charg'd upon Christians, as if they had literally eaten the flesh and bloud of Chrift in the Sacrament, was a falle accufation which thefe Martyrs denied, faying they were fo far from that that they for their part did not eat any flesh at all. L. 4. p. 571. The next is Tertullian, who proves against Marcion the Heretique that the Body of our Saviour was not a mere phantasm and appearance, but a real Body, because the Sacrament is a figure and image of his Body; and if there be an image of his body he must have a real body, otherwife the Sacrament would be an image of an image. His words are thefe, * the bread * Adverf. which our Saviour took and diftributed to his Difciples Marcionem. be made his own body, faying this is my body, that is, Edit. Rigalt. the image or figure of my body. But it could not have been Paris. 1634. the figure of his body, if there had not been a true and real body. And arguing against the Scepticks who denied the certainty of fenfe he ufeth this Argument: That if we queftion our fenfes we may doubt whether our Bleffed Saviour were not deceived in what he heard, and faw, and touched. He might (fays he) be de- Lib. de Aniceived in the voice from heaven, in the smell of the oint- ma, p. 319. ment with which he was anointed against his burial; and in the taste of the wine which he confecrated in remembrance of his bloud. So that it feems we are to truft our senses, even in the matter of the Sacrament; and if that be true, the Doctrine of Tranfubftantiation is certainly falfe. etii. Origen in his * Comment on Matth. 15, fpeaking of* Edit. Huthe Sacrament hath this paffage, That food which is fanctified by the word of God and prayer, as to that of it which is material, goeth into the belly and is caft out into the draught, which none furely will fay of the Body of Chrift. And afterwards he adds by way of expli cation, it is not the matter of the bread, but the word which * Cap. 10. * Ep. 63. which is spoken over it, which profiteth him that worthi ly eateth the Lord; and this (he fays) he had spoken concerning the typical and Symbolical body. So that the matter of bread remaineth in the Sacrament, and this Origen calls the typical and Symbolical body of Chrift; and it is not the natural body of Chrift which is there eaten, for the food eaten in the Sacrament, as to that of it which is material, goeth into the belly and is cast out into the draught. This teftimony is fo very plain in the Cause that Sextus Senenfis fufpects this place of Origen was depraved by the Heretiques. Cardinal Perron is contented to allow it to be Origen's, but rejects his testimony because he was accused of Herefie by fome of the Fathers, and fays he talks like a Heretique in this place. So that with much ado this testimony is yielded to us. The fame Father in his * Homilies upon Leviticus fpeaks thus, There is alfo in the New Teftament a letter which kills him who doth not Spiritually understand those things which are faid; for if we take according to the Letter that which is faid, EXCEPT TE EAT MT FLESH AND DRINK MT BLOUD, this Letter kills. And this also is a killing Teftimony, and not to be answered but in Cardinal Perron's way, by faying he talks like a Heretique. St. Cyprian hath a whole Epiftle *to Cecilius, against those who gave the Communion in Water onely without Wine mingled with it; and his main argument against them is this, that the bloud of Chrift with which we are redeemed and quickened cannot feem to be in the Cup when there is no Wine in the Cup by which the Bloud of Chrift is represented and afterwards he says, that contrary. to the Evangelical and Apoftolical Doctrine water was in Jome places offer'd (or given) in the Lord's Cup, which (fays he) alone cannot express (or reprefent) the bloud of Chrift. And lastly he tells us, that by water the people is is understood, by Wine the bloud of Chrift is fhewn (or reprefented) but when in the Cup water is mingled with Wine the people is united to Chrift. So that according to this Argument Wine in the Sacramental Cup is no other wife chang'd into the bloud of Christ than the Water mixed with it is changed into the People, which are faid to be united to Chrift. * *Aug.Tom.6. Enarrat. in Pfal. Tom. 8. p. 16. I omit many others, and pass to St. Austin in the fourth Age after Chrift. And I the rather infift upon his Teftimony, because of his eminent esteem and authority in the Latin Church; and he alfo calls the Elements of the Sacrament the figure and Sign of Chrift's body and bloud. In his Book against Adimantus the Manichee we have this expreflion, our Lord, did not doubt to fay, this is my Body, when he gave the p. 187. Edit. Sign of his Body. And in his explication of the third Bafil. 1569. Pfalm, fpeaking of Judas whom our Lord admitted to his laft Supper, in which (fays he) the commended and delivered to his Difciples the figure of his Body; Language which would now be cenfur'd for Herefie in the Church of Rome. Indeed he was never accus'd of Herefie, as Cardinal Perron fays Origen was, but he talks as like one as Origen himfelf. And in his Comment on the 98 Pfalm fpeaking of the offence which the Dif ciples took at that faying of our Saviour, except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his bloud, &c. he brings in our Saviour speaking thus to them, ye must || Id. Tom. 9. understand Spiritually what I have faid unto you; ye are P. 1105. not to eat this body which ye fee, and to drink that bloud which shall be thed by thofe that fball crucify me. Ihave commended a certain Sacrament to you, which being Spiritually understood will give you life. What more oppofite to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, than that the Disciples were not to eat that Body of Chrift which they faw, nor to drink that bloud which was fhed upon C the 1 the Cross, but that all this was to be understood fpiri>tually and according to the nature of a Sacrament? For that body he tells us is not here but in heaven, in his Comment upon these words, me ye have not always. * Id. Tract. He speaks (fays he) of the prefence of his body; ye be so in Johan. Shall have me according to my providence, according to Majefty and invifible grace; but according to the flesh which the word affumed, according to that which was born of the Virgin Mary, ye shall not have me: therefore because he converfed with his Difciples fourty days, be is afcended up into heaven and is not here. +Id. Tom. 2. In his 23d. Epiftle; †if the Sacraments(says he) had not fome refemblance of those things whereof they are Sacraments, they would not be Sacraments at all; but from this refemblance they take for the most part the names, of the things which they reprefent. Therefore as the Sacrament of the body of Christ is in fome manner or fenfe Chrift's body, and the Sacrament of his bloud is the bloud of Chrift; So the Sacrament of faith (meaning Baptifm) is faith. Upon which words of St. Auftin there is this remarkable Glofs in their own Canon Law; De Confecr. the heavenly Sacrament which truly represents the flesh dift.2. Hoc eft. of Christ is called the body of Chrift; but improperly: whence it is faid, that after a manner, but not according to the truth of the thing but the mystery of the thing fignified; So that the meaning is, it is called the body of Chrift, that is, it fignifies the body of Chrift: And if this be St. Austin's meaning, I am fure no Proteftant can speak more plainly against Tranfubftantiation. And in the ancient Canon of the Mafs, before it was chang'd in complyance with this new Doctrine, it is exprefly call'd a Sacrament, a Sign an Image and a figure of Chrift's body. To which I will add that remarkable *De confecrat, paffage of St. Auftin cited by * Gratian, that as we redift.2. Sed ceive the fimilitude of his death in Baptifm, fo we may Utrum. alfo also receive the likeness of his flesh and bloud; that fo I will mention but one Teftimony more of this Father, but so clear a one as it is impoffible any man in his wits that had believed Transubstantiation could have utter'd. It is in his Treatife * de Doctrina Chriftiana; *Lib. 3. Tom... where laying down several Rules for the right under- 3.P. 53. ftanding of Scripture, he gives this for one. If (fays he) the speech be a precept forbidding fome heinous wick edness or crime, or commanding us to do good, it is not rative ༣ |