in Tertullian to prove that the Senses could not be deceived by the Example of the Eucharist where the Senses are quite deceived Origen did not believe Transubstantiation when he said in his Commentary on the 13th Chap. of S. Matth. Origen expounding these words of the Gospel what enters into the Mouth defiles not the Man c. Du Perron saith â—n this passage Christians stop your Hars as there 's nothing that 's impure of it self to him that 's polluted and incredulous but a thing is impure by reason of his impurity and incredulity so also that which is sanctifyed by the word of God and Prayer doth not sanctify by its proper nature him that uses it If it were so it would also sanctify him that eats unworthily of the Lord and none should have been weak nor sick nor should have fallen asleep by reason of so eating If all that enters into the Mouth goes into the Belly and there is cast out into the draught this food which is sanctifyed by the word of God and by Prayer goes also into the Belly and is cast out into the draught according to its material substance But according to the Prayer which has been thereunto added it becomes profitable according to the measure of Faith by causing the mind to become inlightned having regard to what is profitable And 't is not the matter of Bread but the words which have been pronounc'd upon it that avails him which eateth in such a manner as is not unworthy of the Lord and this may be said of the Body Typical or Symbolical Many things might be said also of the Word made Flesh and true nourishment the which whosoever eats shall never dye and which no wicked person can eat for could it be that he which continues wicked should eat of the Word incarnate seeing he is the Word and Bread of Life Origen it would not have been written Whosoever eateth this Bread shall live Eternally When he saith of the Bread of the Eucharist that it sanctifieth not of it self it cannot he understood of the true Body of Jesus Christ but of the Bread which remains When he saith This Bread sanctified by the invocation of God and by Prayer remains in its material being it means plainly That it remains in its former substance When he saith That this Bread as to the matter of it goes down into the Belly and is cast into the draught as the other meats This not being to be understood of Jesus Christ without Blaspheming is necessarily to be understood of the Bread. When he calls this Bread the Typical Body it shews plainly That this not being the true Body it is not Transubstantiated When having spoken of the Typical Body he after speaks of the Word made Flesh which cannot but give life to those which eat and receive him he sufficiently distinguisheth the Bread of the Eucharist from Jesus Christ the former of which may be mortal but the latter can never be so to those who receive and eat him This passage is so clear and evident that Sixtus Senensis in his Bibl. l. 6. annot 66. found no better expedient than to say That 't was probable This passage had been corrupted by the Hereticks Gennebrard and Du Perron suspected Erasmus to have ill translated it But the learned Monsieur Huet Origeniana l. 2. q. 14. nominated to be Bishop of Soissons saith It evidently appears by the Original Greek that this passage is no way changed The same Origen saith Pag. 411. Edit Huet G. L. in Tom. 32. of his Commentary on S. John that the morsel of Bread Christ gave to Judas and those he gave the Apostles saying Take Eat were of the same sort Now if the morsel given to Judas was true Bread as it is granted and if the Bread given the other Apostles was not true Bread then the one and the other were not of the same kind The same in the Seventh Homily on Leviticus saith That Jesus Christ before his Passion drank Wine but being ready to suffer he resused to drink it Origen Vbi vero tempus advenit Crucis suae accipiens inquit Calicem benedixit dedit Discipulis suis dicens Accipite Bibite ex hoc Vos inquit bibite quia non accessuri estis ad altare ipse autem tanquam accessurus ad altare dicit Amen dico vobis quia non bibam de generatione vitis hujus usque quò bibam illud novum vobiscum in Regno Patris mei Origen affirms That our Saviour in celebrating the Eucharist did not drink Wine because he was ready to approach the Altar of his Passion and that the Apostles did drink Wine because they were not yet ready to approach to the Altar of Martyrdom And that in this sense the Figure of the Old Testament was accomplished where 't was forbidden to Aaron and his Priests to drink Wine when they were about to approach to the Altar All this Discourse is false if Jesus Christ spake not these words of true Wine I will not drink c. and if what the Apostles drank was not true Wine Let us see now what St. Cyprian saith Cyprian The Sacrifice of the Lord recommends to us Vnity for when Jesus Christ called his Body the Bread which is made of several Grains he recommended the Vnity of Christian People and when he called his Blood the Wine made of several Grains and Grapes he represented one Flock united by the Band of Charity Now these words where Jesus Christ called the Bread his Body and the Wine his Blood is as if he had said of the Bread This is my Body and of the Wine This is my Blood. And if hereunto we add the words of the Jesuite Salmeron who said Tom. 9.1 Tract 2. Tract 16. If Jesus Christ had said This Bread is my Body and this Wine is my Blood it would have obliged us to have understood these words in a figurative sense because the Bread cannot be a humane Body nor the Wine Blood but in a figurative Sense Bellarmine saith the same If Jesus Christ had said De Euch. l. 1 c. 1. This Bread is my Body this proposition must be understood in a figurative Sense otherwise the Expression would be absurd and impossible Now as we see S. Cyprian saith that Jesus Christ said of the Bread That 't is his Body and of the Win That 't was his Blood it must be concluded therefore that Jesus Christ said of the Breud and Wine That they were his Body and Blood that is to say That the Bread and Wine were his Body and Blood in Figure both the one and the other being represented and signified by the Bread and Wine And therefore in his Epistle to Cecilius where at large he proves the Wine must be mingled with Water he saith If there be no Wine in the Cup the Blood of Jesus Gorist cannot be represented to us because 't is the Wine that
represents to us the Blood of Jesus Christ And again Vini ubique mentio est ideo ponitur ut Domini Sanguis Vino intelligatur He saith of the Water that Sola Christi sanguinem non potest exprimere In aqua vidimus populum intelligi in Vino ostendi Sanguinem Christi So that seeing St. Cyprian saith That the Wine representeth expresseth sheweth and makes us see the Blood of Jesus Christ as the Water representeth expresseth and shews us the Christian People it cannot be imagin'd that St. Cyprian believed the Wine was destroy'd but on the contrary he believed that after Consecration the Wine remained and that 't was true Wine that he called his Blood according to what he saith in the same Letter Quia in parte invenimus Calicem mixtum fuisse quem Dominus obtulit vinum fuisse quod Sanguinem suum dixit That the Fathers of the FOURTH CENTURY did not believe Transubstantiation AGE iv Eustathius EVstathius Nicaen Syn. 2. Act. 6. Patriarch of Antioch upon these words of Solomon in the Proverbs Eat my Bread and drink the Wine which I have prepar'd saith That the wise Man by the Bread and Wine did foreshew the Anti types of the Body of Jesus Christ Now that which is a Type is an Image what is an Image cannot be the thing but in Figure so that the Bread is not destroy'd because it is the Type and the Image Eusebius Eusebius of Caesarea Lib. 8. de Dem. Evang. interpreting these words of Genesis Chap. 49. Vers 12. His Eyes shall be red with Wine and his Teeth white with Milk saith That the first words signifie the Joy that the mystical Wine doth cause in the Disciples of Jesus Christ when he saith to them Take Drink ye ALL of this c. Eusrbius 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 Cyril us Hierosol Quemadmodum Panis Fucharisticus post Spiritûs Sancti invocationem non amplius est Panis communis sed est Corpus Christi Catech. Myâ—â— 3. sic sanctum hoc unguentum non amplius est unguentum illud Macharius a noted Hermite in Egypt Macharius 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 Flâ—sh of Christ he gives us sufficiently to understand Macharius 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 S. S. Basil Bishop of Caesaria in his Epistle to Caesarea saith That at Alexandria and in Aegypt each Lay-person for the Ep. 289. 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 virtue 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 of parcels in the Eucharist It cannot be meant of Jesus Christ whose Body cannot be divided into mersels it must therefore be understood that S. 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 Ephrem contemporary with S. 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 imitatie veritatis 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 Baptis'd not to receive any virtue from the Waters but to confer it upon them he adds Epiphanius S. Ep. in Compend dâ— fide Eccles Deus ad aquas descendit 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
Posthume and French Treatise of the Eucharist witness the Abbot Fagget in his Letter to Monsieur de Marca President of the Parliament at Pau who saith also this Letter was found by Monsieur Bigot in a Library at Florence St. Chrysostom in this Letter writeth against Apollinarius and saith Jesus Christ is both God and Man God because of his Impassibility Man by his Passion one Son one Lord both Natures united making but one the same Power the same Dominion although they be two different Natures each conserves its own Nature because they are two and yet without confusion for as the Bread before it is sanctified is called Bread when by the intercession of the Priest Divine Grace has sanctified it it loses the name of Bread and becomes worthy to be called the Body of Jesus Christ although the Nature of Bread abides in it so that they are not two Bodies but one sole Body of the Son so the Divine Nature being united to the Humane Nature of Jesus Christ it did not make two Persons but one only Person and one Son. St. Chrysostom saith plainly That the Nature of Bread abideth after Consecration and this Father's Argument would be of no validity if this nature of the Bread was nothing but in shew for Apollinarius might have made another opposite Argument and say That indeed it might be said there were two Natures in Jesus Christ but that the Humane Nature was only in appearance as the Bread in the Eucharist is but in shew and hath only outward and visible qualities remaining in it whereby it is term'd to be Bread. The Author of the imperfect Work upon St. Matthew written in the time of the Emperour Theodosius This Author goes under S. Chrysostom's Name did not believe Transubstantiation when he spake in these Terms in Homily Eleventh If it be dangerous to employ the holy Vessels about common uses wherein the true Body of Jesus Christ is not contain'd but the Mysteries of his Body how much rather the Vessels of our Bodies which God has prepared to dwell in That the Fathers of the FIFTH CENTURY did not believe Transubstantiation AGE v. S. Jerom in his Epistle to Eustochium speaking of Virgins S. Jerom. saith That when they were reproved for Drunkenness they excus'd themselves by adding Sacriledge to Drunkenness saying God forbid that I should abstain from the Blood of the Lord. In the Second Book against Jovinian it is said It appears by these words that they imply the common belief that there was true Wine in the Eucharist because they say That should they abstain from Wine they must abstain also from the Blood of the Lord. The Lord in the Type of his Blood did not offer Water but Wine These words are indeed Jovinian's but St. Jerom finds no fault with them For he himself saith the same upon the 31 Chapter of Jeremy Vers 12. on these Words They run after Gods Creatures the Wheat the Wine and the Oyl the Bread and the Wine saith he whereof is made the Bread of the Lord and wherein is accomplished the Type of his Blood. Now saith St. Ambrose * De fide l. 2. c. 5. The Type is not the Truth but it is the shadow of the Truth There must then be in the Eucharist Bread and Wine distinct from the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ to be the Types and Figures of it The same Father in his Letter to Hedibia Let us hear that the Bread which the Lord broke and gave his Disciples was the Lord's own Body saying Take Eat This is my Body and a little after he saith If the Bread that came down from Heaven is the Body of the Lord and the Wine which he distributed among his Disciples his Blood c. St. Jerom saith That Jesus Christ brake and distributed Bread to his Disciples that he gave them Bread and that the Bread and Wine were his Flesh and Blood. It cannot then be said That what Jesus Christ gave in communicating his Disciples was not Bread and Wine and when he saith both the one and the other was his Body and Blood it cannot be understood but only figuratively for we see above in St. Cyprian that the Jesuites Salmeron and Bellarmine do confess That if Jesus Christ said of the Bread This is my Body it must be meant This Bread is the Figure of my Body the one not being capable of being the other but figuratively And the Reason is given by Vasquez when he saith If the Pronoun This in the words of Consecration be understood of the Bread undoubtedly by virtue of it there can be wrought no Transubstantiation because of necessity the Bread must needs remain Si Proâ—omen hoc in illis verbis demonstraret panem fatemur fore ut nulla conversio virtute illorum fieri posset quia panis de quo enunciatur manere debeat The same S. Jerom in his Commentary upon the 26 Chapter of St. Matthew saith Jesus Christ having eaten the Paschal Lamb took Bread which strengthens the Heart of Man and proceeded to the accomplishment of the Sacrament of the true Passover that as Melchisedeck had offered Bread and Wine in Figure he also himself would represent the truth of his Body According to this Father the Bread and Wine represent the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and therefore are not properly and truly the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ but are something else besides them and by consequence remain in the Sacrament For to say as the Author of the Second Book of the perpetuity of the Faith of the Eucharist doth against Monsieur Claude that St. Jerom means by representing to make a thing be present we before refuted this Fancy in Tertullian who speaks just as St. Jerom And the terms sufficiently declare that St. Jerom's meaning is That Jesus Christ made use of Bread and Wine to signifie and shew forth his Body and Blood as Melchisedeck had done that is to say as he had represented both the one and the other by the Oblation of Bread and Wine St. Austin in his Sermon to the newly Baptized St. Austin which it's true is not found in his other Works but was preserv'd and is cited by St. Fulgentius de Baptismo Aethiop Cap. 7. What you see saith he upon the Altar of God you saw also the last Night but you were not yet aware of how great a thing it is a Sacrament That which you see is Bread and a Cup of Wine and it is also what your Eyes declare unto you but what your Faith should instruct you in is That the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ and the Cup his Blood. If you tell me Jesus Christ is born he was crucified he was buried he rose again and is ascended into Heaven whither he has carry'd his Body and is at present on the right hand of God from whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead how then can the Bread be
be true Bread which remains after Consecration and which is as is said before Blessed Sanctified Ep. 59. and Broke in Pieces on the Holy Table to be distributed Benedicitur Sanctificatur ad distribuendum comminuitur The same Doctor in Ep. 120 Et ipsi quidem adducti sunt ad Mensam Christi c. speaking of the Rich in opposition to the Poor of whom it is said That they shall eat and be satisfied These Rich Persons saith St. Austin have been brought to the Lords Table and receive from his hand his Body and Blood but they only adore and are not satisfied For just as St. Ambrose distinguisheth betwixt drinking the Wine Vinum bibere and drinking of the Wine de Vino bibere that is to say to tast of a little Wine De Noe Arca. c. 29. de ejus portione libare so also St. Austin his Disciple distinguisheth betwixt receiving the Body and Blood of the Lord accipere Corpus Sanguinem Domini and to receive of the Body and Blood of the Lord Accipere de Corpore Sanguine Christi St. Austin explains himself more fully when he saith in his 86th Ep. That one receives in the Eucharist a Portion of the Body of the immaculate Lamb De Agni immaculati Corpore partem sumere And in the 35th Sermon on the Words of our Lord he saith In receiving the Sacrament we know what we should think of we receive a little and we are fatned in the heart modulum accipimus in corde saginamur Now that cannot be understood of the proper Body of Jesus Christ which cannot be received by Parcels therefore it must be meant of Bread which is the Figure of his Body or the Sacrament of it It is what St. Austin intends when he saith Nec quando manducamus when we eat Jesus Christ de illo partes facimus equidem in Sacramento sic fit We do not make Morsels but it is done in Sacrament that is to say That we break and divide the Sign and the Bread which is the Sacrament The same Father saying that the Accidents cannot in any wise subsist without their Subject saith in his 2d Book of Soliloquies chap. 12. What can reconcile what you demand or who can think it possible to be done that that which is in a subject should remain the subject it self ceasing to be For 't is a thing monstrous and very far from the truth that that which doth not subsist if it be not in a subject can be the subject it self not remaining Also in the 13th chap. 19th Book and in the Book of the Immortality of the Soul ch 5. The subject being changed of necessity all that was in the subject must be changed In the 8th chap. What is not of it self if it be abandoed by that by which it is must undoubtedly cease to be Also in the 10th chap. and in the Book of Categories speaking of Accidents A colour cannot be without a subject And in the Epistle to Dardanus Take away the bodies from the qualities of bodies they will have no place to remain in and by consequence it is necessary that they cannot be And against Julian chap. 5. It 's true saith St. Austin that the things that are in a subject as the qualities are cannot be without the subject wherein they are as the colour or form c. It 's impossible had St. Austin believed that the Bread did not remain in the Eucharist after Consecration that he should have esteemed that absurd and ridiculous which happened every day It also seems that St Austin had been too wide when he doubts in the 146th Ep. to Consentius Whether Jesus Christ has Blood when he saith on the 98th Psalm You shall not eat this Body which you see nor shall drink this Blood which those that shall crucify me shall shed I have given you a Sacrament c And in the 20th Book against Faustus The Flesh and Blood of this Sacrifice was promised by Sacrifices of resemblance before the coming of Jesus Christ It was given by the verity in the Passion of Jesus Christ after the Ascension of Jesus Christ it is celebrated by the Sacrament of Commemoration To conclude St Austin in his 33d Sermon on the Words of our Lord having said as hath been seen before That of things which are put to signify there are some that are to remain others to be destroy'd when the Ministry of their signification is accomplish'd as the Bread of the Sacrament he adds But because these things are obvious to men as being practis'd by men they may deserve our veneration as being Holy and Religious things but they cannot cause any wonder in us as if they were miraculous Certainly if St. Austin had held Transubstantiation as it comprehends many things repugnant to Natural Reason which are so many astonishing Miracles St. Austin could not have said That the Sacraments wherein he includes that of the Eucharist have something in them that deserves our respect and veneration but have nothing that deserves our astonishment and admiration These are some of the Reasons which made Monsieur De Marca Archbishop of Paris French. Posthum Treatise of the Euch. Predecessor to him that with so much reputation now fills the chiefest See of France say That the Catholick Doctors are to blame when they pretend that St. Austin expounded the Text of the Institution of the Eucharist as it is done in the Schools And a little before that in St. Austin's Divinity This is my Body should be expounded in this manner This Bread is the sign and Sacrament of my Body For according to St. Austin saith Monsieur De Marca The Bread to speak properly is but the sign and Sacrament of the Body to which Jesus Christ made no scruple to give the name of the thing signified It is also the judgment of Tertullian when he saith When Jesus Christ said this is my Body That is to say this is the figure of my Body and saith Monsieur De Marca The reasons that are given to the contrary are not satisfactory Bullenger writing against Casaubon recites this passage of Theodoret Theodoret. who was a Priest at Antioch in the year â—â—â— As the King saith he and his Image are not two Kings so also the personal Body of Jesus Christ which Body is in the Heavens and the Bread which is his Antitype and is distributed to Believers by the Priest are not two Bodies It appears by this comparison that Theodoret did believe the Bread of the Eucharist is something else besides the Body of Christ and by consequence he believed that there remained true Bread in the Sacrament and not Bread in shew and appearance only Theodoret who in the year 423 was Bishop of Cyrus doth so fully explain himself hereupon that there is no doubt to be made of his Opinion Dial. 1. He was pleas'd saith he that those who participated of the Divine Mysteries should not have
him the Title of Pope 't is because his name was well enough known at Rome when John the Second lived That the Fathers of the SIXTH CENTURY did not believe Transubstantiation AGE vi SAint Fulgentius saith Fulgentius The Catholick church doth continually offer to God the Father Son and Holy Ghost De fide ad Pet. Diac. c. 19. a Sacrifice of Bread and VVine throughout all the VVorld For in the fleshly Sacrifices of the Old Testament there is a type of the Flesh of Jesus Christ which he was to offer without spot for our Sins but in this Sacrifice there is a Thanksgiving and Commemoration of the same Flesh which he offer'd for us and of the Blood which he shed for us He saith That this Sacrifice consists in offering Bread and VVine there must then be true Bread and VVine in this Sacrifice to be offer'd Ephrem de Conte of the East made Bishop of Antioch Ephrem in the Year 526. wrote Books which he intitled Sacred Laws Apud Pho. Bibl. cod 229. in the first of which disputing against the Eutychians he saith When our Fathers said That Jesus Christ is compos'd of two Natures they meant two Substances as by two Substances two Natures No body of any sense but may say that the Nature of that which is to be felt and not felt in Jesus Christ is the same Nature Thus it is that the body of Jesus Christ which is received by believers doth not quit its sensible Nature and remains without being separated from the intelligible Grace The which he confirms by the Example of Water which doth not lose its Nature by Consecration This Argument is of the same kind of that we see of Theodoret and of Gelasius whereby these three Authors prove that in the Incarnation the presence of the VVord did not destroy the human Nature in Jesus Christ as the presence of the Holy Ghost doth not destroy the Substance of Bread and Wine in the Eucharist We may say of this Triple and same Argument Funiculus triplex difficile rumpitur Mons de Marca Ecclesiast 4. v. 12. saith in reference to this passage and of those we have instanced in of Theodoret and St. Chrysostom that these three Authors have owned a real change of the bread which nevertheless leaves the Species in their natural Substance Facundus Bishop of Hermiana in Africa in the year 552. Facundus whose Books Lib. 9. De viris illustribus c. 18. which he wrote in Defence of the Three Chapters of the Council of Chalcedon are justly praised by Victor of Tunes in his Chronology and by St. Isidore of Sevil and which Father Sirmond the Jesuit got out of the Vatican Library going about to excuse Theodore de Mopsuest who taught that Jesus Christ had taken the Adoption of the Children of God Facundus from whence it might have been concluded Lib. 9. that he believed that Jesus Christ is only an adoptive Son saith Baptism which is the Sacrament of Adoption may be called Adoption as we call the Sacrament of his Body and Blood which is in the consecrated Bread and Wine his Body and Blood not that the Bread is properly his Body and the Cup his Blood but because they contain in them the Mystery of his Body and Blood. Therefore as the faithful Servants of Jesus Christ receiving the Sacrament of his Body and Blood are very rightly said to receive his Body and Blood so also Jesus Christ having received the Sacrament of the Adoption of Children might very well be said to have received the Adoption of Children Certainly if the Sacrament of Bread and Wine is not properly the Body of Jesus Christ as Facundus saith but barely Body and Blood as Baptism is Adoption the Bread and Wine are not Transubstantiated into the Eucharist and are but simple signs and something that is distinguished from the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Primasius Bishop of Adrumetum in Africa Primasius in his Commentary upon the 10th Chapter of the 1st to the Corinth saith As the Bread which we break is the Participation of the body of Christ so also the Bread of Idols is the Participation of Devils Now as the Participation of the Bread of Idols is no Transubstantiation or real change into Devils so also the Participation of the Bread of the Lord is not a real and substantial change of Bread into the Body of the Lord. The same Doctor on the words of the 11th Chap. of the same Epistle where 't is said That the Lord took Bread the night in which he was betrayed relates That Jesus Christ thereby gave to us the commemoration of his Body And on the following words The Lord saith he hath given us an Example to the end that as often as we do this we should think in our minds that Christ died for us It is for this end that 't is said to us the Body of Christ that so thinking of it we should not be ungrateful and unthankful for his Grace As if any one at his Death should leave to his Friend a pledg of his Love could he when he saw it refrain from Tears if he really loved his Friend There must therefore needs be in the Sacrament Bread and Wine to be Pledges of Jesus Christ for he cannot be a pledg of himself That the Fathers of the SEVENTH and EIGHTH CENTURY 's did not believe Transubstantiation AGE vii ISidore Bishop of Sevil Anno 600. saith Isidorus Hispalensis That by the command of Jesus Christ himself we do call Body and Blood that which being the fruits of the Earth Orig. l. 6. c. 19. is sanctified and made a Sacrament by the invisible Operation of the Holy Ghost In the 1st Book of Ecclesiastical Offices he saith ' That the Bread is called the Body of Jesus Christ because it strengthens the Body and that the Wine is called his Blood because it increaseth Blood in the Body and that the Bread and Wine are two visible things which being sanctified by the Holy Ghost do go on to be the Sacrament of the Divine body Now a Sacrament signifies a holy Sign It would therefore be a strange kind of way of Isidore if he had believ'd the Bread and Wine were transubstantiated to say the Bread and Wine are two things visible which being sanctified by the Holy Ghost do become the Sacraments of the Divine body By this Language it might as well be said That the Fathers believed that the Water of Baptism was transubstantiated after their Consecration The same Bishop saith Melchisedeck In Alleg. Veter Test that offer'd of the Fruits of the Earth a Sacrifice to God thereby represented the Priesthood or Reign of Jesus Christ which is the true King of Peace of whose Body and Blood that is to say the oblation of Bread and Wine is offer'd throughout the World. And in the Treatise De Vocat Gentium cap. 26. These are not any longer Jewish
Bread of the Sacrament as the true Image of the Natural Flesh of Jesus Christ is sanctified by the coming of the Holy Ghost and becomes the Body of Jesus Christ because the Priest transfers the Oblation from the state of a common thing to something that is holy To conclude they clearly distinguish the natural Flesh of Jesus Christ which is living and intelligent from his Image which is the Heavenly Bread filled with the Holy Spirit All these continued Expressions are so far from any Idea of Transubstantiation that one must needs see that the destruction of the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament was not beleieved by the Fathers of the Council nor by the Church in their time Alcuin speaking of the Consecrating of Bread and Wine to be the Body and Blood of Christ Alcuinus saith that the Sanctification of this Mystery doth foreshew to us the effect of our Salvation Ep. 69. That by the Water is signified the Christian People by the grains of the Wheat ground into Meal to make Bread is meant the Union of the Universal Church which is made one Body by the fire of the Holy Ghost which unites the Members to the Head and that by the Wine is shewed the Blood of the Passion of the Lord. Doubtless Alcuin did not believe Transubstantiation seeing he places in the Bread and Wine the signification of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and that he saith by the Wine is shewed the Blood of Jesus Christ for that which is a Figure and that which is figured that which sheweth and that which is shewed are two different things the one of which is not the other Therefore the same Alcuin doth formally distinguish the Eucharist from the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ when he saith after St. Austin Whosoever abideth not in Jesus Christ and he in whom Christ abideth not In Joan. c. 13. v. 15. doubtless doth not spiritually eat his flesh altho he visibly and carnally eats with his teeth the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Charles the great his Disciple writing to the same Alcuin calls the Eucharist the Figure of the Body and Blood of the Lord. The Lord saith he being at Supper with his Disciples broke Bread and gave likewise the Cup in figure of his Body and Blood Carol. M. De Offic. Septuag ad Aluin and by this means offered us a very profitable Sacrament Now whatever he said of the figure it contain'd or that it contain'd not the truth the figure was never the same as the thing is that 's figured In the Ambrosian Office which was abolish'd in the year 796 Ambrosian Office. there was this Clause which is still to be seen in the 4th Book of St. Ambrose his Sacraments Nobis hanc oblationem adscriptam rationabilem acceptabilem quod est figura Corporis Sanguinis Domâ—ni nostri Jesu Christi The Ancient Roman Order doth frequently call the Bread and VVine the Body and Blood of the Lord Ordo Romen but it sufficiently shews by these manner of expressions that it doth not mean that the Bread and VVine are the same thing with the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ for in the first place it saith that the Sub-Deacons when they see the Chalice wherein is the Blood of the Lord cover'd with a Cloth and when the Priest hath said these words at the end of the Lords Prayer libera nos a malo they should go from the Altar and prepare Chalices and clean Cloths to receive the Body of the Lord fearing lest it should fall to the ground and crumble to dust Now who doth not see that this cannot be spoken but of the Bread figuratively and improperly called the Body of Jesus Christ 2ly It saith That the Bishop breaketh the Oblation on the right side and that he leaveth the part which he brake on the Altar Now who can say that the Body of Jesus Christ can be broke into parts 3dly The Fraction being made the Deacon receives from the Sub-Deacon the Cup and carries it to the Chair that the Bishop might communicate who having communicated puts part of the holy Oblation of which he bit a Morsel into the Arch-Deacons hands Can it be said that one doth bite the true Bedy of Jesus Christ and that one breaks off part of it 4thly It adds he is to take great heed that no part of the Body and Blood of the Lord doth remain in the Chalice or on the Plate By these words the Roman Order gives us to understand that it speaks of such a Body and Blood that a part of it may be separated from the whole Now this is what can only be said of the Bread and Wine improperly called the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ The now Roman Order at present used in the Church of Rome doth also furnish us with the like reflections It expresly marketh That Jesus Christ gave in the Oblation Ordo Romanus Bread and VVine to celebrate the Mysteries of his Body and Blood. Therein is desired That this Blessed Oblation may be accepted of God in such a manner as that it might be made to us the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ after all which is recited the History of the Institution and the Sacramental words The Eucharist is called the Sacred Bread of Eternal Life ond the Cup the Cup of everlastiug Salvation To conclude They pray God to behold those Gifts and that he will accept them as he did the offering of Abel and the Sacrifice of Melchisedeck which it's very well known was Bread and Wine All which doth plainly shew That the Roman Order at this time observed cannot reasonably be interpreted but in supposing that the Bread and Wine remain in the Eucharist after Consecration That the Fathers of the NINTH CENTURY did not believe Transubstantiation THeodorus Studita AGE ix as is related by Michael Studita in Baronius in the year 816. N. 15. seeing himself reduced to the extremity of being starv'd said to his Disciple If men are so crvel as to make me perrish with hunger Thecdorus Studita the participation of the Body and Blood of the Lord which is the ordinary food of my Body and Soul shall be my only nourishment Now the real Body of Jesus Christ cannot be the nourishment of the Body therefore of necessity this Author must be understood to speak of Bread which is his Body figuratively and improperly It is what is also confirm'd by this Michael Studita who saith in the same place that Theodore had always about him some parcels of the quickning Body of the Lord which cannot be meant of the true Body of Jesus Christ which is not now subject to be broken nor divided Ahyto Bishop of Basil Ahyto sent Ambassador by Charlemaine in the year 814 to Constantinople to Treat a Peace with the Emperor of the East as is declared by the Annals of France by Eginhart Author of the Life of
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. AGE viii 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 Ahyto 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 Theodulphus 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 accemplished 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 Opposers of Paschasius Radbertus 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 body and blood of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist as Bellarmin saith de Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis in Paschasio Ratherto 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 Ratherti 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 AGE ix stiled by Baronius in the year 843 No. 31. the bright Star of Germany Fulgens Germaniae Sidus saith in his Institution of Clerks Lib. 1. cap. 31. Rabanus Our Saviour liked better that believers should receive with their mouth the Sacraments 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 VVord 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 cat 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 Pascal 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 VVine a fit Mystery turn'd it into the Sacrament of his Body and Blood that unleavensd Bread and VVine mixt with water must be sanctified to be the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Afterwards he gives the reason wherefore our Saviour chose Bread and Wine to make them Sacraments of his Flesh and Blood and saith that 't is because Melchisedeck offer'd Bread and VVine and that Jesus Christ being a Priest after the Order of Melchisedeck he was to imitate his Oblation And shewing the reason why the Sacrament takes the name of the body and blood of the Lord he saith with Isidore Archbishop of Sevil 'T is because bread strengthens the body it is conveniently called the body of Jesus Christ and because wine augments blood in the flesh and veins for this reason it is compar'd to the blood Now both these things are visible nevertheless being sanctify'd by the Holy Ghost they pass into the Sacrament of the Divine body A Sacrament which in the 33 chap. he calls the Mystical body of Jesus Christ in opposition to his Natural body from which he distinguishes it and draws a resemblance from the Mystical body to the proper body of Jesus Christ The holy Vessels saith he are set on the Altar viz. the Cup and Patten which in some sort are the figure of the Grave of Jesus Christ for as at that time the Body of Jesus Christ was laid in the Sepulcher having been embalm'd by godly people so also at present the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ as it were imbalm'd with holy Prayers Rabanus is kept in the holy Vessels to be administred to Believers by the hands of the Ministers The same Doctor in his Penitential or Letter to Herribald Bishop of Auxerre which Monsieur Baluze got Printed at the end of his Regino at Paris in 1671 saith Chap. 33. As to what you demand of me whether the Sacrament after it is eat and consum'd and cast into the draft after the manner of all other meats does return to the former nature it had before 't was consecrated at the Altar to such a needless question may be reply'd The Lord himself said in the Gospel that what enters into the body goes into the helly and is cast into the draft As for the Sacrament of the Body and blood it is made of corporeal and visible things but it produceth an invisible sanctification as well to the body as to the soul What reason is there that that which is digested in the stomack and is cast out into the draft should return to its former state there being never any that affirmed that such a thing was done For of late some persons not having a right judgment of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ have said that the same Body and the same Blood of the Lord which was born of the Virgin Mary and in which the Lord suffered on the Cross and rose again from the Dead is the same which is taken at the Altar against which Error we have as much as was necessary written to the Abbot Egilon Explaining what ought truly to be believed of the Body of Christ in the Eucharist Amalarius Amalarius esteemed a very Learned man in the Manuscripts cited by Dom Luke D'achery a Learned Benedictin in his Preface to the Seventh Tome of his Spicilegium was sent by the Emperor Charles le Debonnair to Pope Gregory to find out Antiphonaries Amalar. in Prolog Antiphon and who by express command of the same Emperor was chosen in a Council held at Aix la Chappel Anno 816 to make Rules for Prebends as is testified by Ademar a Monk of Angoulism in his Chronicle on the year 816 saith in his Treatise of Church-Offices Lib. 3. cap. 25. That the Sacrament is to us instead of Jesus Christ The Friest saith he bows and recommends to God the Father that which was offered in the room of Jesus Christ In the 26th chap. he saith The Oblation and the Cup do signifie the Body of the Lord when Jesus Christ said This is the Cup of my Blood he sanctified his Blood which Blood was in the Body as the Wine is in the Chalice In the third Book chap. 25. he calls the Eucharist the Sacrament of Bread and Wine and saith that Jesus Christ hath in this bread recommended his Body and in the Cup his Blood. The same Amalarius having been consulted by Rangart Bishop of Noyon Amal. ad Rangart Tom. 7. Spicilegii pag. 166. how he understood those words of Institution of the Eucharist This is the Cup in my Blood of the New and Eternal Testament with this addition which is in the Cannon of the Mass the Mystery of Faith answers him by a Letter wherein after having spoken of the Cup of the Passover he proceeds to that of the Eucharist and having alledged what is mention'd by St. Luke he adds The Cup is in type of my Body wherein is the Blood that shall run out of my side to accomplish the ancient Law and after it is shed it shall be the New Testament And a little lower he saith The Mystery is Faith as St. Austin saith in his Letter to the Bishop Boniface as the Sacrament of the Body of Jesus Christ is in some manner the Body of Jesus Christ and the Sacrament of his Blood his Blood so the Sacrament of Faith is Faith. So also we may say This is the Cup of my Blood of the New and Eternal Testament As if he should say This is my Blood which is given for you The same Doctor in a Letter which he wrote to one Gontard whom he calls his Son saith That it is our Saviours good pleasure to shed his Blood by the Members and Veins for our Eternal Salvation That 't is a body of Jesus Christ that may be cast out in spitting after having receiv'd it and of which a part may be flung out of the mouth To all which he adds having so received the body of the Lord with a good intention I don't pretend to dispute whether he be invisibly lifted up to Heaven or whether he remains in our Body till the day of our Death or whether he evaporates into Air or whether he issues out of the Body with the Blood or whether he goes out at the pores our Saviour saying All that enters in at the Mouth goes down into the Belly and from thence into the draft c. Now when this great Man saith That the Sacrament is to us in the stead of Jesus Christ that what is offered in the Eucharist is sacrific'd instead of Jesus Christ that the Cup is in Type of the Body that the Blood is in the Body as the Wine is in the Cup that Jesus Christ represents his Body by the Bread and his Blood in the Wine that the Sacrament of the Body is in some sort his Body and that 't
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 deminion 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 Catholicks may explain him in a good sense I cannot tell what to call this Confidence John Erigen Joan. Erigena 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 * De Euchar. Lanfrank and Berenger in his Episte to the same Lanfrank and Hincmar saith of John Erigen that he taught ‡ De praedest chap. 31. 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 Lanfranc 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 * De Gest Reg. Angl. l. 1. c. 5. William of Malmsbury ‖ Annal. per pred ad 882. Roger de Hoveden and ‡ Ad An. 883. 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 in 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 Jussu 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 found 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 confossus 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 Prudentius Bishop of Troyes 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 Hincmar de Praedest c. 31. 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 Christianus Drutmarus 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 Christianus Druemanes 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 exposing 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 whom he loves some particularpledg 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 contrary to those of Paschasius for Paschasius said in his Letter to Frudegard Christianus Drutmanes fearing it should be thought that Jesus spake in Sacrament he said demonstratively This is my Body Ne putares quia in Sacramento loquebatur Dominus 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 Florus Diaconus 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 had created from the beginning of the world which he creates every year by propagation and reparation which he sanctifies which he fills 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 Pirrhus 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. AGE x. in one of his Sermons to be seen in the Fourth Book of Bedes Ecclesiastical History cap. 24. Alferic A. B. Cant. which we have Copied in the Library of St. Victor saith The Expurgat Index Orders these words to be blotted out 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 Wolphinus wherein the Author uses near the same Language This Sacrifice saith he Apud Vsserium de Christianae Ecclesi Success Stat. c. 2. p. 54. 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 Homilly 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 Saxon Homily 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 pledge and figure the Body of Jesus Christ is the Truth it self we have this pledge 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 Fulcuinus in the Country of Liege Tom. 6. Spicil de gestis Abb. Lob. p. 573. 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 saith 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 Herriger Successor to Fulcuin and whom he that continued the History of the Abbots of Lobes Idem tom 6. p. 591. 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 Monastry of Cluny l. 2. ch 30. say The outside of the Challice is carefully rub'd Tom. 4. in Spec. p. 146. 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 Conscration 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 Customs of the Monastry of Cluny 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 Hest 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 Lib. 3. Ch. 28. p. 217. 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 sense 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 Ratherius 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 De Contemp. Canon port Spirileg Tom. 2. 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 signifi'd the abuse whereof reflects on him that instituted it That the Authors of the ELEVENTH CENTURY did not believe Transubstantiation AGE xi THE Author of the Life
of St. The Author of the Life of St. Genulphius 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 Lib. 1. Ch. 6. and believe that there was not Wine remaining in the Cup after Consecration Leutherick Arch-Bishop of Sens Leuthericus 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 In Epistola Roberti Regis Crescebat saith he in Saeculo notwithstanding the threatnings which this Prince made to depose him from his Dignity if he continued to teach it Fulbert Fulbertus Anno Dom. 1007. Bishop of Chartres and ordain'd by Leutherick did not believe Transubstantiation when he said in his 1st Epistle to Adeodatus That Jesus Christ intending to take up his Body to Heaven Bib. pat tom 3. 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 priviledg 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 cut of nothing should convert them into the dignity of a more excellent nature Fulbertus 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 befel 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 Spirileg If things be so saith Berenger to Richard how is it that this Doctrine of the Eucharist contain'd 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 Bernon wrote a Treatise of things concerning the Mass saith in the 1st Chapter Bible of the Fath. Tom. 10. 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 Chap. 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 Anger 's Bruno 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 Miraeus 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 Suriun vita Wolphelmi ad ap Mathew of Westminster on the year 1080 saith That Berenger had almost corrupted all France Italy and England with his Doctrine Matthew Paris In Willel 2. In Willel l. 6.3 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 was forced to sign it Tom 2. Spicileg p. 508. 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 testifies 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
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 be struck with Nothing The three Reflections we have hitherto made Hence it follows that Transubstantiation was not ancient 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 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 AGE ii Just Martyr That the Fathers of the SECOND CENTURY did not believe Transubstantiation S Justin Martyr saith Apol. 2. 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 Jesus 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 Jesus 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 Jesus Christ incarnate If St. Justin 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 Jerusalem 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 tis ' certain Justin Martyr that the real Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ is not converted into our Flesh and Blood. So when Justin 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 Irenaeus 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 Adversus Haeres l. 4. c. 24. 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 Wire 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 sed by the conversion of nourishment into the body which not being to be said of Jesus 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 Ireneus means by a Terrestrial thing the accidents of Bread and Wine besides that S. Austin saâ—th in the second Book of Soliloquies Chap. 12. that 't is a thing monstrous to say that accidents subsist without a subject Irereus 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 Irenaeus 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 Clem. Alexand. Paedag. l. 2. 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
his Body and the Cup his Blood these things my Brethren are called Sacraments because one thing is seen in them and another thing is understood by them what is seen hath a Corporeal Substance what is understood hath a Spiritual Fruit. If then you desire to understand what the Body of Jesus Christ is hearken to the Apostle which saith You are the Body of Christ and his Members If then you are the Body of Jesus Christ and his Members it is the Mystery of what you are which is upon the Holy Table it is the Mystery of the Lord which you receive in saying Amen you answer and subscribe to what you are All you that are united in Charity you make but one Body of Jesus Christ of which you are the Members which is what is signified by the Bread compos'd of several Grains and by the Wine which is made of sundry Grapes For as Bread to be made a visible Species of Bread is made of sundry Grains collected together in one and the Wine c. St. Austin saith St. Austin That the Bread is the Body of Christ which cannot be but improporly and figuratively as hath been shewed above for by Confession of Roman Catholick Doctors every Proposition that saith of the Bread That it is the Body must needs be typical and figurative He saith what is seen is Bread as our Eyes declare to us now what our Eyes report to us is true Bread as when one says What you see is true Gold and Silver or Marble and 't is what your Eyes testifie that is to say That one sees true Gold and true Marble and that one makes use of their Eyes to confirm it In the same sense he saith That Jesus Christ although in Heaven yet the Bread is the Body and the Wine the Blood because they are the Sacraments of it He saith What one sees hath a bodily species now in this Passage by bodily species he means the very Substance and not the Accidents For he saith afterwards speaking of Bread in general as Bread to be a visible species of Bread must be made of several Grains reduced into one lump now by the species of Bread it is plain St. Austin there means true Bread and a true Substance He saith What you see is Bread and a Cup now by Cup he doth not mean the appearance of a Cup he means a true Cup. He saith this Bread is the Mystery of the Lord. Which is nothing else but that 't is the Figure of the Lord as when he saith This Bread is the Mystery of Believers Mysterium vestrum in Mensa Domini accipitis That is to say That the Bread and Wine are the Figure of 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 Ep. 23. ad Bonif. 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 hapened 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 De Opif. l. 1. c. 15. Quod non per omnia est id quod esse dicitur illud abusive appeâ—lationem illam habet 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 St. Austin 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 * De Princip Dialect l. 5. Signum est quod seipsum sensibus praeter se aliquid animo ostendit 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 positum esse dicimus sicut alia multa pene omnia Scripturarum illarum Sacramenta signis figuris plena sunt And concludes towards the end
under the old Testament did and we now do eat a corporal food and that we drink a corporal liquor Now by this corporal meat and drink we must understand either the accidents of Bread and Wine or the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ or the Bread and Wine it self It cannot be spoken of the first because the accidents of Bread and Wine are only qualities or dimensions now qualities and dimensions are not corporal The quality is something which is incorporeal saith Nemesius of the Soul as concerning dimensions S. Austin de genesi ad literam saith We call that a Body which taketh up some space by its length by its breadth and by its depth Nemesius gives the reason of it because saith he nothing that is immaterial is a Body for all Bodies are material There being nothing material then in the Eucharist as is suppos'd there being nothing that takes up place that is large or long or deep There is nothing corporeal in the Sacrament and by consequence nothing that can be termed corporal meat or drink Moreover when Jesus Christ speaks of corporal nourishment and drink in the Eucharist as the Fathers under the old Testament had done he speaks of bodily meat and drink S. Austin did not understand the corporal meat and drink spoke of by the Fathers of the old Testament to be only the accidents of one and the other so that S. Austin speaking in the same terms of bodily meat and drink in relation to that of the Antients he did not mean meer accidents or qualities The Body of Jesus Christ nor his Blood cannot be this corporal nourishment which S. Austin compares to that of the Fathers under the Law for by bodily meat and drink which he saith we receive in the Eucharist he means a visible subject aliud illi aliud nos sed specie visibili sispeciem visibilem intendas aliud est It remains then that in S. Austin's sense we understand by the corporal nature of the Eucharist the visible Bread the visible Wine and not their qualities and accidents The same Father in the third Book of the Trin. cap. 10. speaking of things that are taken to signify saith a thing is taken to signify either after such a manner as that the thing should subsist and remain some time as did the Brazen Serpent lift up in the Wilderness or as do the letters of the Alphabet or in such a manner as the thing taken to signify is not to subsist any long time but is to pass away and be destroy'd when the thing 't is to represent is passed away as the Bread of the Sacrament which being taken to signify passeth away and is consumed in receiving the Sacrament S. Austin there saith That the Bread of the Sacrament which is taken to signify passeth and is consumed in receiving the Sacrament Now if the Bread be destroyed and Transubstantiated by these words This is my Body then it passeth not away and is not consumed in the act of receiving The same Doctor in the seventeenth Of the City of God saith To eat Bread is in the New Testament the sacrifice of Christians and against the Enemy of the Law. l. 7. c. 20. Those saith he which read know what Melchisedeck offered where he blessed Abraham and those which are partakers see that the like sacrifice is now offer'd through all the World. How is it that the Sacrifice of Christians is to eat Bread if the Bread do not remain How is it that communicating one is partaker of what Melchisedeck offer'd if in communicating one do not receive neither Bread nor Wine The same Father in the third Book against Parmenian reproving the Donatists for forsaking the Church tells them S. Cyprian and the other Bishops did not separate themselves because they would not communicate with covetous persons and Usurers but that on the contrary they did eat with them the Bread of the Lord and drank his Cup. This passage sheweth that when S. Austin said to the new Baptised as hath been shewn that the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ it could not be understood but figuratively for here the Bread is said to be of the Lord now saith S. Athanasius that which is another's is not that other himself to whom it belongs Id quod alicujus est non idipsum est cujus est And S. Austin elsewhere distinguisheth betwixt the Bread which belongs to the Lord and the Bread which is the Lord. In Joan. Tract 59. Speaking of Judas and the other Apostles he saith of the Apostles they ate the Bread which was the Lord and of Judas He did eat the Bread of the Lord against the Lord they ate life he Death for 't is said by S. Paul That he which eateth unworthily eateth his own judgment and condemnation Seeing then that the Eucharist is distinguish'd from the Lord it necessarily follows That Bread remains in the Sacrament after Consecration The same Father in his 33 Sermon of the Words of our Lord saith The Lord gave to his Disciples the Blessed Sacrament with his own hands but we were not at the Banquet nevertheless by faith we daily eat the same Supper and do not think that it had been any great advantage to have been present at that Supper that he gave with his own hands to his Disciples without Faith Faith afterwards was of greater advantage than treachery was then St. Paul who believed was not there present and Judas who betray'd his Master was present How many be there now that come to the Communien that although they did not see that Table and though they never saw with their Eyes nor tasted with their Palate the Bread which the Lord held in his hands nevertheless because the same Supper is still prepared do there eat and drink their own damnation It plainly appears That the Bread which St. Austin saith our Saviour had in his hands during the Sacrament was true Bread because St. Austin saith that those who at present participate of the Sacrament do not Tast nor Eat the Bread which our Saviour held in his hands and which he distributed and of which the Disciples did formerly eat The same Father teaching that the Good might participate of the Divine Sacraments with the Wicked saith Lib. Con. Donat c. 6. de ipso quippe Pane de ipsa Dominica Manu c. Judas and Peter had each of them a part of the same Bread which they received at the same hand of the Lord and nevertheless what society or likeness was there betwixt Peter and Judas In the 7th chap. the wicked and the good hear the same Word of God do partake of the same Sacraments and eat the same holy nourishment Now what is this holy Food What is this Bread whereof one receives one Portion and another another Part Are they Accidents But Accidents are neither Bread nor Food It is not the real Body of Jesus Christ for it cannot be received by Parcels it must then
any regard to the nature of the things that are seen but that they should believe by the change of Names the change that is made by Grace For having called his Body Wheat and Bread and having called himself a Vine he honours the visible Symboles with the name of his Body and Blood not in changing their Nature but in adding Grace to their Nature He could not more fully express that he did not hold Transubstantiation Arnobius junior Arnobius the younger who wrote in the year 431. upon the 4th Psalm saith Accipimus frumentum c. Quod nunc habeat intra se Ecclesia videamus c. speaking of the Sacrament We have received Wheat in the Body Wine in the Blood and Oil in the Chrism On the 22d Psalm and on the 51st and 54th Psalms Let us see what the Church keepeth She hath a Table from which she gives Bread to Believers she hath Oil wherewith she refresheth the Head in libertatem conscientiae praesumenti c. On Psalm 103. We receive Bread because it strengthens the Body Accipimus panem quod confirmat c. we receive Wine because it rejoyces the Heart and having received double comfort in the Heart our Faces are made shine by the Oil of Chrism Exurgens a Mortuis c. To conclude on Psalm 104. he saith these words speaking of the Lord That the Lord in the Eucharist gives us the species of Bread and Wine as he doth the species of Oil in Baptism which cannot be understood of appearances and Accidents as the terms of species of Oil cannot be taken for the Accidents and appearances of Oil. Moreover he observes we receive in the Eucharist Bread and Wine as we receive Oil in the Holy Chrism Now in the Holy Chrism it is true Oil that we receive Arnobius then could not reason so if he believed Transubstantiation The Author of the Books of the Promises and Predictions of God Prosper attributed to St. Prosper by Cassiodorus and which were written about the year 450 under the Empire of Valentinian the 3d relates a History of a young unchast Girl that was possessed with the Devil who in Communicating had received a little morsel of the Lords Body which the Priest had moistned it was half an hour before she could swallow it down till such time as the Priest touched her throat with the Chalice then she cried out instantly that she was healed After which Prayers being made for her she received a portion of the Sacrifice and was restor'd to her former health These terms of some portion of the Sacrifice and of a little part of the moistned Body of the Lord by the Priest cannot be understood of the true Body of Jesus Christ of necessity then the Bread by this Author must be called by the name of the Body of Jesus Christ and by consequence he believed it remained in the Sacrament after Consecration Hesychius one of the Priests of the Church of Jerusalem Hesychius in the year 480 saith in the second Book on Leviticus ch 8. This Mystery speaking of the Eucharist is at once Bread and Flesh Illud Mysterium simul panis caro In this same place he saith it was the custom of the Church of Jerusalem in his time to burn what remained after the Communion Procopius of Gaza Procopius Gazaeus who in all likelihood wrote in the end of the fifth Century expounding these words of Genesis where Jacob saith of Juda His eyes be red with wine and his teeth white with milk c. applying them to our Blessed Saviour in the Mystery of the Sacrament saith that 't is a metaphor taken from those that having drank are the merrier for it c. and saith that the holy Scritures would denote the gladness which the Lord left to his Disciples in giving them the Mystical Wine by the words of Institution Take drink ye all of this These words saith he do shew that Jesus Christ doth with mercy look on all those that believe in him because 't is the nature of wine to make every one merry And upon these words his teeth are white as milk milk saith he doth denote to us the whiteness and purity of the mystical nourishment for Jesus Christ gave to his Disciples the Image of his true Body not desiring any of the bloody sacrifices of the Law he would by the white teeth signifie to us the purity of the food wherewith we are nourished for according to holy David Sacrifice and burnt-offerings thou wouldest not but a Body hast thou prepared me When Procopius speaketh of the Mystical Wine that rejoyced the Disciples it being the nature of Wine to make merry this Mystical Wine is not the Blood of Jesus Christ for 't is not the nature of Blood to rejoyce It must therefore be meant that Procopius said by the Wine which Jesus Christ distributed to his Disciples was to be understood true Wine Procopius and by the whiteness of the Mystical food he meant the whiteness of the Bread which is both food and Image which cannot be understood of the true Body of Jesus Christ is neither the Image of himself nor bodily food nor of the accidents which cannot nourish the Body because nourishment proceedeth from matter The same Procopius in his Commentary on Esay expounding these words of the Prophet Chap. 3. The Lord of Hosts will take away from Judah and Jerusalem the staff of Bread and Water saith that in the first place these words of the Prophet may be understood of Jesus Christ and of his Flesh and Blood. The Bread being to be understood of him of whom David saith He gave them bread from Heaven and the waters of those of which Jesus Christ said to the Samaritan Whosoever drinketh of this water it shall be a fountain flewing unto everlasting Life Then he adds There is another bread which giveth life to the world which was taken from the Jews and another water which is that of Baptism Now by this other bread which was taken from the Jews he means that of the Eucharist and whereas he distinguishes it from the bread which is the Lord as he distinguisheth the water of Baptism from that which was given to the Samaritan it follows that the Bread of the Eucharist is something that is distinguisht from Jesus Christ himself the Bread of Heaven Gelasius Bishop of Rome P. Gelasius in the year 492 wrote a Treatise of the two Natures against Nestorius and Eutyches and he excludes Transubstantiation when he saith that the substance or nature of Bread and Wine doth still remain This Work is assuredly of Pope Gelasius as is confessed by Cardinal Du Perron because first Fulgentius cites four passages of this Treatise as being writ by Pope Gelasius Resp 1. ad 2 Interrog Ferr. And Pope John the Second in Epist ad Amaenum also cites some passages of this Work as being writ by Gelasius and though he doth not give
is so that the Cup of the Blood is his Blood that the Body is poured forth upon our Members for our Salvation that there is a Body of Jesus Christ that may be cast out by spitting and whereof some part may be flung out of the Mouth That he will not dispute whether this Body evaporates in the Air or whether it departs out of the body with the blood or whether it goes out at the pores or into the Draft all this doth sufficiently shew That this Doctor distinguished the Bread and Wine as a Typical body from the real Body of Jesus Christ and that by consequence he believed the bread and wine remained after Consecration to be called the body and blood of Jesus Christ but improperly Valafridus Strabo Valafridus Strabo Abbas Augiensis stiled a very Learned Man by Herman Contracted in the year 849. Jesus Christ said he gave to his Disciples the Sacrament of his Body and Blood in the substance of bread and wine Lib. de Reb. Eccles c. 16. Bill p. 7. to 10. teaching them to celebrate it in remembrance of his most holy Passion because there could nothing be found fitter than these things to signify the unity of the Head and Members for as Bread is made of sundry Grains and brought into one body by means of Water and as the Wine is squeez'd from several Grapes so also the body of Jesus Christ is made of the anion of a multitude of Saints And a little after he declares That Jesus Christ hath chose for us a very fit Sacrifice for the Mystery of his body and blood in that Melchisedeck having offer'd bread and wine he gave to his Children the same kinds of Sacraments And afterwards cap. 18. That for that great Number of Legal Ordinances Jesus Christ gave us the word of his Gospel so also instead of the great diversity of Sacrifices Believers are to rest satisfied with the sole Oblation of bread and wine It is evident Strabo makes the Holy Sacrament to consist in the substance of bread and wine which according to him is differenced from the body because it is but the memorial of it That 't is the figure that it consists in being made of sundry Grains and the Wine of sundry Grapes That the Sacrifice of the New Testament is of the same kind as that of Melchisedeck and that the Eucharist is an Oblation of bread and wine All these things intimate that the bread and wine remain in the Eucharist after Consecration Herribald was Bishop of Auxerre Herribald in the time that Vallafridus Strabo wrote Tom. 2. ch 19.52 and 61. Now he was of the same Opinion with Rabanus Thomas Waldensis assures us so Herribald of Auxerre saith he and Rabanus of Mayence say That the Sacrament of the Eucharist goes into the Draft The Anonimous Author contemporary with Herribald which was published by Father Cellot the Jesuit saith also the same Nevertheless Lupus Abbot of Ferriers Ep. 19. speaking of him calls him a most excellent Prelate excellentissimum Praesulem In the 37th Ep. he stiles him a Man of a lofty and Divine understanding Altissimi Divini ingenii And Hinemarus Archbishop of Reims calls him the Bishop of Venerable Qualities De Praed ch 6. So that the very Chronicle of Auxerre intimates that there was ingrav'd on his Monument this Inscription Here lies the body of St. Herribald Therefore the Author of the 1st Treatise of the Perpetuity of the Eucharist saith in page 843 That Herribald and Rhabanus were Adversaries to Pascasius Tho in the 2d Treatise of the Perpetuity in page 842. he saith speaking of the Minister Claude who told him that Amalarius and Herribald were in any wise Adversaries to Paschas It appears by the Letter Paschasius wrote to Frudegard Frndegardus that he was not of the same Judgment Paschasius was of seeing he opposes to him St. Austin's 23d Letter to Boniface Sic VVidefort contra VVickliff ad art 1. * Trithem de Script Eccles Ratramne Priest and Frier of Corby experienc'd in the Scriptures Ratramnus equally esteem'd for his Learning and Manners whom †De Praedest Hinemar ‖ Ep. 79. Lupus Abbot of Ferriers his Contemporaries ₠De Script Eccles Sigebert who liv'd in the xi Century and Father ‡ De Euchr. ch 1. Cellot the Jesuits Anonimus do all make mention of under his true name of Ratramne wrote a Book under the Reign of Charles the Bald as is reported by the same Trythemius which he intitul'd Of the Body and Blood of the Lord From a Monk of Corby he was made Abbot of Ovais The President ₠Maug dissert Hist Chron. c. 17. tom 2. pag. 133 135. Mauguin speaking of him saith he was a Learned Doctor of the Church eminent in Probity and in Doctrine an undaunted defender and protector of the Catholick Truth against Innovators He dedicated his Book to the Emperor Charles the Bald. Now this Author did not believe Transubstantiation because he saith For as to the substance of those Creatures they are after Consecration what they were before they were before bread and wine and it is plainly seen that after Consecration these created substances do remain in the very same species And a little after he saith Ratramnus in the Apology of the Fathers is stiled a learn'd Benedictin Defender of Grace a Man of great Wisdom and Reputation and in the 1st treatise of the Perpetuity p. 3. c. 5. he is stiled an obscure kind of a person that evaporated himself in obscure Reasonings which he added to those of the Church and explained as he pleased himself as some are pleased to say This spiritual flesh which spiritually feeds Believers is made of grains of Wheat by the hands of the Baker such as it appears to our sight but it hath neither bones nor sinews nor no distinction of parts nor is it enliven'd with a Soul or reasonable substance To conclude it is unable to move of it self and if it gives life it is the effect of a spiritual virtue of an invisible and a Divine Virtue and Efficacy A little after he saith again As the Water represents the People in the Sacrament if it were true that the Bread consecrated by Ministers was corporally changed into the Body of Jesus Christ it must also necessarily follow that the water which is mingled with it were changed into the blood of the faithful people for where there is but one sanctification there ought to be but one operation and the Mystery should be equal where the Reason of the Mystery is the same It is evident there is no corporal change in the water and by consequence there is no corporal change to be expected in the wine All that is said of the Body of the people represented by water is understood spiritually it is then a necessary consequence that what is said of the blood of Jesus Christ represented by
Cassin for a learned Frier called Albert whom Pope Stephen P. Gregory 7. saith Sigonius made Cardinal Deacon who being come and not able to answer Berengers Arguments desired a weeks time to consider of them neither was Pope Gregory the 7th himself well satisfied with what was urged against Berenger seeing that Cardinal Bernon in the life of Hildebrand and the Abbot of Ursberg in the year 1080 do write That Gregory the 7th wavering in the Faith caus'd a Fast to be kept by his Cardinals that it might be discover'd whether the Church of Rome or Berenger were in the best opinion touching the Body of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament One argument that Gregory the 7th was not very contrary to Berenger is that the Abbot of Ursberg and Aventin that has it from Otto Fraxinensis relate on the year 1080 that thirty Bishops and Lords being assembled apud Brixiam Nomicam did depose Gregory the 7th amongst other things for being a Disciple of Berengers Before I end my Discourse of Berenger it is necessary to observe Bruno that the Confession that was extorted from him is not maintainable seeing that as is related by Lanfranc and Alger it is therein said 1. 1. c. 19. that Jesus Christ not only in Sacrament but also in reality is touched and broken by the Teeth Theophylact Arch-Bishop of Bulgary said in his time That God Theophylact. In Marcum c. 14. condescending to our infirmity doth preserve the Species of Bread and Wine and changes them into the virtue of the Body and Blood of Christ Also in his time the Greeks did not believe Transubstantiation In all probability Nicetas Pectoratus did not believe it Nicetas Pectoratus seeing Cardinal Humbert whom Pope Leo the 9th sent to them upbraids him Perfidious Stercoranist says he to him Humber Tom. 4. Bibl. of the Patr. Edit ult 245. you think that the Participation of the Body and Blood of our Lord breaks the Fasts of Lent and other holy Fasts believing that the Heavenly as well as the terrestrial Food is cast out into the Draft by the sordid and stinking way of the Belly Alger de Sacram. l. 2. c. 1. Tom. 6. of the Fathers lib. and the Jesuit Cellot in Append. Miscel Opusc 7. p. 564. do frequently impute this Error to the Greeks The Author of the Chronicle Malleacensis on the year 1083 observes in the Monastry Cormoriacensi That there was a Friar called Literius of such great abstinence that for Ten years time he drank neither Wine nor VVater but what he received in the Sacrament of necessity then what one drinks in the Eucharist must be true Wine and true Water That the Authors of the TWELFTH CENTURY did not believe Transubstantiation HOnorius Priest and Theologal of the Church of Rutan AGE xii did not believe Transubstantiation seeing Thomas Waldensis Tom. 2. c. 90. saith Honorius That this Theologal was of the Sect of the Bread-eaters of Rabanus de Secta Panitarum Rabani An. 1120. In Gemma Anim l. 1. c. 111 and Honorius saith with Raban that the Sacrament which is received with the Mouth is converted into bodily food but the virtue of the Sacrament is that whereby the inward Man is fed and satisfied He saith also That the Host is broken Honorius because the Bread of Angels was broken for us upon the Cross ‡ Ib. c. 63. * Ib. c. 64. That the Bishop bites one piece that he divides it in parts that it is not received whole but broke in three parts ‖ Ibid c. 65. that when 't is put in the Wine it is shewed that the Soul of our Lord return'd to his Body and he calls that which is broke the Body of the Lord then he observes that the Sub-Deacon receives from the Deacon the Body of our Saviour and that he carries it to the Priests to divide it to the People all this can only be understood of the Bread which is improperly called the Body Rupert Abbot of Duits Rupertus near Cologne upon Exodus l. 2. c. 10. saith A. 1111. That the Holy Ghost doth not destroy the Substance of Bread as he did not destroy the human Nature when he joined it to the Word and in his 6th Book on St. John of the Paris Edition in the year 1638 he saith That as the Word was made Flesh not being changed into Flesh but in assuming Flesh so also the Word made Flesh is made visible Bread not being changed into Bread but taking and transferring the Bread into the Unity of his Person De Scriptor Eccles l. 3. c. 11. 15. We will say no more of this Author because Bellarmin and several others do freely confess that Rupert did not believe Transubstantiation also Honorius of Autur gives him extraordinary Commendations De Script Eccles saying That Rupert illuminated with a Vision of the Holy Ghost explained almost all the Holy Scriptures in an admirable stile Zonaras in the East did not believe Transubstantiation Zonaras seeing he saith of the Eucharist Tom 6. Cyr. Alex in Notic vuicani ad lib. advers An. hrepom Zonar Ep. 2. That it is a Shew-Bread which is subject to corruption and which is eat and ground with the Teeth Panis propositionis corruptioniest obnexius ut pote caro existens vere Christi secatur dentibus nostris molitur So that he was of the Opinion of Damascen and Rupert The Abbot Francus Francus in all likelihood Abbot of Lobbes did not approve the opinion of Transubstantiation seeing the Centuriators of Magdebourgh observe that he had no right judgment of the Lords Supper asserting that the true Body of Christ was not in the Holy Sacrament Amalaricus Bishop of Chartres in the year 1207 Amalaricus a man of great Reputation for 〈◊〉 Knowledg and Wisdom saith Gaugwin in his 6th Book of the History of France in the Reign of Philip the August amongst other things denied Transubstantiation In Catal. in Almar contra Haeres verb. Euch. 4. Bernard of Luxemburg Prateolus and Alphonsus alastro report the same of Amaury as also Genebrard in his Chronicle lib. 4. Anno. 1215. Opinions of Authors of the THIRTEENTH CENTURY AGE xiii and afterwards touching Transubstantion IT 's true Pope Innocent the 3d. did condemn this Amaury at the Council of Lateran after his death in the year 1215. but 't is not said wherefore and what was transacted in this Council deserves not to be much regarded if it be consider'd after what manner things were there transacted The Pope who then presided was a man full of vain glory and ambition Mathew Paris and Mathew of Westminster intimate so much of him and that the liberty of voting and speaking was denied to the Prelates of the Assembly for they were not seen to propose nor deliberate nor advise nor prepare any of the Constitutions which were there in great numbers but they were presented to the Council
Blood of Jesus 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 virtue 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 Graecè 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies mixture 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. S. Austin Ep. 3. ad Volusen Austin is a mixture of Body and Soul the Person of Christ is a mixture of God and Man. The Epitome of Theodotus saith Theodotus 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 changed into a Spiritual force So water sanctified is become Baptism it not only retains what 's less but also acquires a sanctification The author saith The Bread is changed but when he adds that 't is into a Spiritual virtue he quite excludes the change of its substance for by virtue and Spiritual cannot be understood any other change but that of virtue and quality seeing this Author speaks of this change as being common to the Water of Baptism to the Oyl of Unction and to the Bread of the Eucharist That the Fathers of the THIRD CENTURY did not believe Transubstantiation AGE iii. TErtullian in his first Book against Marcion Tertullian shewing that Jesus Christ is not contrary to the Creator as this Heretick affirm'd saith in his 14th Chap. Hitherto Jesus Christ has not condemn'd the Water wherewith he cleanseth his Children nor the Oyl wherewith he anoints them nor the Hony nor the Milk whereby he makes them his Children nor the Bread by which he represents his body By this passage the Bread represents the Body of Jesus Christ therefore the Bread remains in the Sacrament and this Bread is not really Jesus Christ because what doth represent is another thing than what is represented Two things have been said on this place of Tertullian first that the Bread signifies the accidents of Bread the second that the Word represent does signify in this place to make present As when in a Court of Justice a Prisoner is made appear as often as he is demanded Against the former there 's no reason to believe that Tertullian speaking of Water of Oyl of Hony and Milk should intend to speak of their accidents but of their very substance and that speaking of Bread he should speak only of its accidents Against the second it 's most certain that in matter of Sacraments the term to signify is taken literally to signify S. Austin saith Ep. 5. the signs when applyed to Holy things are called Sacraments Tertullian explains himself clearly Lib. 3. against Marcion so that there 's no cause of doubting when he saith That Jesus Christ has given to the Bread the priviledge of being the figure of his Body The same Tertullian lib. 4. contra Marcion cap. 40. doth prove that Jesus Christ had a real Body and not one in shew only as Marcion dream'd and he proves it by this argument That which hath a figure ought to be real and true now Jesus Christ hath in the Eucharist a figure of his Body therefore the Body of Jesus Christ is real and true and not a Phantome Jesus Christ Tertulliar saith Tertullian having taken the Bread which he aristributed amongst his Disciples he made it his Body saying This is the figure of my Body now it had been no figure if Jesus Christ had not had a real and true Body for an empty thing as a Phantasm is is not capable of having any figure From hence 't is concluded that the Bread being the figure of the Body of Jesus Christ and that which is a figure being distinguished from the thing signified the Bread of the Eucharist is not properly and truly the Body of Jesus Christ and so the Bread is not destroy'd but remains to be the figure of the Body of Jesus Christ If it be said the Bread is destroy'd and that the accidents of Bread are the figure of the Body of Jesus Christ this gives up the victory to Marcion to prove that Jesus Christ had a true Body and not one in shew only because Jesus Christ hath in the Eucharist the figure of Bread which is Bread only in appearance Marcion might have retorted the argument and said according to you Tertullian the Sacrament is the figure of the Body of Jesus Christ now as this figure is Bread in appearance and is called Bread only because of the outward accidents and qualities which it retains so also the Body of Jesus Christ was only a Body in appearance and was called a Body because it had the outward accidents and qualities Again as Tertullian saith That Jesus Christ distributed to his Disciples the Bread which he had taken to make it the figure of his Body it is most certain he took true Bread and by consequence that he distributed true Bread. The same Tertullian in his Treatise of the Soul disputing against the Academitians that question'd the truth of the testimony of the Senses saith to them that we must not at all doubt of the testimony of the Senses lest occasion might farther be taken to doubt the actions of the humanity of Jesus Christ that it might not be said That it was untrue that he saw Satan fall from Heaven That it was not true that he heard the Father's voice from heaven bearing witness to his Son That he was deceived when he touched Peter's Wifes Mother That he was deceived when he sinelt the sweet odour which he was pleas'd to accept for the preparation to his Death or That he tasted the Wine that he consecrated in remembrance of his Blood. It is evident that to consecrate Wine in remembrance of Blood cannot be understood of a substance which is destroy'd all saving the accidents This manner of expression in the language of the Ancients signifying no more but that a substance remains always in its first state only attains to a higher degree which is to be the Sacrament of a Heavenly and supernatural thing To conclude if Tertullian had believed that the Wine had been destroy'd and that nothing but the appearance was left against the testimony of all the Senses had it not been an unpardonable fault
Waters illuminans eas roborans in Type earum quae in ipso erant perficienda and as for the Bread Cibus quidem panis est sed virtus in eo est ad vivificationem 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 Incorporea re nihil augetur Arist de generat corruptione Alimentum vel materiam partim Ibid. l. 2. 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 Boetius in Praedic saith that 't is impossible an accident should pass into the nature of a substance ut accidens in substantia naturam transeat fieri nullo modo potest Gregory Nazianzen Greg. Naz. speaking of the miraculous recovery of his Sister Gorgonia speaks in these terms Orat. 11. 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 Body 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 no 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 to you this Sacrament I say which lifts us up to Heaven It appears by these words that S. Gregory lookt upon the Consecrated Bread and Wine as figures of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Gregory Nazianz. now if they are figures then they are not that whereof they be figures and by consequence there is in the Sacrament something else besides the very Body of Jesus Christ to wit the Bread and Wine which are the Types and figures of it For to say that S. Gregory means only that the accidents of Bread and Wine are the Types and figures when he saith his Sister mingled her tears with the Antitypes of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ as many as she could keep in her hands Si quid Antityporum pretiost Corporis aut Sanguinis manus thesaurisasset these words as many as she could gather in her hands signify as many portions and parts of the Eucharist as she could gather up paululum Eucharistiae as Eusebius speaks in the sixth Book of his Hist chap. 36. as having gather'd together a little of the Sacrament and having separated it from a greater Mass or from a greater quantity of liquor Now all antiquity agree that the lines the superficies the qualities are inseparable from their subject so that this little parcel of Antitypes this parcel of the figures cannot be a part of accidents and of appearances Gregory Nyssen going to prove that the Water of Baptism Greg. Nyss for being Water In his Oration of the Baptis of J.C. ought not to be despised but that after Consecration it hath a marvellous Virtue he proves it by the Example of the Eucharist and extream Vnction The Bread saith he before Consecration is but common Bread but after Consecration it is called and is the Body of Christ so also the Mystical Oyl and Wine before Benediction are common things and of no virtue but after Benediction both of them have a great virtue Now these words shew that the Bread and Wine remain after Consecration for it appears that St. Gregory's Design is to prove that common and ordinary things have a marvellous force after Consecration and if the Bread and Wine were destroy'd after Consecration what did operate would not be a vile and mean thing because it would be the very Body of Jesus Christ and St. Gregory would not well have proved that vile things have any marvellous virtue in them after Consecration for instance Bread and Wine which not subsisting after Consecration could not have the virtue to sanctify S. Ambrose in his Epistle to Justus explaining what Somer is saith it is a measure and that this measure signifies the quantity of Wine which rejoyces the heart of Man S. Ambrose and having explain'd the Wine of the drinking Wisdom l. 1. Ep. 1. Sobriety and Temperance he saith That it is to be understood more fully of the Blood of Jesus Christ which neither admits increase nor decrease as to grace But of which if one receive more or less the measure however of Redemption is equal to all Plenius de sanguine intelligitur cujus ad gratiam nihil minuitur nihil adaugetur si parum sumas si plurimum haurias eadem perfecta est omnibus mensura Redemptionis This manner of speaking of taking more or less of the Blood of Jesus Christ is not to be understood of the proper Body of Jesus Christ which is indivisible there must be therefore in the Eucharist besides the proper Blood of Jesus Christ a Typical and Symbolical Blood which is the Wine which is so called and of which we may say we receive more or less The same Father saith elsewhere Id. Tom. 4. de fide l. 4. c. 5. That as often as we receive the Sacraments which by the virtue of Holy Prayer are transfigur'd into the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ we shew forth the Death of Christ It is certain that by these words S. Ambrose lookt upon the Bread and Wine as figures of the Flesh and Blood now the figure being a thing distinct from what it represents as being two correlatives the one of which is not the other it must be concluded that S. Ambrose believed that there is Bread and Wine in the Eucharist which are the figures of the Bread and Heavenly Power The same Father speaking of the blessing of Aser Idem Tom. 1. of the blessing of the Patriarchs c. 9. explaining these Words Ashur his Bread is fat he shall feed Princes saith Jesus Christ who is Ashur that is rich has nourish'd Princes When he multiply'd the five and seven Loaves and gave them to his Apostles to distribute to the multitude he every day gives us this Bread saith he when the Priest doth consecrate we may also by this Bread understand the Lord himself continues S. Ambrose who has given us his Flesh to eat By these
words it appears S. Ambrose distinguishes three sorts of Bread which Jesus Christ gave to these Princes the first is that which he gave in multiplying the five and seven Loaves John 6. and Matth. 15. the second is the Bread which the Priest consecrates at Mass the third is that of which it is said I am the Bread of Life which is Jesus Christ himself Ambrose As then the second is not the first so neither is the second the third The Consecrated Bread is another thing than Jesus Christ the Bread of Life and by consequence there is in the Sacrament a Bread distinct from Jesus Christ the Heavenly Bread. Gaudentius upon Exodus saith Gaudentius With great reason we receive with the Bread the figure of the Body of Christ Gaud. Bishop of Bress Tract â— because as the Bread is compos'd of many grains which being ground into Flower is kneaded with Water and baked by Fire so also the Body of Christ is made and collected of the whole race of Mankind and is perfected by the Fire of the Holy Ghost Now as this Author places the figure of the Body of Jesus Christ in that the Bread is made up of sundry grains reduced into Meal kneaded with Water and baked with fire it follows that he believed the Bread remained in the Sacrament and so much the rather because this Bishop saith elsewhere Chrysostome figura nonest veritas sed imitatio veritatis S. Chrysostom expounding these words S. Chrys Hom. 83. on S. Matth. I will no more drink of this fruit of the vine until I drink it new in the Kingdom of my Father saith because Jesus Christ had spoke to his Disciples of his Passion and of his Death now he speaks to them of his Resurrection making mention of his Kingdom calling his resurrection by this name Now wherefore did Jesus Christ drink after his Resurrection fearing lest ignorant persons should think his Resurrection was only imaginary because many took the act of drinking as a true sign of the Resurrection Therefore the Apostles going to prove his Resurrection say we that have eat and drank with him Jesus Christ Therefore assuring them that they should see him after his Resurrection and that he would stay with them and that they might bear witness of his Resurrection might see and behold him tells them I will no 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 pernitious Heresy For because there would be Hereticks that would only make use of water in the Mysteries he 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 now 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 Idem in Hom. 24. 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 â—ucharist 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 Consecrated 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 Casarius which indeed is not inserted in his Works but is found 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