more drink the Fruit of the Vine until I drink it with you in a new manner whereof you shall bear testimony for you shall see me after my Resurrection But wherefore continues S. Chrysostom did he drink Wine after his Resurrection and not Water it is because he would thereby destroy a pernicious Heresy For because there would be Hereticks that would only make use of water in the Mysteries be would represent the Mysteries he gave Wine and when after the Resurrection he eat his common Repast he drank Wine the Fruit of the Vine now the Vine doth produce Wine and not Water This Passage marketh in the first place That Jesus Christ drinking the Fruit of the Vine after his Resurrection and not Water he accomplish'd what he said in celebrating the Eucharist I will no more drink of this Fruit of the Vine until I drink it new in my Fathers Kingdom This shews that Jesus Christ drank true Wine in the Institution of the Eucharist for what is to be done again must needs be done before Secondly St. Chrysostom doth not only say that Jesus Christ drank Wine but he saith further That he distributed Wine amongst his Disciples and the Fruit of the Vine which doth not produce Water but Wine So that these words of St. Chrysostom import clearly That the Wine remains in the Eucharist The same Father on these words of the First to the Corinthians The Bread which we break is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ speaks thus What is the Bread it is the Body of Jesus Christ. What becomes of them which receive it they become the Body of Jesus Christ. Now this Proposition The Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ cannot be in a Literal Sense for saith Vasquez The Bread without a Figure cannot be called the Body of Jesus Christ nor the Body of Jesus Christ be called Bread. The same Father in his Commentary upon the Epistle to the Galatians Chap. 5. explaining these words of the Apostle The Flesh lusteth against the Spirit and the Spirit against the Flesh The Manicheans understood by the Flesh the substance of the Body and by the Spirit they understood the Soul and they said That the Apostle cut Man into two and intimated that Man was compos'd of two contrary Substances one bad which was the Flesh and the other good which was the Spirit which proceeded from the good God and the Body from the bad God S. Chrysostom answers That the Apostle in this place doth not call the Flesh the Body Apostolum non hic carnem appellare Corpus as the Manicheans supposed and saith That the Apostle do's not always mean by the Flesh the nature of the Body Naturam Corporis but that very often by the Flesh he means something else as evil Desires and having proved this by sundry passages of the Apostle and other holy Writers he proves it at last by the example of the Iucharist and of the Church which he saith is called Body in the Holy Scriptures he saith farther That the Scripture is wont to call by the name of Flesh as well the Church as the Mysteries saving It is his Body Rursum Carnis vocabulo Scriptura solet appellare tum Mysteria tum totam Ecclesiam dicens eam Christi Corpus esse It appears by these words of St. Chrysostom's That he did not believe that the Consecrated Bread and Wine were the same with the Body of Christ seeing he proves by the Eucharist that the Consecraeted Bread and Wine are called Flesh and that the Word Flesh in this place is taken for something else besides Body and that he puts the Term Flesh given to the Consecrated Bread and Wine which are the Mysteries in the rank of other Terms of Flesh given to evil Desires and to the Church which are mystical and figurative Terms So St. Chrysostom believed the Bread and Wine remained and are so called the Body of Jesus Christ mystically as the Church is called the Body of Jesus Christ. The same St. Chrysostom wrote a Letter to Caesarius which indeed is not inserted in his Works but is sound in Manuscript in the Library at Florence and it was also found in England in Archbishop Cranmer's Library it is mention'd in the Bibliotheca Patrum Printed at Collen 1618. in this Bibliotheque Tom. 4. there is found the Collections of an ancient nameless Author who wrote against the Severian and Acephalian Hereticks wherein is recited a Passage taken out of this Letter So also Monsieur de Marca Arch-Bishop of Paris acknowledges the truth of this Letter in his Posthume and French Treatise of the Eucharist witness the Abbot Fagget in his Letter to Monsieur de Marca President of the Parliament at Pan 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 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 S. Jerom in his Epistle to Eustochium speaking of Virgins 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
Jesus Christ as they are the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ. To conclude St. Austin saith The Faith of the New-baptized was to be strengthened it was therefore here the proper place for him to have said That the Bread was no more Bread that the Wine was no longer Wine but that there remained only the Accidents of the one and the other The same Holy Father answering Bishop Boniface who desired to know how it might be said of an Infant newly Baptis'd he hath Faith he Believes who is incapable of believing and of whom no assurance can be given what he will be afterwards he saith That as every Sunday and Easter Day is called Easter and the Resurrection although the Lords Easter and Resurrection are things happened several Ages past so it may be said An Infant hath Faith because he hath the Sacrament of Faith. For saith he if the Sacraments had not some resemblance with the things whereof they are Sacraments they would be no Sacraments as therefore in some sort the Sacrament of the Body of Jesus Christ is the Body of Jesus Christ and the Sacrament of his Blood is the Blood of Christ so also the Sacrament of Faith is Faith now to believe is nothing else but to have Faith. He saith The Eucharist is called Flesh and Blood because it is both the one and the other in some sort now according to St. Gregory Nyssen What is not truly that by the name by which it is called is but figuratively or improperly that by the name whereof it is called Now that the Bread and Wine which are the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are his Body and Blood in some sort secundum quendam modum it follows The Bread and Wine are not properly the Flesh and Blood and by consequence are not Transubstantiated Moreover St. Austin doth explain the Manner according to which the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ and he shews it by reason that generally the signs are called by the name of the things they signifie not that they are the things they signifie but because they are the signs and that they have some resemblance to them The same Father upon the third Psalm admires the Patience of Jesus Christ that bore the Treachery of Judas to the end although he was not ignorant of his Thoughts and admitted him to the Banquet at which saith St. Austin Jesus Christ recommended and gave to his Disciples the Figure or Type of his Flesh and Blood Cum adhibuit ad convivium in quo Corporis Sanguinis sui Figuram Discipulis commendavit tradidit Now the Figure is not the Truth but the Imitation of the Verity saith Gaudentius in Exod. Tractatu 2. Moreover St. Austin cannot find in the Scriptures that Jesus Christ in instituting the Sacrament gave to his Disciples the Figure of his Body and Blood but in these words Take Eat This is my Body This is my Blood he must then understand these words of the Institution in a figurative sense And according to the same Doctor a Sign is that which shews it self to the Senses and besides that shews something else to the Mind It must then follow That the Sign is a thing which remains to shew it self The same Father disputing against Adimantus the Manichean Chap. 12. and against the Adversary of the Law and the Prophets in the Second Book Cap. 6. who said The Blood is the Soul as is said Deuteronom 12. and by consequence that Men killed the Soul when they shed Blood. S. Austin replies That this Precept in Deuteronomy That Blood must not be eat because 't is the Soul is a Precept that must he understood as many other things contained in the Scriptures which are to be taken in Types and Figures Illud praeceptum posicum esse dicimus sicut alia multa pene omnia Scripturarum illarum Sacramenta signis figuris plena sunt And concludes towards the end 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 signisies 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 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 bless 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 Casulanus he saith of S. Paul 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 Epistle of S. John 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 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 practic'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 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 who was a Priest at Antioch in the year 411. 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 He was pleas'd saith he that those who participated of the Divine Mysteries should not have 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 Symbols 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 the younger who wrote in the year 431. upon the 4th Psalm saith speaking of the Sacrament We have received Wheat in the Body Wine in the Blood and Oyl 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 Oyl wherewith she refresheth the Head in libertatem conscientiae praesumenti c. On Psalm 103. We receive Bread because it strengthens the Body we receive Wine because it rejoyces the Heart and having received double comfort in the Heart our Faces are made shine by the Oyl of Chrism 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 Oyl in Baptism which cannot be understood of appearances and Accidents as the terms of Species of Oyl cannot be taken for the Accidents and appearances of Oyl Moreover he observes we receive in the Eucharist Bread and Wine as we receive Oyl in the Holy Chrism Now in the Holy Chrism it is true Oyl 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 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 Lord's 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 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 who in all likelihood wrote in the end of the fifth Century expounding these words of Genesis where Jacob saith to 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
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 VVine 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 Bread and Wine 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 and the Cup the Cup of everlasting 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 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 cruel as to make me perish with hunger 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 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 Charlemaine the Annals of Fulda Herman Contract and others This Ahyto died in the year 836 and left a Capitulary for instruction of the Priests of his Diocess publisht by Dom Luke D'achery in the Sixth Tome of his Spicilegium pag. 692. now amongst many other Instructions he gives his Priests in his Capitularies this is one In the fifth place the Priest should know what the Sacrament of Baptism and Confirmation is and also what the Mystery of the body and blood of our Lord doth mean. How a visible creature is seen in the same Mysteries and is nevertheless the invisible Salvation is communicated for the Souls eternal happiness which is contained in faith only By visible creature he can only mean a creature not in appearance but effective for otherwise according to this Author it must be said that in Baptism and Confirmation there should be only an apparent creature and not the substance of water and chrism Besides Ahyto attributed the same effect to these three Sacraments to wit the communication of eternal and invisible Salvation to them that with faith do receive these holy Sacraments Theodulphus in the year 810 Bishop of Orleans saith in his Treatise of the Order of Baptism There is one saving Sacrifice which Melchisedeck also offer'd under the Old Testament in Type of the body and blood of our Saviour the which the Mediator of God and Man accomplished under the New before he was crucify'd when taking the bread and wine he blessed and gave them to his Disciples commanding them to do those things in remembrance of him It is this Mystery which the Church doth celebrate having put an end to the ancient sacrifices offering bread because of the bread which came down from Heaven and wine because of him which said I am the true Vine to the end that by the visible Oblation of Priests and by the invisible consecration of the Holy Ghost the bread and wine should have the dignity of the body and blood of our Lord with which blood there is mingled some water either because there came out of the side of our Saviour water with the blood or because according to the Interpretation of our Ancestors as Jesus Christ is signify'd by the wine so also the people is signify'd by the water Now this Bishop saying that Jesus Christ gave bread to his Disciples in commemoration that this Mystery is an Oblation of visible bread which is consecrated by the Holy Spirit and which receiveth the dignity of the body that he indifferently calls the blood wine and the wine blood that with the blood water is mingled and that Jesus Christ is signify'd by the wine that 't is said the wine signifies Jesus Christ as the water doth the people these words cannot suppose any Transubstantiation The Opposers of Paschasius Radbertus Frier of the Monastry of Corby who wrote a Book of the body and blood of Jesus Christ did not believe Transubstantiation That the said Paschasius had several adversaries appears by his own Writings for towards the end of his Commentary upon St. Matthew he saith himself I have inlarged upon the Lords Supper a little more than the brevity of a Commentary would permit because there be several others that are of a different judgment touching these holy Mysteries and that several are blind and do not perceive that this bread and cup is nothing else but what is seen with the eyes and tasted with the palate And in his Epistle to Frudegard as well as in his Commentary on St. Matthew ch 12. it appears he had Opposers because in his Epist. to Frudegard he saith You advise with me touching a thing that many do make doubt of And in his Commentary I am told that many saith he do censure me as if I had attributed to the words of our Lord either more or something quite contrary to what the genuine sense permits So that Paschasius had adversaries and they did not believe Transubstantiation because they held that in the Eucharist there was only the virtue of the flesh and not the very flesh the virtue of the blood and not the very blood of Christ. That the Eucharist was figure and not verity shadow of the body and not the body it self They would saith Paschasius extenuate the word body and perswade Quod non sit vera caro Christi sed quaedam virtus figura corporis Christi Now Paschasius Rathbertus was the first Author that wrote fully and seriously of the truth of the
an Article of Faith. In the Fourth Method they laid down as a Maxim that the true means to discern what relates to matter of Faith or not is to see if the Article which is to be admitted was always believed as Matter of Faith that is to say that the French Bishops admitted in their pastoral Letter the Maxim which Vincentius Lyrinensis left us above 1100. years ago That great Care must be taken to retain in the Catholick Church what hath been believed every where by all and at all times as being the true Means whereby to discern what is Matter of Faith and what is not This same is the Rule given by Pope Pius the Fourth who obliges them to swear in the profession of Faith added to the Council of Trent That the Holy Scriptures should not be Interpreted But by the unanimous consent of the Ancient Fathers The Protestants have thought this Maxim so reasonable that Monsieur Larroque a French Minister saith in his Preface to the History of the Eucharist that he believes there is no Man of Sense but ought to admit of it And it was received as a Rule of Faith by the Reform'd Church of England by Philip Melancthon by Peter Martyr Gallasius Scultetus Casaubon Grotius Vessius Beza and by Gesselius who recites their Authorities in the Preface of his History of Memorable things from the Creation of the World to the year of Christ 1125. Seeing therefore that the Bishops of France have propos'd to us so just a Method let us examine if the Doctrine of Transubstantiation be a Doctrine of Faith and prove it not because the Council of Trent has defin'd it so Or that the Council of Lateran in the year 1215. suppos'd it to be so non quia ipsam quam tenemus fidem commendaverit Milevitanus Optatus vel Mediolanensis Ambrosius aut quia Collegarum Nostrorum Conciliis ipsa praedicta est saith S. Austin against the Donatists De unit Eccles. cap. 16. But because 't is contain'd in the Holy Scriptures and understood in that Sense by the unanimous consent of the Doctors and Councils that have gone before us This is what we now undertake to perform by the assistance of God's holy Spirit and with a disposition of Mind free from all Malice and Prejudice according to what Caesar saith in Salust in the beginning of the Book of Cataline Omnes homines qui de Rebus dubiis consultant ab ira odio vacuos esse debere haud facile animum pervidere verum ubi illa officiunt And St. Austin upon the Book against the Letter of the Manichean by them called the Letter of Foundation Ut autem facilius mitescatis c. nemo nostrum se jam quaeramus quasi ab utrisque nesciatur ita enim diligenter concorditer quaeri poterit si nulla temeraria prasumptions inventa cognita esse credatur But not to over-burthen this small Treatise with too great a number of Arguments or Citations we will chiefly examine two things First Who those Catholick Doctors are that believed the Doctrine of Transubstantiation not to be ancient Secondly If what those Doctors have writ be true And whether we can indeed produce sufficient Authorities to believe that the ancient Church did not hold nor believe it PART I. IN the first place That there have been Catholick Doctors which have taught that Transubstantiation is no ancient Doctrine Suarez formally asserteth it although indeed he saith their Opinion ought to be corrected The truth is Peter Lombard Master of the Sentences saith expresly Si quaeras qualis sit illa conversio an formalis an substantialis an alterius generis definire non audeo Secondly Scotus saith That there were formerly three Opinions touching the changing the Bread into the Body of Christ the first of which held that the Bread remain'd in the Eucharist In the Paragraph quantum ergo ad istum articulum c. he saith that at present the Church of Rome holds Transubstantiation Nunc autem ipsa tenet Sancta Rom. Ecclesia panem transubstantiari And a little under he saith ad tertium ubi stat vis dicendum quod Ecclesia declaravit istum intellectum esse de veritate fidei in illo Symbolo edito sub Innocentio tertio in Concilio Lateraenensi And since this Declaration made by this Council held in the year 1215. it is an Article of Faith. Tenendum est esse de substantia fidei hoc post istam declarationem solemnem Bellarmine doth own that Scotus did believe Transubstantiation was no Article of Faith before the Council of Lateram under Innocent the Third but he adds that 't was because Scotus did not know of the Council held under Gregory the Seventh and that he had not read the Authorities of the Fathers which saith Bellarmine I have now recited Thirdly Peter Dayly Cardinal and Bishop of Cambray saith It doth not clearly follow from the Determination of the Church that the substance of Bread ceaseth therefore he doth not believe this to be the ancient Doctrine Fourthly Cardinal Cusa Excit l. 6. Serm. 40. Super una Oblatione consummavit c. saith That there were some ancient Divines which did not believe Transubstantiation Fifthly Erasmus in his Notes on the First to the Corinthians saith That it was late ere the Church established Transubstantiation Sixthly Alphonsus à Castro saith That the ancient Writers very seldom spake of Transubstantiation Seventhly Tonstall Bishop of Durham about the middle of the last Century speaking of the Breads being changed into the Body of Christ saith It were much better to leave it to the Liberty of Christians to believe as they pleas'd of the manner in which this change is made as it was practis'd in the Church before the Council of Lateran Eighthly Cassander in his Consultation with the Emperour Maximilian the Second touching the differences of Religion confesseth that Transubstantiation is a Novelty and that 't were much better to keep to the terms of the Ancients that the Abuses therein approach near to Idolatry Ninthly Charles du Moulin the Oracle of the French Civilians upon the Edicts and Ordinances of France against the Injuries of Popes Num. 406. speaks in these Terms Innocent the Third forged or at least established it as a general Article of Faith and as necessary to be believed by all as that of the holy Trinity the Transubstantiation of the Bread and Wine into the true Body and true Blood of Jesus Christ. Tenthly John Yribarne a Spanish Divine in the 4th Sent. Dist. 11. q. 3. Disp. 42. S. 1. saith That in the Primitive Church is was matter of Faith that the Body of Jesus Christ was contain'd under the Species of Bread and Wine but that 't was not any matter of Faith to hold that the substance of Bread was changed into the Flesh of Jesus Christ and that it subsisted
no longer after Consecration Eleventhly Monsieur de Marca Archbishop of Paris in his posthumous Dissertations saith in his French Treatise of the Sacrament of the Eucharist That until S. Chrysostom's time it was believed the Bread was the Body of Jesus Christ by a marvelous change that comes on the Bread but that it becomes united to the incarnate Word and to his Natural Body the Bread not changing its Nature and yet not going into the Draught which is a kind of pious consideration which he added against Origen PART II. AS for the Second Point which is to see if there is effectively to be found in the Writings of the Ancients sufficient Authorities to believe that the Ancients did not believe Transubstantiation Before I alledge their Authorities two Reflections may be made First that our own Authors do observe that Transubstantiation is not expresly mention'd nor taught in the Scriptures Scotus cited by Bellarmine of the Eucharist Lib. 3. cap. 23. saith It doth not plainly follow from the words of Jesus Christ This is my Body that the Bread is transubstantiated Ockam saith of Transubstantiation that it cannot be proved by natural Reason nor by Authority of the Bible but only by the Authority of the Ancients Alfonsus de Castro disapproves what Ockham says That it can be proved by the Authority of the Ancients for he saith That it was not to be found no more than Indulgences were in the Writings of the Ancients Gabriel Biel speaking of Transubstantiation saith That it is not expresly taught in the Holy Scriptures Cardinal Cajetan does not find the words of Jesus Christ This is my Body clear neither for the Real Presence nor for Transubstantiation without the determination of the Church be joyned to them The second Reflection is that Transubstantiation comprehending a great many Difficulties quite contrary to natural Reason none of the Jews nor Pagan Philosophers disputing against the ancient Christians ever dream'd of making any objections against it in their Disputations Trypho the Jew charges us with things monstrous incredible and strangely invented as what we teach of Jesus Christ's being before Aaron and Abraham that he took on him our Nature that he was horn of a Virgin that God should be born be made Man that we should adore a Man that we should put our trust in him and that we should invoke another God besides the Creator all this appears in S. Justin Martyr in his Dialogue against Trypho The Pagans reproach us for saying God has a Son that this Son should appear in humane shape and they stile it the Follies of the Christian Discipline that God should be born and that he should be born of a Virgin and be a God of flesh crucised and buried The last Judgment the pains of eternal Fire the Joys of Heaven the Resurrection of the Dead All this appears by Clement of Alexandria Stromat l. 6. by Tertullian his Apologet. ch 21. 47. in his Treatise of the Flesh of Christ ch 4. and 5. And in his Treatise of the Testimony of the Soul ch 4. By S. Justin in his second Apology and Arnobius in his second Book Celsus in Origen scoffs at the Incarnation as of a thing unworthy of God. In the Sixth Book he laughs that we should believe God should be born of a Virgin. In the Third and Eighth Book he saith of Christians That they honour with a Religious Worship even above all Religion a Man that was a Prisoner and that suffered Death He even thereby pleads for the plurality of his Gods as if Christians were not satisfi'd in worshipping one God under colour that they adored Jesus Christ If Christians saith he in the Eighth Book worshipped but one God they might have some colour to despise others But they pay infinite Honours to him that has but very lately appear'd and yet they don't think they displease God when they serve and honour his Minister Julian the Apostate oppos'd the Mystery of the Incarnation the Divinity of Jesus Christ the Salvation he purchas'd for us by the price of his Blood he reproaches us with the glorious Title of Mother of God which we give to the Blessed Virgin he contests the Mystery of the Trinity of Persons and Unity of Essence accusing us of contradicting Moses who said There is but one God. He reproaches us for Baptism See saith he what Paul saith to them that they are sanctified and cleansed by Water as if Water could penetrate to the Soul to wash and purifie it Baptism can't so much as cleanse a Leper nor a Scurf it cannot heal a Cancer nor the Gout He aggravates what we read that God Visits the Iniquity of the Fathers upon the Children thereby to endeavour to attack the Doctrine of Original Sin. He boldly questions what God saith in the Book of Numbers touching Phineas that thrust his Javelin through the Body of an Israelite that committed Folly with a Midianitish Woman which turn'd away God's Anger from the Children of Israel and hinder'd him from consuming them Let us suppose saith he that there had been to the Number of one Thousand that had attempted to have transgressed the Law of God ought six hundred Thousand to have been destroy'd for the sake of one Thousand it seems to me to have been much juster to have saved one ill Man with so many good ones than to involve so much good Men in the ruine of one bad one There 's scarce any of our Mysteries that have not been censur'd by the Jews or Pagans yet 't is very strange that not one should accuse us of admitting in the Eucharist accidents without substance whiteness without any thing that 's white roundness without any thing round weight without any thing that 's weighty a corruption whereunto the species are subject without any thing that 's capable of being corrupted a Nourishment in the Symbols without any thing that can nourish a power in the Wine to be smelt without any thing that may be smelled No body ever reproach'd us with so strange a thing that a Man with one word should destroy a substance which he holdeth in his hands and that nevertheless against the testimony of all the Senses I see that which is no more I feel that which I do not feel I taste that which I do not taste I understand that which I do not understand I touch that which I do not touch that I should be nourished with nothing that my taste should be delighted with nothing that my Eyes and Ears should de struck with Nothing The three Reflections we have hitherto made That many of the antient Catholick Doctors have not believed Transubstantiation to be antient That they have Judged it could not evidently be deduced from the Holy Scriptures and That the antient Pagan Philosophers have not reproached us with it are three very strong Suppositions to make us mightily doubt the Antiquity of this
of this c. And these words The Teeth white with Milk do signifie the purity and cleanness of the Mystical Food which are the Symbols which Jesus Christ left to his Disciples commanding them to celebrate the Image of his proper Body not requiring any more bloody Sacrifices and commanded to make use of Bread for the Symbol of his Body Seeing then that according to this ancient Doctor the Wine is the Symbol of the Blood of Christ and the Bread the Figure of his Body and both the one and the other an Image of the Body and Blood the Image is not that of which 't is an Image and by consequence in the Eucharist besides the Body of Jesus Christ there is also Bread and Wine which do represent and shew him it being evident by the Text of this Author that he understood the words of Jesus Christ This is my Body in this sense This is the Symbol of my Body Cyril of Jerusalem saith Quemadmodum Panis Eucharisticus post Spiritûs Sancti invocationem non amplius est Panis communis sed est Corpus Christi sic sanctum hoc unguentum non amplius est unguentum illud Macharius a noted Hermite in Egypt who wrote his Homilies about the year 368. saith in the 27th Homily That before the birth of Jesus Christ the wise Men Holy Men Kings and Prophets knew that Jesus Christ was to come to be a redeemer but they knew not that he was to suffer death that he was to be Crucify'd and that he should shed his Blood on the Cross and that they had not attain'd so far as to know there should be a Baptism of Fire and of the Holy Ghost and that in the Church should be offered Bread and Wine Antitypes of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and that those which eat of this visible Bread should spiritually eat the Flesh of the Lord. This Father saying that the Antitype of the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ is Bread and Wine doth suppose the Bread remains as not being the Real Body of Jesus Christ but a Type of it now the Type is not the verity sed umbra veritatis saith St. Ambrose de side l. 3. c. 8. and by consequence there is in the Eucharist something else besides the Body it self of Jesus Christ. And when he saith That those which take the visible Bread do spiritually eat the Flesh of Christ he gives us sufficiently to understand that in this august Sacrament there is besides the Flesh of Jesus Christ a visible Bread and that the visible Bread is eaten corporally and the Flesh of Jesus Christ spiritually St. Basil Bishop of Caesaria in his Epistle to Caesarea saith That at Alexandria and in Aegypt each Lay-person for the most part kept the Eucharist by them and communicated themselves when they pleased and if they receive from the Priest a morsel of the consecrated Bread they may receive the Holy Sacrament daily if they list taking some of it to day and the rest to morrow For saith he the Priest in the Church gives a good Piece or Morsel of the Eucharist and he that takes it doth communicate himself at his pleasure Now saith he as to the validity and vertue of the Sacrament it is one and the same whether one receives one morsel or two of the Priest. In what sense can it be understood that one receives several parts or parcels in the Eucharist It cannot be meant of Jesus Christ whose Body cannot be divided into morsels it must therefore be understood that St. Basil believed that the Bread remained in the Eucharist as a Typical and Symbolical Body of Jesus Christ. Ephrem Deacon of the Church of Edessa contemporary with St. Basil and whose Writings St. Jerom reports in his Catalogue were read in the Church after the Holy Scriptures he saith in the Treatise he wrote That Men should not search too curiously into the Nature of God consider diligently saith this holy Deacon how Jesus Christ taking the Bread into his hands blessed and broke it as a Figure of his immaculate Body and taking the Cup he blessed it as a Type of his blessed Blood and gave it to his Disciples It is evident that Ephrem believed the Bread is the figure of the Body and the Wine the Type of the Blood of Christ figura autem non est veritas sed imitatio verit atis saith S. Gaudentius upon Exodus Tract 2. the Body of Jesus Christ is the verity there must then be in the Sacrament besides the real Body a material and Typical Body which may be the figure of the true Body of Jesus Christ. S. Epiphanius having said That Jesus Christ descended into the Waters to be Baptiz'd not to receive any virtue from the Waters but to confer it upon them he adds That 't is in Jesus Christ the Prophecy of Esay is accomplished who in the third Chap. speaks of the vertue of Bread and Water he gave strength to the Waters illuminans eas roboran◠in Typo earum que in ipso erant perficienda and as for the Bread Cibus quidem panis est sed virtus in eo est ad vivisicationem S. Epiphanius speaks here of the Eucharist as he doth of Baptism he saith That both one and the other receive their virtue from Jesus Christ who communicates to them spiritual strength sufficient to sanctify now as the Water of Baptism is changed only by a change of virtue and quality it is apparent S. Epiphanius did not mean that the Bread of the Eucharist should be destroy'd no more than the Water was in Baptism else he would not have said that the Consecrated Bread was a food for accidents cannot nourish nothing can be fed by that which is not a Body nourishment proceeds from a substance or matter saith Aristotle and Boëtius in Praedic saith that 't is impossible an accident should pass into the nature of a substance ut accidens in substantis naturam transeat fieri nullo modo potest Gregory Nazianzen speaking of the miraculous recovery of his Sister Gorgonia speaks in these terms pouring forth a Flood of tears after the example of her that washed Christ's feet with her tears she said she would not depart thence till she had recover'd her health her tears were the perfume which she spread over all his Body she mingled them with the Antitypes or the Symbols of the mody and Blood of Jesus Christ as much at least as she could hold in her hands and immediately O the Miracle she found her self healed And in his seventeenth Oration this godly Prelate interceding to the Emperor 's Prefect that he would extend his favour and not deliver up the City to be plundred I set before your Eyes the Table where we joyntly receive the Sacrament and the figure of my Salvation which I consecrate with the same Mouth wherewith I make my request
body and blood of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist as Bellarmin saith de Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis in Paschasio Ratberto And Father Sirmond saith he is the first that hath explain'd the sense of the Church touching this Mystery so that saith he he hath opened the way to others In vitae Ratberti praefixa ejus operibus Therefore it is nothing strange that Paschasius had enemies and that he was accused for departing from the common Faith and to have spread abroad Visions of a young Man. For he saith to Frudegard You have saith he at the end of this Work the Authorities of Catholick Fathers succinctly marked by which you may perceive that 't was not through rashness that formerly when I was young I believed these things but by Divine authority He also endeavours to clear himself from this charge in alledging passages as of Saint Austins the which nevertheless are not to be found in him as these words Receive in the Bread what hung on the Cross receive in the Cup what issued out of the side of Jesus Christ. Which is not to be found in St. Austin Rabanus Archbishop of Mayance in the year 847 stiled by Baronius in the year 843. N. 31. the bright Star of Germany Fulgens Germaniae Sidus saith in his institution of Clerks Lib. 1. cap. 31. Our Saviour liked better that believers should receive with their mouth the Sacarments of his Body and Blood and that they should be turned into their nourishment to the end that by the visible work the invisible effect should be shewn For as the material food doth materially nourish the Body and support it so also the Word of God doth nourish the Soul inwardly and doth strengthen it And in the same place The Sacrament is one thing and the virtue of the Sacrament is another The Sacrament is turned into the nourishment of the Body but by the virtue of the Sacrament one acquires everlasting life As the Sacrament therefore is turn'd into our selves when we do eat and drink it so also we are converted into the Body of Jesus Christ when we live with Piety and Obedience The same Doctor on St. Matthew Chap. 26. saith with Venerable Beda that Jesus Christ hath substituted instead of the Flesh and Blood of the Paschal Lamb the Sacrament of his Body and Blood. That the Creator of the World and the Redeemer of Mankind making of the very fruits of the Earth that is to say of Bread and Wine a fit Mystery turn'd it into the Sacrament of his Body and Blood that unleavened Bread and Wine 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 Wine 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 sanctifi'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 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 Belly 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 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 Auno 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 Priest 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 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 Canon 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 the 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 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 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 teaching them to celebrate it in remembrance of his most holy Passion because there could nothing be found fitter than these things to signifie 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 Union 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 in the time that Vallafridus Strabo wrote 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 Praesulum In the 37th Ep. he stiles him a Man of a lofty and Divine understanding Altissimi Divini ingenii And Hincmarus Archbishop of Reims calls him the Bishop of Venerable Qualities 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 pag. 843 That Herribald and Rhabanus were Adversaries to Paschasius Tho in the 2d Treatise of the Perpetuity in pag 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 that he was not of the same Judgment Paschasius was of seeing he opposes to him St. Austin's 23d Letter to Boniface Sic Widefort contra Wickliff ad Art. 1. Ratramne Priest and Frier of Corby experienc'd in the Scriptures equally esteem'd for his Learning and Manners whom Hincmar Lupus Abbot of Ferriers his Contemporaries Sigebert who liv'd in the xi Century and Father 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 Ovias The President 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 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 the wine must be understood spiritually Again The things which differ amongst themselves are not one and the same thing The Body of Jesus Christ which was dead and rose again and become immortal doth dye no more Death has no more dominion over it it is Eternal and can no more suffer but that which is celebrated in the Church is temporal and not eternal and it is corruptible and not incorruptible And again it must then be said that the body of Jesus Christ such as it is made in the Church was incorruptible and eternal Nevertheless it cannot be denied that what is so cut into morsels to be eat changed and corrupted and that being eat with the teeth it goes into the Body Again Now 't is true that the figure and the reallity are things distinct therefore the body and blood which are celebrated in the Church are different from the flesh and blood of the Body of Jesus Christ which it is well known is glorious since his Resurrection therefore the body that we celebrate is a pledg and figure These words of Ratramne or Bertram are so clear that it is wonder'd the Author of the Perpetuity should say in the first Treatise p. 3. that Bertram is an obscure Author and not evidently favourable to Calvinists but that the Catholicks may explain him in a good sense I cannot tell what to call this Confidence John Erigen a Scotch man whom the Emperor Charles the Bald commanded to write touching the Body and Blood of the Lord as he had done also to Ratramne which appears by Borrenger's Letter to Richard publish'd by Dom Luke D' Achery in the 2d Tome of his Spicileg was of an Opinion contrary to Paschasius as is acknowledged by Lanfrank and Berenger in his Epistle to the same Lanfrank and Hincmar saith of John Erigen that he taught That the Sacrament of the Altar was not the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ but only the Remembrance both of the one and the other And Berenger writing to Lanfrank saith to him If you hold John for a Heretick whose Judgment we have been inform'd of touching the Sacrament you must also hold for Hereticks Ambrose Chrysostom Austin not to mention many more Nevertheless William of Malmsbury Roger de Hoveden and Matthew of Westminster speak of John Scot as of the greatest Man of his time and Molanus Professor in Divinity at the University of Lovain in his Appendix to the Martyrology of Ussuart at the Letter J has left these Words engraven John Scot Martyr translated Dionysius ' s Ecclesiastical Hierarchy after which by Authority of the Popes he was put into the number of the Martyrs of Jesus Christ. To conclude the Roman Martyrology which we have in our Library Printed at Antwerp Anno 1586. by order of Gregory the 13th as is said in the Title of the Book Martyrologium Romanum Jussii Gregorii 13 editum at the 4 of the Ides of November makes mention of John Scot It 's true the Author of the 1st Dissertation upon John Scot which the Author of the Perpetuity chose having placed the said Dissertation at the end of his 2d Treatise to which he often refers his Readers has made in the same Dissertation a Chapter which bears the Title that John Scot was not put into the Catalogue of Martyrs by the sacred Authority of Popes and that his Name is not to be sound in any Edition of the Roman Martyrology But it is also certain that the same Author who hath also publish'd the belief of the Greek Church touching Transubstantiation has inserted in the end of his Book a Treatise Entituled A Refutation of the Answer of a Minister of Charenton to the Dissertation which is in the end of Monsieur Arnauds Book concerning the Employments the Martyrdom and the Writings of John Scot or Erigen and the last Chapter of this Refutation hath this Title A sincere Declaration of the Author touching some things he had said in his Dissertation the which he since confesses were not true And in Numb 6. of this Chapter the Author saith in these Terms in Art. 7. p. 25. he speaks of the 7th Art. of the first Dissertation upon John Scot which is at the end of Mr. Arnauds Perpetuity it is said that 't is false that there was a Martyrology Printed at Antwerp by command of Gregory the 13th in the Year 1586. 2dly That there is not to be found in any Roman Martyrology Printed at Antwerp or any where else the Commemoration of John Scot on the 4th of the Ides of November It would be superfluous here to relate the Reasons that they have had so positively to deny these matters of Fact. It is sufficient to observe First That there is a Roman Martyrology set forth by Order of Gregory the 13th and Printed by Platin at Antwerp in the Year 1586. 2dly That there is seen in this Martyrology the Commemoration of John Scot on the 4th of the Ides of November in these words Eodem Die Sancti Joannis Scoti qui Grafiis puerorum confessus Martyrii Coronam adeptus est This Author is of good reputation and doubtless was not ignorant of what St. Austin saith in some of his Works That to Lye in a matter of Religion is meer Blasphemy Nevertheless we may observe before proceeding any farther
had created from the beginning of the World which he creates every year by Propagation and Reparation which he sanctifies which he sills with Grace and Heavenly Benediction the which himself expounds to be Bread and Wine See here Nine or Ten Authors Contemporaries with Paschasius which are formally contrary to his Doctrine besides those which Paschasius himself speaks of in general in his own Writings To conclude the Ninth Century there might be added the manner that Charles the Bald and the Count of Barcelona signed the Peace which was done with the Blood of the Eucharist as is reported by Monsieur Baluze in his Notes on Agabard out of Odo Aribert in the year 844. It was in the same manner that Pope Theodore in the Seventh Century signed the Condemnation of Pirrbus the Monotholite as appears by Baronius on the year 648. § 15. That the Fathers of the TENTH CENTURY did not believe Transubstantiation ALferick Archbishop of Canterbury about the year 940. in one of his Sermons to be seen in the Fourth Book of Bedes Ecclesiastical History cap. 24. which we have Copied in the Library of St. Victor saith The Eucharist is not the Body of Jesus Christ corporally but spiritually not the Body in which he suffered but the Body of which he spake when consecrating the Bread and Wine he said This is my Body this is my Blood he adds the Bread is his Body just as the Manna and the Wine his Blood as the Water in the Desart was There is another Sermon cited by some under the name of Wolfin Bishop of Salisbury others say 't is of Alfric wherein the Author uses near the same Language This Sacrifice saith he is not the Body of Jesus Christ wherein he suffered for us nor his Blood which he shed but it is spiritually made his Body and Blood as the Manna that fell from Heaven and the Water that sprang out of the Rock Besides these two Testimonies which shew what was believed of the Sacrament in England there is a Sermon seen which was read every year to the People at Easter to keep in their minds the Idea of the Ancient Faith It is almost wholly taken out of Ratramne There is great difference saith this Homily betwixt the Body wherein Jesus Christ suffered and the Body which is consecrated for the Eucharist for the Body wherein Jesus Christ suffered was born of the Virgin Mary and was provided with Blood Bones Nerves and Skin with bodily Members and a reasonable Soul but his spiritual Body which we call Eucharist is compos'd of several Grains of Wheat without Blood without Bones Nerves and without a Soul. The Body of Christ which suffer'd Death and rose again shall never dye more it is Eternal and Immortal but the Eucharist is temporal and not eternal it is corruptible and divided into sundry parcels ground by the Teeth and goes along with the other Excrements This Sacrament is a pledg and figure the Body of Jesus Christ is the Truth it self we have this pledg Sacramentally until we attain to the Truth and then the pledg shall be fulfill'd And a little lower If we consider the Eucharist after a corporal manner we see 't is a changeable and corruptible Creature but if we consider the spiritual Virtue that is in it we easily see that Life abides in it and that it gives Immortality to those that receive it with Faith. There is great difference betwixt the invisible Virtue of this Holy Sacrament and the visible Form of its proper Nature By Nature it is corruptible Bread and corruptible Wine but by the Virtue of the Word of God it is truly his Body and Blood yet not corporally but spiritually A little below he explains this change in saying Jesus Christ by an invisible Virtue did change the Bread and Wine into his Body and Blood but 't was after the same manner as he heretofore changed Manna and the Water that came out of the Rock into the same Body and Blood. Fulcuin Abbot of the Monastry of Lobes in the County of Liege who departed this Life in the year 990. speaking of the Eucharistical Table saith That 't is the Table on which is consumed the Sacred Body of our Lord which not being to be said of the proper Body cannot be understood but of the Bread which is called Body an Expression which in all likelihood this Abbot had learn'd of St. Austin who faith The Bread made for that use is consumed in receiving the Sacrament That which is set on the Table is consum'd the holy Celebration being ended Herriger Successor to Fulcuin and whom he that continued the History of the Abbots of Lobes mentions as a man whose Virtue and Knowledg was known even to Strangers He collected saith this Author several Passages of Catholick Fathers against Paschasius Ratbertus touching the Body and Blood of our Lord. The Ancient Customs of the Monastry of Cluny Reprinted by the care of Dom Luke D' Achery l. 2. ch 30. say The outside of the Challice is carefully rub'd lest there should the least drop of the Wine and Water remain and being consecrated it should fall to the ground and perish by which it appears they believed the Wine and water still remain'd after Consecration for the true Body of Jesus Christ cannot perish Again The Priest divides the Host and puts part of it into the Blood of one moiety he communicates himself and with the other he communicates the Deacon It cannot be so spoke of the Body of Jesus Christ then after the Priest has broke the Host he puts part of it into the Cup after the usual manner two parts on the Patten and covers both the one and the other with a clean Cloath but first of all he very carefully rubs the Challice and shakes it with the same hand with which he touched it fearing lest that breaking the Bread there should rest some part of the Body of our Lord which cannot be said of the true Body of Jesus Christ and elsewhere is prescrib'd what should be done If there chance to remain ever so little of the Body of our Saviour which is expounded to be a very little Crum as 't were indivisible and like an Atome To conclude treating of the Communion of sick Folks it is observ'd that the Body of our Lord is brought from the Church that it is broke and that the Priest holds on the Challice the part that he is to bring It must needs be that by the sence of these customs there must be Bread and Wine in the Sacrament that it may be broken and improperly called Body Ratherius Bishop of Verona saith As to the Corporal substance which the Communicant doth receive seeing that 't is I that do now ask the Question I must also answer my self and I thereto yield for seeing that to him that receives worthily it is the true Body altho one sees
that the Bread is the same it was before and true Blood altho the Wine is seen to be the same it was I confess I cannot say nor think what it is to him that doth receive unworthily that is to say that doth not abide in God. Now the Communicant can he receive a corporal Substance Can one say that one sees that the Bread is what 't was before if the Communicant receives no substance It is known on the contrary that what is seen is not Bread nor Wine Moreover Ratherius condemning Drunkenness and Excess in some of his Priests saith that some of them spew'd before the Altar of our Lord upon the Body and Blood of the Lamb this can be understood only of the Sacrament which borrows the Name of the thing signified the abuse whereof reflects on him that instituted it That the Authers of the ELEVENTH CENTURY did not believe Transubstantiation THE Author of the Life of St. Genulphius who in all probability lived in the beginning of the Eleventh Century and was published by John a Bosco a Celestin Frier relates of this Saint That from the very Day of his Ordination he spent the rest of his Life without tasting any Wine except it was that he receiv'd in the Celebration of the holy Sacrament One would not speak in this manner and believe that there was not Wine remaining in the Cup after Consecration Leutherick Arch-bishop of Sens who died in the year of our Lord 1032. did not believe Transubstantiation because we read of him in the Life of Pope John the XVII or according to others the Eleventh that in this Popes Life Leutherick Arch-bishop of Sens laid the Foundation and Elements of the Heresy of Berenger Whence it is that Helgald wrote in the Life of King Robert that his Doctrine grew and increased in the World Cresebat saith he in Saeculo notwithstanding the threatnings which this Prince made to depose him from his Dignity if he continued to teach it Fulbert Anno Dom. 1007. Bishop of Chartres and ordain'd by Leutherick did not believe Transubstantiation when he said in his 1 st Epistle to Adeodatus That Jesus Christ intending to take up his Body to Heaven left us the Sacrament for to be a pledg of his Body and Blood. That under the visible form of the Creature there is a secret Virtue that Operates in the holy Solemnities That the Divine Majesty is diffus'd and spread abroad in that which before was but a common thing but being sanctifi'd by the heavenly Word it inwardly becomes the Body of Jesus Christ. That this is effected by the holy Spirit that joyns unites and binds the Sacrament to the Body of Jesus Christ compaginante Spiritu sancto that the terrestrial matter surpassing the Merits of its Nature and Kind is changed into the substance of the Body of Jesus Christ That this change is not impossible no more than that is which arrives to us by Baptism being changed into the Body of the Church not by any priviledge of Nature but by the purchase of Faith Non Naturae privilegio sed fidei precio being the same outwardly and changed inwardly Of Servants being become Children being vile and abject and all of a sudden acquiring a new Dignity What wonder is it that he that produced these Natures out of nothing should convert them into the dignity of a more excellent nature and make them pass into the substance of his Body Now the terms of pledges of the Body and Blood of the Lord do sufficiently shew that he made a difference betwixt the Sacrament and his Body therefore we see before that Ratramne drew the same consequence in saying that which is a Pledg and Image is distinct from that whereof it is an Image and Pledg These terms of a secret virtue by which it operates of the Sacred Majesty which it spreads abroad of the Holy Spirit that joins and unites of the matter which is advanced to a greater dignity and in that he confirms the change of the Bread by that which happens to Believers in Baptism and by that which besel the Manna in the wilderness as also what he farther says to Frudegard in his 2d Epistle of the Communion as of a thing whereof the Priest newly ordained during 40 days received a little Portion parvam particulam which might be taken by morsels or by bits minutatim sumere in that he calls the sanctified Bread Eucharist and that he saith That the sanctified Bread is called the true Body of Jesus Christ in that he saith elsewhere with St. Austin That he that abides not in Jesus Christ and in whom Jesus Christ abideth not doth not eat his Flesh nor drink his Blood though he eats and drinks to his condemnation the Sacrament of so great a thing All this sheweth that Berenger had all reason to alledg in his defence the Authority of Fulbert as appears by Berenger's Letter to Richard which Letter is printed by Dom Luke D' Achery in the 2d Tome of his Spicileg If things be so saith Berenger to Richard how is it that this Doctrine of the Eucharist contained in the Writings of Bishop Fulbert of glorious Memory should come to my knowledg which some indeed imagine to be of this Bishop but was indeed taught by St. Austin Bernon Abbot of Auge who about the Year 1030. wrote a Treatise of things concerning the Mass saith in the 1 st Chapter That Pope Sergius commanded to sing the Agnus Dei at the Breaking of the Body of the Lord now this being not to be understood of the proper Body of Jesus Christ it must be understood of the Sacrament which is the figure of his Body They do not speak so now they say the Sign is broken but they do not say the body of Jesus Christ is broken And in the 5th Chapter he saith that we are refreshed with the Wine which is in the Cup in Type of the Blood of Jesus Christ. Bruno Bishop of Argers was of Berengers opinion as appears by the 3d Tome of the Bibliotheca Patrum p. 319 in a Letter the Bishop of Liege writ to K. Henry against Bruno and Berenger his Arch-Deacon Sigebert in his Chronicle of Miroeus his Edition at Antwerp 1608 saith That many did dispute for and against Berenger by word of mouth and by Writing The Manuscript of this Chronicle which is seen in Monsieur d'Thous's Library saith the same As also Conrart de Brunwill apud Surium vita Wolphelmi ad ap Matthew of Westminster on the year 1080 saith That Berenger had almost corrupted all France Italy and England with his Doctrine Matthew Paris and William of Malmsbury do affirm That all France was full of his Doctrine Thomas Waldensis relates the Acts of the Council held under Gregory the 7th wherein there was a more moderate Confession of Faith touching the Sacrament prepared than that under Alexander the 2d predecessor to Gregory Berenger