1. 'Hoc,' 'This:' that is, 'This bread is my body,' 'This cup,' or the wine in the cup, 'is my blood:' concerning the chalice, there can be no doubt; it is touto to pothrion, 'hic calix,' 'this chalice;' and as little of the other. The fathers refer the pronoun demonstrative to 'bread;' saying, that, 'of bread' it was Christ affirmed, 'This is my body;' which I shall have, in the sequel, more occasion to prove: for the present, these may suffice; "Christus panem corpus suum appellat," saith Tertullian. [Lib. adv. Judæos.]--"Nos audiamus panem, quem fregit Dominus, esse corpus salvatoris:" so St. Jerome [Ep. ad Hebidiam.]--thn sarka siton wnomase; so St. Cyril of Alexandria; [In John, xii.] "called bread his flesh." Theodoret [Dial. l. c. 8.] saith that "to the body he gave the name of the symbol, and to the symbol the name of his body:"--touto therefore signifies 'this bread;' and it matters not that 'bread,' in the Greek, is of the masculine gender; for the substantive being understood, not expressed, by the rule of grammar, the adjective must be the neuter gender, and it is taken substantively. Neither is there any inconvenience in this, as Bellarmine pLib. i. de Euch. chap. 10. sect. porro. 4.] weakly dreams upon as weak suggestions. For when he had said that 'hoc' is cither taken adjectively or substantively,--he proceeds, 'not adjectively,' for then it must agree with the substantive, which in this case is masculine; 'bread' being so both in Greek and Latin. But if you say it is taken substantively, as we contend it is, he confutes you thus: If it be taken substantively, so that 'hoc' signifies 'this' thing, and so be referred to 'bread,' then it is most absurd,--because it cannot be spoken of any thing seen; that is, of a substantive, unless it agrees with it, and be of the same gender; that is, in plain English, it is neither taken adjectively nor substantively: not adjectively, because it is not of the same gender: not substantively, because it is not of the same gender; that is, because substantively is not adjectively. But the reason he adds is as frivolous; because no man, pointing to his brother, will say, 'Hoc est frater meus,'--but 'Hic est frater meus:'--I grant it. But if it be a thing without life, you may affirm it in the neuter gender; because, it being of neither sex, the subject is supplied by 'thing;' so that you may say, 'Hoc est aqua,' 'This is water;' so in St. Peter, 'This is grace, and daktuloV Qeou esti touto. But of a person present you cannot say so, because he is present, and there is nothing distinct from him, neither 're' nor 'ratione,' in the 'thing' nor in the 'understanding;' and therefore you must say, 'Hic," not 'Hoc;' because there is no subject to be supposed distinct from the predicate. But when you see an image or figure of your brother, you may then say, 'Hoc est frater meus,' because here is something to make a subject distinct from the predicate. This thing, or this picture, this figure, or this any thing, that can be understood and not expressed, may make a neuter gender; and every schoolboy knows it: so it is in the blessed sacrament; there is a subject or a thing distinct from 'corpus:' 'This bread,' this which you see 'is my body;' and therefore no impropriety is in 'hoc,' though bread be understood.

2. To which I add this, that though bread be the nearest part of the thing demonstrated, yet it is not bread alone, but sacramental bread; that is, bread so used, broken, given, eaten, as it is in the institution and use: Touto, 'This' is my body; and touto refers to the whole action about the bread and wine, and so touto may be easily understood without an impropriety. And indeed it is necessary that touto, 'this,' should take in the whole action on all sides: because the bread neither is the natural body of Christ, nor yet is it alone a sufficient symbol or representment of it. But the bread "broken, blessed, given, distributed, taken, eaten;" this is Christ's body, viz., as Origen's expression is, "typicum symbolicumque corpus." [In c. 15. Matt.] By the way give me leave to express some little indignation against those words of Bellarmine, which cannot easily be excused from blasphemy; saying, that if our Lord had said of the bread, which the apostles saw and knew to be bread, 'This is my body,' "absurdissima esset locutio," "it had been a most absurd speech."--So careless are these opiniatcrs of what they say, that rather than their own fond opinions should be confuted, they care not to impute nonsense to the eternal Wisdom of the Father. And yet. that Christ did say this of bread so ordered and to be used, 'Hoc est coi'pus meum,' besides that the thing is notorious, I shall prove most evidently.

3. First: That which Christ broke, which he gave to his disciples, which he bid them eat, that he affirmed was 'his body.' What gave he, but what he broke? What did he break, but that which he took? What did he take? "Accepit panem," saith the Scripture, "He took bread;" and therefore, of bread it was that he affirmed, 'it was his body.' Now the Roman doctors will, by no means, endure this; for if of bread he affirmed it to be his body, then we have cleared the question; for it is bread and Christ's body too; that is, it is 'bread naturally,' and 'Christ's body spiritually;' for that it cannot be both naturally, they unanimously affirm. And we are sure upon this article: for 'disparatum de disparate non predicatur proprie;' it is a rule of nature and essential reason, If it be bread, it is not a stone; --if it be a mouse, it is not a mule;--and therefore, when there is any predication made of one diverse thing by another, the proposition must needs be improper and figurative. And the gloss of Gratian disputes it well: [De Consecrat. dist. 2. c. Quia.] "If bread be the body of Christ, (viz., properly and naturally), then something that is not born of the Virgin Mary, is the body of Christ; and the body of Christ should be both alive and dead." Now that 'hoc,' 'this,' points to bread, besides the notoriousness of the thing in the story of the Gospels, in the matter of fact, and St. Paul calling it 'bread' so often (as I shall shew in the sequel), it ought to be certain to the Roman doctors, and confessed, because by their doctrines when Christ said, 'Hoc,' 'This' and awhile after, it was bread; because it was not consecrated till the last syllable was spoken. To avoid this therefore, they turn themselves into all the opinions and disguises that can be devised. Stapleton [Ejusdem sententiæ sum, Ocham, Petrus de Aliacho, Cameracensis, Antisiodorensis in 4.1. sent. dist. 13. Roffensis, cap. 4. contra Captiv. Babyl, Maldonat. Barradius in Evangel.] says, that 'hoc,' 'this', does only signify the predicate, and is referred to the body; so as Adam said, "This is flesh of my flesh, and bone of my bone,"--'hoc' not 'this rib,' but this thing, this predicate; so "Hic est filius meus, hic est sanguis Testamenti." Now this is confuted before; for it can only be true, when there is no difference of subject and predicate, as in all figures and sacraments and artificial representments there are. Some others say, 'This is,' that is, 'This shall be my body; so that 'is,' demonstrates not what is, but what shall be. But this prevailed not amongst them. Others say, that 'this' signifies 'nothing;' so Innocentius the Third, Major, the Count of Mirandula, 'de capite Pentium,' and Catharinus. Others yet affirm, that 'this' signifies, 'these accidents:' so Ruard Tapper, and others whom Suarez reckons and confutes. Thomas Aquinas and his scholars affirm, that 'this' demonstrates neither bread, nor the body, nor nothing, nor the accidents, but a substance indefinitely, which is under the accidents of bread; as when Christ turned the water into wine, he might have said, 'Hoc est vinum,' not meaning that 'water is wine,' but this which is here, or this which is in the vessel, is wine; which is an instance, in which Bellarmine pleases himself very much, and uses it more than once, not at all considering, that, in this form of speech, there is the same mistake as in the former: for in this example there are not two things, as we contend there are in the sacrament; and that to make up the proposition, the understanding is forced to make an artificial subject; and 'this' refers to wine, and is determined by his imaginary subject, and makes not an essential or physical, but a logical predication; 'this which is in the vessel, is wine:' and the proposition is identical, if it be reduced to a substantial. But when Christ said, 'Hoc est corpus meum,' 'hoc' first, neither points to 'corpus,' as the others do to 'vinum,' even by their own confession; nor yet, secondly, to an artificial subject, whereby it can by imagination become demonstrative, and determinate; for then it were no real affirmative, not at all significative, much less effective of a change: nor yet, thirdly, will they allow that it points to that subject which is really there, viz., 'bread;' but what then? It demonstrates something real, that either, 1. is not the predicate, and then there would be two things disparate signified by it, two distinct substances, which, in this case, could be nothing but bread and the body of Christ: or, 2. It demonstrates nothing but the predicate, and then the proposition were identical, viz., 'This body of Christ is the body of Christ;'--which is an absurd predication: or else, 3. It demonstrates something that is indemonstrable, pointing at something that is nothing certain, and then it cannot be pointed at or demonstrated; for if by 'this which is under the species,' they mean any certain substance, it must be 'bread' or 'the body of Christ,' either of which undoes their cause.

4. But if it be inquired, by what logic or grammar it can be, that a pronoun demonstrative should signify indeterminately, that is, an 'individuum vagum:' they tell us, no; it does not: but it signifies an "individual, determinate substance under the accidents of bread, not according to the formality of the bread, but 'secundum rationem substantiæ communem et individuam, vage per ordinem ad accidentia,' 'but according to the formality of a substance common and individual, indefinitely or indeterminately by order to those accidents:'" so Gregory de Valentia; [Lib. 2. Exam. Myst. Calvin, c. 1. sect. 1. Objectio.] which is as good and perfect nonsense, as ever was spoken. It is determinate and not determinate, it is substantial in order to accidents; individual and yet common; universal and particular; it is limited, but after an unlimited manner; that is, it is, and it is not; that is, it is the logic, and the grammar, and the proper sense, of transubstantiation, which is not to be understood but by them, that know the new and secret way to reconcile contradictories. Bellarmine [Lib. 1. c. 11. sect. ad id. Vero.] sweetens the sense of this, as well as he may; and says, that the pronoun demonstrative does point out and demonstrate the 'species,' that is, the accidents of bread; these accidents are certain and determinate; so that the pronoun demonstrative is on the side of the species or accidents, not of the substance; but yet so as to mean not the accidents, but the substance, and not the substance which is, but which shall be; for it is not the same yet: which indeed is the same nonsense with the former, abused or set off with a distinction, the parts of which contradict each other. The pronoun demonstrative does only point to the accidents, and yet does not mean the accidents, but the substance under them; and yet it does not mean the substance that is under them, but that which shall be; for the substance which is meant, is not yet: and it does not point at the substance, but yet it means it: for the substance indeed is meant by the pronoun demonstrative, but that it does not at all demonstrate 'it,' but the accidents only. And indeed this is a fine secret: the substance is pointed at before it is, and the demonstration is upon the accidents, but means the substance 'in obliquo,' but not 'in recto;' 'not directly, but as by the by;' just as a man can see a thing before it be made; and by pointing at a thing which you see, demonstrates or shews you a thing, which shall never be seen. But then if you desire to know how it was pointed at before it was, that is the secret not yet revealed. But finally, this is the doctrine that hath prevailed at least in the Jesuits' school. 'This' points out something under the accidents of bread, meaning, 'This, which is contained under the accidents of bread, is my body:' there it rests. But before it go any further, I shall disturb his rest with this syllogism: When Christ said, 'Hoc,' 'This is my body;' by 'this' he meant 'this, which is contained under the accidents of bread, is my body.'--But at that instant, that which was contained under the accidents of bread, was the substance of bread; therefore to the substance of bread Christ pointed; 'that' he related to by the pronoun demonstrative, and 'of that' he affirmed, it was 'his body.' The major is that the Jesuits contend for: the minor is affirmed by Bellarmine, "Quando dicitur 'hoc,' turn non est præsens substantia corporis Christi:" therefore the conclusion ought to be his and owned by them. However, I will make bold to call it a demonstration upon their own grounds, and conclude that it is bread and Christ's body too; and that is the doctrine of the Protestants. And I add this also, that it seems a great folly to declaim against us for denying the literal, natural sense, and yet that themselves should expound it in a sense, which suffers a violence and a most unnatural, ungrammatical torture; for if they may change the words from the right sense and case to the oblique and indirect, why may not we? and it is less violence to say, 'Hoc est corpus meum,' i. e., 'Hie pauis est corpus meum;' viz., 'spiritualite,'--than to say, 'Hoc est,' that is,' Sub his speciebus est corpus meum.' And this was the sense of Ocham", the father of the Nominalists: it may be held, that, under the species of bread, there remains also the substance; because this is neither against reason nor any authority of the Bible; and of all the manners this is most reasonable, and more easy to maintain, and from thence follow fewer inconveniences than from any other. Yet because of the determination of the church (viz., of Rome), all the doctors commonly hold the contrary. By the way, observe, that their church hath determined against that, against which neither the Scripture nor reason hath determined.

2. The case is clearer in the other kind, as in translation I noted above. [Numb. 1. sect. 5. Vide Picherel. Doct. Sorbon. in 26 Matt.] Touto to pothrion, 'Hic calix.' I demand to what touto, 'hic,' 'this,' does refer? What it demonstrates and points at? The text sets the substantive down, pothrion, 'this cup;' that is, the wine in this cup; of this it is that he affirmed it to be the blood of the New Testament, or the New Testament in his blood: that is, "This is the sanction of the everlasting testament, I make it in my blood, this is the symbol; what I do now in sign, I will do tomorrow in substance, and you shall for ever after remember and represent it 'thus' in sacrament."--I cannot devise what to say plainer than that this touto points at the chalice.

---------Hoc potate merum---------
[Lib. 4. Evang. Hist. verse 456.
Atque ait, hic sanguis populi delicta remittet,
Hunc potate meum] instead of
Hoc potate merum: nam veris crcdite dictis,
Posthac nonnunquam vitis gustabo liquorem,
Donec regna patris melioris munera vitæ
In nova me rursus concedent surgere vina.]

So Juvencus, a priest of Spain, in the reign of Constantine, 'Drink this wine;' but by the way, this troubled somebody; and therefore an order was taken to corrupt the words by changing them into, 'Hunc potate meum;' but that the cheat was too apparent, and if it be so of one kind, it is so in both, that is beyond all question. Against this Bellarmine [Lib. 10. c. 10. de Euchar. Sect. sed addo arg. brings 'argumentum robustissimum,' 'a most robustious argument:' by pothrion, or 'cup, cannot be meant the wine in the cup, because it follows, "This cup [is the New Testament in my blood] which was shed for you;" referring to the cup, for the word can agree with nothing but the cup; therefore, by the 'cup' is meant not wine, but 'blood,' for that was poured out. To this I oppose these things; 1. Though it does not agree with aimati, yet it must refer to it, and is an ordinary katacrhsiV of case called antiptwsiV: and it is not unusual in the best masters of language Ou prosekteon umin esti toiV toutwn logouV eidotaV, for eidosin, in Demosthenes:--so also Goclenius, in his Grammatical Problems, observes another out of Cicero: "Bene autem dicere, quod est perite loqui, non habet definitam aliquam regionem, cujus terminis septa teneatur;" many more he cites out of Plato, Homer, and Virgil; and, methinks, these men should least of all object this, since, in their Latin Bible, Sixtus Senensis [Lib. 8. Biblioth.] confesses, and all the world knows, there are innumerable barbarisms and improprieties, hyperbata and antiptoses. But in the present case it is easily supplied by esti, which is frequently understood, and implied in the article to; to excunomenon, that is, to esti ekcunomenon, that is, 'in my blood which is shed for you.' 2. If it were referred to 'cup,' then the figure were more strong and violent, and the expression less literal; and therefore it makes much against them, who are undone, if you admit figurative expressions in the institution of this sacrament. 3. To what can touto refer, but to pothrion, 'this cup,'--and let what sense soever be affixed to it afterward, if it do not suppose a figure, then there is no such thing as figures, or words, or truth, or things. 4. That excunomenon must refer to aima appears by St. Matthew and St. Mark, where the word is directly applied to blood; [Vide Bezam in annot. in hunc locum.] St. Paul uses not the word, and Bellarmine himself gives the rule, "Verba Domini rectius exposita a Marco," &c. When one evangelist is plain, by him we are to expound another that is not plain: and St. Basil, in his reading of the words, either following some ancienter Greek copy, or else mending it out of the other evangelists, changes the case into perfect grammar, and good divinity, diaqhkh esti en tw aimati mou tw uper umwn ekcunomenw.

6. Thirdly: Symbols of the blessed sacrament are called 'bread' and 'the cup,' after consecration; [Regul. Moral. 21.] that is, in the whole use of them. This is twice affirmed by St. Paul: "The cup of blessing, which we bless, is it not the communication (so it should be read) of the blood of Christ? the bread which we break, is it not the communication of the body of Christ?" as if he had said, 'This bread is Christ's body;' though there be also this mystery in it, 'This bread is the communication of Christ's body,' that is, the exhibition and donation of it, not Christ's body formally, but virtually, and effectively; it makes us communicate with Christ's body in all the effects and benefits: a like expression we have in Valerius Maximus, where Scipio in the feast of Jupiter is said "Graccho communicasse concordiam," that is, 'consignasse,' he 'communicated concord;' he consigned it with the sacrifice, giving him peace and friendship, the benefit of that communication: and so is the cup of benediction, that is, when the cup is blessed, it communicates Christ's blood, and so does the blessed bread; for "to eat the bread, in the New Testament, is the sacrifice of Christians;" they are the words of St. Austin; [Lib. 17. de Civ. Dei, cap. 5.] "Omnes de uno pane participamus;" so St. Paul; "We all partake of this one bread."--Hence the argument is plain; That which is broken, is the communication of Christ's body; but that which is broken, is bread, therefore bread is the communication of Christ's body. "The bread which we break,"--those are the words.

7. Fourthly: The other place of St. Paul is plainer yet: "Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup." And, "So often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye declare the Lord's death till he come;" and the same also verse 27; three times in this chapter he calls the eucharist 'bread.' It is bread, sacramental bread, when the communicant eats it: but he that in the church of Rome should call to the priest to give him a 'piece of bread,' would quickly find, that, instead of bread, he should have a stone, or something as bad. But St. Paul had a little of the Macedonian simplicity, calling things by their own plain names.

8. Fifthly: Against this, some little things are pretended in answer by the Roman doctors. 1. That the holy eucharist, or the sacred body, is called 'bread,' because 'it is made of bread,' as Eve is called of Adam, 'bone of his bone;' and the rods changed into serpents are still called rods; or else because 'it sometimes was bread,'--therefore so it is called after: just as we say, 'The blind see, the lame walk, the harlots enter into the kingdom of heaven.' Which answer although Bellarmine [Lib. l. c. 14. de Euchar.] mislikes, yet, lest any others should be pleased with it, I have this certain confutation of it: that by the Roman doctrine the bread is wholly annihilated, and nothing of the bread becomes any thing of the holy body; and the holy body never was bread, not so much as the matter of bread remaining in the change. It cannot therefore be called bread, unless it be bread; at least not for this reason. For if the body of Christ be not bread then, neither ever was it bread, neither was it made of bread: and therefore these cannot be the reasons, because they are not true. But in the instances alleged, the denomination still remains, because the change was made in the same remaining matter, or in the same person, or they were to be so again as they were before; nothing of which can be affirmed of the eucharist, by their doctrine, therefore these instances are not pertinent. 2. Others answer, that the holy body is called bread, because it seems to be so: just as the effigies and forms of pomegranates, of bulls, of serpents, of cherubim, are called by the names of those creatures whom they do resemble. I reply, that well they may, because there is there no danger of being deceived by such appellations; no man will suppose them other than the pictures, and so to speak is usual and common. But in the matter of the holy eucharist, it ought riot to be called 'bread' for 'the likeness to bread,' unless it were 'bread' indeed; because such likeness and such appellation are, both of them, a temptation against that, which these men call an article of faith: but rather because it is like bread, and all the world are apt to take it for such, it ought to have been described with caution, and affirmed to be 'Christ' and 'God,' and not to be bread though it seem so. But when it is often called bread in Scripture, which name the church of Rome does not at all use in the mystery, and is never called in Scripture, the Son of God, or God, or Christ; which words the church of Rome does often use in the mystery; it is certain that it is called bread, not because it is like bread, but because it is so indeed. And indeed, upon such an answer as this, it is easy to affirm an apple to be a pigeon, and no apple; for if it be urged, that all the world call it an apple, it may be replied then as now, 'It is true they call it an apple, because it is like an apple, but indeed it is a pigeon.'--3. Some of them say when it is called 'bread,' it is not meant that particular kind of nourishment; but in general it means any food; and so only represents Christ's body as a celestial divine thing intended some way to be our food. Just, as in St. John, vi. Christ is called 'the bread that came down from heaven,' not meaning material bread, but divine nourishment. But this is the weakest of all, because this, which is called bread, is broken, is eaten, hath the accidents of bread, and all the signs of his proper nature; and it were a strange violence, that it should here signify, any manner of food to which it is not like, and not signify that to which it is so like. Besides this, 'bread' here signifies, as wine or chalice does in the following words; now that did signify the 'fruit of the vine;' that special manner of drink (Christ himself being the interpreter); and therefore so must this mean that special manner of food.

9. Sixthly: If, after the blessing, the bread doth not remain, but (as they affirm) be wholly annihilated, then, by blessing, God destroys a creature: which indeed is a strange kind of blessing. O de QeoV eulogwn bebaioi touV logouV tw ergw, kai pantodaphn parecei foran agaqwn toiV eulogoumenoiV, saith Suidas, verb. euloghsai. "When God blesses, he confirms his words with deeds, and gives all sorts of good to that which he blesses."--And certain it is, that, although blessing can change it, it must yet change it to the better; and so, we affirm, he does: for the bread, besides the natural being, by being blessed becomes the body of Christ in a sacramental manner; but then it must remain bread still, or else it receives not that increase and change; but, if it be annihilated and becomes nothing, it is not Christ's body in any sense, nor in any sense can pretend to be blessed. To which add the words of St. Austin: [Lib. 83. quæst. 21.] "Ille ad quem non esse non pertinet, non est causa deficiendi, id est, tendendi ad non esse:" "He that is the fountain of all being, is not the cause of not being, much less can his blessing cause any thing not to be."--It follows therefore, that, by blessing, the bread becomes better, but therefore it still remains.

10. Seventhly: That it is bread of which Christ affirmed "This is my body," and that it is bread after consecration, was the doctrine of the fathers in the primitive church. I begin with the words of a whole council of fathers, in Trullo at Constantinople, decreeing thus against the Aquarii: "In sanctis nihil plus quam corpus Christi offeratur, ut ipse Dominus tradidit, hoc est, panis et vinum aqua mixtum;" "In the holy place or offices, let nothing more be offered but the body of Christ, as the Lord himself delivered, that is, bread and wine mingled with water." -- So Justin Martyr: [Just. Mart. Apol. 2.] "We are taught that the food made eucharistical, the food which by change nourishes our flesh and blood, is the flesh and blood of Jesus incarnate: we do not receive it as common bread:" No, for it is trofh eucaristhqeisa, it is made 'sacramental and eucharistical, and so it is sublimed to become the body of Christ. But it is natural food still, and that for two reasons. 1. Because still he calls it 'bread,' not 'common bread,' but extraordinary; yet bread still. Cardinal Perron says, 'It follows not to say, It is not common bread, therefore it is bread; so as of those which appeared as men to Abraham, we might say they were not common men; but it follows not that they were men at all. So the Holy Ghost, descending like a dove upon the blessed Jesus, was no common dove; and yet it follows not it was a dove at all.' I reply to this, that of whatsoever you can say, it is extraordinary in his kind, of that you may also affirm it to be of that kind: as concerning the richest scarlet, if you say this is no ordinary colour, you suppose it to be a colour: so the Corinthian brass was no common brass, and the Colossus was no common statue, and Christmas-day is no common day, yet these negatives suppose the affirmative of their proper subject; Corinthian brass is brass, Colossus is a statue, and Christmas-day is a day. But if you affirm of a counterfeit, or of an image, or a picture, by saying, it is no common thing, you deny to it the ordinary nature by diminution; but if it have the nature of the thing, then to say, it is not common, denies the ordinary nature by addition and eminency; the first says it is not so at all, the second says it is more than so; and this is taught to every man by common reason, and he could have observed it if he had pleased; for it is plain, Justin said this of that, which, before the consecration was known to be natural bread, and therefore, now to say it was not common bread, is to say it is bread and something; more. 2. The second reason from the words of Justin to prove it to be natural food still, is, because it is that, by which our blood and our flesh are nourished by change. Bellarmine says, that these words, by which our flesh and blood are nourished, mean by which they use to be nourished; not meaning that they are nourished by this bread, when it is eucharistical. But besides that this is 'gratis dictum' without any colour or pretence from the words of Justin, but by a presumption taken from his own opinion, as if it were impossible, that Justin should mean any thing against his doctrine: besides this, I say the interpretation is insolent, 'nutriuntur,' i.e., "solent nutriri;' as also because both the verbs are of the present tense, "the flesh and blood are nourished by bread," and "it is the body of Christ;" that is, both in conjunction; so that he says not, as Bellarmine would have him, "Cibus ille, ex quo carnes nostrse all solent, cum prece mystica consecratur, efficitur corpus Christi;" but, "Cibus ille, quo carnes nostrae aluntur, est corpus Christi." The difference is material, and the matter is apparent, but upon this alone I rely not. To the same purpose are the words of Irenaeus: [Lib. 4. c. 57.] "Dominus accipiens panem, suum corpus esse confitebatur, et teinperamentum calicis, suum sanguinem confirmavit:" "Our Lord taking bread confessed it to be his body, and the mixture of the cup he confirmed to be his blood." Here Irenaeus affirms to be true what Bellarmine [De Euch. 1. 3. c. 18.] says 'non potest fieri' 'cannot be done;' that in the same proposition bread should be the subject, and body should be the predicate; Irenæus says, that Christ said it to be so, and him we follow. But most plainly in his fifth book: "Quando ergo et mixtus calix, et fractus panis percipit verbum Dei, fit eucharistia sanguinis et corporis Christi; ex quibus augetur et consistit carnis nostræ substantia: Quomodo carnem negant capacem esse donationis Dei qui est vita æterna, quæ sanguine et corpore Christi nutritur?" and, a little after, he affirms that we are "flesh of his flesh and bone of his bones; and that this is not understood of the spiritual man, but of the natural disposition or temper; "quae de calice, qui est sanguis ejus, nutritur, et de pane, qui est corpus ejus, augetur:" and again; "Eum calicem qui est creatura, suum sanguinem qui effusus est, ex quo auget nostrum sanguinem, et eum panem, &c., qui est creatura, suum corpus confirmavit, ex quo nostra auget corpora;" "It is made the eucharist of the bread, and the body of Christ out of that, of which the substance of our flesh consists and is increased; by the bread which he confirmed to be his body, he increases our bodies; by the blood which was poured out, he increases our blood;" that is the sense of Irenæus so often repeated. And to the same purpose is that of Origen; [[Lib. 8. adv. Celsum.]] "The bread, which is called the eucharist, is to us the symbol of thanksgiving or eucharist to God." So also Tertullian: [Tertul. adv. Marcion. lib. 4. c. 40.] "Acceptum panem et distributum discipulis suis corpus suum fecit:" "He made the bread, which he took and distributed to his disciples, to be his body." But more plainly in his book 'de Corona Militis:' "Calicis ant panis uostri aliquid decuti in terram anxie patimur;" "We cannot endure that any of the cup or any thing of the bread be thrown to the ground."--The eucharist he plainly calls 'bread;' and that he speaks of the eucharist is certain, and Bellarmine [Bellar. lib. 4. Euch. c. 14. sect. si rursus objicias.] quotes the words to the purpose of shewing, how reverently the eucharist was handled and regarded. The like is in St. Cyprian: [Cyprian, ep. 76. Dial. 2. contr. Nestor.] "Dominus corpus suum panem vocat, et sanguinem suum vinum appellat:" "Our Lord calls bread his body, and wine his blood." So John Maxentius, in the time of Pope Hormisda: "The bread which the whole church receives in memory of the passion, is the body of Christ." [Catech. Mystag.] And St. Cyril, of Jerusalem, is earnest in this affair: "Since our Lord hath declared and said to us of bread, 'This is my body,' who shall dare to doubt it?'' which words I the rather note, because Cardinal Perron brings them, as if they made for his cause, which they most evidently destroy. For if, of bread, Christ made this affirmation, that it is his body, then it is both bread and Christ's body too, and that is it which we contend for. In the dialogues against the Marcionites, collected out of Maximus, Origen is brought in proving the reality of Christ's flesh and blood in his incarnation, by this argument:--If, as these men say, he be without flesh and blood, "of what body and of what blood did he command the images or figures, giving the bread and cup to his disciples, that by these a remembrance of him should be made?" But Acacius, [Acacius in Gen. ii. Graec. Caren. in Pentateuch.] the successor of Eusebius in his bishopric, calls it 'bread' and 'wine,' even in the very use and sanctification of us: "Panis vinumque ex hac materia vescentes sanctificat," "The bread and wine sanctify them that are fed with this matter."--" In typo sanguinis sui non obtulit aquam sed vinum," so St. Jerome, [Lib. 2. adv. Jovin.] "He offered wine not water in the type [representment or sacrament] of his blood." To the same purpose, but most plain, are the words of Theodoret [Dial. 1. atrepta.]: "In the exhibition of the mysteries he called bread his body, and the mixture in the chalice he called blood."-- So also St. Austin, serm. 9. de Diversis:' "The eucharist is our daily bread; but we receive it so, that we are not only nourished by the belly, but also by the understanding." And I cannot understand the meaning of plain Latin, if the same thing be not affirmed in the little mass-book, published by Paulus V. for the English priests: "Deus, qui humanogeneri utramque substantiam prsesentium munerum alimento tribuis, quaesumus, ut eorum et corporibus nostris subsidium non desit et mentibus," "The present gifts were appointed for the nourishment both of soul and body."--Who please may see more in Macarius's twenty-seventh homily, and Ammonius in his 'Evangelical Harmony,' in the Bibliotheca Patrum: and this, though it be decried now-a-days in the Roman schools, yet was the doctrine of Scotus [Sent. 4. dist. 12. q. 3.], of Durandus [ibid. q. 1.], Ocham [Ibid. q. 6, et Centilog. Theol. con. lib, 4. q. 6], Cameracensis, [Ibid. q. 6. ar. 1.] and Biel, [Canon. Missæ, lect. 40. H.] and those men were for consubstantiation; that Christ's natural body was together with natural bread, which although I do not approve, yet the use that I now make of them cannot be denied me; it was their doctrine, that after consecration bread still remains; after this let what can follow. But that I may leave the ground of this argument secure, I add this, that in the primitive church, eating the eucharistical bread was esteemed the breaking the fast, which is not imaginable any man can admit, but he that believes bread to remain after consecration, and to be nutritive as before: but so it was, that, in the second age of the church, it was advised, that either they should end their station, or fast, at the communion, or defer the communion to the end of the station; as appears in Tertullian, 'de Oratione,' cap. 14.: which unanswerably proves, that then it was thought to be bread and nutritive, even then when it was eucharistical: and Picus Mirandula affirms, that if a Jew or a Christian should eat the sacrament for refection, it breaks his fast. The same also is the doctrine of all those churches who use the liturgies of St. James, St. Mark, and St. Chrysostom, who hold that receiving the holy communion breaks the fast, as appears in the disputation of Cardinal Humbert with Nicetas about six hundred years ago. The sum of all is this; If of bread Christ said, 'This is my body,' because it cannot be true in a proper natural sense, it implying a contradiction that it should be properly bread, and properly Christ's body; it must follow, that it is Christ's body in a figurative improper sense. But if the bread does not remain bread, but be changed by blessing into our Lord's body; this also is impossible to be in any sense true, but by affirming the change to be only in use, virtue, and condition, with which change the natural being of bread may remain. For he that supposes that by the blessing, the bread ceases so to be, that nothing of it remains, must also necessarily suppose, that the bread being no more, it neither can be the body of Christ, nor any thing else. For it is impossible that what is taken absolutely from all being, should yet abide under a certain difference of being, and that that thing which is not at all, should yet be after a certain manner. Since therefore (as I have proved) the bread remains, and of bread it was affirmed 'This is my body,' it follows inevitably, that it is figuratively, not properly and naturally spoken of bread, that it is the flesh or body of our Lord.

Project Canterbury