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
Sacrifices such as were offer'd by Aaron the Priest which are now offer'd by Believers but they are such Sacrifices as were presented by Melchisedeck King of Salem that is to say it is Bread and Wine the true Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ He saith The Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ is Bread and Wine That both the one and the other are such Sacrifices as those offer'd by Melchisedeck there is therefore no question but St. Isidore did not believe that the Bread was destroy'd in the Sacrament because he establishes the Sacrament in the Bread and Wine such as Melchisedeck had offer'd Beda AGE viii an English Priest saith That Jesus Christ having ended the Ceremony of the Ancient Passover which was celebrated in commemoration of the Bondage in Egypt Beda out of which the Jews had been deliver'd proceeded to the new Passover which the Church celebrates in remembrance of His Redemption In Lucae 22. in Marc. 14. in Hom quadrages Feria 3◠palmarum the figure of his Body to the end that instead of the Flesh and Blood of the Lamb substituting the Sacrament stead of the Flesh and Blood of the Lamb substituting the Sacrament of his Flesh and Blood in the figure of Bread and Wine he might shew that it was him to whom God had sworn and repented not saying Thou art a Priest for ever after the Order of Melchisedeck Now continues Beda Jesus Christ broke the Bread which he distributed to his Disciples to shew That the breaking of his Body did not come to pass without his good will. It appears from these words substituting the Sacrament of his Flesh and Blood in the figure of Bread and Wine that the Bread and Wine remain after Consecration to be the figure of the Body and Blood of Christ Rom. 4.11 As when the Apostle saith the sign of Circumcision signum circumcisionis That is to say Circumcision which is a sign and a figure So Beda maketh the Sacrament consist in the Bread and Wine Therefore in the Homily De Sanctis in Epiphania he saith That Jesus Christ the Heavenly Lamb having been offer'd up and transfer'd into the creatures of Bread and VVine the Mystery of his Passion and thereby became a Priest for ever after the Order of Melchisedeck And elsewhere he saith Hom. aest c. 55 in Virg. St. Joan. Bapt. Melchisedeck Priest of the most high God did long before the time of the legal Priesthood offer up Bread and VVine Therefore our Saviour is called Priest after the Order of Melchisedeck because he abrogated the Sacrifices of the Law and instituted a Sacrifice of the same kind to be under the New Testament the Mystery of his Body and Blood. Certainly As our Mystery is no Mystery till after Consecration and that 't is of the same Nature as was that of Melchisedeck it must be concluded that the Bread and VVine do remain in the Sacrament of the Eucharist Sedulius Sedulius a Scotchman Author of the Commentaries upon St. Paul and who flourished about the year 735 in his Commentary upon the first to the Corinthians Chap. 11. saith Jesus Christ in the Eucharist hath left us the remembrance of himself as if one going a far journey should leave with his friend the pledg of his love to remember their ancient amity There must then needs be something that is not Jesus Christ himself for no one is a pledg of himself Damascen a Frier Jo. Damascen who lived about the year 750 saith in his fourth Book of Orthodox Law Chap. 14. The Shew-bread did typifie this Bread and 't is this pure and unbloody Sacrifice which our Saviour foretold by the Prophet should be offered to him from the rising of the Sun to the setting of the same to wit Damascen the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ which passeth into the substance of our Body and Soul without being consumed without being corrupted without going into the draft God forbid but passing into our substance for our preservation Now every body agrees this cannot be said of the proper Body of Jesus Christ It must then be concluded Damascen supposed that the Bread remained In the same place he adds That as in Baptism because men are wont to wash with water and anoint them with oyl God has added to the water and oyl the Grace of his Hely Spirit and has made it the washing of Regeneration so also they being accustom'd to eat bread and to drink wine and water he has joined them to his Divinity and has made them his Body and Blood. In the same place The Prophet Esay saw a light coal now the Coal is not of meer wood but it is joined to fire so also the Bread of the Eucharist is not common bread but it is united to the Divinity and the Body which is united to the Divinity is not one and the same Nature but the Nature of the Body is one and that of the Divinity which is united to it is another In the same place How is it that the Bread is made the Body of Jesus Christ and the Wine and Water his Blood he answers The Holy Ghost comes and disposes these things after such a manner as surpasseth our thoughts and expressions The Bread and Wine are taken Panis Vinum assumuntur in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a word used by St. Athanasius to express the Hypostatical Union Now these kinds of expressions of Damascen do imply that the Bread and Wine do remain in the Sacrament The Council of Constantinople composed of 338 Bishops Concil Constant Act. 6. held in the viiith Century for regulating the business of Image-Worship having condemn'd their use they would by the way explain the Doctrine of the Church touching the Eucharist and to draw a proof against those very Images they call it the true Image of Jesus Christ they say he gave it to his Disciples to be a Type of the evident Commemoration of his Death they say that Jesus Christ chose no other Species under Heaven nor no other Type that should express his Incarnation Behold then say they the Image of his quickned Body which was made after a precious and honourable manner They affirm that as the Word did not take a Person that so the addition of a Person might not be made to the Divinity so also he appointed that an Image should be offered which is a chosen matter Conc. Const to wit the Substance of Bread that has not the figure of Man to avoid giving occasion of Idolatry As then say they the Body of Jesus Christ which is according to Nature is Holy as having been Deified so also 't is apparent that that body also that is by Institution is Holy and it's Image is Holy as having been Deified by Grace by a kind of Sanctification They maintain that as the Human Nature was Deified by its Union with the Word so also the
of Popes Num. 406. speaks in these Terms Innocent the Third forged or at least established it as a general Article of Faith and as necessary to be believed by all as that of the holy Trinity the Transubstantiation of the Bread and Wine into the true Body and true Blood of Jesus Christ Tenthly Joâ— Yribaâ—ne John Yribarne a Spanish Divine in the 4th Sent. Dist 11. q. 3. Disp 42. S. 1. saith That in the Primitive Church it was matter of Faith that the Body of Jesus Christ was contain'd under the Species of Bread and Wine but that 't was not any matter of Faith to hold that the substance of Bread was changed into the Flesh of Jesus Christ and that it subsisted no longer after Consecration Eleventhly De Marca Monsieur de Marca Archbishop of Paris in his Posthumous Dissertations saith in his French Treatise of the Sacrament of the Eucharist That until S. Chrysostom's time it was believed the Bread was the Body of Jesus Christ by a marvelous change that comes on the Bread but that it becomes united to the incarnate Word and to his Natural Body the Bread not changing its Nature and yet not going into the Draught which is a kind of pious consideration which he added against Origen PART II. AS for the Second Point That the Ancients indeed did not believe Transubstantiation which is to see if there is effectively to be found in the Writings of the Ancients sufficient Authorities to believe that the Ancients did not believe Transubstantiation Before I alledge their Authorities two Reflections may be made First that our own Authors do observe Obs 1 that Transubstantiation is not expresly mention'd nor taught in the Scriptures The Papists confess that it is not expresly in Scripture So * Scotus Scotus cited by Bellarmine of the Eucharist Lib. 3. cap. 23. saith It doth not plainly follow from the words of Jesus Christ This is my Body that the Bread is transubstantiated †Ockham Lib. 4. q. 34. Ockham saith of Transubstantiation that it cannot be proved by natural Reason nor by Authority of the Bible but only by the Authority of the Ancients * Alfonsus de Castro Vocubulo Indulgentiae Alfonsus de Castro disapproves what Ockham says that it can be proved by the Authority of the Ancients for he saith that it was not to be found no more than Indulgences were in the Writings of the Ancients Gabriel †Biel. Lect. 40. in Can. Mis Biel speaking of Transubstantiation saith That it is not expresly taught in the Holy Scriptures Cardinal * CAJETAN in 3 p. 8. Th 9.75 Art. 7. Cajetan does not find the words of Jesus Christ This is my Body clear neither for the Real Presence nor for Transubstantiation without the determination of the Church be joyned to them The second Reflection Obs 2 is that Transubstantiation comprehending a great many Difficulties quite contrary to natural Reason None of the Pagans objected to the ancient Christians the difficulties of it Not Trypho none of the Jews nor Pagan Philosophers disputing against the ancient Christians ever dream'd of making any Objections against it in their Disputations Trypho the Jew charges us with things monstrous incredible and strangely invented as what we teach of Jesus Christ's being before Aaron and Abraham that he took on him our Nature that he was born of a Virgin that God should be born be made Man that we should adore a Man that we should put our trust in him and that we should invoke another God besides the Creator all this appears in S. Justin Martyr in his Dialogue against Trypho The Pagans reproach us for saying God has a Son that this Son should appear in humane shape and they stile it the Follies of the Christian Discipline that God should be born and that he should be born of a Virgin and be a God of Flesh crucified and buried The last Judgment the pains of eternal Fire the Joys of Heaven the Resurrection of the Dead All this appears by Clement of Alexandria Stromat l. 6. by Tertullian his Apologet. ch 21.47 in his Treatise of the Flesh of Christ chap. 4. and 5. And in his Treatise of the Testimony of the Soul chap. 4. By S. Justine in his second Apology and Arnobius in his second Book Celsus Nor Celsus in * L. 1. 2. contr Cels Origen scoffs at the Incarnation as of a thing unworthy of God. In the Sixth Book he laughs that we should believe God should be born of a Virgin. In the Third and Eighth Book he saith of Christians That they honour with a Religious Worship even above all Religion a Man that was a Prisoner and that suffered Death He even thereby pleads for the plurality of his Gods as if Christians were not satisfi'd in worshipping one God under colour that they adored Jesus Christ If Christians saith he in the Eighth Book worshipped but one God they might have some colour to despise others But they pay infinite Honours to him that has but very lately appear'd and yet they don't think they displease God when they serve and honour his Minister Julian the Apostate oppos'd the Mystery of the Incarnation Nor Julian the Divinity of Jesus Christ the Salvation he purchas'd for us by the price of his Blood he reproaches us with the glorious Title of Mother of God which we give to the Blessed Virgin he contests the Mystery of the Trinity of Persons and Vnity of Essence accusing us of contradicting Moses who said There is but one God. He reproaches us for Baptism See saith he what Paul saith to them that they are sanctified and cleansed by Water as if Water could penetrate to the Soul to wash and purifie it Baptism can't so much as cleanse a Leper nor a Scurf it cannot heal a Cancer nor the Gout He aggravates what we read that God visits the Iniquity of the Fathers upon the Children thereby to endeavour to attack the Doctrine of Original Sin. He boldly questions what God saith in the Book of Numbers touching Phineas that thrust his Javelin through the Body of an Israelite that committed Folly with a Midianitish Woman which turn'd away God's Anger from the Children of Israel and hinder'd him from consuming them Let us suppose saith he that there had been to the Number of one Thousand that had attempted to have transgressed the Law of God ought six hundred Thousand to have been destroy'd for the sake of one Thousand it seems to me to have been much juster to have saved one ill Man with so many good ones than to involve so many good Men in the ruine of one bad one There 's scarce any of our Mysteries that have not been censur'd by the Jews or Pagans yet 't is very strange that not one should accuse us of admitting in the Eucharist accidents without substance whiteness without any thing that 's white roundness without any thing round weight
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
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
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
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
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
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
ready drawn up it not appearing that the advice of the Assembly was taken on each of them as is usually practis'd in all free and lawful Councils Mathew Paris on the year 1215. speaks in these terms Every one being Assembled in the place abovesaid and each having according to the custom of General Councils taken their place the Pope having first made an Exhortatory Sermon there was read in full Council Sixty Articles which were liked by some and disliked by others Godfry a Frier of St. Pantalion at Cologne saith Ad Ann. 1215. there was nothing worth the remembrance done at this Council only that the Eastern Church submitted to the Western which before was never known Nauclerus and Platina in the Life of Innocent the 3d. affirm the same for they mark that several things were there propos'd but that nothing was clearly determin'd And Kings and Princes have no Reason to allow of this Council because in the 3d Chap. of the said Council power is given to the Pope to deprive Princes and Lords of their Lands and to give them to others Guy le Gros Archbishop of Narbonne in the year 1268. did not believe Transubstantiation for being at Rome and discovering his mind to a certain Doctor being return'd to Narbonne Pope Clement the IV. wrote him a Letter telling him that a certain Doctor inform'd him that discoursing with him he held that the Body of Christ was not essentially in the Sacrament and no otherwise than as the thing signified is in the Sign and that he said also this Opinion was common at Paris This appears by the Register'd Manuscript of the Letters of Clement the IV. And to shew that the Arch-Bishop of Narbonne said this Doctrine was very frequent at Paris we find that two years after that is to say in the year 1270. which was in the year St. Lewis died Stephen Bishop of Paris by advice of some Doctors in Divinity condemned those which held that God cannot make an Accident to be without a Subject because it is of its Essence to be actually in its Subject 2ly That the Accident without a Subject is not evident unless it be equivocal 3ly That to make the Accident subsist without its Subject as we think it does in the Eucharist is a thing impossible and implies a Contradiction 4ly That God cannot make the Accident be without its Subject neither that it should have several Dimensions Which Maxims being inconsistent with Transubstantiation doth plainly shew that even at that time Men were divided on the Subject of Transubstantiation One William saith the Frier Walsingham in the Life of Richard the 2d King of England on the year 1381. Preached at Leicester on Palm-Sunday That the Sacrament of the Altar is real Bread after Consecration and that the Bishop of Lincoln going to punish him for it the People appearing concern'd for him made the Bishop not dare do any thing against him which doth plainly shew that in that time the Doctrine of Transubstantiation had not taken any deep root in the minds of the People Reginald Peacock Bishop of Chichester in England In Richard. 2. Anno 1282. in the year 1457 did not hold Transubstantiation seeing Baleus reports on the Credit of Thomas Gasconius and Leland Tom. 2. Ch. 19. that he had no sound thoughts touching the Eucharist and that he asserted the Doctrine of Wickliff Now the Doctrine of Wickliff Tho. Waldens in Epist ad Mart. 5. as is related by this Frier Walsingham and Thomas Waldensis was That after Consecration by the Priest in the Mass there remains true Bread and Wine such as they were before nevertheless saith Walsingham the Lords and Nobles of the Land favour'd Wickliff In Rich. 2. which shews plainly that the belief of Transubstantiation was not generally received Guy of Cluvigny Doctor in Divinity of the Order of Carmelites and Reader of the Sacred Palace did not hold Transubstantiation but held the Opinion of Rupert de Duits to wit the Impanation and said That this Opinion was so agreeable to him that if he were Pope he would establish it Tom. 2. Ch. 64. Thomas Waldensis reports the same thing having receiv'd it from John of Paris It 's certain that John of Paris teacheth so in his Manuscript Treatise in the Library of St. Victor having for its Title Determinatio fratris Joannis de Parisiis Praedicatoris de modo existendi Corpus Christi in Sacramento Altaris alio quam sit ille quem tenet Ecclesia The same John de Paris wrote the Treatise above mention'd about the year 1300. he was a Jacobin and Doctor of the Sorbon he held that the Eucharist is the Body of Christ as Rupert de Duits and Guy of Cluvigny did to wit by Assumption Jesus Christ having taken the Bread into the Unity of his Suppositum as he took the human Nature into the Unity of his Person And towards the end of the Manuscript it is said That the faculty thought fit that the manner of explaining the Eucharist by Assumption of the Bread or by Conversion was a probable Opinion but that neither the one nor the other was decided as a matter of Faith and that whoever said otherwise did not say well and run the risque of Excommunication In praesentia Collegii Magistrorum in Theologia dictum est says the end of the Manuscript utrumque modum ponendi Corpus Christi esse in Altari tenet pro Opinioni probabili approbat utrumque per. Et per dicta Sanctorum Dicit tamen quod nullus est determinatus per Ecclesiam idcirco nullus cadit sub fide si aliter dixisset minus bene dixisset qui aliter dicunt minus bene dicunt qui determinate assereret alterum praecise cadere sub fide incurreret sententiam Canonis vel Anathematis Thomas Waldensis attributes this Opinion to John de Paris There is commonly found in the Library of the Franciscan Friers a Book called the Poor's Reckoning writ by one called De Goris a Doctor of Tholouse and Native of Arragon he Dedicated his Book to Alphonsus of Arragon Arch-Bishop of Sarragossa He chargeth John de Paris with the Opinion of the Impanation and doth not condemn it It is on the 4th Book of Sentences Dist. 11. q. 3. The Continuator of VVilliam de Nangis his Manuscript Chronicle in the Library of St. German de Pres that John de Paris is stiled Doctor of great Knowledg and Learning * De Script Ecclesiast Trythemius and Auctuar ‡ Auctuan le Mire give him also the same Epithets I observe That in this Manuscript John de Paris to confirm his Opinion makes use of the Authority of the Master of the Sentences in 4th Sent. Dist. 21. I take it to be Dist. 12. as if the Master of the Sentences should there say That the Impanation is a probable Opinion He also cites to the same purpose Dominus Hostiensem c. Super Corpus juris