthly thing, the body of Chriſt, as the Cardinal(x)(x)In his Book againſt Du Pleſſis, pag. 188. underſtands it, is to oppoſe the ſtile both of Scripture and Fathers, which call the body of Chriſt, the bread come down from heaven, and debaſing the dignity of Chriſts body, and denying the ſigns to be part of this Sacrament, ſince they are neither the earthy nor the heavenly thing.

Irenaeus goeth further, for following that diſcourſe of the bread and wine which the Church offereth unto God, he ſaith that theſe things are offered unto God, not becauſe he hath need of them, for (ſaith he) Deus non indiget eorum quae à nobis ſunt, God hath no need of the things that come from us. It is clear that by the things that come from us, he underſtands bread and wine, and the fruits that the earth brings. Wherefore alſo he reckons alms among them; for he addeth, Whereas God hath no need of the things that come from us, we have need to offer ſomething to God, as Solomon ſaith, He that ſheweth mercy to the poor, lends to God upon uſury.

Before I go further, I cannot forbear to ſhew the Cardinals learning in Greek. The Greek text of Irenaeus is loſt, and we have nothing but the Latine Verſion, which is none of the beſt; In that verſion there is, Jam non communis panis eſt, ſed Euchariſtia ex duabus rebus conſtans, terrena & coeleſti. The Cardinal corrects that verſion, and ſaith that there is not in the Greek foreign, that is, which is compoſed, but foreign, which is a preterit Participle, and muſt be tranſlated which was compoſed. This is a woful ignorance, for as compoſitus in Latine is preterit, and yet is alwayes underſtood in the preſent; likewiſe foreign ſignifieth, which is compoſed, not which was compoſed. Thus Col. 1.17. foreign, is tranſlated in the verſion of the Roman Church, Omnia in ipſo conſtant. And 2 Pet. 3.5. foreign, Terra de aqua conſiſtens. And Clemens Alexandrinus, in the firſt Book of the Pedagogue, chap. 6. foreign, The Church like a man, is compoſed with many limbs. According to the Cardinal, we ſhould ſay that the Church hath been compoſed with many limbs, but that is ſo no more. And ſo in other compoſitions,(y)(y)Aeſchines in Timocratem. foreign, ſtantes in judicio. And foreign, mores ſedati & compoſiti. In a word, that preterit Participle hath alwayes a ſignification of the preſent Tenſe, as in Latine theſe words, mortuus, ſepultus, caeſus, veſtitus, fractus, &c. Can a man ſpeaking like the Cardinal, have any reliſh of the Greek tongue?

But to return to our matter, it appeareth by the fore-alleadged places of Irenaeus, that he ſpeaks of another body, then Chriſts natural body.

The ſame appears, in that the Fathers ſpeak often of pieces, and parts, and a reſidue of Chriſts body; a thing which may be ſaid of the Sacramental, not of the natural body of Chriſt, which cannot be divided in pieces, and of which ho reſidue is found. How prophane or brutiſh ſhould that man be, that would ask for a piece of Chriſt? Euſebius in the ſixth Book of his Hiſtory, ſpeaking of Serapion ſick to death, ſaith that a Prieſt ſent him by a little boy, a little piece of the Euchariſt. May one ſay, that he ſent him a piece of Chriſt? Or ſhould he have ſent him the Euchariſt by a little boy, if he had believed that it had been the Lords body?

p. 719Pope Gelaſius in the Canon Comperimus, in the firſt Book of the conſecration,(z)(z)Comperimus quod quidam ſumpta tantummodo corporis ſacri portione à calice ſacrati cruoris abſtineant. We are certainly informed (ſaith he) that ſome having taken part of the body of Chriſt, abſtain from the cup, which he calls a great ſacriledge. Evagrius in the fourth Book, chap. 36.(a)(a)foreign. The antient cuſtom in the Royal City, requireth that when many pieces of the immaculate body of Chriſt remain, children not yet corrupted, ſuch as go to petty Schoolmaſters, are ſent for to eat them. Though Evagrius had not ſpoken of the pieces, nor of the remnant of the body of Chriſt, yet that cuſtom of giving the fragments of the bread of the Lords Supper to a company of little School-boyes, is a certain proof that the Church believed not that it was the true body of Chriſt crucified for us. Our Adverſaries would account that a great prophanation. It was then the Sacramental body of Chriſt; and as Origen ſaith, the ſymbolical or figurative body of Chriſt.

This expreſſion, that the bread is the body of Chriſt, is a thouſand times repeated in the writings of the Antients, when they ſpeak of the bread of the Euchariſt. It is the doctrine of our Churches, that the bread is the body of Chriſt, as Chriſt teacheth us, who giving the bread to his Diſciples, ſaid, This is my body. But the Roman Church denyeth that the bread is the body of Chriſt, but ſaith that the bread becometh the body of Chriſt, and is tranſubſtantiated into Chriſts body. As if an Alchymiſt had converted ſilver into gold, it ſhould be ill ſpoken, to ſay, This ſilver is gold, but it ſhould be ſaid, This gold was made of ſilver. Thus if bread be converted into the natural body of Chriſt, that bread is not the. body of Chriſt, but ceaſing to be bread, it was converted into the body of Chriſt. Wherefore(b)(b)Bell. lib. 1. de Euchar. c. 1. & l. 3. c. 19. Bellarmine affirmeth that theſe words, This bread is my body, either muſt be figuratively taken, ſo that the bread be the body of Chriſt by ſignification, or they are altogether abſurd and impoſſible. For it cannot be, that the bread be the body of Chriſt in ſubſtance, but it may be ſo in Sacrament. Yet there is nothing more frequent in the Fathers, when they ſpeak of the conſecrated bread, then to ſay that bread is the body of Chriſt, and that the Lord called bread his body, and that he ſaid, that bread is his body, not that he changed it into his body.

Theodoret in the firſt Dialogue,(c)(c)foreign. The Lord giving the myſteries, called bread his body. And Tertullian in the third Book againſt Marcion, (d)(d)Panem ſuum corpus appellans, ut & cum hinc intelligas corporis ſui figuram pani dediſſe.He called bread his body, that hereby thou mayeſt underſtand that he hath given unto bread to be the figure of his body. Chryſoſtom in the 24. Homily upon the firſt Epiſtle to the Corinthians, makes this Queſtion,(e)(e)foreign. What is the bread? He anſwers, The body of Chriſt. Juſtin Martyr told us before, that the bread wherewith our bodies are fed, is the body of Chriſt. Cyprian in the 63. Epiſtle, That which Chriſt called his blood was wine. And ſo Gandentius, (f)(f)Gaudent. in Exod. tractatu ſecundo de Paſchate. Ego ſum vitis vera, ſatis declarat ſanguinem ſuum eſſe omne vinum quod in figura paſſionis ejue offertur.The Lord declareth enough that his blood is all the wine which is offered in figure of his paſsion.

Hierom in the ſecond Queſtion to Hedibia, (g)(g)Nos audiamus, ganem quem fregit Dominus deditque Diſcipulis eſſe corpus Domini ſalutaris.Let us hear that the bread which the Lord brake and gave to his Diſciples, is the body of the Lord and Saviour. And the Canon, Qui manducat, in the ſecond Diſtinction of the conſecration, Panis eſt corpus Chriſti, The bread is the body of Chriſt. And in the Canon Corpus, (h)(h)Corpus Chriſti illud dicimus quod de fructibus terrae acceptum, & prece myſtica conſecratum.We call that the body of Chriſt, which being taken from the fruits of the earth, is conſecrated by the myſtical prayer. And Ambroſe in the fourth Book of the Sacraments, chap. 4.(i)(i)Hoc igitur aſtruamus, quomodo poteſt qui panic eſt eſſe corpus Chriſti. Let us ſhew how that which is bread, can be the body of Chriſt.

In all theſe expreſſes of the Antients, our Adverſaries find figures, and wreſt them into a figurative ſenſe, uſing the Fathers in the ſame manner, as they do the Holy Scripture.

Truly, that man muſt be either ignorant, or wilfully blind in the ſtile of the Antients, that acknowledgeth not that the Fathers in this matter take Chriſts body p. 720in three ſenſes, one natural and two myſtical, the Church and the Sacramental bread, which is indeed a ſymbolical body, but ſanctified by the divine vertue of the Son of God. Wherefore they call theſe fearful myſteries the holy bread, the heavenly bread, the bread come down from heaven, whereby Chriſt is made ours, ſo that we dwell in him, and he in us. But this makes nothing for Tranſubſtantiation, and incloſeth not the natural body of Chriſt under the elements.

We muſt not think ſtrange, if ſometimes the Antients attribute to this Sacramental body, things that are proper to the natural, as to have ſuffered for us, and to have been bruiſed on the Croſs. For it is the ſtile both of Scripture, and of the Fathers, to atttibute unto ſigns, that which is proper only to things ſignified. As when we ſhew the Kings picture, we ſay, Here is the man that won ſuch and ſuch battails, who dyed in ſuch a place, or in ſuch a year.

Now it is eaſie to conceive, how and in what ſenſe Chryſoſtom ſo often inculcates, that we eat, and break, and ſee the body of Chriſt in myſteries; and why(k)(k)Abſit ut de his quicquam ſiniſtrum loquar, qui Apoſtolico gradui ſacerdotum Chriſti corpus ſacro ore conficiunt. Hierom in the Epiſtle to Heliodorus ſaith, that the Prieſts make the body of Chriſt with their ſacred mouth. Hierom was not ſo dull as to believe that Prieſts could make the natural body of Chriſt: That would be putting Prieſts above Chriſt, and aſcribing a power unto them, greater then that of all the Angelical power. A body which is already, cannot be made while it is. Hierom ſpeaks of the Sacramental body, which is made by the prayer of the Conſecration. For himſelf told us before, that none can eat of the body of Chriſt crucified.

The Father which ſeems to be moſt favourable to our Adverſaries, is Ambroſe, who in the fourth book of the Sacraments, chap. 4. inculcates often, that the bread becomes Chriſts body by the conſecration. It is not Chriſts body (ſaith he) before the conſecration; but after the conſecration, I tell thee, It is Chriſts body. Whereupon he alleadgeth many examples of the tranſmutations made by Gods power: For example, that we were old creatures, but are now become new by conſecration: That Chriſt was born of a Virgin, contrary to the order of nature: That Moſes with his rod divided the Sea: That a piece of wood caſt by Moſes into bitter waters, made them ſweet: That Eliſha made iron to ſwim above the water. Whence he inferreth, that God is powerful to make this bread to be the body of Chriſt by the conſecration. But in all theſe, there is no more then what we ſay. For we know, that by the conſecration the bread becomes the body of Chriſt, yet remaining bread ſtill, and without any change of the ſubſtance of bread, as when a piece of wax becomes the Kings Seal, and yet remaineth wax ſtill. Saint Ambroſe ſaith ſo much expreſly in the ſame chapter, where he bgins his diſpute in theſe words,(l)(l)Hoc igitur aſtruamus, quomodo poteſt, qui panis eſt, eſſe corpus Chriſti. Let us eſtabliſh this, how that which is bread can be the body of Chriſt. So that he will have it to be together, both bread and the body of Chriſt. And a little after,(m)(m)Si tanta vis in ſermone Domini Jeſu, ut inciperent eſſe quae non erant, quanto magis operatorius eſt, ut ſint quae erant, & in aliud commutentur? If there was ſuch a vertue in the word of the Lord Jeſus, that the things that were not, ſhould begin to be, how much more ſhall it be effectual in making things that were, to be, and to he changed into other things? Theſe words are very pregnant, that the bread is changed into a thing that was not, and yet continueth to be that which it was before, that is, bread. And this expreſſion of Ambroſe, is ſet down in the very words which we alleadge here, in all the antient editions. And ſo is alleadged in the Decree of Yuo Carnutenſis, in the ſecond part, chap. 7. And by Gratian in the ſecond Diſtinction of the Conſecration, in the Canon Panis. By Lombard in the fourth Book of the Sentences, Diſt. 10. in the letter D. By Thomas in the third part of the Summ, Queſtion 78. Article 4. Not according to the falſification of ſome new Editions of Ambroſe, which have omitted ſint quae erant, in which words lieth all the ſtrength of the ſentence. To the ſame purpoſe are theſe words of the ſame chapter,(n)(n)Sicut ſimilitudinem mortis bibiſti, ita ſimilitudinem pretioſi ſanguinis bibis. As thou didſt drink the likeneſs of his death, thou drinkeſt alſo the likeneſs of his precious blood.

The Cardinal(o)(o)Du Perron againſt M. du Pleſſis, pag. 287. anſwereth that the end of Ambroſe (ſaying, If there be ſuch ſtrength in the Word of the Lord, to make things that were not, to have a beginning of being, how much more can it make things that were, to be, and to be changed into other things?) was to ſay, that if the Almighty power of God could make things paſs from p. 721the not being to the being, it may with more reaſon, preſerving them in the univerſal latitude of the being, make them paſs from one kind of being to another. By theſe words he ſaith, that God in the Euchariſt preſerveth the bread in a latitude of Univerſal being, which the Roman Church believeth not. Alſo it is hard to comprehend how the ſubſtance of bread being aboliſhed, a thing which is no more, is preſerved in the univerſal latitude of being. Theſe are his ordinary Chimera's to amuſe the Reader, when he finds himſelf run aground. By the ſame reaſon, when God turned the waters into blood, and the rod into a Serpent, theſe waters and that rod remained in being in the latitude of the univerſal being: And by conſequent, theſe examples can no more be oppoſed, or compared by Ambroſe as leſs miraculous, with the change which is made in the Euchariſt.

(p)(p)Du Perron againſt du Pleſſis, pag. 285.Upon that the Cardinal uſeth to make many exclamations, and to ask To what purpoſe is it to bring examples of the creation of the world, of the tranſmutation of creatures, and of the unſpeakable generation of Chriſts body, to prove that it was in our Lords power to make the bread of the Euchariſt to be the ſign of his body?

By ſpeaking thus, he makes us ſpeak againſt our ſenſe. We ſay not that Ambroſe had alleadged theſe examples to prove that the bread is the ſign of Chriſts body. We know well that he believed ſomething more, as we alſo do. He believed that the bread remaining bread, was the body of Chriſt, and that by an ineffable myſterie; that bread remaining bread, is made unto us the body of Chriſt. And that by this participation Chriſt is made ours, and we are conjoyned with him, which is the doctrine of the Apoſtle, ſaying, The bread which we break, 1 Cor. 16.16.1 Cor 16:16is it not the Communion of the body of Chriſt? It is bread then, not fleſh in ſubſtance: It is bread which is broken; not a body which cannot be broken. And by eating this bread, we communicate by faith with the natural body of Chriſt, but we eat not that natural body with our mouth and teeth. It is a divine work, which to expreſs, Ambroſe ſtretcheth his wit, and ſwells in lofty words as much as he is able: Neither muſt we wonder that in ſuch a Divine and Spiritual matter, he hath much ado to expreſs his conceit. Beſides, if we conſider what examples Ambroſe alleadgeth, we ſhall find that well nigh all ſpeak of a change without tranſubſtantiation, and without production of any ſubſtance, as the regeneration of the godly, the Sea divided by Moſes, the waters of Mara ſweetned; the iron ſwimming upon the water.

Yet we have in the following chapter of the ſame book of Ambroſe, the terms of the publike ſervice,(q)(q)Ambroſ. lib. 4. de Sacram c. 5. Dicit ſacerdos, Fac nobis hanc oblationem aſcriptam rationabilem, acceptabilem, quod eſt figura corporis & ſanguinis Domini noſtri Jeſu Chriſti. The Prieſt ſaith, Let this oblation be accounted unto us, reaſonable, acceptable, which is the figure of the body and blood of the Lord. This word figure diſpleaſed the Roman Church; for now that clauſe is found in the Canon of the Maſs, ſaving only the word figure, which was put out, as ſavouring hereſie.(r)(r)In his book againſt du Pleſſis, pag. 288. The Cardinal ſaith for anſwer, that the Roman Church acknowledgeth a figure in the Euchariſt. That figure (if he may be believed) lieth in that the accidents (which fraudulently they call ſpecies) vail the body of Chriſt. I anſwer, that the Cardinal believeth not that this figure is the ſacrifice or oblation which God layeth to our account for our ſins, and which is reaſonable and acceptable, as it is ſaid in the words of the antient ſervice. Had not this word figure been diſpleaſing to the Roman Church, it had not been put out. Beſides, the accidents of the bread, cannot be figures of the body; a roundneſs without any round ſubject, cannot be a figure of the Lords body which hath an humane form. Figures help to know things ſignified by theſe figures. But our Adverſaries ſay, that theſe accidents cover the body of the Lord, and hinder the ſight and knowledge thereof.

He anſwers in the ſecond place, that this clauſe of the antient Service, is before the conſecration, and when there is nothing yet upon the Altar, but the ſimple figure of Chriſts body. It was impoſſible for the Cardinal to write this, without acting againſt his own conſcience. For although that clauſe was pronounced before theſe words, This is my body; yet the Roman Church believeth not that the Prieſt asketh that the bread not conſecrated be the offering which may be put p. 722to our account before God. Thus before the conſecration, the Prieſt ſaith that he(ſ)(ſ)Tibi offerimus hoc ſacrificium laudis pro redemptione animarum. offereth a ſacrifice of praiſe for the redemption of ſouls, which cannot alſo be ſaid of the bread not conſecrated, which is not offered unto God for our redemption. It is evident then, that the Prieſt ſpeaking thus, regardeth the ſacrifice which he undertaketh to do, and for which the Roman Church holds that the Maſs is inſtituted, without regarding the time, either before or after the conſecration. And that this word of Figure was blotted out, when the quarrel was moved about Tranſubſtantiation, that it might not be perceived that this ſacrifice is no real ſacrifice, but the ſacrifice of the Lords Paſſion in figure and commemoration.

The ſame Ambroſe, in the book of thoſe that are initiated into myſteries, ch. 9. ſpeaks thus, It is a true fleſh which was crucified, and which was buried. It is then alſo truly the Sacrament of that fleſh. The Lord Jeſus himſelf cryeth up. This is my body. (t)(t)Ante benedictionem verborum coeleſtium alia ſpecies nominatur, poſt conſecraionem corpus ſignificatur.Before the bleſſing of the heavenly words, another kind is named. After the conſecration, the body of Chriſt is ſignified. The ſame Father upon chap. 11. of the firſt Epiſtle to the Corinthians, hath theſe words, Quia morte Domini liberati ſumus, hujus rei memores in edendo & potando, carnem & ſanguinem quae pro nobis oblata ſunt ſignificamus. That is, Becauſe we are delivered by the death of the Lord, we remembring that by eating and drinking, ſignifie the fleſh and blood of the Lord which were offered for us. (u)(u)In his book againſt du Pleſſis of the Euchariſt, pag. 294.Cardinal du Perron to elude this notable authority, puts out the comma after potando, and tranſlateth this place in this manner; By eating and drinking the fleſh and blood, we ſignifie the things that were offered for us. The abſurdity of that traduction is evident. For what are the things offered for us, but the body and blood of Chriſt? Here is then the jolly verſion of the Cardinal, By eating and drinking the fleſh and blood, we ſignifie the fleſh and blood: Thus that which ſignifieth, and that which is ſignified, ſhall be all one. Wherefore this falſification being not able to ſubſiſt alone, the Cardinal adds another depravation, and inſtead of(x)(x)Significamus. ſignifie, tranſlates declare, as if Ambroſe ſaid, we declare the things offered, which wants common ſenſe. But Ambroſe in the following lines confirms our interpretation: For ſpeaking of Chriſts blood, he ſaith,(y)(y)Beneficii divini ſanguis teſtis eſt, in cujus typum nos calicem myſticum percipimus. This blood is a witneſs of the divine grace, in figure of which we receive the myſtical cup of blood.

In vain do they object unto us ſome ſentences of the Fathers, which ſay that the thing that we receive in the Sacrament, is the true body of Chriſt that was crucified for us. For the Sacramental body, is the true and natural body of Chriſt in Sacrament and Commemoration: As the ſtatue that repreſents Julius Ceſar, is the true Julius Ceſar repreſented, even the Conqueror of Gauls, he that overcame Pompeius, not another imaginary perſon. And the Fathers that expound theſe words, This is my body, by This is the ſign or figure of my body, underſtand the true and natural body of Chriſt, and give to the Sign, the name of the thing ſignified.

So much will ſerve, (I think) to ſhew in what ſenſe the Fathers have called that which is broken and given in the Communion, the body of Chriſt; and to prove that they do not take alwayes this word of body of Chriſt, for the body crucified for us, but ſometimes for the Church, ſometimes for the Sacramental and myſtical body which is given in commemoration of the natural body of Chriſt. The books of the Fathers muſt be read with care, and with an equitable and prudent judgement. He that reads them, muſt know the ſtile of the times, the occaſions, the cuſtoms, the circumſtances, and the connexion of their ſentences, referring all to the analogy of faith, bringing a favourable interpretation to it. If they ſay that the bread is the body of Chriſt, or that by the conſecration the body of Chriſt is made, they ſpeak of the Sacramental body, which they diſtinguiſh in a thouſand places from the natural. But when ſometimes they ſay, that the thing given in the Euchariſt is the true body of Chriſt, themſelves warn us that the name of the thing ſignified is given unto the Sign, and that this bread is the true body of Chriſt, that is, the Sacrament or Sign of the true body of the Lord.

But in the matter in hand eſpecially, the Fathers take care to explain their mind, teaching that the ſubſtance of bread and wine remains after the conſecration; As we ſhall ſhew in the following Chapter.