AN HISTORICAL TREATISE WRITTEN By an AUTHOR of the Communion of the CHURCH of ROME TOUCHING Transubstantiation WHEREIN Is made appear That according to the PRINCIPLES of That CHURCH This DOCTRINE cannot be an ARTICLE of FAITH The Second Edition LONDON Printed for Richard Chiswell at the Rose and Crown in S. Paul's Church-Yard MDCLXXXVII THE PREFACE IT is well known that there are in the Communion of the Church of Rome a great many Learned Persons that do not approve of all which it teacheth and that do earnestly long for a Reformation although they remain within its bosome But it is no less true that there 's but very few that have the courage to make their thoughts known and 't is no hard matter to guess at the Reasons of it In the last Age one Picherel and some others of great note wrote solid Treatises on certain matters of Controversie and explain'd themselves just as Protestants do now And in the present Monsieur de Marca did the same on the Doctine of the Eucharist and Barnes an Eminent Benedictine on most of the principal Questions wherein Protestants differ from the Church of Rome But as if every one feared such usage as Father Paolo and poor Barnes found for the Liberty they had taken the works of these sincere and learned Men have almost always been supprest during their Life-time and not suffer'd to come abroad till after their Decease It is therefore something more than ordinary to behold the Work of a Person now living and of the Communion of the Church of Rome that dares shew the like affection for the Reformation of his Church in the Doctrine of the Eucharist and that heartily wishes the Bishops and Clergy of France would take it into their serious consideration This Person is considerable for his Quality but much more for his great Learning He was an intimate friend of the late Monsieur de Launoy's a noted Divine of the Faculty of Paris who mightily desired to see a free Council wherein Men might speak their thoughts touching the Reforming of the Romish Church and it plainly appears he was of the same judgment with this Eminent Person touching the Doctrine of Transubstantiation The Reader may rest assured that the Author's Manuscript Copy has been exactly follow'd in the Edition of this Work which not only his Letters now in our Hands will justifie but also the Original of these Papers which he sent to a Friend to be Printed It is to be hoped the World will not take it ill if the Author of this Work be not more particularly described which could not be done without exposing him to the malice of those who use all manner of ways to destroy such of their party as do own the Truth It nearly behoves the Bishops and Clergy of France to make some serious Reflections upon what the Author thought fit to represent to them concerning Transubstantiation The same might have been said to the other Articles of the Romish belief which are rejected by Protestants as so many additions to the ancient Faith of the Primitive Christians which are impos'd upon Mens consciences by the Clergy by such unheard-of ways and that are so contrary to the nature of Religion If such Remonstrances as these are not of sufficient force to make them change their proceedings against Protestants they will at least serve to shew their Injustice before Men and will one day aggravate their condemnation before the Tribunal of God. THE CONTENTS INTRODUCTION THE Method proposed by the Assembly of the Clergy of France to judge of Articles of Faith. Pag. 1 This Method admitted by Protestants 2 Transubstantiation to be Examined by it ib. PART I. THAT several of the Doctors of the Church of Rome have confess'd that Transubstantiation is no ancient Doctrine 3 So Suarez 3 Scotus ib. D'Alliaeo ib. Card. Cusa ib. Erasmus ib. Alphonsus à Castro 4 Tonstal Bishop of Durham ib. Cassander ib. Ch. du Moulin ib. J. Yribarne ib. Mons. de Marca ib. PART II. THAT the Ancients did not believe Transubstantiation Proved In GENERAL First The Papists themselves confess that Transubstantiation is not expresly mentioned not taught in Scripture 5 So Scotus ib. Ockham ib. Alphonsus de Castro ib. Gabriel Biel. ib. Card. Cajetane ib. Secondly That Transubstantiation comprehending infinite difficulties we do not yet find that either the Jews or Gentiles have objected any thing to the Christians in their disputes against it ib. Not Trypho ib. Not Celsus ib. Not Julian ib. Who yet have traduced most of the Mysteries of our Religion 7 Which plainly shews that Transubstantiation was not then known ib. In PARTICULAR Transubstantiation was not believed by any of the Fathers of the Church This shewn in those of the several Ages CENT II. Justine Martyr 8 Irenaeus 9 Clemens Alexandr 10 Theodotus ib. CENT III. Tertullian 11 Origen 13 Cyprian 15 CENT IV. Eustathius 16 Eusebius Caesariensis ib. Cyrillus Hierosol 17 Macharius ib. S. Basil. 18 Ephrem Edessenus ib. Epiphanius 19 Gregorius Naz. ib. Gregorius Nyssen 20 S. Ambrose 21 Gaudentius 22 S. Chrysostom ib. CENT V. S. Jerome 26 S. Austine 27 Theodoret. 37 Arnobius Jun. 38 Prosper ib. Hesychius 39 Procopius Gazeus ib. P. Gelasius 40 CENT VI. Fulgentius 41 Ephrem Antioch ib. Facundus ib. Primasius 42 CENT VII VIII Isidorus Hispalensis 43 Beda 44 Sedulius ib. Jo. Damascenus ib. Concil Constantinop 45 Alcuinus 46 Carolus M. 47 Officium Ambrosianum ib. Ordo Romanus ib. CENT IX Theodorus Studita 48 Ahyto ib. Theodulphus 49 Rabanus 51 Amalarius 52 Walafridus Strabo 54 Herribald ib. Trudegard 55 Ratramne ib. Jo. Erigena 56 Prudentius 58 Christian Drutmar ib. Florus Diacon 60 CENT X. Alferic A. B. Cant. 61 Wolphinus ib. Saxon Homil. ib. Fulcuinus 62 Herriger ib. Monast. Cluny ib. Ratherius 63 CENT XI Auth. Life of S. Genulphe 64 Leuthericus ib. Fulbertus ib. Berno 65 Bruno 66 Gregory VII P. ib. Theophylact. 67 Nicetas Pectoratus ib. Chronicon Malleac ib. CENT XII Honorius 67 Rupertus 68 Zonaras ib. Amalaricus ib. CENT XIII c. Of the Council of Lateran 69 That several after it did not believe Transubstantiation Guido le Gros. 69 Reginald Peacock 70 Guido Cluv. 71 Jo. of Paris ib. Albert. M. 72. Durand ib. Cornelius Bp. of Bitonte ib. Dominicus Bannes ib. CONCLUS To the Clergy of France that they ought not to press upon the Protestants the belief of Transubstantiation 72 AN HISTORICAL TREATISE OF Transubstantiation Written by one of the CHURCH of ROME THE Bishops of France in their last Assembly held at Paris in the year 1682. compos'd a Pastoral Letter addressed to the Protestants to invite them to return to the Communion of the Church of Rome And because in order to put an end to their differences in Matters of Religion some Rule must be agreed on to be received by the different Parties they laid down several Principles which they called Methods as fit to be made use of whereby to judge what should be received as
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
fide Cathol C. firmiter Oredimus de Celebratione Missarum cap. cum Marta Albertus Magnus expounds the Eucharist by Transubstantiation but he saith salvo Meliori judicio which shews that he did not believe it as of Faith. Durandus of St. Porcien taught that the substance of Bread Remain'd but that the form was chang'd Durand in the 4. Sent. dist 10. q. 13. saith That in his time there were Catholick Doctors which taught the Bread remain'd in the Eucharist and did prove it by the Confession which Berenger was forc'd to make affirming this opinion was not condemn'd Cornelius Bishop of Bitonte declared against Transubstantiation in the Council of Trent Canus Locor Theol. l. 12. c. 13. Dominicus Bannes taught that the Existence of Bread doth remain that so the Accidents of Bread and VVine may remain by this Existence At least Suarez and Mairat attribute this opinion to him To all which if we add the Doctors that we have mention'd in our first Part that could not speak of Transubstantiation but as of a New Doctrine and which could not be proved by the Scriptures without intimating that they were not all satisfied with it we shall see it plainly appears that we cannot apply to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation the Rule of Vincâ—â—tius Lirrinensis which is offer'd to us by the Bishops of France The CONCLUSION WHerefore the Bishops are humbly desired That they would not continue to exercise so much rigor and severity against the Protestants of France who having yielded farther than they well could with a safe Conscience to obey the Kings Orders yet cannot in any wise resolve to make any profession of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation it appearing that they oppose it only for Conscience sake and as being contrary to the very Rule offered to them by the Bishops themselves If St. Austin could say That those ought not to be esteemed Hereticks that with an honest mind maintained the Errors of their Ancestors and are ready to relinquish them when they are better inform'd of the Truth how much greater Reason is there to bear with People who do shew by the very confession of Romish Catholick Doctors That the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is a new invention and by consequence that it ought not to be imposed as an Article of Faith by the very Rule laid down by the Bishops of France No reasonable Person can find any question in matter of Religion whereto this Rule of St. Austin's can be more justly applied For if it be not observ'd in this controversie of Transubstantiation there will never be any thing found that it may be used in If then such Persons are not Hereticks for seeking the Truth and that they think 't is their duty to seek it that they are of the judgment of Catholick Doctors and that they observe the Rule prescribed by the Bishops it is no way safe to persecute them to that degree of violence to make them believe that which is contrary to the Rule which is laid down and therefore what is said by St. Austin on Psalm 54. should seriously be consider'd Plerumque cum tibi videris Odisse inimicum fratrum odisti nescis FINIS ADDENDA THese words in their place are also to be added The heavenly Sacrament which truly represents the flesh of Jesus Christ is called the Body of Christ but improperly and nevertheless it is so called after its manner not according to the truth of the thing but by a significant Mystery so that the meaning is 't is called the Body of Jesus Christ that is to say that the Body is thereby signified And also the Text of the Canon taken out of St. Austin Sicut Coelestis panis qui Christi caro est suo mâ—do vocatur Corpus Christi cum re vera sit Sacramentum Corporis Christ illius videlicet quod visibile palpabile mortale c. The Clergy of France's Method to judge of Articles of Faith. †Secundum unanimem consensum Patrum Admitted by the Protestants Transubstantiation to be examined by it Several Doctors of the Church of Rome have believed the Doctrine of Transubstantiation not to be very ancient * SUAREZ in 3. Tom. â—1 Euch. Disp. 70. Sect. 2. †Scotus in 4. d. 11. q. 3. § Haec duo videnda ⸫ Lombard l. 4. d. 11. * Lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 23. †P. Dayly on 4th Sent. q. 6. Art. 4. * Card. Cusa †Frasmus * Alphonsus à Castro Lib. 8. contr Haeres †Tonstal Lib. 1. of the Sacrament Cassander Du Moulin Jo. Yribarne De Marca That the Ancients indeed did not believe Transubstantiation Obs. 1. The Papists confess that it is not expresly in Scripture So * Scotus †Ockham Lib. 4 q. 34. * Alfonsus de Castro Vacabulo Indulgentiae †Biel. Lect. 40. in Can. Mis. * CAJETAN in 3. p. 8. Th. 9. 75. Art. 7. Obs. 2. None of the Pagans objected to the ancient Christans the difficulties of it Not Trypho * L. 1. 2. contr Cels. Nor Celsus Nor Julian Hence it follows that Transubstantiation was not antient Iust. Martyr Iustin Martyr Irenaeus Adversus Heres l. 4. c. 24. Irenaeus Clem. Alexand. P. edag l. 2. Graece 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies mixture S. Austin F. p. 3. ad Volusen Theodotus Tertullian Tertullian Tertullian Origen Du Perron saith on this passage Christians stop your Ears Origen Origeniana l. 2. q. 14. Pag. 411. Edit Huet G. L. Origen Cyprian Tom. 9. Tract 2. Tract 16. De Euch. l. 1. c. 1. Eustathius Nicen. Syn. 2. Act. 6. Eusebius Lib. 8. de Dem. Evang. Eusebius Cyrillus Hierosol Catech. Myst. 3. Macharius Macharius St. Basil. Ep. 289. Ephrem Epiphanius S. Ep. in Compond de side Eccles. Deus ad aquas descendit Incorporea re nihil augetur Arist. de generat corruptione Alimentum vel materiam partim Ibid. l. 2. Greg. Naz. Orat. 11. Gregory Nazianz. Greg. Nyss. In his Oration of the Baptis of J. C. S. Ambrose l. 1. Ep. 1. Id. Tom. 4. de side l. 4. c. 5. Idem Tom. 1. of the blessing of the Patriarchs c. 9. Ambrose Gaudentius Gaud. Bishop of Bress Tract 2. Chrysostom S. Chrys. Hom. 83. on S. Matth. Chrysostâ—â— Idem in Hom. 24. Chrysostom Chrysostom This Author goes under S. Chrysostom's Name S. Jerom. 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. * De fide l. 2. c. 5. St. Jerom. St. Austin St. Austin St. Austin St. Austin Ep. 23. ad Bonif. De Opif. l. 1. c. 15. Quod non per omnia est id quod esse dicitur illud abusive appellationem illam habet St. Austin * De Princip Dialect l. 5. Signum est quod seipsum sensibus praeter si aliquid animo ost endit St. Austin Ad Monym l.
Doctrine But to shew evidently that 't was but in the last Ages that this opinion was made an Article of Faith we need only consult the Doctors of the Primitive Church and see if they have effectively explain'd the Eucharist by the Systeme of Transubstantiation That the Fathers of the SECOND CENTURY did not believe Transubstantiation S. Iustin Martyr saith That after the common Prayers were ended there was presented to the chief of the Brethren which was God's Minister the Bread and the Wine mixt with Water which he receiv'd into his hands and giving thanks and glory to the Father of Heaven and Earth through Iesus Christ his Son and the Holy Ghost c. and the said President or Minister having ended his thanksgiving the People having all said Amen those whom we call Deacons and Ministers attending on this Holy Service give to every one present at the Holy Communion part of this Holy Bread so blessed and glorify'd and also of the Holy liquor mixt of Wine and Water upon which Prayers had been made And a little lower Behold Lord we do not receive this Bread nor this Wine as common Bread and Wine but as Iesus Christ is become Flesh and Blood by the Word so also the nourishment which by the Word is become a Sacrament and of which by conversion and change our flesh and Blood are nourish'd is as we have learned the Flesh and Blood of Iesus Christ incarnate If St. Iustin had believed that the substance of the Bread Wine and Water had been changed after Consecration so that they had been destroy'd how could he have said that after Consecration the Deacons did distribute to the People the Bread the Wine and the Water Secondly When he saith we do not take this Bread and Wine as common Bread and Wine this language amongst the antient Doctors intimates that both the one and the other do still subsist but that by Consecration they have acquir'd a new use and quality As when Cyril of Ierusalem Catech. 3. Ad Illum saith Approach not to Baptism as to common Water Or as Gregory Nyssen saith of Baptism Do not despise the Holy Font and look not upon it as common Water To conclude this blessed Martyr saith Our Body and Blood are nourish'd by the change of the Eucharistical food which converts and turns it self into our Flesh and Blood. These words plainly shew that 't is the Bread and Wine which are turn'd into our Substance into our Flesh and into our Blood seeing that 't is certain that the real Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ is not converted into our Flesh and Blood. So when Iustin saith That the Sacramental Food is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ that imports that 't is not common Bread and Wine but a Bread and Wine which is to be consider'd as the Flesh and Blood of the Word incarnate S. Irenaeus proves against Valentine and his followers that our Bodies shall not be destroy'd and by consequence that they shall be raised incorruptible by receiving the Sacrament as the Bread of the Eucharist becomes supernatural by the invocation of the Holy Ghost We establish in the Eucharist saith S. Irenaeus the Communion and unity of the Flesh and of the Spirit for as the Bread which is of the Earth receiving the invocation of God is no longer common Bread but is the Sacrament compos'd of two things one Terrestrial and the other Celestial So also our Bodies which receive the Eucharist are no longer corruptible but have the Hope of a future Resurrection This passage doth suppose that the Bread remains in the Eucharist in the first place because if Consecration did destroy the substance of the Bread and Wine it must be confess'd the Holy Doctor had taken wrong measures to shew that the Flesh is not destroy'd by the grace of the Holy Spirit by the Bread of the Eucharist which it self should be destroy'd by the grace of the Spirit which comes upon it Secondly Because a little before Irenaeus saith How is it they say the Flesh shall be destroy'd and turn to corruption seeing it is nourish'd with the body and blood of Christ Now the Flesh is fed by the conversion of nourishment into the body which not being to be said of Iesus Christ is only to be apply'd to the Bread. Moreover these words That the Eucharist is compos'd of two things sufficiently shew that the Bread remains for to say Irenaeus means by a Terrestrial thing the accidents of Bread Wine besides that S. Austin saith in the second Book of Soliloquies Chap. 12. that 't is a thing monstrous to say that accidents subfist without a subject Irenaeus also himself saith Book 2. cap. 14. that Water cannot be without moisture Fire without heat a Stone without hardness For these things are so united that the one cannot be separated from the other but the one must subsist in the other So in like manner by this Terrestrial thing must be understood the Bread as S. Gregory Naz. saith in his fourth Oration according to Bilius his version Baptism also is compos'd of two things Water and the Spirit the one is visible and is meant in a corporal manner but the other is invisible and operates after a spiritual manner the one is Typical the other cleanseth that which is inward and most hidden Clement of Alexandria saith the same in different terms The Blood of Christ is twofold the one is carnal whereby we are deliver'd from corruption the other is spiritual whereby we are anointed and that is to drink the Blood of Iesus Christ to be partakers of the incorruption of the Lord. Now the virtue of the Word is the Holy Spirit as the Blood is the vertue of the Flesh. By Analogy then the Wine mixt with Water as the Spirit with Man and this mixture makes the Wine the pleasanter to drink but the Spirit leadeth to incorruption Now this mixture of the one with the other to wit of the Wine and the Word is called Eucharist which is highly esteem'd whereby those who worthily partake of it by Faith are sanctify'd both in their Body and Soul. When Clement of Alexandria said that the Eucharist is a mixture of Wine and the Word it is a composition a mixture which could not be if there was but the Word only in the Eucharist For a mixture is at least of two things So the Fathers have called Jesus Christ a mixture of God and Man. The Body of Man saith S. Austin is a mixture of Body and Soul the Person of Christ is a mixture of God and Man. The Epitome of Theodotus saith The Bread and Oyl are sanctified by the virtue of the name and they remain not what they were before though to look on them they seem to be the same but by virtue they are are changed into a Spiritual force So water sanctified is become Baptism it not only retains what 's less but also
with Oyl God has added to the Water and Oyl the Grace of his Holy Spirit and has made it the washing of Regeneration so also they being accustom'd to eat Bread and to drink Wine and Water he has joined them to his Divinity and has made them his Body and Blood. In the same place The Prophet Esay saw a light Coal now the Coal is not of meer Wood but it is joined to Fire so also the Bread of the Eucharist is not common Bread but it is united to the Divinity and the Body which is united to the Divinity is not one and the same Nature but the Nature of the Body is one and that of the Divinity which is united to it is another In the same place How is it that the Bread is made the Body of Jesus Christ and the Wine and Water his Blood He answers The Holy Ghost comes and disposes these things after such a manner as surpasseth our Thoughts and Expressions The Bread and Wine are taken Panis Vinum assumuntur in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a word used by St. Athanasius to express the Hypostatical Union Now these kinds of Expressions of Damascen do imply that the Bread and Wine do remain in the Sacrament The Council of Constantinople composed of 338 Bishops held in the viiith Century for regulating the business of Image-worship having condemn'd their use they would by the way explain the Doctrine of the Church touching the Eucharist and to draw a proof against those very Images they call it the true Image of Jesus Christ they say he gave it to his Disciples to be a Type of the evident Commemoration of his Death they say that Jesus Christ chose no other Species under Heaven nor no other Type that should express his Incarnation Behold then say they the Image of his quickned Body which was made after a precious and honourable manner They affirm that as the Word did not take a Person that so the addition of a Person might not be made to the Divinity so also he appointed that an Image should be offered which is a chosen matter to wit the Substance of Bread that has not the Figure of Man to avoid giving occasion of Idolatry As then say they the Body of Jesus Christ which is according to Nature is Holy as having been Deified so also 't is apparent that that Body also that is by Institution is Holy and it's Image is Holy as having been Deified by Grace by a kind of Sanctification They maintain that as the Human Nature was Deified by its Union with the Word so also the 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 believed 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 saith that the Sanctification of this Mystery doth foreshew to us the effect of our Salvation 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 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 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 there was this Clause which is still to be seen in the fourth Book of St. Ambrose his Sacraments Nobis hanc oblationem adscriptam rationabilem acceptabilem quod est figura Corporis Sanguinis Domini nostri Jesu Christi The Ancient Roman Order doth frequently call the Bread and VVine the Body and Blood of the Lord 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 Body 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
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
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
that if Scot had advanced any new Doctrine he would certainly have been reproved for it by the Church of Lyons by Prudentius by Florus by the Councils of Valence and Langres which condemn'd and censur'd his Opinions on the Doctrine of Predestination St. Prudentius Bishop of Troys in Champaign who assisted at the Councils of Paris in the Year 846 of Tours in 849 at Soissons in the Year 853. to whom Leo the 4th wrote an honourable Letter which is to be seen in the 6th Tome of the Councils of the which the Bishop of Toul in the French Martyrology on the 7th of April having said that at Troys his Anniversary is solemnized as of a holy Bishop and Confessor he also makes a magnificent Elegy of him This holy Bishop I say was of the same Judgment with John Scot in the Subject of the Eucharist for Hincmar Arch-bishop of Rhemes numbers him with John Scot against whom he observes nevertheless that he wrote touching Predestination and saith that they both held That the Sacraments of the Altar are not the true Body and Blood of our Lord but only the commemoration of his Body and Blood. Christianus Drutmar Priest and Frier of Corby famous for his Learned Works saith Sigebert of Illustrious Men as also the Abbot Trythemius wrote a Commentary upon St. Matthew about the year 845. It is in the Bibliotheca Patrum Tom. 16. pag. 301. Jesus Christ saith Drutmar took Bread because Bread strengthens the heart of man and doth better fortifie our Body than any other food He therein establishes the Sacrament of his Love but this propriety ought much rather to be attributed to the spiritual Bread which perfectly strengthens all Men and all Creatures because 't is by him we Live Move and have our Being He blessed it He blessed it first because as in his Person he blessed all Mankind then afterwards he shewed that the blessing and power of the Divine and Immortal Nature was truly in that Nature which he had taken from the Virgin Mary He broke it He broke the Bread which was Himself because exprsing himself willingly to Death he broke and shattered the Habitation of his Soul to the end that he might satisfie us according to what himself saith I have power to lay down my Life or to save it And he gave it to his Disciples saying to them Take and Eat this is my Body He gave to his Disciples the Sacrament of his Body for the Remission of Sins and for the keeping of Charity to the end that not forgetting this action they should always perform this in Figure and that they should not be unmindful of what he was about to do for them This is my Body that is to say Sacramentally and having taken the Cup he blessed it and gave it to his Disciples As amongst all things which are necessary to preserve Life Bread and Wine are those that do most of all repair and strengthen the weakness of Nature It is with great reason that our Saviour was pleas'd in these two things to establish the Mystery of his Sacrament for Wine rejoyces the heart and increases Blood therefore it is very fit to represent the Blood of Jesus Christ because whatsoever comes from him rejoyces with true Joy and encreaseth whatsoever there is of good in us To conclude as a Person that is going a long Journey leaves to those u hom be loves some particular pledg of his kindness on condition that they should look daily upon it to the end that they may retain him always in Remembrance so in like manner God by spiritually changing the Bread into his Body and the Wine into his Blood has commanded us to celebrate this Mystery that these two things should make us never forget what he hath done for us with his Body and Blood and keep us from being unthankful and ungrateful for his so tender Love. Now because water is wont to be mingled with the Sacrament of his Blood this Water represents the People for whom Jesus Christ was pleas'd to suffer and the Water is not without the Wine nor the Wine without the Water because as he died for us so also we should be ready to die for Him and for our Brethren that is to say for the Church therefore there came out of his side Water and Blood. This passage is taken out of the Commentary where the Author expounds these words of the Institution This is my Body by these other words That is to say in Sacrament which are words quite contray to those of Paschasius for Paschasius said in his Letter to Frudegard fearing it should be thought that Jesus spake in Sacrament he said demonstratively This is my Body Ne putares quia in Sacramento loquebatur Deminus c. demonstrative dixit hoc est Corpus meum So Drutman makes a difference 'twixt the Body and the Sacrament which he establishes in the Bread and Wine which he blessed brake and gave to his Disciples he ascribes to the Wine only the Dignity of representing the Blood of Christ and that to conclude the Bread and Wine are pledges of his Love. Therefore the same Author Chap. 56. on these words I will drink no more of this fruit of the Vine until I drink it new with you in my Father's Kingdom from that very hour of Supper saith he he drank no Wine until he became immortal and incorruptible after his Resurrection The Deacon Florus wrote about the same time an Exposition of the Mass which is mention'd in the Bibliotheca Patrum Tom. 6. pag. 170. he there saith This Body and this Blood is not gather'd in Ears of Corn or in clusters of Grapes nature doth not give it us but it is Consecration that makes it Mystical to us Jesus Christ is eaten when the Creatures of Bread and Wine do pass to the Sacrament of the Body and Blood by the ineffable Sanctification of the Holy Ghost He is eaten by parcels in the Sacrament and remains whole and intire in Heaven and whole and intire in our Hearts Again All that is done in this Oblation of the Body and Blood of our Saviour is a Mystery we there see one thing and we understand another what we see hath a corporal substance what we understand hath a spiritual Fruit. He saith Jesus Christ saith to them take eat ye all of this and speaking of the Cup The Wine saith he was the Mystery of our Redemption and he proves it by these words I will drink no more of the Fruit of the Vine To conclude Explaining these last words of the Canon By which O Lord thou daily makest these good things for us which contain a kind of Thanksgiving which in the Latin Liturgy does follow the Consecration he sufficiently intimates to us that he did not believe the Bread and Wine were changed into the substance of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ seeing he speaks of them as things God
was forced to sign it after which Greg. 7th gave him Letters of Recommendation which Dom Luke D' Achery has caused to be printed in one of the Tomes of his Collection Nevertheless it appears by the Acts and by Hugh de Flavigny in the Chronicle of Verdun in the 1st Tome of Father L' Abbes Bibliotheque in An. 1078 that there were several in that Assembly that maintained Berengers Doctrine against Paschasius that this Arch-Deacons Adversaries knew not how to answer his Reasons as the Chronicle of Mount Cassin test sies l. 3. c. 33. And Sigonius de Regno Itali relates lib. 9. on the year 1059. That they were forc'd to send to the Monastry of Mount Cassin for a learned Frier called Albert whom Pope Stephen 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 Bidy 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 that the Confession that was extorted from him is not maintainable seeing that as is related by Lanfranc and Alger it is therein said 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 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 seeing Cardinal Humbert whom Pope Leo the 9th sent to them upbraids him Perfidious Stercoranist says he to him 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 Fryar called Literius of such great Abstinence that for Ten years time he drank neither Wine nor Water 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 did not believe Transubstantiation seeing Thomas Waldensis Tom. 2. c. 90. saith That this Theologal was of the Sect of the Bread-eaters of Rabanus de Secta Panitarum Rabani 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 because the Bread of Angels was broken for us upon the Cross That the Bishop bites one piece that he divides it in parts that it is not received whole but broke in three parts 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 near Cologne upon Exodus l. 2. c. 10. saith 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 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 Auter gives him extraordinary Commendations 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 seeing he saith of the Eucharist That it is a Shew-bread which is subject to Corruption and which is eat and ground with the Teeth Panis Propositionis corruptioni est obnoxius ut pote caro existens vere Christi secatur dentibus nostris molitur So that he was of the Opinion of Damascen and Rupert The Abbot Francus in all likelihood Abbot of Lobes 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 they ear 1207. a man of great Reputation for his Knowledg and Wisdom saith Gaugwiâ— in his 6th Book of the History of France in the Reign of Philip the August amongst other things denied Transubstantiation 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 and afterwards touching Transubstantiation 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
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