charg'd upon Christians, as if they had literal'y eaten the flesh and bloud of Chrift in the Sacrament, was a false accufation which these Martyrs denied, faying they were so far from that that they for their part did not eat any flesh at all. The next is Tertullian, who proves against Marcion the Heretique that the Body of our Saviour was not a mere phantafm and appearance, but a real Body, becaufe 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 Advers. which our Saviour took and distributed to his Difciples Marcionem. he made his own body, Jaying this is my body, that is, 4. p. 571. • Edit. Rigalt. the image or figure of my body. But it could not have been Parif. 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 question our fenfes we may doubt whether our Blefled Saviour were not deceived in what he heard, and faw, and touched. * He might (fays he) be deceived in the voice from heaven, in the fmell of the oint- mâ 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. * lib. de Ani Origen in his* Comment on Matth. 15, fpeaking of* Edit. Huthe Sacrament hath this paffage, That food which is etii. 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 explication, it is not the matter of the bread, but the word which which is spoken over it, which profiteth him that worthily 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 Christ 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 so 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 adoe 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 MY FLESH AND DRINK MY BLOUD, this Letter kills. And this alfo is a killing Teftimony, and not to be answered but in Cardinal Perron's way, by saying he talks like a Heretique. St. Cyprian hath a whole Epistle* 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 quickned cannot feem to be in the Cup when there is no Wine in the Cup by which the Bloud of Chrift is reprefented: and afterwards he says, that contrary to the Evangelical and Apoftolical Doctrine water was in Some 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 Christ 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 otherwife chang'd into the bloud of Christ than the Wa ter mixed with it is changed into the People, which are faid to be united to Chrift. * I omit many others, and pafs to St. Austin in the fourth Age after Chrift. And I the rather infift upon his Teftimony, because of his eminent efteem and authority in the Latin Church; and he alfo calls the Elements of the Sacrament the figure and Sign of Christ's body and bloud. In his Book against Adimantus the Manichee we have this expreffion, our Lord Aug.Tom.6. did not doubt to fay, this is my Body, when he gave the p. 187. Edit. Bafil. 1 569. Sign of his Body. And in his explication of the third Pfalm, fpeaking of Judas whom our Lord admitted to his laft Supper, in which (fay's he) the commended and + Enarrat. in delivered to his Difciples the figure of his Body; Lan- Pfal. Tom. 8. guage which would now be cenfur'd for Herefie in the P. 16. Church of Rome. Indeed he was never accus'd of Herefte, as Cardinal Perron fays Origen was, but he talks ! as like one as Origen himself. 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 fpeaking 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 shed by those that shall crucify me. I have 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 shed upon C the the Crofs, but that all this was to be understood fpiritually and according to the nature of a Sacrament? For that body he tells us is not here but in heaven, in his Comment upon thefe words, me ye have not always. * Id. Tratt. * He speaks (fays he) of the prefence of his body; ye so, in Johan- fhall have me according to my providence according to Majefty and invifible grace; but according to the Hefh 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, he is afcended up into heaven and is not here. F.93. dift.2.Hoc eft. " + Id. Tom. 2. In his 23d. Epistle; t if the Sacrament (fays he) bad not fome resemblance of thofe 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 Chrift 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; I de Confecr. the heavenly Sacrament which truly reprefents the flesh of Chrift 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. Auftin's meaning, I am fure no Proteftant can fpeak 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 exprelly call'da Sacrament, a Sign, an Image and a figure of Chrift's body. To which I will add that remarkable *de confecrar: paffage of St. Auftin cited by Gratian, that as we redift. 2. Selt. ceive the fimilitude of his death in Baptifm, so we may Virum. * alfo alfa receive the likeness of his flesh and blouds that fo neither may truth be wanting in the Sacrament, nor Pags gans have occafion to make us ridiculous for drinking the bloud of one that was Naine qui sollet out a minor wollci I will mention but one Teffimony more of this Father, but faclear a one as it is impoffible any man in his q}}} */ wits that had believed Tranfubftantiation could have 1 utter'd. It is in his Treatife de Doctrina Christiana (* Lib.3.Tan.† where laying down feveral 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 keindus wickedness or crime, or commanding us to do good, it is not\. figurative; but if it seem to command any beinous wickedness or crime, or to forbid that which is profitable and beneficial to others, it is figurative. For example, Except re eat the feet of the Sonof man and drink his blond, ye have no life in you: This feems to command a heinous wickedness and crime, therefore it is a figure; comman ding us to communicate of the pallion of our Lord, and with delight and adamntage to lay up in our memory that his flesh was crucified and wounded for us. So that, ace cording to St. Aufhin's beft, skill in interpreting Scrip ture, the literal eating of the flesh of Chrift and drinking his, bloud would have been a great impiety and therefore the expression is to be underflood figuratively; not as Gardinal Perron would have it, onely in oppofition to the eating of his flesh and bloud in the grofs appearance of fleth and bloud, but to the real eating of his natural body and bloud under any appearance whatsoever For St. Austin doth not fay, this is a Figurative fpeech wherein we are commanded really to o feed upon the natural body and bloud of Chrift under the Species of bread and wine, as the Cardinal would understand him for then the fpeech would be literal and not figurative: But he fays, this is a figuC 2 ་ rative |