Posthume and French Treatise of the Eucharist witness the Abbot Fagget in his Letter to Monsieur de Marca President of the Parliament at Pau who saith also this Letter was found by Monsieur Bigot in a Library at Florence St. Chrysostom in this Letter writeth against Apollinarius and saith Jesus Christ is both God and Man God because of his Impassibility Man by his Passion one Son one Lord both Natures united making but one the same Power the same Dominion although they be two different Natures each conserves its own Nature because they are two and yet without confusion for as the Bread before it is sanctified is called Bread when by the intercession of the Priest Divine Grace has sanctified it it loses the name of Bread and becomes worthy to be called the Body of Jesus Christ although the Nature of Bread abides in it so that they are not two Bodies but one sole Body of the Son so the Divine Nature being united to the Humane Nature of Jesus Christ it did not make two Persons but one only Person and one Son. St. Chrysostom saith plainly That the Nature of Bread abideth after Consecration and this Father's Argument would be of no validity if this nature of the Bread was nothing but in shew for Apollinarius might have made another opposite Argument and say That indeed it might be said there were two Natures in Jesus Christ but that the Humane Nature was only in appearance as the Bread in the Eucharist is but in shew and hath only outward and visible qualities remaining in it whereby it is term'd to be Bread. The Author of the imperfect Work upon St. Matthew written in the time of the Emperour Theodosius This Author goes under S. Chrysostom's Name did not believe Transubstantiation when he spake in these Terms in Homily Eleventh If it be dangerous to employ the holy Vessels about common uses wherein the true Body of Jesus Christ is not contain'd but the Mysteries of his Body how much rather the Vessels of our Bodies which God has prepared to dwell in That the Fathers of the FIFTH CENTURY did not believe Transubstantiation AGE v. S. Jerom in his Epistle to Eustochium speaking of Virgins S. Jerom. saith That when they were reproved for Drunkenness they excus'd themselves by adding Sacriledge to Drunkenness saying God forbid that I should abstain from the Blood of the Lord. In the Second Book against Jovinian it is said It appears by these words that they imply the common belief that there was true Wine in the Eucharist because they say That should they abstain from Wine they must abstain also from the Blood of the Lord. The Lord in the Type of his Blood did not offer Water but Wine These words are indeed Jovinian's but St. Jerom finds no fault with them For he himself saith the same upon the 31 Chapter of Jeremy Vers 12. on these Words They run after Gods Creatures the Wheat the Wine and the Oyl the Bread and the Wine saith he whereof is made the Bread of the Lord and wherein is accomplished the Type of his Blood. Now saith St. Ambrose * De fide l. 2. c. 5. The Type is not the Truth but it is the shadow of the Truth There must then be in the Eucharist Bread and Wine distinct from the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ to be the Types and Figures of it The same Father in his Letter to Hedibia Let us hear that the Bread which the Lord broke and gave his Disciples was the Lord's own Body saying Take Eat This is my Body and a little after he saith If the Bread that came down from Heaven is the Body of the Lord and the Wine which he distributed among his Disciples his Blood c. St. Jerom saith That Jesus Christ brake and distributed Bread to his Disciples that he gave them Bread and that the Bread and Wine were his Flesh and Blood. It cannot then be said That what Jesus Christ gave in communicating his Disciples was not Bread and Wine and when he saith both the one and the other was his Body and Blood it cannot be understood but only figuratively for we see above in St. Cyprian that the Jesuites Salmeron and Bellarmine do confess That if Jesus Christ said of the Bread This is my Body it must be meant This Bread is the Figure of my Body the one not being capable of being the other but figuratively And the Reason is given by Vasquez when he saith If the Pronoun This in the words of Consecration be understood of the Bread undoubtedly by virtue of it there can be wrought no Transubstantiation because of necessity the Bread must needs remain Si Proâ—omen hoc in illis verbis demonstraret panem fatemur fore ut nulla conversio virtute illorum fieri posset quia panis de quo enunciatur manere debeat The same S. Jerom in his Commentary upon the 26 Chapter of St. Matthew saith Jesus Christ having eaten the Paschal Lamb took Bread which strengthens the Heart of Man and proceeded to the accomplishment of the Sacrament of the true Passover that as Melchisedeck had offered Bread and Wine in Figure he also himself would represent the truth of his Body According to this Father the Bread and Wine represent the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and therefore are not properly and truly the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ but are something else besides them and by consequence remain in the Sacrament For to say as the Author of the Second Book of the perpetuity of the Faith of the Eucharist doth against Monsieur Claude that St. Jerom means by representing to make a thing be present we before refuted this Fancy in Tertullian who speaks just as St. Jerom And the terms sufficiently declare that St. Jerom's meaning is That Jesus Christ made use of Bread and Wine to signifie and shew forth his Body and Blood as Melchisedeck had done that is to say as he had represented both the one and the other by the Oblation of Bread and Wine St. Austin in his Sermon to the newly Baptized St. Austin which it's true is not found in his other Works but was preserv'd and is cited by St. Fulgentius de Baptismo Aethiop Cap. 7. What you see saith he upon the Altar of God you saw also the last Night but you were not yet aware of how great a thing it is a Sacrament That which you see is Bread and a Cup of Wine and it is also what your Eyes declare unto you but what your Faith should instruct you in is That the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ and the Cup his Blood. If you tell me Jesus Christ is born he was crucified he was buried he rose again and is ascended into Heaven whither he has carry'd his Body and is at present on the right hand of God from whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead how then can the Bread be
of that Chapter That the Blood is the Soul as the Rock was Christ Sanguis est Anima quomodo petra erat Christus And upon Leviticus Quest 54. The thing which signifies is wont to be called by the name of the thing signified as 't is written the Rock was Christ For 't is not said The Rock signifi'd Christ but as if it were that which indeed it was not in substance but only in signification And as in the beginning of the Chapter he saith That it must be understood in the Sign Jesus Christ making no difficulty to say This is my Body when he gave the Sign of his Body Sanguis est Anima praeceptum illud est in signo positum non enim Dominus dubitavit dicere Hoc est Corpus meum cum daret signum Corporis sui Seeing then St. Austin doth say That the Blood is the Soul as the Rock was Christ and as the Eucharist is the Sign of Jesus Christ he must of necessity have understood the Words of Institution of the Sacrament in a figurative sense and that so much the rather because this manner of speech Jesus Christ made no difficulty plainly shews that Jesus Christ did not speak in a proper but in a figurative sense as Fulgentius saith Although the Apostle saith Ad Monym l. 2. c. 10. cum Electionis Vas dicat quia Christus caput est corporis Ecclesiae ipsum tamen corpus Christi non dubitat Christus veraciter appellare Ad Paulin. Ep 59. That Jesus Christ is the Head of the Body of the Church nevertheless he makes no Scruple to call Jesus Christ the Church which is his Body This manner of speech is never used in proper expressions no Body will say Jesus Christ made no difficulty to give Gold or Water if it were true Gold or Water which he gave The same holy Doctor saith in several places after the Apostle That the Bread in the Sacrament after Consecration is broken and distributed and he doth very well recommend this breaking the Bread as being a great mystery In his Epistle to Paulinus he saith In that Jesus Christ was known by the two Disciples in breaking the Bread no body ought to question but this breaking was the Sacrament whereby Jesus Christ brings us all to the knowledge of his Person A little before he saith By the Prayers we mean those which are said before one begins to bles what is upon the Lords Table The Prayers are said when that which is on the Lords Table is blessed sanctifyed and distributed In his Epistle to Casulaus he saith of S. Paul Ep. 86. that in the night time he went to break Bread as it is broken in the Sacrament of his Body In his Commentary upon the first Ep. of S. John Tract 2. It was very reasonable that Jesus Christ recommending his Flesh broke Bread and it was very just that the Disciples knew him in breaking of Bread. In the 140. Sermon de temp and in the Hom. Of the consent of Evangelists lib. 3. c. 25. and de diversis Serm. 87. he saith Where would Jesus Christ be known In the breaking of Bread. We are then secure we break Bread and we know the Lord. If then after consecration we break Bread to distribute then of necessity the Bread must remain for to say that 't is the accidents which are broken and distributed S. Austin doth fay the contrary when he affirms that one breaks and distributes what is on the Table being blessed and sanctify'd Now to bless and sanctify one shall never find to have signifi'd to destroy and change the substance The same Doctor in several places does always call the Eucharist the Sacrament of Bread and Wine he saith S. De consensu Evangelist l. 3. c. 25. Paul doth teach the unity of the Church in the Sacrament of Bread when he saith We are all one Bread and one Body In the questions upon the Evangelists he saith Jesus Christ by the Sacrament of Wine recommends his Blood. In his Books against Faustus we are very far from doing what the Heathens did for their Gods l. 1. q. 43. Ceres and Bacchus although we have a ceremony of celebrating the Sacrament of Bread and Wine l. 20. c. 13. Now to what end were it to call the Eucharist a Sacrament of Bread and Wine if there did not remain Bread and Wine after Consecration for what means this manner of speech the Sacrament of Bread and Wine but the Bread and Wine which is the Sacrament As when the Apostle saith Rom. 4. v. 11. the sign of Circumcision What else doth this import but the Circumcision which is the sign When Tertullian de Baptismo calls Baptism Sacramentum aquae nostrae What else can that mean but our Water which is a Sacrament When S. Austin upon S. John Tract 11. saith The figure of the Sea figura Maris What more can this signify but the Sea which is the figure When it is frequently said the Sacrament of the Eucharist what else can that import but the Eucharist which is a Sacrament The same Father in his 52 Sermon Penè quidem Sacramentum omnes corpus ejus dicunt de verbis Domini saith almost all do call the Sacrament the Body of Jesus Christ Now if the Bread were the real Body of Jesus Christ wherefore should S. Austin observe that all called it the Body of Jesus Christ For one cannot make such a remark but when one saith of a thing that 't is that which properly it is not It would be ridiculous to say almost all call Lewis 14. King the reason is because 't is not strange that persons should be called by their names but on the contrary it is very strange to call one by a name that doth not at all belong to him The same Father in his 26. Treatise upon S. John going to shew upon these words of the Apostle They did all eat the same Spiritual meat and drink the same Spiritual drink The relation and difference there is betwixt the Sacraments of the old and new Testament saith The Fathers did eat the same spiritual food as we do not the same corporal food as we do because they did eat Manna and as for us we eat something else They drank the same spiritual drink we do the same as to the signification but different as to visible and outward kind And upon S. John Treatise 45. If you consider the visible species it was another drink if you consider what was signify'd by their drink and ours it was one and the same thing Si speciem visibilem intendas aliud est si intelligibilem significationem eundem potum spirituaiem biberunt And upon the 77. Psalm Their food was the very same with ours the same as to what it signify'd but different in kind Idem in mysterio cibus illorum qui noster Sed significatione idem non specie This reasoning does intimate That the Fathers
him the Title of Pope 't is because his name was well enough known at Rome when John the Second lived That the Fathers of the SIXTH CENTURY did not believe Transubstantiation AGE vi SAint Fulgentius saith Fulgentius The Catholick church doth continually offer to God the Father Son and Holy Ghost De fide ad Pet. Diac. c. 19. a Sacrifice of Bread and VVine throughout all the VVorld For in the fleshly Sacrifices of the Old Testament there is a type of the Flesh of Jesus Christ which he was to offer without spot for our Sins but in this Sacrifice there is a Thanksgiving and Commemoration of the same Flesh which he offer'd for us and of the Blood which he shed for us He saith That this Sacrifice consists in offering Bread and VVine there must then be true Bread and VVine in this Sacrifice to be offer'd Ephrem de Conte of the East made Bishop of Antioch Ephrem in the Year 526. wrote Books which he intitled Sacred Laws Apud Pho. Bibl. cod 229. in the first of which disputing against the Eutychians he saith When our Fathers said That Jesus Christ is compos'd of two Natures they meant two Substances as by two Substances two Natures No body of any sense but may say that the Nature of that which is to be felt and not felt in Jesus Christ is the same Nature Thus it is that the body of Jesus Christ which is received by believers doth not quit its sensible Nature and remains without being separated from the intelligible Grace The which he confirms by the Example of Water which doth not lose its Nature by Consecration This Argument is of the same kind of that we see of Theodoret and of Gelasius whereby these three Authors prove that in the Incarnation the presence of the VVord did not destroy the human Nature in Jesus Christ as the presence of the Holy Ghost doth not destroy the Substance of Bread and Wine in the Eucharist We may say of this Triple and same Argument Funiculus triplex difficile rumpitur Mons de Marca Ecclesiast 4. v. 12. saith in reference to this passage and of those we have instanced in of Theodoret and St. Chrysostom that these three Authors have owned a real change of the bread which nevertheless leaves the Species in their natural Substance Facundus Bishop of Hermiana in Africa in the year 552. Facundus whose Books Lib. 9. De viris illustribus c. 18. which he wrote in Defence of the Three Chapters of the Council of Chalcedon are justly praised by Victor of Tunes in his Chronology and by St. Isidore of Sevil and which Father Sirmond the Jesuit got out of the Vatican Library going about to excuse Theodore de Mopsuest who taught that Jesus Christ had taken the Adoption of the Children of God Facundus from whence it might have been concluded Lib. 9. that he believed that Jesus Christ is only an adoptive Son saith Baptism which is the Sacrament of Adoption may be called Adoption as we call the Sacrament of his Body and Blood which is in the consecrated Bread and Wine his Body and Blood not that the Bread is properly his Body and the Cup his Blood but because they contain in them the Mystery of his Body and Blood. Therefore as the faithful Servants of Jesus Christ receiving the Sacrament of his Body and Blood are very rightly said to receive his Body and Blood so also Jesus Christ having received the Sacrament of the Adoption of Children might very well be said to have received the Adoption of Children Certainly if the Sacrament of Bread and Wine is not properly the Body of Jesus Christ as Facundus saith but barely Body and Blood as Baptism is Adoption the Bread and Wine are not Transubstantiated into the Eucharist and are but simple signs and something that is distinguished from the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Primasius Bishop of Adrumetum in Africa Primasius in his Commentary upon the 10th Chapter of the 1st to the Corinth saith As the Bread which we break is the Participation of the body of Christ so also the Bread of Idols is the Participation of Devils Now as the Participation of the Bread of Idols is no Transubstantiation or real change into Devils so also the Participation of the Bread of the Lord is not a real and substantial change of Bread into the Body of the Lord. The same Doctor on the words of the 11th Chap. of the same Epistle where 't is said That the Lord took Bread the night in which he was betrayed relates That Jesus Christ thereby gave to us the commemoration of his Body And on the following words The Lord saith he hath given us an Example to the end that as often as we do this we should think in our minds that Christ died for us It is for this end that 't is said to us the Body of Christ that so thinking of it we should not be ungrateful and unthankful for his Grace As if any one at his Death should leave to his Friend a pledg of his Love could he when he saw it refrain from Tears if he really loved his Friend There must therefore needs be in the Sacrament Bread and Wine to be Pledges of Jesus Christ for he cannot be a pledg of himself That the Fathers of the SEVENTH and EIGHTH CENTURY 's did not believe Transubstantiation AGE vii ISidore Bishop of Sevil Anno 600. saith Isidorus Hispalensis That by the command of Jesus Christ himself we do call Body and Blood that which being the fruits of the Earth Orig. l. 6. c. 19. is sanctified and made a Sacrament by the invisible Operation of the Holy Ghost In the 1st Book of Ecclesiastical Offices he saith ' That the Bread is called the Body of Jesus Christ because it strengthens the Body and that the Wine is called his Blood because it increaseth Blood in the Body and that the Bread and Wine are two visible things which being sanctified by the Holy Ghost do go on to be the Sacrament of the Divine body Now a Sacrament signifies a holy Sign It would therefore be a strange kind of way of Isidore if he had believ'd the Bread and Wine were transubstantiated to say the Bread and Wine are two things visible which being sanctified by the Holy Ghost do become the Sacraments of the Divine body By this Language it might as well be said That the Fathers believed that the Water of Baptism was transubstantiated after their Consecration The same Bishop saith Melchisedeck In Alleg. Veter Test that offer'd of the Fruits of the Earth a Sacrifice to God thereby represented the Priesthood or Reign of Jesus Christ which is the true King of Peace of whose Body and Blood that is to say the oblation of Bread and Wine is offer'd throughout the World. And in the Treatise De Vocat Gentium cap. 26. These are not any longer Jewish
Bread of the Sacrament as the true Image of the Natural Flesh of Jesus Christ is sanctified by the coming of the Holy Ghost and becomes the Body of Jesus Christ because the Priest transfers the Oblation from the state of a common thing to something that is holy To conclude they clearly distinguish the natural Flesh of Jesus Christ which is living and intelligent from his Image which is the Heavenly Bread filled with the Holy Spirit All these continued Expressions are so far from any Idea of Transubstantiation that one must needs see that the destruction of the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament was not beleieved by the Fathers of the Council nor by the Church in their time Alcuin speaking of the Consecrating of Bread and Wine to be the Body and Blood of Christ Alcuinus saith that the Sanctification of this Mystery doth foreshew to us the effect of our Salvation Ep. 69. That by the Water is signified the Christian People by the grains of the Wheat ground into Meal to make Bread is meant the Union of the Universal Church which is made one Body by the fire of the Holy Ghost which unites the Members to the Head and that by the Wine is shewed the Blood of the Passion of the Lord. Doubtless Alcuin did not believe Transubstantiation seeing he places in the Bread and Wine the signification of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and that he saith by the Wine is shewed the Blood of Jesus Christ for that which is a Figure and that which is figured that which sheweth and that which is shewed are two different things the one of which is not the other Therefore the same Alcuin doth formally distinguish the Eucharist from the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ when he saith after St. Austin Whosoever abideth not in Jesus Christ and he in whom Christ abideth not In Joan. c. 13. v. 15. doubtless doth not spiritually eat his flesh altho he visibly and carnally eats with his teeth the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Charles the great his Disciple writing to the same Alcuin calls the Eucharist the Figure of the Body and Blood of the Lord. The Lord saith he being at Supper with his Disciples broke Bread and gave likewise the Cup in figure of his Body and Blood Carol. M. De Offic. Septuag ad Aluin and by this means offered us a very profitable Sacrament Now whatever he said of the figure it contain'd or that it contain'd not the truth the figure was never the same as the thing is that 's figured In the Ambrosian Office which was abolish'd in the year 796 Ambrosian Office. there was this Clause which is still to be seen in the 4th Book of St. Ambrose his Sacraments Nobis hanc oblationem adscriptam rationabilem acceptabilem quod est figura Corporis Sanguinis Domâ—ni nostri Jesu Christi The Ancient Roman Order doth frequently call the Bread and VVine the Body and Blood of the Lord Ordo Romen but it sufficiently shews by these manner of expressions that it doth not mean that the Bread and VVine are the same thing with the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ for in the first place it saith that the Sub-Deacons when they see the Chalice wherein is the Blood of the Lord cover'd with a Cloth and when the Priest hath said these words at the end of the Lords Prayer libera nos a malo they should go from the Altar and prepare Chalices and clean Cloths to receive the Body of the Lord fearing lest it should fall to the ground and crumble to dust Now who doth not see that this cannot be spoken but of the Bread figuratively and improperly called the Body of Jesus Christ 2ly It saith That the Bishop breaketh the Oblation on the right side and that he leaveth the part which he brake on the Altar Now who can say that the Body of Jesus Christ can be broke into parts 3dly The Fraction being made the Deacon receives from the Sub-Deacon the Cup and carries it to the Chair that the Bishop might communicate who having communicated puts part of the holy Oblation of which he bit a Morsel into the Arch-Deacons hands Can it be said that one doth bite the true Bedy of Jesus Christ and that one breaks off part of it 4thly It adds he is to take great heed that no part of the Body and Blood of the Lord doth remain in the Chalice or on the Plate By these words the Roman Order gives us to understand that it speaks of such a Body and Blood that a part of it may be separated from the whole Now this is what can only be said of the Bread and Wine improperly called the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ The now Roman Order at present used in the Church of Rome doth also furnish us with the like reflections It expresly marketh That Jesus Christ gave in the Oblation Ordo Romanus Bread and VVine to celebrate the Mysteries of his Body and Blood. Therein is desired That this Blessed Oblation may be accepted of God in such a manner as that it might be made to us the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ after all which is recited the History of the Institution and the Sacramental words The Eucharist is called the Sacred Bread of Eternal Life ond the Cup the Cup of everlastiug Salvation To conclude They pray God to behold those Gifts and that he will accept them as he did the offering of Abel and the Sacrifice of Melchisedeck which it's very well known was Bread and Wine All which doth plainly shew That the Roman Order at this time observed cannot reasonably be interpreted but in supposing that the Bread and Wine remain in the Eucharist after Consecration That the Fathers of the NINTH CENTURY did not believe Transubstantiation THeodorus Studita AGE ix as is related by Michael Studita in Baronius in the year 816. N. 15. seeing himself reduced to the extremity of being starv'd said to his Disciple If men are so crvel as to make me perrish with hunger Thecdorus Studita the participation of the Body and Blood of the Lord which is the ordinary food of my Body and Soul shall be my only nourishment Now the real Body of Jesus Christ cannot be the nourishment of the Body therefore of necessity this Author must be understood to speak of Bread which is his Body figuratively and improperly It is what is also confirm'd by this Michael Studita who saith in the same place that Theodore had always about him some parcels of the quickning Body of the Lord which cannot be meant of the true Body of Jesus Christ which is not now subject to be broken nor divided Ahyto Bishop of Basil Ahyto sent Ambassador by Charlemaine in the year 814 to Constantinople to Treat a Peace with the Emperor of the East as is declared by the Annals of France by Eginhart Author of the Life of
making of the very fruits of the Earth that is to say of Bread and VVine a fit Mystery turn'd it into the Sacrament of his Body and Blood that unleavensd Bread and VVine mixt with water must be sanctified to be the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Afterwards he gives the reason wherefore our Saviour chose Bread and Wine to make them Sacraments of his Flesh and Blood and saith that 't is because Melchisedeck offer'd Bread and VVine and that Jesus Christ being a Priest after the Order of Melchisedeck he was to imitate his Oblation And shewing the reason why the Sacrament takes the name of the body and blood of the Lord he saith with Isidore Archbishop of Sevil 'T is because bread strengthens the body it is conveniently called the body of Jesus Christ and because wine augments blood in the flesh and veins for this reason it is compar'd to the blood Now both these things are visible nevertheless being sanctify'd by the Holy Ghost they pass into the Sacrament of the Divine body A Sacrament which in the 33 chap. he calls the Mystical body of Jesus Christ in opposition to his Natural body from which he distinguishes it and draws a resemblance from the Mystical body to the proper body of Jesus Christ The holy Vessels saith he are set on the Altar viz. the Cup and Patten which in some sort are the figure of the Grave of Jesus Christ for as at that time the Body of Jesus Christ was laid in the Sepulcher having been embalm'd by godly people so also at present the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ as it were imbalm'd with holy Prayers Rabanus is kept in the holy Vessels to be administred to Believers by the hands of the Ministers The same Doctor in his Penitential or Letter to Herribald Bishop of Auxerre which Monsieur Baluze got Printed at the end of his Regino at Paris in 1671 saith Chap. 33. As to what you demand of me whether the Sacrament after it is eat and consum'd and cast into the draft after the manner of all other meats does return to the former nature it had before 't was consecrated at the Altar to such a needless question may be reply'd The Lord himself said in the Gospel that what enters into the body goes into the helly and is cast into the draft As for the Sacrament of the Body and blood it is made of corporeal and visible things but it produceth an invisible sanctification as well to the body as to the soul What reason is there that that which is digested in the stomack and is cast out into the draft should return to its former state there being never any that affirmed that such a thing was done For of late some persons not having a right judgment of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ have said that the same Body and the same Blood of the Lord which was born of the Virgin Mary and in which the Lord suffered on the Cross and rose again from the Dead is the same which is taken at the Altar against which Error we have as much as was necessary written to the Abbot Egilon Explaining what ought truly to be believed of the Body of Christ in the Eucharist Amalarius Amalarius esteemed a very Learned man in the Manuscripts cited by Dom Luke D'achery a Learned Benedictin in his Preface to the Seventh Tome of his Spicilegium was sent by the Emperor Charles le Debonnair to Pope Gregory to find out Antiphonaries Amalar. in Prolog Antiphon and who by express command of the same Emperor was chosen in a Council held at Aix la Chappel Anno 816 to make Rules for Prebends as is testified by Ademar a Monk of Angoulism in his Chronicle on the year 816 saith in his Treatise of Church-Offices Lib. 3. cap. 25. That the Sacrament is to us instead of Jesus Christ The Friest saith he bows and recommends to God the Father that which was offered in the room of Jesus Christ In the 26th chap. he saith The Oblation and the Cup do signifie the Body of the Lord when Jesus Christ said This is the Cup of my Blood he sanctified his Blood which Blood was in the Body as the Wine is in the Chalice In the third Book chap. 25. he calls the Eucharist the Sacrament of Bread and Wine and saith that Jesus Christ hath in this bread recommended his Body and in the Cup his Blood. The same Amalarius having been consulted by Rangart Bishop of Noyon Amal. ad Rangart Tom. 7. Spicilegii pag. 166. how he understood those words of Institution of the Eucharist This is the Cup in my Blood of the New and Eternal Testament with this addition which is in the Cannon of the Mass the Mystery of Faith answers him by a Letter wherein after having spoken of the Cup of the Passover he proceeds to that of the Eucharist and having alledged what is mention'd by St. Luke he adds The Cup is in type of my Body wherein is the Blood that shall run out of my side to accomplish the ancient Law and after it is shed it shall be the New Testament And a little lower he saith The Mystery is Faith as St. Austin saith in his Letter to the Bishop Boniface as the Sacrament of the Body of Jesus Christ is in some manner the Body of Jesus Christ and the Sacrament of his Blood his Blood so the Sacrament of Faith is Faith. So also we may say This is the Cup of my Blood of the New and Eternal Testament As if he should say This is my Blood which is given for you The same Doctor in a Letter which he wrote to one Gontard whom he calls his Son saith That it is our Saviours good pleasure to shed his Blood by the Members and Veins for our Eternal Salvation That 't is a body of Jesus Christ that may be cast out in spitting after having receiv'd it and of which a part may be flung out of the mouth To all which he adds having so received the body of the Lord with a good intention I don't pretend to dispute whether he be invisibly lifted up to Heaven or whether he remains in our Body till the day of our Death or whether he evaporates into Air or whether he issues out of the Body with the Blood or whether he goes out at the pores our Saviour saying All that enters in at the Mouth goes down into the Belly and from thence into the draft c. Now when this great Man saith That the Sacrament is to us in the stead of Jesus Christ that what is offered in the Eucharist is sacrific'd instead of Jesus Christ that the Cup is in Type of the Body that the Blood is in the Body as the Wine is in the Cup that Jesus Christ represents his Body by the Bread and his Blood in the Wine that the Sacrament of the Body is in some sort his Body and that 't
any regard to the nature of the things that are seen but that they should believe by the change of Names the change that is made by Grace For having called his Body Wheat and Bread and having called himself a Vine he honours the visible Symboles with the name of his Body and Blood not in changing their Nature but in adding Grace to their Nature He could not more fully express that he did not hold Transubstantiation Arnobius junior Arnobius the younger who wrote in the year 431. upon the 4th Psalm saith Accipimus frumentum c. Quod nunc habeat intra se Ecclesia videamus c. speaking of the Sacrament We have received Wheat in the Body Wine in the Blood and Oil in the Chrism On the 22d Psalm and on the 51st and 54th Psalms Let us see what the Church keepeth She hath a Table from which she gives Bread to Believers she hath Oil wherewith she refresheth the Head in libertatem conscientiae praesumenti c. On Psalm 103. We receive Bread because it strengthens the Body Accipimus panem quod confirmat c. we receive Wine because it rejoyces the Heart and having received double comfort in the Heart our Faces are made shine by the Oil of Chrism Exurgens a Mortuis c. To conclude on Psalm 104. he saith these words speaking of the Lord That the Lord in the Eucharist gives us the species of Bread and Wine as he doth the species of Oil in Baptism which cannot be understood of appearances and Accidents as the terms of species of Oil cannot be taken for the Accidents and appearances of Oil. Moreover he observes we receive in the Eucharist Bread and Wine as we receive Oil in the Holy Chrism Now in the Holy Chrism it is true Oil that we receive Arnobius then could not reason so if he believed Transubstantiation The Author of the Books of the Promises and Predictions of God Prosper attributed to St. Prosper by Cassiodorus and which were written about the year 450 under the Empire of Valentinian the 3d relates a History of a young unchast Girl that was possessed with the Devil who in Communicating had received a little morsel of the Lords Body which the Priest had moistned it was half an hour before she could swallow it down till such time as the Priest touched her throat with the Chalice then she cried out instantly that she was healed After which Prayers being made for her she received a portion of the Sacrifice and was restor'd to her former health These terms of some portion of the Sacrifice and of a little part of the moistned Body of the Lord by the Priest cannot be understood of the true Body of Jesus Christ of necessity then the Bread by this Author must be called by the name of the Body of Jesus Christ and by consequence he believed it remained in the Sacrament after Consecration Hesychius one of the Priests of the Church of Jerusalem Hesychius in the year 480 saith in the second Book on Leviticus ch 8. This Mystery speaking of the Eucharist is at once Bread and Flesh Illud Mysterium simul panis caro In this same place he saith it was the custom of the Church of Jerusalem in his time to burn what remained after the Communion Procopius of Gaza Procopius Gazaeus who in all likelihood wrote in the end of the fifth Century expounding these words of Genesis where Jacob saith of Juda His eyes be red with wine and his teeth white with milk c. applying them to our Blessed Saviour in the Mystery of the Sacrament saith that 't is a metaphor taken from those that having drank are the merrier for it c. and saith that the holy Scritures would denote the gladness which the Lord left to his Disciples in giving them the Mystical Wine by the words of Institution Take drink ye all of this These words saith he do shew that Jesus Christ doth with mercy look on all those that believe in him because 't is the nature of wine to make every one merry And upon these words his teeth are white as milk milk saith he doth denote to us the whiteness and purity of the mystical nourishment for Jesus Christ gave to his Disciples the Image of his true Body not desiring any of the bloody sacrifices of the Law he would by the white teeth signifie to us the purity of the food wherewith we are nourished for according to holy David Sacrifice and burnt-offerings thou wouldest not but a Body hast thou prepared me When Procopius speaketh of the Mystical Wine that rejoyced the Disciples it being the nature of Wine to make merry this Mystical Wine is not the Blood of Jesus Christ for 't is not the nature of Blood to rejoyce It must therefore be meant that Procopius said by the Wine which Jesus Christ distributed to his Disciples was to be understood true Wine Procopius and by the whiteness of the Mystical food he meant the whiteness of the Bread which is both food and Image which cannot be understood of the true Body of Jesus Christ is neither the Image of himself nor bodily food nor of the accidents which cannot nourish the Body because nourishment proceedeth from matter The same Procopius in his Commentary on Esay expounding these words of the Prophet Chap. 3. The Lord of Hosts will take away from Judah and Jerusalem the staff of Bread and Water saith that in the first place these words of the Prophet may be understood of Jesus Christ and of his Flesh and Blood. The Bread being to be understood of him of whom David saith He gave them bread from Heaven and the waters of those of which Jesus Christ said to the Samaritan Whosoever drinketh of this water it shall be a fountain flewing unto everlasting Life Then he adds There is another bread which giveth life to the world which was taken from the Jews and another water which is that of Baptism Now by this other bread which was taken from the Jews he means that of the Eucharist and whereas he distinguishes it from the bread which is the Lord as he distinguisheth the water of Baptism from that which was given to the Samaritan it follows that the Bread of the Eucharist is something that is distinguisht from Jesus Christ himself the Bread of Heaven Gelasius Bishop of Rome P. Gelasius in the year 492 wrote a Treatise of the two Natures against Nestorius and Eutyches and he excludes Transubstantiation when he saith that the substance or nature of Bread and Wine doth still remain This Work is assuredly of Pope Gelasius as is confessed by Cardinal Du Perron because first Fulgentius cites four passages of this Treatise as being writ by Pope Gelasius Resp 1. ad 2 Interrog Ferr. And Pope John the Second in Epist ad Amaenum also cites some passages of this Work as being writ by Gelasius and though he doth not give
is so that the Cup of the Blood is his Blood that the Body is poured forth upon our Members for our Salvation that there is a Body of Jesus Christ that may be cast out by spitting and whereof some part may be flung out of the Mouth That he will not dispute whether this Body evaporates in the Air or whether it departs out of the body with the blood or whether it goes out at the pores or into the Draft all this doth sufficiently shew That this Doctor distinguished the Bread and Wine as a Typical body from the real Body of Jesus Christ and that by consequence he believed the bread and wine remained after Consecration to be called the body and blood of Jesus Christ but improperly Valafridus Strabo Valafridus Strabo Abbas Augiensis stiled a very Learned Man by Herman Contracted in the year 849. Jesus Christ said he gave to his Disciples the Sacrament of his Body and Blood in the substance of bread and wine Lib. de Reb. Eccles c. 16. Bill p. 7. to 10. teaching them to celebrate it in remembrance of his most holy Passion because there could nothing be found fitter than these things to signify the unity of the Head and Members for as Bread is made of sundry Grains and brought into one body by means of Water and as the Wine is squeez'd from several Grapes so also the body of Jesus Christ is made of the anion of a multitude of Saints And a little after he declares That Jesus Christ hath chose for us a very fit Sacrifice for the Mystery of his body and blood in that Melchisedeck having offer'd bread and wine he gave to his Children the same kinds of Sacraments And afterwards cap. 18. That for that great Number of Legal Ordinances Jesus Christ gave us the word of his Gospel so also instead of the great diversity of Sacrifices Believers are to rest satisfied with the sole Oblation of bread and wine It is evident Strabo makes the Holy Sacrament to consist in the substance of bread and wine which according to him is differenced from the body because it is but the memorial of it That 't is the figure that it consists in being made of sundry Grains and the Wine of sundry Grapes That the Sacrifice of the New Testament is of the same kind as that of Melchisedeck and that the Eucharist is an Oblation of bread and wine All these things intimate that the bread and wine remain in the Eucharist after Consecration Herribald was Bishop of Auxerre Herribald in the time that Vallafridus Strabo wrote Tom. 2. ch 19.52 and 61. Now he was of the same Opinion with Rabanus Thomas Waldensis assures us so Herribald of Auxerre saith he and Rabanus of Mayence say That the Sacrament of the Eucharist goes into the Draft The Anonimous Author contemporary with Herribald which was published by Father Cellot the Jesuit saith also the same Nevertheless Lupus Abbot of Ferriers Ep. 19. speaking of him calls him a most excellent Prelate excellentissimum Praesulem In the 37th Ep. he stiles him a Man of a lofty and Divine understanding Altissimi Divini ingenii And Hinemarus Archbishop of Reims calls him the Bishop of Venerable Qualities De Praed ch 6. So that the very Chronicle of Auxerre intimates that there was ingrav'd on his Monument this Inscription Here lies the body of St. Herribald Therefore the Author of the 1st Treatise of the Perpetuity of the Eucharist saith in page 843 That Herribald and Rhabanus were Adversaries to Pascasius Tho in the 2d Treatise of the Perpetuity in page 842. he saith speaking of the Minister Claude who told him that Amalarius and Herribald were in any wise Adversaries to Paschas It appears by the Letter Paschasius wrote to Frudegard Frndegardus that he was not of the same Judgment Paschasius was of seeing he opposes to him St. Austin's 23d Letter to Boniface Sic VVidefort contra VVickliff ad art 1. * Trithem de Script Eccles Ratramne Priest and Frier of Corby experienc'd in the Scriptures Ratramnus equally esteem'd for his Learning and Manners whom †De Praedest Hinemar ‖ Ep. 79. Lupus Abbot of Ferriers his Contemporaries ₠De Script Eccles Sigebert who liv'd in the xi Century and Father ‡ De Euchr. ch 1. Cellot the Jesuits Anonimus do all make mention of under his true name of Ratramne wrote a Book under the Reign of Charles the Bald as is reported by the same Trythemius which he intitul'd Of the Body and Blood of the Lord From a Monk of Corby he was made Abbot of Ovais The President ₠Maug dissert Hist Chron. c. 17. tom 2. pag. 133 135. Mauguin speaking of him saith he was a Learned Doctor of the Church eminent in Probity and in Doctrine an undaunted defender and protector of the Catholick Truth against Innovators He dedicated his Book to the Emperor Charles the Bald. Now this Author did not believe Transubstantiation because he saith For as to the substance of those Creatures they are after Consecration what they were before they were before bread and wine and it is plainly seen that after Consecration these created substances do remain in the very same species And a little after he saith Ratramnus in the Apology of the Fathers is stiled a learn'd Benedictin Defender of Grace a Man of great Wisdom and Reputation and in the 1st treatise of the Perpetuity p. 3. c. 5. he is stiled an obscure kind of a person that evaporated himself in obscure Reasonings which he added to those of the Church and explained as he pleased himself as some are pleased to say This spiritual flesh which spiritually feeds Believers is made of grains of Wheat by the hands of the Baker such as it appears to our sight but it hath neither bones nor sinews nor no distinction of parts nor is it enliven'd with a Soul or reasonable substance To conclude it is unable to move of it self and if it gives life it is the effect of a spiritual virtue of an invisible and a Divine Virtue and Efficacy A little after he saith again As the Water represents the People in the Sacrament if it were true that the Bread consecrated by Ministers was corporally changed into the Body of Jesus Christ it must also necessarily follow that the water which is mingled with it were changed into the blood of the faithful people for where there is but one sanctification there ought to be but one operation and the Mystery should be equal where the Reason of the Mystery is the same It is evident there is no corporal change in the water and by consequence there is no corporal change to be expected in the wine All that is said of the Body of the people represented by water is understood spiritually it is then a necessary consequence that what is said of the blood of Jesus Christ represented by
Cassin for a learned Frier called Albert whom Pope Stephen P. Gregory 7. saith Sigonius made Cardinal Deacon who being come and not able to answer Berengers Arguments desired a weeks time to consider of them neither was Pope Gregory the 7th himself well satisfied with what was urged against Berenger seeing that Cardinal Bernon in the life of Hildebrand and the Abbot of Ursberg in the year 1080 do write That Gregory the 7th wavering in the Faith caus'd a Fast to be kept by his Cardinals that it might be discover'd whether the Church of Rome or Berenger were in the best opinion touching the Body of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament One argument that Gregory the 7th was not very contrary to Berenger is that the Abbot of Ursberg and Aventin that has it from Otto Fraxinensis relate on the year 1080 that thirty Bishops and Lords being assembled apud Brixiam Nomicam did depose Gregory the 7th amongst other things for being a Disciple of Berengers Before I end my Discourse of Berenger it is necessary to observe Bruno that the Confession that was extorted from him is not maintainable seeing that as is related by Lanfranc and Alger it is therein said 1. 1. c. 19. that Jesus Christ not only in Sacrament but also in reality is touched and broken by the Teeth Theophylact Arch-Bishop of Bulgary said in his time That God Theophylact. In Marcum c. 14. condescending to our infirmity doth preserve the Species of Bread and Wine and changes them into the virtue of the Body and Blood of Christ Also in his time the Greeks did not believe Transubstantiation In all probability Nicetas Pectoratus did not believe it Nicetas Pectoratus seeing Cardinal Humbert whom Pope Leo the 9th sent to them upbraids him Perfidious Stercoranist says he to him Humber Tom. 4. Bibl. of the Patr. Edit ult 245. you think that the Participation of the Body and Blood of our Lord breaks the Fasts of Lent and other holy Fasts believing that the Heavenly as well as the terrestrial Food is cast out into the Draft by the sordid and stinking way of the Belly Alger de Sacram. l. 2. c. 1. Tom. 6. of the Fathers lib. and the Jesuit Cellot in Append. Miscel Opusc 7. p. 564. do frequently impute this Error to the Greeks The Author of the Chronicle Malleacensis on the year 1083 observes in the Monastry Cormoriacensi That there was a Friar called Literius of such great abstinence that for Ten years time he drank neither Wine nor VVater but what he received in the Sacrament of necessity then what one drinks in the Eucharist must be true Wine and true Water That the Authors of the TWELFTH CENTURY did not believe Transubstantiation HOnorius Priest and Theologal of the Church of Rutan AGE xii did not believe Transubstantiation seeing Thomas Waldensis Tom. 2. c. 90. saith Honorius That this Theologal was of the Sect of the Bread-eaters of Rabanus de Secta Panitarum Rabani An. 1120. In Gemma Anim l. 1. c. 111 and Honorius saith with Raban that the Sacrament which is received with the Mouth is converted into bodily food but the virtue of the Sacrament is that whereby the inward Man is fed and satisfied He saith also That the Host is broken Honorius because the Bread of Angels was broken for us upon the Cross ‡ Ib. c. 63. * Ib. c. 64. That the Bishop bites one piece that he divides it in parts that it is not received whole but broke in three parts ‖ Ibid c. 65. that when 't is put in the Wine it is shewed that the Soul of our Lord return'd to his Body and he calls that which is broke the Body of the Lord then he observes that the Sub-Deacon receives from the Deacon the Body of our Saviour and that he carries it to the Priests to divide it to the People all this can only be understood of the Bread which is improperly called the Body Rupert Abbot of Duits Rupertus near Cologne upon Exodus l. 2. c. 10. saith A. 1111. That the Holy Ghost doth not destroy the Substance of Bread as he did not destroy the human Nature when he joined it to the Word and in his 6th Book on St. John of the Paris Edition in the year 1638 he saith That as the Word was made Flesh not being changed into Flesh but in assuming Flesh so also the Word made Flesh is made visible Bread not being changed into Bread but taking and transferring the Bread into the Unity of his Person De Scriptor Eccles l. 3. c. 11. 15. We will say no more of this Author because Bellarmin and several others do freely confess that Rupert did not believe Transubstantiation also Honorius of Autur gives him extraordinary Commendations De Script Eccles saying That Rupert illuminated with a Vision of the Holy Ghost explained almost all the Holy Scriptures in an admirable stile Zonaras in the East did not believe Transubstantiation Zonaras seeing he saith of the Eucharist Tom 6. Cyr. Alex in Notic vuicani ad lib. advers An. hrepom Zonar Ep. 2. That it is a Shew-Bread which is subject to corruption and which is eat and ground with the Teeth Panis propositionis corruptioniest obnexius ut pote caro existens vere Christi secatur dentibus nostris molitur So that he was of the Opinion of Damascen and Rupert The Abbot Francus Francus in all likelihood Abbot of Lobbes did not approve the opinion of Transubstantiation seeing the Centuriators of Magdebourgh observe that he had no right judgment of the Lords Supper asserting that the true Body of Christ was not in the Holy Sacrament Amalaricus Bishop of Chartres in the year 1207 Amalaricus a man of great Reputation for 〈◊〉 Knowledg and Wisdom saith Gaugwin in his 6th Book of the History of France in the Reign of Philip the August amongst other things denied Transubstantiation In Catal. in Almar contra Haeres verb. Euch. 4. Bernard of Luxemburg Prateolus and Alphonsus alastro report the same of Amaury as also Genebrard in his Chronicle lib. 4. Anno. 1215. Opinions of Authors of the THIRTEENTH CENTURY AGE xiii and afterwards touching Transubstantion IT 's true Pope Innocent the 3d. did condemn this Amaury at the Council of Lateran after his death in the year 1215. but 't is not said wherefore and what was transacted in this Council deserves not to be much regarded if it be consider'd after what manner things were there transacted The Pope who then presided was a man full of vain glory and ambition Mathew Paris and Mathew of Westminster intimate so much of him and that the liberty of voting and speaking was denied to the Prelates of the Assembly for they were not seen to propose nor deliberate nor advise nor prepare any of the Constitutions which were there in great numbers but they were presented to the Council
be true Bread which remains after Consecration and which is as is said before Blessed Sanctified Ep. 59. and Broke in Pieces on the Holy Table to be distributed Benedicitur Sanctificatur ad distribuendum comminuitur The same Doctor in Ep. 120 Et ipsi quidem adducti sunt ad Mensam Christi c. speaking of the Rich in opposition to the Poor of whom it is said That they shall eat and be satisfied These Rich Persons saith St. Austin have been brought to the Lords Table and receive from his hand his Body and Blood but they only adore and are not satisfied For just as St. Ambrose distinguisheth betwixt drinking the Wine Vinum bibere and drinking of the Wine de Vino bibere that is to say to tast of a little Wine De Noe Arca. c. 29. de ejus portione libare so also St. Austin his Disciple distinguisheth betwixt receiving the Body and Blood of the Lord accipere Corpus Sanguinem Domini and to receive of the Body and Blood of the Lord Accipere de Corpore Sanguine Christi St. Austin explains himself more fully when he saith in his 86th Ep. That one receives in the Eucharist a Portion of the Body of the immaculate Lamb De Agni immaculati Corpore partem sumere And in the 35th Sermon on the Words of our Lord he saith In receiving the Sacrament we know what we should think of we receive a little and we are fatned in the heart modulum accipimus in corde saginamur Now that cannot be understood of the proper Body of Jesus Christ which cannot be received by Parcels therefore it must be meant of Bread which is the Figure of his Body or the Sacrament of it It is what St. Austin intends when he saith Nec quando manducamus when we eat Jesus Christ de illo partes facimus equidem in Sacramento sic fit We do not make Morsels but it is done in Sacrament that is to say That we break and divide the Sign and the Bread which is the Sacrament The same Father saying that the Accidents cannot in any wise subsist without their Subject saith in his 2d Book of Soliloquies chap. 12. What can reconcile what you demand or who can think it possible to be done that that which is in a subject should remain the subject it self ceasing to be For 't is a thing monstrous and very far from the truth that that which doth not subsist if it be not in a subject can be the subject it self not remaining Also in the 13th chap. 19th Book and in the Book of the Immortality of the Soul ch 5. The subject being changed of necessity all that was in the subject must be changed In the 8th chap. What is not of it self if it be abandoed by that by which it is must undoubtedly cease to be Also in the 10th chap. and in the Book of Categories speaking of Accidents A colour cannot be without a subject And in the Epistle to Dardanus Take away the bodies from the qualities of bodies they will have no place to remain in and by consequence it is necessary that they cannot be And against Julian chap. 5. It 's true saith St. Austin that the things that are in a subject as the qualities are cannot be without the subject wherein they are as the colour or form c. It 's impossible had St. Austin believed that the Bread did not remain in the Eucharist after Consecration that he should have esteemed that absurd and ridiculous which happened every day It also seems that St Austin had been too wide when he doubts in the 146th Ep. to Consentius Whether Jesus Christ has Blood when he saith on the 98th Psalm You shall not eat this Body which you see nor shall drink this Blood which those that shall crucify me shall shed I have given you a Sacrament c And in the 20th Book against Faustus The Flesh and Blood of this Sacrifice was promised by Sacrifices of resemblance before the coming of Jesus Christ It was given by the verity in the Passion of Jesus Christ after the Ascension of Jesus Christ it is celebrated by the Sacrament of Commemoration To conclude St Austin in his 33d Sermon on the Words of our Lord having said as hath been seen before That of things which are put to signify there are some that are to remain others to be destroy'd when the Ministry of their signification is accomplish'd as the Bread of the Sacrament he adds But because these things are obvious to men as being practis'd by men they may deserve our veneration as being Holy and Religious things but they cannot cause any wonder in us as if they were miraculous Certainly if St. Austin had held Transubstantiation as it comprehends many things repugnant to Natural Reason which are so many astonishing Miracles St. Austin could not have said That the Sacraments wherein he includes that of the Eucharist have something in them that deserves our respect and veneration but have nothing that deserves our astonishment and admiration These are some of the Reasons which made Monsieur De Marca Archbishop of Paris French. Posthum Treatise of the Euch. Predecessor to him that with so much reputation now fills the chiefest See of France say That the Catholick Doctors are to blame when they pretend that St. Austin expounded the Text of the Institution of the Eucharist as it is done in the Schools And a little before that in St. Austin's Divinity This is my Body should be expounded in this manner This Bread is the sign and Sacrament of my Body For according to St. Austin saith Monsieur De Marca The Bread to speak properly is but the sign and Sacrament of the Body to which Jesus Christ made no scruple to give the name of the thing signified It is also the judgment of Tertullian when he saith When Jesus Christ said this is my Body That is to say this is the figure of my Body and saith Monsieur De Marca The reasons that are given to the contrary are not satisfactory Bullenger writing against Casaubon recites this passage of Theodoret Theodoret. who was a Priest at Antioch in the year â—â—â— As the King saith he and his Image are not two Kings so also the personal Body of Jesus Christ which Body is in the Heavens and the Bread which is his Antitype and is distributed to Believers by the Priest are not two Bodies It appears by this comparison that Theodoret did believe the Bread of the Eucharist is something else besides the Body of Christ and by consequence he believed that there remained true Bread in the Sacrament and not Bread in shew and appearance only Theodoret who in the year 423 was Bishop of Cyrus doth so fully explain himself hereupon that there is no doubt to be made of his Opinion Dial. 1. He was pleas'd saith he that those who participated of the Divine Mysteries should not have