the condition use and office of the Bread is wholly changed that is of common and ordinary it becomes our Mystical and Sacramental food whereby as they affirm and believe the true Body of Christ is not only shadowed and figured but also given indeed and by worthy Communicants truly received Yet they believe not that the bread loseth its own to become the substance of the Body of Christ for the holy Scripture and the ancient Interpreters thereof for many ages never taught such an Essential change and conversion as that the very substance the matter and form of the Bread should be wholly taken away but only a mysterious and Sacramental one whereby our Ordinary is changed into Mystick bread and thereby designed and appointed to another use end and office than before This change whereby supernatural effects are wrought by things natural while their Essence is preserved entire doth best agree with the grace and power of God 2. There is no reason why we should dispute concerning Gods Omnipotency whether it can do this or that presuming to measure an infinite power by our poor ability which is but weakness We may grant that he is able to do beyond what we can think or apprehend and resolve his most wonderful acts into his absolute will and power but we may not charge him with working contradictions And though Gods Almightiness were able in this Mystery to destroy the substance of Bread and Wine and essentially to change it into the Body and Bloud of Christ while the accidents of Bread and Wine subsist of themselves without a subject yet we desire to have it proved that God will have it so and that it is so indeed For that God doth it because he can is no Argument and that he wills it we have no other proof but the confident Assertion of our Adversaries Tertullian against Praxias declared That we should not conclude God doth things because he is able but that we should enquire what he hath done For God will never own that praise of his Omnipotency whereby his unchangeableness and his truth are impaired and those things overthrown and destroy'd which in his word he affirms to be for take away the Bread and Wine and there remains no Sacrament 3. They that say that the matter and form of the Bread are wholly abolished yet will have the accidents to remain But if the substance of the Bread be changed into the substance of Christs Body by vertue of his words what hinders that the accidents of the Bread are not also changed into the accidents of Christs Body They that urge the express Letter should shew that Christ said This is the substance of my Body without its accidents But he did not say That he gave his Disciples a Phantastick Body such a visionary figment as Marcion believed but that very Body which was given for us without being deprived of that extention and other accidents of humane bodies without which it could not have been crucified since the Maintainers of Transubstantiation grant that the Body of Christ keeps its quantity in Heaven and say it is without the same in the Sacrament they must either acknowledge their contradiction in the matter or give over their opinion 4. Protestants dare not be so curious or presume to know more than is delivered by Scripture and Antiquity they firmly believing the words of Christ make the form of this Sacrament to consist in the Union of the thing signified with the sign that is the exhibition of the Body of Christ with the consecrated bread still remaining bread by divine appointment these two are made one and though this Union be not natural substantial personal or local by their being one within another yet it is so straight and so true that in eating the blessed Bread the true body of Christ is given to us and the names of the sign and thing signified are reciprocally changed what is proper to the body is attributed to the bread and what belongs only to the bread is affirmed of the body and both are united in time though not in place For the presence of Christ in this Mystery is not opposed to distance but to absence which only could deprive us of the benefit and fruition of the object 5. From what hath been said it appears that this whole controversie may be reduced to four Heads 1. Concerning the Signs 2. Concerning the thing signified 3. Concerning the Union of both and 4. Concerning their participation As for the first The Protestants differ from the Papists in this that according to the nature of Sacraments and the Doctrine of holy Scripture we make the substance of Bread and Wine and they accidents only to be signs In the second they not understanding our opinion do misrepresent it for we do not hold as they say we do that only the merits of the Death of Christ are represented by the blessed Elements but also that his very Body which was crucified and his Bloud which was shed for us are truly signified and offered that our Souls may receive and possess Christ as truly and certainly as the material and visible signs are by us seen and received And so in the third place because the thing signified is offered and given to us as truly as the sign it self in this respect we own the Union betwixt the Body and bloud of Christ and the Elements whose use and office we hold to be changed from what it was before But we deny what the Papists affirm that the substance of Bread and Wine are quite abolished and changed into the Body and Bloud of our Lord in such sort that the bare accidents of the Elements do alone remain united with Christs Body and Bloud And we also deny that the Elements still retain the nature of Sacraments when not used according to divine institution that is given by Christs Ministers and received by his People so that Christ in the consecrated bread ought not cannot be kept and preserved to be carried about because he is present only to the Communicants As for the fourth and last point we do not say that in the Lords Supper we receive only the benefits of Christs Death and Passion but we joyn the ground with its fruits that is Christ with those advantages we receive from him affirming with St. Paul That the bread which we break is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Communion of the body of Christ and the Cup which we bless the Communion of his bloud of that very substance which he took of the blessed Virgin and afterwards carried into heaven differing from those of Rome only in this that they will have our Union with Christ to be corporal and our eating of him likewise and we on the contrary maintain it to be indeed as true but not carnal or natural And as he that receives unworthily that is with the mouth only but not with a faithful heart eats and drinks his own damnation so he that doth it
that was a certain Type of the Eucharist so Christ in the Sacrament seigns himself to be bread and yet is not bread though he seems so to be most visibly Secondly Of Cardinal Francis Tolet The words of Consecration are efficacious instruments whereby to Transubstantiate the substance of the Bread into the true Body of Christ so that after they are spoken there remains in the Host none of the substance of the Bread but only the accidents of it which are called the properties of the Bread under which the true Body of Christ is present Thirdly and lastly Of Cardinal Bellarmine The Catholick Church ever taught that by the conversion of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Bloud of Christ which conversion hath been in after times called Transubstantiation it comes to pass that the Body and Bloud of our Lord are truly and really present in the Sacrament It would be to no purpose to bring the Testimonies of others of the Latine or Roman Church who give to the Pope an absolute power of defining what he pleaseth for they are but the same stuff as these but if any one hath a mind let him consult Gretserus his defence of Bellarmine or his Dialogue who first writ against Luther who both reduce the whole matter to the judgment and decree of the Pope 8. Now we leave inquiring what God is able to do for we should first know his will in this matter before we examine his power Yet thus much we say that this Roman Transubstantiation is so strange and monstrous that it exceeds the nature of all Miracles And though God by his Almightiness be able to turn the substance of bread into some other substance yet none will believe that he doth it as long as it appears to our senses that the substance of the Bread doth still remain whole and entire Certain it is that hitherto we read of no such thing done in the Old or New Testament and therefore this Tenet being as unknown to the Ancients as it is ungrounded in Scripture appears as yet to be very incredible and there is no reason we should believe such an unauthorised figment newly invented by men and now imposed as an Article of Christian Religion For it is in vain that they bring Scripture to defend this their stupendious Doctrine and it is not true what they so often and so confidently affirm that the Universal Church hath always constantly owned it being it was not so much as heard of in the Church for many Ages and hath been but lately approved by the Popes Authority in the Councils of Lateran and Trent as I shall prove in the following Chapters CHAP. V. That neither the word nor name of Transubstantiation nor the Doctrine or the thing it self is taught or contained in holy Scripture or in the Writings of the ancient Doctors of the Church but rather is contrary to them and therefore not of Faith 1. THe word Transubstantiation is so far from being found either in the sacred Records or in the Monuments of the ancient Fathers that the maintainers of it do themselves acknowledge that it was not so much as heard of before the twelfth Century For though one Stephanus Bishop of Autun be said to have once used it yet it is without proof that some Modern Writers make him one of the tenth Century nor yet doth he say that the bread is Transubstantiated but as it were Transubstantiated which well understood might be admitted 2. Nay that the thing it self without the word that the Doctrine without the expression cannot be found in Scripture is ingeniously acknowledged by the most learned Schoolmen Scotus Durandus Biel Cameracensis Cajetan and many more who finding it not brought in by the Popes Authority and received in the Roman Church till 1200 years after Christ yet endeavoured to defend it by other Arguments 3. Scotus Confest That there is not any place in Scripture so express as to compel a man to admit of Transubstantiation were it not that the Church hath declared for it that is Pope Innocent III in his Lateran Council Durandus said That the word is found but that by it the manner they contend for cannot be proved Biel affirms That it is no where found in Canonical Scriptures Occam declared That it is easier more reasonable less inconvenient and better agreeing with Scripture to hold that the substance of the Bread remains After him Cardinal Cameracensis doth also confess That Transubstantiation cannot be proved out of the Scriptures Nay the Bishop of Rochester saith himself That there is no expression in Scripture whereby that conversion of substance in the Mass can be made good Cardinal Cajetan likewise There is not any thing of force enough in the Gospel to make us understand in a proper sense these words This is my body Nay that presence which the Church of Rome believes in the Sacrament cannot be proved by the words of Christ without the declaration of the Roman Church Lastly Bellarmine himself doth say That though he might bring Scripture clear enough to his thinking to prove Transubstantiation by to an easie man yet still it would be doubtful whether he had done it to purpose because some very acute and learned men as Scotus hold that it cannot be proved by Scripture Now in this Protestants desire no more but to be of the opinion of those learned and acute men 4. And indeed the words of institution would plainly make it appear to any man that would prefer truth to wrangling that it is with the Bread that the Lords Body is given as his Bloud with the Wine for Christ having taken blessed and broken the bread said This is my body and St. Paul than whom none could better understand the meaning of Christ explains it thus The bread which we break is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Communion or communication of the body of Christ that whereby his body is given and the Faithful are made partakers of it That it was bread which he reacht to them there was no need of any proof the receiver's senses sufficiently convinc'd them of it but that therewith his body was given none could have known had it not been declared by him who is the truth it self And though by the divine institution and the explication of the Apostle every faithful Communicant may be as certainly assured that he receives the Lords Body as if he knew that the Bread is substantially turned into it yet it doth not therefore follow that the Bread is so changed that its substance is quite done away so that there remains nothing present but the very natural Body of Christ made of bread For certain it is that the bread is not the Body of Christ any otherwise than as the Cup is the New Testament and two different consequences cannot be drawn from those two not different expressions Therefore as the Cup cannot be the New Testament but by a
Sacramental figure no more can the Bread be the Body of Christ but in the same sense 5. As to what Bellarmine and others say That it is not possible the words of Christ can be true but by that conversion which the Church of Rome calls Transubstantiation that is so far from being so that if it were admitted it would first deny the Divine Omnipotency as though God were not able to make the Body of Christ present and truly to give it in the Sacrament whilst the substance of the Bread remains 2. It would be inconsistent with the Divine Benediction which preserves things in their proper being 3. It would be contrary to the true nature of a Sacrament which always consisteth of two parts And lastly It would in some manner destroy the true substance of the Body and Bloud of Christ which cannot be said to be made of Bread and Wine by a Priest without a most high presumption But the truth of the words of Christ remains constant and can be defended without overthrowing so many other great truths Suppose a Testator puts Deeds and Titles in the hand of his Heir with these words Take the House which I bequeath thee There is no man will think that those Writings and Parchments are that very House which is made of Wood or Stones and yet no man will say that the Testator spake falsly or obscurely Likewise our blessed Saviour having sanctified the Elements by his words and prayers gave them to his Disciples as Seals of the New Testament whereby they were as certainly secured of those rich and precious Legacies which he left to them as Children are of their Fathers Lands and Inheritance by Deeds and Instruments signed and delivered for that purpose 6. To the Sacred Records we may add the judgment of the Primitive Church For those Orthodox and holy Doctors of our holier Religion those great Lights of the Catholick Church do all clearly constantly and unanimously conspire in this That the presence of the Body of Christ in the Sacrament is only mystick and spiritual As for the entire annihilation of the substance of the Bread and the Wine or that new and strange Tenet of Transubstantiation they did not so much as hear or speak any thing of it Nay the constant stream of their Doctrine doth clearly run against it how great soever are the brags and pretences of the Papists to the contrary And if you will hear them one by one I shall bring some of their most noted passages only that our labour may not be endless by rehearsing all that they have said to our purpose on this subject 7. I shall begin with that holy and ancient Doctor Justin Martyr who is one of the first after the Apostles times whose undoubted Writings are come to us What was believed at Rome and elsewhere in his time concerning this holy mystery may well be understood out of these his words After that the Bishop hath prayed and blessed and the people said Amen those whom we call Deacons or Ministers give to every one of them that are present a portion of the Bread and Wine and that food we call the Eucharist for we do not receive it as ordinary Bread and Wine They received it as bread yet not as common bread And a little after By this food digested our flesh and bloud are fed and we are taught that it is the Body and Bloud of Jesus Christ Therefore the substance of the Bread remains and remains corruptible food even after the Consecration which can in no wise be said of the immortal Body of Christ For the flesh of Christ is not turned into our flesh neither doth it nourish it as doth that food which is Sacramentally called the Flesh of Christ But the Flesh of Christ feeds our souls unto eternal life 8. After the same manner it is written by that holy Martyr Irenaeus Bishop much about the same time The bread which is from the earth is no more common bread after the invocation of God upon it but is become the Eucharist consisting of two parts the one earthly and the other heavenly There would be nothing earthly if the substance of the bread were removed Again As the grain of wheat falling in the ground and dying riseth again much increased and then receiving the word of God becomes the Eucharist which is the Body and Bloud of Christ So likewise our bodies nourished by it laid in the ground and dissolved shall rise again in their time Again We are fed by the Creature but it is he himself that gives it he hath ordained and appointed that Cup which is a Creature and his Bloud also and that Bread which is a Creature and also his Body And so when the Bread and the Cup are blessed by Gods Word they become the Eucharist of the Body and Bloud of Christ and from them our bodies receive nourishment and increase Now that our flesh is fed and encreased by the natural body of Christ cannot be said without great impiety by themselves that hold Transubstantiation For naturally nothing nourisheth our bodies but what is made flesh and bloud by the last digestion which it would be blasphemous to say of the incorruptible body of Christ Yet the sacred Elements which in some manner are and are said to be the body and bloud of Christ yield nourishment and encrease to our bodies by their earthly nature in such sort that by vertue also of the heavenly and spiritual food which the faithful receive by means of the material our bodies are fitted for a blessed Resurrection to immortal glory 9. Tertullian who flourished about the two hundredth year after Christ when as yet he was Catholick and acted by a pious zeal wrote against Marcion the Heretick who amongst his other impious opinions taught that Christ had not taken of the Virgin Mary the very nature and substance of a humane body but only the outward forms and appearances out of which Fountain the Romish Transubstantiators seem to have drawn their Doctrine of accidents abstracted from their subject hanging in the air that is subsisting on nothing Tertullian disputing against this wicked Heresie draws an Argument from the Sacrament of the Eucharist to prove that Christ had not a Phantastick and imaginary but a true and natural body thus The figure of the Body of Christ proves it to be natural for there can be no figure of a Ghost or a Phantasm But saith he Christ having taken the Bread and given it to his Disciples made it his Body by saying This is my Body that is the figure of my Body Now it could not have been a figure except the body were real for a meer appearance an imaginary Phantasm is not capable of a figure Each part of this Argument is true and contains a necessary Conclusion For 1. The bread must remain bread otherwise Marcion would have returned the Argument against Tertullian saying as the
Eucharist after the Invocation of the Holy Ghost is no longer ordinary Bread but is the Body of Christ so this holy Oyntment is no longer a bare common Oyntment after it is consecrated but is the gift or grace of Christ which by his Divine Nature and the coming of the Holy Ghost is made â—fficacious so that the Body is anointed with the Oyntment but the soul is sanctified by the holy and vivifying Spirit Can any thing more clear be said Either the Oyntment is transubstantiated by consecration into the spirit and grace of Christ or the Bread and Wine are not transubstantiated by Consecration into the Body and Bloud of Christ Therefore as the Oyntment retains still its substance and yet is not called a meer or common ointment but the Charisme or grace of Christ So the Bread and Wine remaining so as to their substance yet are not said to be only Bread and Wine common and ordinary but also the Body and Bloud of Christ Vnder the Type of Bread saith he the Body is given thee and the Bloud under the type of the Wine This Grodecius doth captiously and unfaithfully interpret under the appearances of Bread and Wine for those meer appearances or accidents subsisting without a subject never so much as entred into the mind of any of the Ancients 15. Much to the same purpose we have in the Anaphora or Liturgy attributed to St. Basil We have set before you the Type of the Body and Bloud of Christ which he calls the Bread of the Eucharist after the Consecration If it be the Type of the Body then certainly it cannot be the Body and nothing else For as we said before nothing can be the figure of it self no more than a man can be his own Son or Father There be also Prayers in that Liturgy That the Bread may become the Body of Christ for the remission of sins and life eternal to the receivers Now true it is that to the faithful the Element becomes a vivifying Body because they are truly partakers of the heavenly bread the Body of Christ but to others who either receive not or are not believers to them the Bread may be the Antitype but is not neither doth become the Body of Christ for without Faith Christ is never eaten as is gathered from the same Father 16. St. Gregory Nyssene his Brother doth clearly declare what change is wrought in the Bread and Wine by Consecration saying As the Altar naturally is but common stone but being consecrated becomes an holy Table a spotless Altar so the bread of the Eucharist is at first ordinary but being mysteriously sacrificed it is and is called the Body of Christ and is efficacious to great purposes and as the Priest yesterday a Lay-man by the Blessing of Ordination becomes a Doctor of Piety and a Steward of Mysteries and though not changed in body or shape yet is transformed and made better as to his soul by an invisible power and grace so also by the same consequence water being nothing but water of it self yet blest by a heavenly grace renews the man working a spiritual regeneration in him Now let the Assertors of Transubstantiation maintain that a Stone is substantially changed into an Altar a man into a Priest the water in Baptism into an invisible grace or else that the Bread is not so changed into the Body of Christ For according to this Father there is the same consequence in them all 17 Likewise St. Ambrose explaining what manner of alteration is in the bread when in the Eucharist it becomes the Body of Christ saith Thou hadst indeed a being but wert an old creature but being now Baptized or consecrated thou art become a new creature The same change that happens to man in Baptism happens to the Bread in the Sacrament If the nature of man is not substantially altered by the new Birth no more is the bread by Consecration Man becomes by Baptism not what Nature made him but what Grace new-makes him and the Bread becomes by Consecration not what it was by Nature but what the Blessing consecrates it to be For Nature made only a meer man and made only common bread but Regeneration of a meer man makes a holy man in whom Christ dwells spiritually And likewise the Consecration of common bread makes Mystick and Sacramental bread Yet this change doth not destroy Nature but to Nature adds Grace As is yet more plainly exprest by that holy Father in the fore-cited place Perhaps thou wilt say saith he this my bread is common bread it is bread indeed before the blessing of the Sacrament but when it is consecrated it becomes the Body of Christ This we are therefore to declare how can that which is bread be also the body of Christ By Consecration And Consecration is made by the words of our Lord that the venerable Sacrament may be perfected You see how efficacious is the word of Christ If there be then so great a power in the word of Christ to make the Bread and Wine to be what they were not how much greater is that power which still preserves them to be what they were and yet makes them to be what they were not Therefore that I may answer thee it was not the Body of Christ before the Consecration but now after the Consecration it is the Body of Christ he said the word and it was done thou thy self wert befere but wert an old Creature after thou hast been consecrated in Baptism thou art become a new creature By these words St. Ambrose teacheth how we are to understand that the Bread is the Body of Christ to wit by such a change that the Bread and Wine do not cease to be what they were as to their substance for then they should not be what they were and yet by the Blessing become what before they were not For so they are said to remain as indeed they do 〈◊〉 what they were by nature that yet they are changed by grace that is they become assured Sacraments of the Body and Bloud of Christ and by that means certain pledges of our Justification and Redemption What is there can refute more expresly the dream of Transubstantiation 18. St. Chrysostome doth also clearly discard and reject this carnal Transubstantiation and eating of Christs Body without eating the bread Sacraments saith he ought not to be contemplated and considered carnally but with the eyes of our souls that is spiritually for such is the nature of mysteries where observe the opposition betwixt carnally and spiritually which admits of no plea or reply again As in Baptism the spiritual power of Regeneration is given to the material water so also the immaterial gift of the Body and Bloud of Christ is not received by any sensible corporal action but by the spiritual discernment of our faith and of our hearts and minds Which is no more than this that
sensible things are called by the name of those spiritual things which they seal and signifie But he speaks more plainly in his Epistle to Caesarius where he teacheth that in this Mystery there is not in the bread a substantial but a Sacramental change according to the which the outward Elements take the name of what they represent and are changed in such a sort that they still retain their former natural substance The bread saith he is made worthy to be honoured with the name of the Flesh of Christ by the consecration of the Priest yet the Flesh retains the proprieties of its incorruptible nature as the bread doth its natural substance Before the bread be sanctified we call it bread but when it is consecrated by the divine grace it deserves to be called the Lords Body though the substance of the bread still remains When Bellarmine could not answer this testimony of that Great Doctor he thought it enough to deny that this Epistle is St. Chrysostoms but both he and Possevin do vainly contend that it is not extant among the works of Chrysostom For besides that at Florence and else where it was to be found among them it is cited in the Collections against the Severians which are in the version of Turrianus the Jesuit in the fourth Tome of Antiq. lectionum of Henry Canisius and in the end of the book of Joh. Damascenus against the Acephali I bring another Testimony out of the imperfect work on St. Matthew written either by St. Chrysostome or some other ancient Author a Book in this at least very Orthodox and not corrupted by the Arrians In these sanctified vessels saith he the true body of Christ is not contained but the Mystery of his Body 19. Which also hath been said by St. Austin above a thousand times but out of so many almost numberless places I shall chuse only three which are as the sum of all the rest You are not to eat this Body which you see nor drink this Bloud which my Crucifiers shall shed I have left you a Sacrament which spiritually understood will vivisie you Thus St. Austin rehearsing the words of Christ again If Sacraments had not some resemblance with those things whereof they are Sacraments they could not be Sacraments at all From this resemblance they often take the names of what they represent Therefore as the Sacrament of Christs body is in some sort his body so the Sacrament of Faith is faith also To the same sense is what he writes against Maximinus the Arrian We mind in the Sacraments not what they are but what they shew for they are signs which are one thing and signifie another And in another place speaking of the Bread and Wine Let no man look to what they are but to what they signifie for our Lord was pleased to say this is my Body when he gave the sign of his body This passage of St. Austin is so clear that it admits of no evasion nor no denial For if the Sacraments are one thing and signifie another then they are not so changed into what they signifie as that after that change they should be no more what they were The water is changed in baptism as the Bread and Wine in the Lords Supper but all that is changed is not presently abolished or Transubstantiated For as the water remains entire in Baptism so do the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist 20. St. Prosper Orthodox in all things who lived almost in the time of Austin teacheth That the Eucharist consisteth of two things the visible appearance of the Elements and the invisible Flesh and Bloud of our Saviour Christ that is the Sacrament and the grace of the Sacrament as the person of Christ is both God and Man Who but the infamous Heretick Eutyches would say that Christ as God was substantially changed into man or as man into God 21. Upon this subject nothing can be more clear than this of Theodor. whence we learn what the Primitive Church believes in this matter Our Saviour in the Institution of the Eucharist changed the names of things giving to his body the name of its Sacrament and to the Sacrament the name of his Body Now this was done for this reason as he saith that they that are partakers of the Divine Mysteries might not mind the nature of what they see but by the change of names might believe that change which is wrought by Grace For he that called what by nature is his body Wheat and Bread he also honoured the Elements and Signs with the names of his Body and Bloud not changing what is natural but adding Grace to it He therefore teacheth that such an alteration is wrought in the Elements that still their nature and substance continues as he explains more plainly afterwards For when the Heretick that stands for Eutichius had said As the Sacrament of the Lords Body and Bloud are one thing before the Prayer of the Priest and afterwards being changed become another so also the Body of our Lord after his ascention is changed into the divine substance and nature according to the Tenet of the Transubstantiator this Eutychian Argument is irrefragable but Catholick Antiquity answers it thus Thou are entangled in the nets of thine own knitting for the Elements or Mystick signs depart not from their nature after Consecration but remain in their former substance form and kind and can be seen and toucht as much as before and yet withal we understand also what they become now they are changed Compare therefore the Copy with the Original and thou shalt see their likeness For a figure must answer to the truth That body hath the same form and fills the same space as before and in a word is the same substance but after its resurrection it is become immortal c. All this and much more is taught by Theodoret who assisted at the universal Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon It is an idle exception which is made by some in the Church of Rome as though by the nature and substance of the Elements which are said to remain Theodoret had understood the nature and substance of the accidents as Cardinal Bellarmine is pleased to speak most absurdly but the whole context doth strongly refute this gloss for Theodoret joyns together nature substance form and figure and indeed what Answer could they have given to the Eutychian Argument if the substance of the bread being annihilated after the Consecration the accidents only remain Or did Christ say concerning the accidents of the Bread and Wine these accidents are or this accident is my body But though we have not that liberty yet the Inventors of Transubstantiation may when they please make a Creator of a Creature substances of accidents accidents of substances and any thing out of any thing But sure they are too immodest and uncharitable who to elude the authority of so
famous and so worthy a Father as Theodoret alledge that he was accused of some errours in the Council of Ephesus though he repented afterwards as they themselves are forced to confess Fain would they if they could get out at this door when they cannot deny that he affirmed that the Elements remain in their natural substance as he wrote in the Dialogues which he composed against the Eutychian Hereticks with the applause and approbation of the Catholick Church And indeed the evidence of this truth hath compelled some of our Adversaries to yield that Theodoret is of our side For in the Epistle before the Dialogues of Theodoret in the Roman Edition set forth by Stephan Nicolinus the Popes Printer in the year 1547 it is plainly set down That in what concern'd Transubstantiation his opinion was not very sound but that he was to be excused because the Church of Rome had made no decree about it 22. With Theodoret we may joyn Gelasius who whether he were Bishop of Rome or no as Bellarmine confesseth was of the same age and opinion as he and therefore a witness ancient and credible enough He wrote against Eutyches and Nestorius concerning the two natures in Christ in this manner Doubtless the Sacrament of the Body and Bloud of Christ which we receive is a very divine thing whereby we are made partakers of the divine nature and yet it doth not cease to be Bread and Wine by substance and nature And indeed the image and resemblance of the Body and Bloud of Christ is celebrated in this mysterious action By this therefore we see manifestly enough that we must believe that to be in Christ which we believe to be in his Sacrament that as by the perfecting vertue of the Holy Ghost it becomes a divine substance and yet remains in the propriety of its nature so this great Mystery the Incarnation of whose power and efficacy this is a lively image doth demonstrate that there is one intire and true Christ consisting of two natures which yet properly remain unchanged It doth plainly appear out of these words that the change wrought in the Sacrament is not substantial for first the sanctified Elements are so made the Body and Bloud of Christ that still they continue to be by nature Bread and Wine Secondly The Bread and Wine retain their natural properties as also the two natures in Christ Lastly The Elements are said to become a divine substance because while we receive them we are made partakers of the Divine Nature by the Body and Bloud of Christ which are given to us These things being so their blindness is to be deplored who see not that they bring again into the Church of Rome the same Error which Antiquity piously and learnedly condemned in the Eutychians And as for their thread-bare objection to this That by the substance of Bread and wine the true substance it self is not to be understood but only the nature and essence of the accidents it is a very strange and very poor shift There is a great deal more of commendation due to the ingenuity of Cardinal Contarenus who yielding to the evidence of truth answered nothing to this plain Testimony of Gelasius 23. Now I add Cyril of Alexandria who said That the Body and Bloud of Christ in the Sacrament are received only by a pure faith as we read in that Epistle against Nestorius which six hundred Fathers approved and confirmed in the Council of Chalcedon I omit to mention the other Fathers of this Age though many things in their Writings be as contrary to Transubstantiation and the independency of accidents as any I have hitherto cited 24. I come now to the Sixth Century about the middle whereof Ephrem Patriarch of Antioch wrote a Book which was read and commended by Photius concerning sacred Constitutions and Ceremonies against the Eutychians therein that he might prove the Hypostatical Union that in Christ there is no confusion of natures but that each retains its own substance and properties he brings the comparison of the Sacramental Union and denies that there should be any conversion of one substance into another in the Sacrament No man saith he that hath any reason will say that the nature of the palpable and impalpable and the nature of the visible and invisible is the same For so the Body of Christ which is received by the faithful remains in its own substance and yet withal is united to a spiritual grace and so Baptism though it becomes wholly spiritual yet it loseth not the sensible property of its substance that 's water neither doth it cease to be what it was made by grace 25. It is not very long since the works of Facundus an African Bishop were Printed at Paris but he lived in the same Century Now what his Doctrine was against Transubstantiation as also of the Church in his time is plainly to be seen by those words of his which I here transcribe The Sacrament of Adoption may be called Adoption as the Sacrament of the Body and Bloud of Christ consecrated in the Bread and Wine is said to be his Body and Bloud not that his Body be Bread or his Bloud Wine but because the Bread and Wine are the Sacrament of his Body and Bloud and therefore so called by Christ when he gave them to his Disciples Sirmondus the Jesuit hath writ Annotations on Facundus but when he came to this place he had nothing to say but that the Bread is no Bread but only the likeness and appearance of Bread An opinion so unlike that of Facundus that it should not have been Fathered upon him by a learned and ingenuous man as Sirmondus would be thought to be For he cannot so much as produce any one of the ancient Fathers that ever made mention of accidents subsisting without a subject called by him the appearances of Bread And as for his thinking That some would take the expressions of Facundus to be somewhat uncouth and obscure how unjust and injurious it is to that learned Father may easily be observed by any 26. Isidore Bishop of Hispal about the begining of the Seventh Century wrote thus concerning the Sacrament Because the bread strengthens our body therefore it is called the Body of Christ and because the Wine is made bloud therefore the Bloud of Christ is expressed by it Now these two are visible but yet being sanctified by the Holy Spirit they become the Sacraments of the Lords Body For the Bread which we break is the Body of Christ who said I am the Bread of life and the Wine is his Bloud as it is written I am the true Vine Behold saith he they become a Sacrament not the substance of the Lords Body for the Bread and Wine which feed our Flesh cannot be substantially nor be said to be the Body and Bloud of Christ but Sacramentally they are so as certainly as that they are
Antiquity with them I answer that there is no such consequence Transubstantiation being another species of change the enumeration was not full for it doth not follow that because there is a conversion a transmutation a transelementation there should be also a Transubstantiation which the Fathers never so much as mentioned For because this is a Sacrament the change must be understood to be Sacramental also whereby common Bread and Wine become the Sacrament of the Body and Bloud of Christ which could not be did not the substance of the Bread and Wine remain for a Sacrament consisteth of two parts an earthly and a heavenly And so because ordinary Bread is changed by consecration into a Bread which is no more of common use but appointed by divine institution to be a Sacramental sign whereby is represented the Body of Christ in whom dwelleth the fulness of the Godhead bodily and being thereby dignified having great excellencies superadded and so made what it was not before it is therefore said by some of the Fathers to be changed to be made another thing And truly that change is great and supernatural but yet not substantial not of a substance which substantially ceaseth to be into another substance which substantially beginneth to be but it is a change of state and condition which alters not the natural properties of the Element This is also confirmed by Scripture which usually describes and represents the conversion of men and the supernatural change of things as though it were natural though it be not so So those that are renewed by the Word and Spirit and Faith of Christ are said to be regenerated converted and transformed to put off the old man and put on the new man and to be new Creatures but they are not said to become another substance to be transubstantiated For men thus converted have still the same humane body and the same rational soul as before though in a far better state and condition as every Christian will acknowledge Nay the Fathers themselves use those words Transmutation Transformation Transelementations upon other occasions when they speak of things whose substance is neither lost nor changed For those words be of so large a signification that though sometimes a substantial change is to be understood by them yet for the most part they signifie only a moral change a change of qualities of condition of office of use and the like To this sense they are used by the Greek Fathers Irenaeus Clemens Alexandrinus Origene Cyril of Jerusalem Basil Gregory Nazianzen Gregory Nyssene Cyril of Alexandria Chrysostom Theodoret Theophylact and Occumenius to express the Resurrection of the Body the efficacy of divine Doctrine the Sanctification of a regenerated person the immortality of the flesh after the Resurrection the repentance of sinners the assumption of the humane nature in the Person of Christ the regeneration of Saints the vertue of the divine grace the power of Baptism and the excellency of Charity and lastly the alteration for the better the greatness usefulness power and dignity of many things Neither are the Latine Fathers without such kind of expressions for they do not make the conversion of the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist more essential or substantial than in Baptism the conversion of man born again to a new life or as they speak whose humane natural condition is changed into a nobler a heavenly state which is a moral and mystick change and not natural or substantial The Ancientest of them Tertullian said That God had promised to man the body and substance of Angels and that men should be transformed into Angels as Angels have been transformed into men Now who would infer from hence that Angels have been essentially changed into men or that humane bodies should be so transformed into an Angelical substance that they should be no longer men nor humane bodies but properly and essentially Angels Which Tertullian himself is expresly against and saith That Angels were so changed into men that still they remained Angels without quitting their proper substance As others have spoken of the Bread in the Eucharist That it so becomes the body of Christ that still it is what it was as St. Ambrose That it looseth not its nature as Theodoret that the substance of the Bread remains as Gelasius affirms And doubtless the same meant all the Ancients who according to their way of speaking said any thing of the change of Bread and Wine For all the Vouchers brought by the Papists speak only of an accidental mystical and moral nothing at all of a substantial change Transubstantiation is taken by its defenders for a material change of one substance into another we indeed allow a Transmutation of the Elements but as for a substantial one we vainly seek for it it is no where to be found 8. To the fourth head I refer what the Fathers say of our touching and seeing the Body of Christ and drinking his Bloud in the Sacrament and thereto I answer That we deny not but that some things Emphatical and even Hyperbolical have been said of the Sacrament by Chrysostome and some others and that those things may easily lead unwary men into error That was the ancient Fathers care as it is ours still to instruct the people not to look barely on the outward Elements but in them to eye with their minds the Body and Bloud of Christ and with their hearts lift up to feed on that heavenly meat For all the benefit of a Sacrament is lost if we look no farther than the Elements Hence it is that those holy men the better to teach this Lesson to their hearers and move their hearts more efficaciously spake of the Signs as if they had been the thing signified and like Orators said many things which will not bear a litteral sense nor a strict examen Such is this of an uncertain Author under the name of St. Cyprian We are close to the Cross we suck the bloud and we put our tongues in the very wounds of our Redeemer so that both outwardly and inwardly we are made red thereby Such is that of St. Chrysostome In the Sacrament the Bloud is drawn out of the side of Christ the Tongue is made bloudy with that wonderful bloud Again Thou seest thy Lord saecrificed and the crouding multitude round about sprinkled with his bloud he that sits above with the Father is al the same time in our hands Thou dost see and touch and eat him For I do not shew thee either Angels or Archangels but the Lord of them himself Again He incorporates us with himself as if we were but the same thing he makes us his body indeed and suffers us not only to see but even to touch to eat him and to put our teeth in his flesh so
and real Presence of the Body and Bloud of Christ in the Sacrament that stout Roman Champion applies to his Transubstantiation and then crows over his Adversaries supposing that he hath utterly overthrown the Protestants cause whereas there is such a wide difference as may be called a great Gulf fixed betwixt the true or real Presence of Christ in the Lords Supper and the Transubstantiation of the Bread and Wine into his Body and Bloud This last is such a Prodigie as is neither taught by Scripture nor possible to be apprehended by faith it is repugnant to right reason and contrary to sense and is no where to be found in Ancient Writers But the other is agreeable to Scripture and to the Analogy of faith it is not against Reason although being spiritual it cannot be perceived by our bodily senses and it is back'd by the constant and unanimous Doctrine of the holy Fathers For it makes nothing against it that sometimes the same Fathers do speak of the Bread and Wine of the holy Eucharist as of the very Body and Bloud of Christ it being a manner of speech very proper and usual in speaking of Sacraments to give to the sign the name of the thing signified And however they explain themselves in other places when they frequently enough call the Sacramental Bread and Wine Types Symbols Figures and Signs of the Body and Bloud of Christ thereby declaring openly for us against the Maintainers of Transubstantiation For we may safely without any prejudice to our Tenet use those Expressions of the Ancients which the Papists think to be most favourable to them taking them in a Sacramental sense as they ought to be whereas the last mentioned that are against them none can use but by so doing he necessarily destroys the whole contrivance of Transubstantiation it being altogether inconsistent to say the Bread is substantially changed into the Body of Christ and the Bread is a Figure a Sign and a Representation of the Body of Christ For what hath lost its being can in no wise signifie or represent any other thing Neither was ever any thing said to represent and be the Figure and Sign of it self But this is more at large treated of in the Book it self Now having given an account of the occasion of writing and publishing this Discourse perhaps the Reader will expect that I should say something of its excellent Author But should I now undertake to speak but of the most memorable things that concern this great Man my thoughts would be overwhelmed with their multitude and I must be injurious both to him and my Readers being confined within the narrow limits of a Preface But what cannot be done here may be done somewhere else God willing This only I would not have the Reader to be ignorant of That this Learned man and as appears by this constant Professor and Defendor of the Protestant Religion was one of those who was most vehemently accused of Popery by the Presbyterians before the late Wars and for that reason bitterly persecuted by them and forced to forsake his Country whereby he secured himself from the violence of their Hands but not of their Tongues for still the good men kept up the noise of their clamorous Accusation even while he was writing this most substantial Treatise against Transubstantiation John Durel CHAP. I. 1. The Real that is true and not imaginary Presence of Christ in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is proved by Scripture 2 and 3. Yet this favours not the Tenet of Transubstantiation being it is not to be understood grosly and carnally but spiritually and Sacramentally 4. The nature and use of the Sacraments 5. By means of the Elements of Bread and Wine Christ himself is spiritually eaten by the Faithful in the Sacrament 6. The eating and presence being spiritual are not destructive of the truth and substance of the thing 7. The manner of Presence is unsearchable and ought not to be presumptuously defined 1. THose words which our blessed Saviour used in the institution of the Blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist This is my body which is given for you This is my bloud which is shed for you for the remission of sins are held and acknowledged by the Universal Church to be most true and infallible And if any one dares oppose them or call in question Christs Veracity or the truth of his words or refuse to yield his sincere assent to them except he be allowed to make a meer figment or a bare figure of them we cannot and ought not either excuse or suffer him in our Churches for we must embrace and hold for an undoubted truth whatever is taught by Divine Scripture And therefore we can as little doubt of what Christ saith Joh. 6. 55 My flesh is meat indeed and my bloud is drink indeed which according to St. Paul are both given to us by the consecrated Elements For he calls the Bread the Communion of Christs Body and the Cup the Communion of his bloud 2. Hence it is most evident that the Bread and Wine which according to St. Paul are the Elements of the holy Eucharist are neither changed as to their substance nor vanisht nor reduc'd to nothing but are solemnly consecrated by the words of Christ that by them his blessed body and bloud may be communicated to us 3. And further it appears from the same words that the expression of Christ and the Apostle is to be understood in a Sacramental and mystick sense and that no gross and carnal presence of body and bloud can be maintained by them 4. And though the word Sacrament be no where used in Scripture to signifie the blessed Eucharist yet the Christian Church ever since its Primitive ages hath given it that name and always called the presence of Christs body and bloud therein Mystick and Sacramental Now a Sacramental expression doth without any inconvenience give to the sign the name of the thing signified And such is as well the usual way of speaking as the nature of Sacraments that not only the names but even the properties and effects of what they represent and exhibite are given to the outward Elements Hence as I said before the Bread is as clearly as positively called by the Apostle the Communion of the body of Christ 5. This also seems very plain that our Blessed Saviour's design was not so much to teach what the Elements of Bread and Wine are by nature and substance as what is their use and office and signification in this Mystery For the body and bloud of our Saviour are not only fitly represented by the Elements but also by vertue of his institution really offered to all by them and so eaten by the faithful Mystically and Sacramentally whence it is that he truly is and abides in us and we in him 6. This is the spiritual and yet no less true and undoubted than if it were corporal eating of Christ's flesh not
indeed simply as it is flesh without any other respect for so it is not given neither would it profit us but as it is crucified and given for the redemption of the world neither doth it hinder the truth and substance of the thing that this eating of Christ's body is spiritual and that by it the souls of the Faithful and not their stomachs are fed by the operation of the Holy Ghost For this none can deny but they who being strangers to the Spirit and the divine vertue can savour only carnal things and to whom what is Spiritual and Sacramental is the same as if a meer nothing 7. As to the manner of the presence of the body and bloud of our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament we that are Protestant and Reformed according to the ancient Catholick Church do not search into the manner of it with perplexing inquiries but after the example of the primitive and purest Church of Christ we leave it to the power and wisdom of our Lord yielding a full and unfeined assent to his words Had the Romish maintainers of Transubstantiation done the same they would not have determined and decreed and then imposed as an Article of faith absolutely necessary to Salvation a manner of presence newly by them invented under pain of the most direful Curse and there would have been in the Church less wrangling and more peace and unity than now is CHAP. II. 1 2 and 3 c. The unanimous consent of all Protestants with the Church of England in maintaining a real that is true but not a carnal presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament proved by publick Confessions and the best of Authorities 1. SO then none of the Protestant Churches doubt of the real that is true and not imaginary Presence of Christ's body and bloud in the Sacrament and there appears no reason why any man should suspect their common Confession of either fraud or error as though in this particular they had in the least departed from the Catholick faith 2. For it is easie to produce the consent of Reformed Churches and Authors whereby it will clearly appear to them that are not wilfully blind that they all zealously maintain and profess this truth without forsaking in any wise the true Catholick Faith in this matter 3. I begin with the Church of England wherein they that are in holy Orders are bound by a Law and Canon Never to teach any thing to the people to be by them believed in matters of Religion but what agrees with the Doctrine of the Old and New Testament and what the Catholick Fathers and Ancient Prelates have gathered and inferred out of it Vnder pain of Excommunication if they transgress troubling the people with contrary Doctrine It teacheth therefore that in the Blessed Sacrament the body of Christ is given taken and eaten so that to the worthy Receivers the consecrated and broken bread is the communication of the body of Christ and likewise the consecrated Cup the communication of his bloud But that the wicked and they that approach unworthily the Sacrament of so sacred a thing eat and drink their own damnation in that they become guilty of the body and bloud of Christ And the same Church in a solemn Prayer before the consecration prays thus Grant us gracious Lord so to eat the flesh of thy dear SonJesus Christ and to drink his bloud that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his body and our souls washed through his most precious bloud and that we may evermore dwell in him and he in us The Priest also blessing or consecrating the Bread and Wine saith thus Hear us O merciful Father we most humbly beseech thee and grant that we receiving these thy Creatures of Bread and Wine according to thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ's holy institution in remembrance of his Death and Passion may be partakers of his most blessed body and bloud Who in the same night that he was betrayed took bread and when he had given thanks he brake it and gave it to his Disciples saying take eat this is my body which is given for you do this in remembrance of me Likewise after Supper he took the Cup and when he had given thinks he gave it to them saying drink ye all of this for this is my bloud of the New Testament which is shed for you and for many for the remission of sins Do this as oft as ye shall drink it in remembrance of me The same when he gives the Sacrament to the people kneeling giving the bread saith The body of our Lord Jesus Christ which was given for thee preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life Likewise when he gives the Cup he saith The bloud of our Lord Jesus Christ which was shed for thee preserve thy body and soul to everlasting life Afterwards when the Communion is done follows a thanksgiving Almighty and ever living God we most heartily thank thee for that thou dost vouchsafe to feed us who have duly received these holy Mysteries with the spiritual food of the most precious body and bloud of thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ With the Hymn Glory be to God on high c. Also in the publick Authorized Catechism of our Church appointed to be learned of all it is answered to the question concerning the inward part of the Sacrament that it is the body and bloud of Christ which are verily and indeed taken and received by the Faithful in the Lords Supper And in the Apology for this Church writ by that worthy and Reverend Prelate Jewel Bishop of Salisbury it is expresly affirmed That to the faithful is truly given in the Sacrament the body and bloud of our Lord the life-giving flesh of the Son of God which quickens our souls the bread that came from heaven the food of immortality grace and truth and life And that it is the Communion of the body and bloud of Christ that we may abide in him and he in us and that we may be ascertained that the flesh and bloud of Christ is the food of our souls as bread and wine is of our bodies 4. A while before the writing of this Apology came forth the Dialectick of the famous Dr. Poinet Bishop of Winchester concerning the truth nature and substance of the body and bloud of Christ in the blessed Sacrament writ on purpose to explain and manifest the Faith and Doctrine of the Church of England in that point In the first place it shews that the holy Eucharist is not only the figure but also contains in it self the truth nature and substance of the body of our blessed Saviour and that those words nature and substance ought not to be rejected because the Fathers used them in speaking of that Mystery Secondly He inquires whether those expressions truth nature and substance were used in this Mystery by the Ancients in their common acceptation or in a sense more particular
whereby they profess that as to what concerns the Sacrament of the Eucharist they assent to that opinion which in the Augustan Confession in the Bohemian and that of Sendom is confirmed by Scripture Then afterwards in another Declaration they explain their own Mind thus saying 1. That the Sacrament consisteth of earthly things as Bread and Wine and things heavenly as the Body and Bloud of our Lord both of which though in a different manner yet most truly and really are given together at the same time earthly things in an earthly corporal and natural way heavenly things in a mystick spiritual and heavenly manner 2. Hence they in fer That the Bread and Wine are and are said to be with truth the very Body and Bloud of Christ not substantially indeed that is not corporally but Sacramentally and Mystically by vertue of the Sacramental Union which consisteth not in a bare signification or obligation only but also in a real exhibition and communication of both parts earthly and heavenly together at once though in a different manner 3. In that sense they affirm with the Ancients That the Bread and Wine are changed into the Body and Bloud of Christ not in nature and substance but in use and efficacy in which respect the sacred Elements are not called what they are to sense but what they are believed and received by faith grounded on the Promise 4. They deny to believe the signs to be bare inefficacious and empty but rather such as truly give what they seal and signifie being efficacious instruments and most certain means whereby the Body and Bloud of Christ and so Christ himself with all his benefits is set forth and offered to all Communicants but conferred and given to true Believers and by them received as the saving and vivifying food of their Souls 5. They deny not the true presence of the body and bloud of Christ in the Lords Supper but only the Corporal manner of his Presence They believe a Mystical Vnion betwixt Christ and us and that not imaginary but most true real and efficacious 6. Thence they conclude That not only the vertue efficacy operation or benefits of Christ are communicated to us but more especially the very substance of his Body and Bloud so that he abides in us and we in him 20. Now because great is the fame of Calvin who subscribed the Augustan Confession and that of the Switzers let us hear what he writ and believed concerning this sacred Mystery His words in his Institutions and elsewhere are such so conformable to the stile and mind of the Ancient Fathers that no Catholick Protestant would wish to use any other I understand saith he what is to be understood by the words of Christ that he doth not only offer us the benefits of his Death and Resurrection but his very body wherein he died and rose again I assert that the body of Christ is really as the usual expression is that is truly given to us in the Sacrament to be the saving food of our souls Also in another place Item That word cannot lie neither can it mock us and except one presumes to call God a deceiver be will never dare to say that the Symbols are empty and that Christ is not in them Therefore if by the breaking of the bread our Saviour doth represent the participation of his body it is not to be doubted but that he truly gives and confers it If it be true that the visible sign is given us to seal the gift of an invisible thing we must firmly believe that receiving the signs of the body we also certainly receive the body it self Setting aside all absurdities I do willingly admit all those terms that can most strongly express the true and substantial Communication of the Body and Bloud of Christ granted to the Faithful with the Symbols of the Lords Supper and that not as if they received only by the force of their imagination or an act of their minds but really so as to be fed thereby unto Eternal life Again We must therefore confess that the inward substance of the Sacrament is joyned with the visible sign so that as the Bread is put into our hand the Body of Christ is also given to us This certainly if there were nothing else should abundantly satisfie us that we understand that Christ in his Holy Supper gives us the true and proper substance of his Body and Bloud that it being wholly ours we may be made partakers of all his benefits and graces Again The Son of God offers daily to us in the holy Sacrament the same body which he once offered in sacrifice to his Father that it may be our spiritual food In these he asserts as clearly as any one can the true Real and substantial Presence and Communication of the Body of Christ but how he undertakes not to determine If any one saith he ask me concerning the manner I will not be ashamed to confess that it is a secret too high for my reason to comprehend or my tongue to express or to speak more properly I rather feel than understand it Therefore without disputing I embrace the truth of God and confidently repose on it He declares that his Flesh is the food and his Bloud the drink of my Soul And my Soul I offer to him to be fed by such nourishment He bids me take eat and drink his Body and Bloud which in his holy Supper he offers me under the Symbols of Bread and Wine I make no scruple but he doth reach them to me and I receive them All these are Calvins own words 21. I was the more willing to be long in transcribing these things at large out of publick Confessions of Churches and the best of Authors that it might the better appear how injuriously Protestant Divines are calumniated by others unacquainted with their opinions as though by these words Spiritually and Sacramentally they did not acknowledge a true and well-understood real Presence and Communication of the Body and Bloud of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament whereas on the contrary they do professedly own it in terms as express as any can be used CHAP. III. 1. What the Papists do understand by Christ being spiritually present in the Sacrament 2. What St. Bernard understood by it 3. What the Protestants 4. Faith doth not cause but suppose the presence of Christ 5. The Union betwixt the Body of Christ and the Bread is Sacramental 1. HAving now by what I have said put it out of doubt that the Protestants believe a spiritual and true presence of Christ in the Sacrament which is the reason that according to the example of the Fathers they use so frequently the term spiritual in this subject it may not be amiss to consider in the next place how the Roman Church understands that same word Now they make it to signifie That Christ is not present in the Sacrament either after that manner which
reason that they are inseparable one from the other meer nonsense for as long as the accidents of the Bread i. e. the shaâ—â— and taste and colour c. remain in their proper being so long is the Body of Christ inseparably joyned with them wherefore if the accidents in their nature pass into the belly or are cast out by vomiting the Body of Christ it self must of necessity go along with them and for this cause pious souls I repeat their own words do frequently eat again with great reverence the parts of the Host cast out by vomiting Others answer also That a beast eats not the Body of Christ Sacramentally but accidentally as a man that should eat a Consecrated Host not knowing that it was consecrated 3. They inquire about musty and rotten Hosts and because the Body of Christ is incorruptible and not subject to putrefaction therefore they answer That the Hosts are never so and that though they appear as if they were yet in reallity they are not as Christ appeared as a Gardener though he was no Gardener 4. They demand concerning indigested Hosts which passing through the belly are cast into the draught or concerning those that are cast into the worst of sinks or into the dirt Whether such Hosts cease to be the Body of Christ And answer That whether they be cast into the Sink or the Privy as long as the appearances remain the Body of Christ is inseparable from tâ—â—â— And for the contrary opinion they say that it is not tenable and that it is not safe for any to hold it because the Pope hath forbid it should be maintained under pain of Excommunication Therefore the Modern Schoolmen add That if any should hold the contrary after the Popes determination he should be condemned by the Church of Rome that is Nay they hold it to be a Point of Faith which none may doubt of because the contrary Doctrine hath been condemned by Pope Gregory the Eleventh 5. They ask concerning the accidents whether the Body of Christ be under them when they are abstracted from their subject This is against Logick Or whether Worms be gendred or Mice nourished of accidents And this against Physick 6. Whether the Body of Christ can at the very same time move both upwards and downwards one Priest lifting up the Host and another setting it down And I know not how many more such thorny questions have wearied and non-plust them and all their School and brought them to such straights and extremities that they know not what to resolve nor what shifts to make And truly it had been very happy for Religion if as the Ancients never touched or mentioned Transubstantiation so latter times had never so much as heard of its name For God made his Sacrament upright as he did Man but about it they have sought out many inventions 25. Likewise this Transubstantiation hath given occasion to some most wicked and impious Wretches to abuse and profane most unworthily what they thought to be the Body of Christ For instances may be brought of some wicked Priests who for filthy lucre have sold some Consecrated Hosts to Jews and Sorcerers who have stabb'd and burnt them and used them for Witchcraft and Inchantments Nay we read that St. Lewis himself very ill advised in that gave once to the Turks and Saracens a consecrated Host as a pledge of his Promise and an assurance of Peace Now can any one who counts these things abominable perswade himself that our Blessed Saviour would have appointed that his most holy Body should be present in his Church in such a manner as that it should come into the hands of his greatest Enemies and the worst of Infidels and be eaten by Dogs and Rats and be vomited up burnt cast into Sinks and used for Magical Poysons and Witchcraft I mention these with horror and trembling and therefore abstain from raking any more in this dunghill 26. No wonder therefore if this new Doctrine of Innocent the Third being liable to such foul absurdities and detestable abuses few men could be perswaded in the fourteenth Century that the Body of Christ is really or by Transubstantiation in the Sacrament of the Altar as it is recorded by our Country-man Robert Holkot who lived about the middle of that Century As also Thomas Aquinas reports of some in his time who believed that after Consecration not only the accidents of the Bread but its substantial form remained And Albertus Magnus himself who was Thomas his his Tutor and writ not long after Innocent the Third speaks of Transubstantiation as of a doubtful question only Nay that it was absolutely rejected and opposed by many is generally known for the Anathema of Trent had not yet backt the Lateran Decree 27. As for the rest of the Schoolmen especially the modern who are as it were sworn to Pope Innocent's determination they use to express their belief in this matter with great words but neither pious nor solid in this manner The common opinion is to be embraced not because reason requires it but because it is determined by the Bishop of Rome Item That ought to be of greatest weight that we must hold with the holy Church of Rome about the Sacraments now it holds that the Bread is Transubstantiated into the Body and the Wine into the Bloud as it is clearly said Extra De fide summa Trinitate Cap. firmiter Again I prove that of necessity the Bread is changed into the Body of Christ for we must hold that declaration of faith which the Pope declares must be held Thus among the Papists if it be the pleasure of an imperious Pope as was Innocent the Third Doctrines of Faith shall now and then increase in bulk and number though they be such as are most contrary to holy Scripture though they were never heard of in the Primitive Church and though from them such consequences necessarily follow as are most injurious to Christ and his holy Religion For after Innocent the Third the Roman Faith was thus much increased by the determination of Pope Gregory the Eleventh that if it so happens the Body of Christ in the Consecrated Host may descend into a Rats belly or into a Privy or any such foul place 28. In the fifteenth Century the Council of Constance which by a Sacrilegious attempt took away the Sacramental Cup from the People and from the Priests when they do not officiate did wrongfully condemn Wiclif who was already dead because amongst other things he had taught with the Ancients That the substance of the Bread and wine remains materially in the Sacrament of the Altar and that in the same Sacrament no accidents of Bread and Wine remain without a substance Which two Assertions are most true 29. Cardinal Cameracencis who lived about the time of the Council of Constance doth not seem to own the Decree of Pope Innocent as
worthily receives his Absolution and Justification that is he that discerns and then receives the Lords Body as torn and his Bloud as shed for the redemption of the world But that Christ as the Papists affirm should give his flesh and bloud to be received with the mouth and ground with the teeth so that not only the most wicked and Infidels but even Rats and Mice should swallow him down this our words and our hearts do utterly deny 6. So then to sum up this Controversie by applying to it all that hath been said It is not questioned whether the Body of Christ be absent from the Sacrament duly administred according to his Institution which we Protestants neither affirm nor believe For it being given and received in the Communion it must needs be that it is present though in some manner veiled under the Sacrament so that of it self it cannot be seen Neither is it doubted or disputed whether the Bread and Wine by the power of God and a supernatural vertue be set apart and fitted for a much nobler use and raised to a higher dignity than their nature bears for we confess the necessity of a supernatural and heavenly change and that the signs cannot become Sacraments but by the infinite power of God whose proper right it is to institute Sacraments in his Church being able alone to endue them with vertue and efficacy Finally we do not say that our blessed Saviour gave only the figure and sign of his body neither do we deny a Sacramental Union of the Body and Bloud of Christ with the sacred Bread and Wine so that both are really and substantially received together But that we may avoid all ambiguity we deny that after the words and prayer of Consecration the bread should remain bread no longer but should be changed into the substance of the Body of Christ nothing of the Bread but only the accidents continuing to be what they were before And so the whole question is concerning the Transubstantiation of the outward Elements whether the substance of the Bread be turned into the substance of Christs Body and the substance of the Wine into the substance of his Bloud or as the Romish Doctors describe their Transubstantiation whether the substance of Bread and Wine doth utterly perish and the substance of Christs Body and Bloud succeed in their place which are both denied by Protestants 7. The Church of Rome sings on Corpus Christi-day This is not bread but God and man my Saviour And the Council of Trent doth thus define it Because Christ our Redeemer said truly that that was his Body which he gave in the appearance of bread therefore it was ever believed by the Church of God and is now declared by this sacred Synod that by the power of Consecration the whole substance of the bread is changed into the substance of Christs Body and the whole substance of the Wine into the substance of his Bloud which change is fitly and properly called Transubstantiation by the holy Catholick Roman Church Therefore if any one shall say That the substance of Bread and Wine remains with the Body and Bloud of our Saviour Jesus Christ and shall deny that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the Bread and Wine into the substance of the Body and Bloud of Christ the only appearance and outward form of the Bread and Wine remaining which conversion the Catholick Roman Church doth fitly call Transubstantiation let him be accursed The Pope confirming this Council defines it after the same manner imposeth an Oath and Declaration to the same purpose and so makes it one of the new Articles of the Roman Faith in the form and under the penalty following I. N. do profess and firmly believe all and every the singulars contained in the Confession of Faith allowed by the holy Church of Rome viz. I believe in one God c. I also profess that the Body and Bloud with the Soul and Godhead of our Saviour Jesus Christ are truly really and substantially in the Mass and in the Sacrament of the Eucharist and that there is a conversion of the whole substance of the Bread into the Body and of the whole substance of the Wine into the Bloud of Christ which conversion the Roman Catholick Church calls Transubstantiation I fully embrace all things defined declared and delivered by the holy Council of Trent and withall I do reject condemn and accurse all things by it accurs'd condemned or rejected I do confidently believe that this Faith which I now willingly profess is the true Catholick Faith without the which it is impossible to be saved and I do promise vow and swear that I will constantly keep it whole and undefiled to my very last breath So help me God and these Holy Gospels Afterwards he bravely concludes this Decree with this Commination Let no man therefore dare to attempt the breaking of this our Deed and Injunction or be so desperate as to oppose it And if any one presumes upon such an attempt let him know that he thereby incurs the wrath of Almighty God and of his blessed Apostles Peter and Paul Given at Rome in St. Peters Church the Thirteenth of November in the year of our Lord 1564. the fifth of our Pontificat Which is as much as to say That he had received this his Roman Faith from Pope Innocent the Third who first decided and imposed this Doctrine of the Transubstantiation of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Bloud of Christ and made it an Article of Faith adding this new-devised Thirteenth to the ancient Twelve Articles for so we find it published in his Decretal propounded to the Assembly at Lateran in 1215. and proclaimed afterwards by his Nephew Pope Gregory the Ninth Thus We firmly believe and simply acknowledge that there is one only true God c. and that in the Sacrament of the Altar the Body and Bloud of Christ are truly contained under the accidents of Bread and Wine which are transubstantiated the Bread into the Body and the Wine into the Bloud To these definitions of Popes I will add only the Tenets of three Jesuits which are highly approved by the late followers of the new Roman Faith First Of Alphonsus Salmeron We must of necessity saith he hold Transubstantiation that the substance of Bread and Wine which Luther and some others admit may be excluded that the words of Christ which yet are most true without that may be verified that how few of these many are pertinent to their purpose will be seen hereafter many Testimonies of the Fathers concerning Conversion Mutation Consecration Benediction Transformation Sanctification for by all these names almost they have called Transubstantiation may stand firm and not be vain and insignificant and lastly that we may maintain a solid presence of the Body and Bloud of Christ Item as David changed his Countenance before Abimelech and then received the Shew bread
that by that food which he gives us we become his flesh Such is that of St. Austin Let us give thanks not only that we are made Christians but also made Christ Lastly such is that of B. Leo In that mystical distribution it is given us to be made his flesh Certainly if any man would wrangle and take advantage of these he might thereby maintain as well that we are Transubstantiated into Christ and Christs flesh into the Bread as that the Bread and Wine are Transubstantiated into his Body and Bloud But Protestants who scorn to play the Sophisters interpret these and the like passages of the Fathers with candour and ingenuity as it is most fitting they should For the expressions of Preachers which often have something of a Paradox must not be taken according to that harsher sound wherewith they at first strike the Auditors ears the Fathers spake not of any Transubstantiated bread but of the mystical and consecrated when they used those sorts of expressions and that for these Reasons 1. That they might extoll and amplifie the dignity of this Mystery which all true Christians acknowledge to be very great and peerless 2. That Communicants might not rest in the outward Elements but seriously consider the thing represented whereof they are most certainly made partakers if they be worthy Receivers 3. And lastly That they might approach so great a Mystery with the more zeal reverence and devotion And that those Hyperbolick expressions are thus to be understood the Fathers themselves teach clearly enough when they come to interpret them 9. Lastly Being the same holy Fathers who as the manner is to discourse of Sacraments speak sometimes of the Bread and Wine in the Lords Supper as if they were the very Body and Bloud of Christ do also very often call them Types Elements Signs the Figure of the Body and Bloud of Christ from hence it appears most manifestly that they were of the Protestants and not of the Papists opinion For we can without prejudice to what we believe of the Sacraments use those former expressions which the Papists believe do most favour them if they be understood as they ought to be Sacramentally But the latter none can use but he must thereby overthrow the groundless Doctrine of Transubstantiation these two the Bread is Transubstantiated into the Body and the Bread also is the Type the Sign the Figure of the body of Christ being wholly inconsistent For it is impossible that a thing that loseth its being should yet be the sign and representation of another neither can any thing be the Type and the Sign of it self 10. But if without admitting of a Sacramental sense the words be used too rigorously nothing but this will follow that the Bread and Wine are really and properly the very Body and Bloud of Christ which they themselves disown that hold Transubstantiation Therefore in this change it is not a newness of substance but of use and vertue that is produced which yet the Fathers acknowledged with us to be wonderful supernatural and proper only to Gods Omnipotency For that earthly and corruptible meat cannot become to us a spiritual and heavenly the Communion of the Body and Bloud of Christ without Gods especial power and operation And whereas it is far above Philosophy and Humane Reason that Christ from Heaven where alone he is locally should reach down to us the divine vertue of his Flesh so that we are made one body with him therefore it is as necessary as it is reasonable that the Fathers should tell us that we ought with singleness of heart to believe the Son of God when he saith This is my body and that we ought not to measure this high and holy Mystery by our narrow conceptions or by the course of nature For it is more acceptable to God with an humble simplicity of faith to reverence and embrace the words of Christ than to wrest them violently to a strange and improper sense and with curiosity and presumption to determine what exceeds the capacity of Men and Angels Thus much in general may suffice to answer those places of the Fathers which are usually brought in the behalf of Transubstantiation He that would have a larger refutation of those objections fetcht from Antiquity may read Hospinianus his History of the Sacrament and Antonius de Dominis in his Fifth Book of the Christian Commonwealth Chap. 6. and in his detection of the errors of Suarez Chap. 2. 11. That place of Ignatius cited by Theodoret out of the Epistle to the Smyrnenses where now it is not to be found and objected by some of the Romish Faith That the Hereticks Simoniani and Menandriani would have no Eucharistical Oblations because they denied the Sacrament to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ makes nothing for Transubstantiation as Bellarmine himself confesseth For saith he those Hereticks did not oppose the Sacrament of the Eucharist so much as the mystery of the Incarnation and therefore as Ignatius shews in that place they would deny that the Eucharist is the flesh of Christ that is as Theodoret interprets it that the divine Mysteries of Bread and Wine should be the signs of a real Body of Christ truly existing because they would not own that Christ had taken flesh And so lest they should be forced to acknowledge the reality of the flesh of Christ they would wholly reject the Signs and Sacraments of it for the signs of the body being given the true body is given also because the substance and the type infer one another and a Phantasm or Illusion is not capable of a sign or representation 12. The words out of Justin Martyr whereby they would prove Transubstantiation do strongly disprove it For saith he as by the word of God our Saviour was incarnate so by the Prayers of Gods word the Eucharist is made whereby our bodies are nourished the Body and Bloud of Christ Now when Christ took humane flesh none could say without Heresie that he was Transubstantiated 13. Neither is that against the Protestants which is brought out of St. Cyprian though it be none of his of the bread changed not in appearance but in nature For he whoever it was took not the word nature in a strict sense or else he was contrary to Theodoret Gelasius and others above-mentioned who expresly deny that the bread should be thus changed But at large as nature is taken for use qualities and condition For by the infinite power of the Word the nature of the bread is so changed that what was before a bare Element becomes now a divine Sacrament but without any Transubstantiation as appears by what follows in the same period of the Humane and Divine Natures of Christ where the Manhood is not substantially changed into the Godhead except we will follow Eutyches the Heretick 14. The words of Cyril as the Roman Doctors fay are so clear for them that they admit
of no evasion For saith he he that changed once the Water into Wine is he not worthy to be believed that he changed the Wine into Bloud Therefore let us with all certainty receive the Body and Bloud of Christ for his Body under the appearance of the Bread and his Bloud under the appearance of the Wine are given to thee Indeed Protestants do freely grant and firmly believe that the Wine as hath often been said is changed into the Bloud of Christ but every change is not a Transubstantiation neither doth Cyril say that this change is like that of the water for then it would also appear to our senses but that he who changed the Water sensibly can also change the Wine Sacramentally will not be doubted by any As for what he calls the Appearances of Bread and Wine he doth not thereby exclude but rather include their substance and mean the Bread and Wine it self For so he intimates by what there follows Do not look on them as bare Bread and Wine as much as to say it is bread indeed but yet not bare bread but something besides But that this conversion of the Water into Wine makes nothing for Transubstantiation may be thus made to appear That Gods Omnipotency can change one substance into another none will deny and we see it done by Christ in the Town of Cana of Galilee when he changed the Water into Wine and it was a true and proper Transubstantiation But the Papists in the Lords Supper tell us of quite another change which if well considered cannot so much as be understood For the substance of the Bread is not changed into another that had no being but as they say the bread is changed into that body of Christ which really existed and had a being these many hundred years ever since the Incarnation Whereas that very Wine which Christ made of the Water was not in being before the change which he wrought Now it is easie for any to understand that he who created all things out of nothing can well make a new Wine of Water or any other thing but it is more than absurd that the body of Christ or any other substance already in being perfect and complete should be made afresh of another substance when it really subsisted before Which they well understood who devised an adduction or bringing of the Body of Christ into the place of the Bread and that is as much as to deny Transubstantiation except it can be said that a man is Transubstantiated into another as often as he comes into his place which no man in his right wits can fancy 15. St. Ambrose said also that the nature is changed and indeed it is so for other is the nature of the Element and other that of the Sacrament neither do Protestants deny that the Element is changed by the blessing so that the bread being made sacred is no more that which nature formed but that which the Blessing consecrated and by consecrating changed Mean while St. Ambrose in that place doth not make the words or Blessing of Christ to have any other operation than to make that which was still to be and yet to be changed therefore the bread is not made the body of Christ by Transubstantiation but by a Sacramental change He adds That Sacrament which thou receivest is made by the word of Christ and if the word of Elias had so much power as to bring down fire from heaven shall not the words of Christ be efficacious enough to change the properties of the Elements Thou hast read of the Creation of all things that he said the word and it was done and shall not that word of Christ which made all out of nothing change that which is already into that which it was not Thou thy self wert but wert the old man but being baptized thou art now become a new Creature Now it is as much to give a new nature as to change the nature of a thing By these words he plainly declares his opinion that by vertue of this change the Elements of Bread and Wine cease not to be what they are by essence and yet by the Consecration are made what before they were not But where did our Transubstantiators learn out of St. Ambrose or any of the Fathers that to make the Sacrament is the same as to bring the natural body of Christ and put it under the accidents of the bread or in the place of its substance which is vanisht away They say That the comparison betwixt the things changed by Christ and the Prophet would be silly if there be no more than a Sacramental change in the Eucharist as though the Sacramental change were a thing of nought For saith Cardinal Bellarmine what power is there required to do nothing But Protestants answer that the Greatness Majesty Excellency and Dignity of the Sacrament is such that they admire no less the Omnipotency of God in sanctifying the Creatures to so high an office and so holy an use than in creating the world out of nothing or changing the nature of things by the Ministry of his Prophets For it is not by mans power but by the divine vertue that things earthly and mean of themselves are made to us assured Pledges of the Body and Bloud of Christ And if they urge the Letter of those words of St. Ambrose By the word of Christ the species of the Elements are changed as Bellarmine and others do why then they must confess that not only the substance but also the species or accidents as they call them of the Bread and Wine are changed into the Body and Bloud of Christ And so being St. Ambrose and all the Ancients said indifferently as well that the species of the Bread and Wine as that the Bread and Wine themselves are changed who will not from hence understand that the groundless Fabrick of Transubstantiation whereby they would have the substance of the Elements so abolished in the Sacrament that their meer accidents or appearances remain without any subject is strongly battered and utterly ruined 16. All other Testimonies of the Fathers if they say that the Bread is made the Body of Christ are willingly owned by Protestants For they hold that the Element cannot become a Sacrament nor the Sacrament have a being without the thing which it represents For the Cardinal himself will not affirm that the Body of Christ is produced out of the Pread This is therefore what we say with St. Austin and endeavour to prove by all means That the Sacrifice of the Eucharist is made of two things the visible Element and the invisible Flesh and Bloud of Christ as the Person of Christ consisteth of the Godhead and Manhood he being true God and true Man for every compound retains the nature of that whereof it is made Now the Sacrament is composed of two things the Sign and the thing signified that is the Body of
the determination of the Church For that the Bread should still remain he confesseth That it is possible That it is not against reason or the authority of the Bible But concerning the conversion of the Bread he says That clearly it cannot be inferred from Scripture nor yet from the determination of the Church as he judgeth Yet because the common opinion was otherwise he yielding to the times was fain to follow though with some reluctancy 30. The Council of Florence which was not long after did not at all treat with the Greeks about Transubstantiation nor the Consecration of the Sacrament but left them undetermined with many other Controversies But that which is called the Armenians instruction and in this cause and almost all Disputes is cited as the Decree of the General Council of Florence by Soto Bellarmine and the Roman Catechism is no Decree of the Council as we have demonstrated somewhere else but a false and forged Decree of Pope Eugenius the Fourth who doth indeed in that Instruction prescribe to the Armenians a form of Doctrine about the Sacrament saying That by vertue of the words of Christ the substance of the Bread is turned into his Body and the substance of the Wine into his Bloud But that he did it with the approbation of the Council as he often says in his Decree is proved to be altogether false as well by the Acts of the Council as by the unanswerable Arguments of C. de Capite Fontium Archbishop of Caesarea in his Book De necessaria Theologiae Scholasticae correctione dedicated to Pope Sixtus the Fifth For how could the Council of Florence approve that Decree which was made more than three months after it was ended It being certain that after the Council was done the Armenians with the Greeks having each of them signed Letters of Union which yet were not approved by all nor long in force after they were subscribed departed out of Florence July 22 whereas the Instruction was not given while November 22. Therefore by the mutual consent of both Parties was nothing here done or decreed about Transubstantiation or the rest of the Articles of the new Roman Faith But Eugenius or whoever was the Forger of the Decree put a cheat upon his Reader Perhaps he had seen the same done by Innocent the Third or Gregory the Ninth in the pretended Decrees of the Council of Lateran which were the Popes only but not the Council's And certainly it is more likely Eugenius did it rather to please himself than for any hopes he could have that at his command the Armenians would receive and obey his Instruction sooner than the Greeks For to this day the Armenians believe that the Elements of Bread and Wine retain their nature in the Sacrament of the Eucharist 31. By these any considering person may easily see that Transubstantiation is a meer novelty not warranted either by Scripture or Antiquity invented about the middle of the Twelfth Century out of some misunderstood Sayings of some of the Fathers confirmed by no Ecclesiastick or Papal Decree before the year 1215. afterwards received only here and there in the Roman Church debated in the Schools by many disputes linble to many very bad consequences rejected for there was never those wanting that opposed it by many great and pious men until it was maintained in the Sacrilegious Council of Constance and at last in the year 1551. confirmed in the Council of Trent by a few Latine Bishops Slaves to the Roman See imposed upon all under pain of an Anathema to be feared by none and so spread too too far by the tyrannical and most unjust command of the Pope So that we have no reason to embrace it untill it shall be demonstrated that except the substance of the Bread be changed into the very Body of Christ his words cannot possibly be true nor his Body present Which will never be done A Table of the places of Scripture cited in this Book Exod XII 11 21. Chap. I. Art 4 Eccl. VII 29. Chap. VII 24 St. Mat. XXVI 26. Chap. I. 1 St. Luk. XXII 19. Ibid.  St. Job III. 3. Chap. VI. 7 St. Job III. 29. Chap. VII 19 St. Job VI. 55. Chap. I. 5 Rom. XII 3. Chap. VI. 7 1 Cor. IV. 15. Ibid.  1 Cor. X. 16. Chap. I. ◠1 Cor. X. 3 4 Ibid.  Gal. VI. 5. Chap. VII 7 Eph. IV. 22. Ibid.  1 Pet. I. 3. Ibid.  Jude v. 3. In the Preface  A Table of the Ancient Fathers Century I. CLemens Romanus Chap. VI. Art 1 St. Ignatius Ibid. 10 Century II. Theoph. Antioch Chap. VI. 1 Justinus Martyr Chap. V. 7  VI. 11 Athenagoras Tatianus Chap. VI. 1 Irenaeus Chap. V. 8  VI. 5 7 Century III. Tertullian Chap. V. 9  VI. 7 Origenes Chap V. 10  VI. 5 7 Cyprian Chap. V. 11  VI. 7 8 12 Clem. Alexand. Chap. VI. 1 7 Minutius Felix Ibid.  Arnobius Chap. V. 35 Century IV. Euseb Caesar Chap. VI. 1 Athanasius Chap. V. 13 Cyril Hieros Ibid. 14  VI. 5 7 Juvencus Macarius Hilarius Optatus Euseb Emiss Greg. Naz. Cyril Alex. Epiphanius Hieronimus Theoph. Alex. Gaudentius Chap. VI. 1 6 7 6 St. Basil Chap. V. 15  VI. 7 Greg Nyss Chap. V. 16  VI. 7 Ambrosius Chap. V. 17  VI. 6 7 13 Chrysost Chap. V. Art 18  VI. 6 7 8 Century V. St. Austin Chap. V. 19 Prosper III. Chap. V. 20 Leo IV.   Theodoret. Chap. V. 21  VI. 10 Gelasius Chap. V. 22 Sedulius Gennadius Chap. VI. 1 Faustus Reg. Ibid. 7 Century VI. Ephrem Chap. V. 24 Facundus Ibid. 25 Fulgentius Chap. VI. 1 Victor Antioch Primasius Procop. Gaz. Chap. VI. 1 Century VII Isidorus Hispal Chap. V. 26 Hesychius Chap. VI. 1 2 Maximus Ibid. 1 Century VIII Vener Beda Chap. V. 27 Carol. Magnus Ibid. 28 Damascenus Chap. VI. 1 Century IX Paschasius Chap. V. 29 Amalarius 30 Rabanus Maurus 31 Joh. Erigena 32 Wal. Strabo 33 Bertramus 34 Niceph. Patria Hincmarus Chap. VI. Art 1 Century X. Herigerus Chap. V. 36 Fulbertus Chap. VI. 1 Century XI Idem Fulbertus Chap. VII 3 Berengarius Ibid. 4 5 6 c. Hildebertus Chap. VII 4 Theophylact Oecumenius Chap. VI. 7 Century XII Bernardus Chap. VII 13  III. 2 Rupertus Chap. VII 14 A Table of the Schoolmen Century XIII LOmbardus Chap. VII Art 15 Alex. Alensis Ibid. 24  VI. 2 Albertus Magnus Ibid. 26 Tho. Aquinas 2 Rich. de Mediavilla Chap. VII 10 Century XIV Scotus Durandus Occamus Chap. V. 2 Baconus Chap. VII 27 Holcotus 26 Th. Argent 27 Brulifer 24 Century XV. Card. Camer Chap. V. Art 3  VII 29 Gabriel Biel Ibid  Century XVI Cajetan Ibid.  Dom. Soto Chap VII 24 A Table of the Councils NIcene I. Chap. V Art 12 Calced Ibid. 23 Ancyran Neocaesarien Laodiceum Carthagin Aurelian