acquires a sanctification The author saith The Bread is changed but when he adds that 't is into a Spiritual virtue he quite excludes the change of its substance for by virtue and Spiritual cannot be understood any other change but that of virtue and quality seeing this Author speaks of this change as being common to the Water of Baptism to the Oyl of Unction and to the Bread of the Eucharist That the Fathers of the THIRD CENTURY did not believe Transubstantiation TErtullian in his first Book against Marcion shewing that Jesus Christ is not contrary to the Creator as this Heretick affirm'd saith in his 14th Chap. Hitherto Jesus Christ has not condemn'd the Water wherewith he cleanseth his Children nor the Oyl wherewith he anoints them nor the Hony nor the Milk whereby he makes them his Children nor the Bread by which he represents his body By this passage the Bread represents the Body of Jesus Christ therefore the Bread remains in the Sacrament and this Bread is not really Jesus Christ because what doth represent is another thing than what is represented Two things have been said on this place of Tertullian first that the Bread signifies the accidents of Bread the second that the Word represent does signify in this place to make present As when in a Court of Justice a Prisoner is made appear as often as he is demanded Against the former there 's no reason to believe that Tertullian speaking of Water of Oyl of Hony and Milk should intend to speak of their accidents but of their very substance and that speaking of Bread he should speak only of its accidents Against the second it 's most certain that in matter of Sacraments the term to signify is taken literally to signify S. Austin saith Ep. 5. the signs when applyed to Holy things are called Sacraments Tertullian explains himself clearly Lib. 3. against Marcion so that there 's no cause of doubting when he saith That Jesus Christ has given to the Bread the priviledge of being the figure of his Body The same Tertullian lib. 4. contra Marcion cap. 40. doth prove that Jesus Christ had a real Body and not one in shew only as Marcion dream'd and he proves it by this argument That which hath a figure ought to be real and true now Jesus Christ hath in the Eucharist a figure of his Body therefore the Body of Jesus Christ is real and true and not a Phantome Jesus Christ saith Tertullian having taken the Bread which he distributed amongst his Disciples he made it his Body saying This is the figure of my Body now it had been no figure if Jesus Christ had not had a real and true Body for an empty thing as a Phantasm is is not capable of having any figure From hence 't is concluded that the Bread being the figure of the Body of Jesus Christ and that which is a figure being distinguished from the thing signified the Bread of the Eucharist is not properly and truely the Body of Jesus Christ and so the Bread is not destroy'd but remains to be the figure of the Body of Jesus Christ. If it be said the Bread is destroy'd and that the accidents of Bread are the figure of the Body of Jesus Christ this gives up the victory to Marcion to prove that Jesus Christ had a true Body and not one in shew only because Jesus Christ hath in the Eucharist the figure of Bread which is Bread only in appearance Marcion might have retorted the argument and said according to you Tertullian the Sacrament is the figure of the Body of Jesus Christ now as this figure is Bread in appearance and is called Bread only because of the outward accidents and qualities which it retains so also the Body of Jesus Christ was only a Body in appearance and was called a Body because it had the outward accidents and qualities Again as Tertullian saith That Jesus Christ distributed to his Disciples the Bread which he had taken to make it the figure of his Body it is most certain he took true Bread and by consequence that he distributed true Bread. The same Tertullian in his Treatise of the Soul disputing against the Accademitians that questioned the truth of the testimony of the Senses saith to them that we must not at all doubt of the testimony of the Senses lest occasion might farther be taken to doubt the actions of the humanity of Jesus Christ that it might not be said That it was untrue that he saw Satan fall from Heaven That it was not true that he heard the Father's voice from heaven bearing witness to his Son That he was deceived when he touched Peter's Wifes Mother That he was deceived when he smelt the sweet odour which he was pleas'd to accept for the preparation to his Death or That he tasted the Wine that he consecrated in remembrance of his Blood. It is evident that to consecrate Wine in remembrance of Blood cannot be understood of a substance which is destroy'd all saving the accidents This manner of expression in the language of the Ancients signifying no more but that a substance remains always in its first state only attains to a higher degree which is to be the Sacrament of a Heavenly and supernatural thing To conclude if Tertullian had believed that the Wine had been destroy'd and that nothing but the appearance was left against the testimony of all the Senses had it not been an unpardonable fault in Tertullian to prove that the Senses could not be deceived by the Example of the Eucharist where the Senses are quite deceived Origen did not believe Transubstantiation when he said in his Commentary on the 13th Chap. of S. Matth. expounding these words of the Gospel what enters into the Mouth defiles not the Man c. as there 's nothing that 's impure of it self to him that 's polluted and incredulous but a thing is impure by reason of his impurity and incredulity so also that which is sanctifyed by the word of God and Prayer doth not sanctify by its proper nature him that uses it If it were so it would also sanctify him that cats unworthily of the Lord and none should have been weak nor sick nor should have fallen asleep by reason of so eating If all that enters into the Mouth goes into the Belly and there is cast out into the draught this food which is sanctifyed by the word of God and by Prayer goes also into the Belly and is cast out into the draught according to its material substance But according to the Prayer which has been thereunto added it becomes profitable according to the measure of Faith by causing the mind to become inlightned having regard to what is profitable And 't is not the matter of Bread but the words which have been pronounc'd upon it that avails him which eateth in such a manner as is not unworthy of the Lord and this may be said of the
Body Typical or Symbolical Many things might be said also of the Word made Flesh and true nourishment the which whosoever eats shall never dye and which no wicked person can eat for could it be that he which continues wicked should eat of the Word incarnate seeing he is the Word and Bread of Life it would not have been written Whosoever eateth this Bread shall live Eternally When he saith of the Bread of the Eucharist that it sanctifieth not of it self it cannot he understood of the true Body of Jesus Christ but of the Bread which remains When he saith This Bread sanctified by the invocation of God and by Prayer remains in its material being it means plainly That it remains in its former substance When he saith That this Bread as to the matter of it goes down into the Belly and is cast into the draught as the other meats This not being to be understood of Jesus Christ without Blaspheming is necessarily to be understood of the Bread. When he calls this Bread the Typical Body it shews plainly That this not being the true Body it is not Transubstantiated When having spoken of the Typical Body he after speaks of the Word made Flesh which cannot but give life to those which eat and receive him he sufficiently distinguisheth the Bread of the Eucharist from Jesus Christ the former of which may be mortal but the latter can never be so to those who receive and eat him This passage is so clear and evident that Sixtus Senensis in his Bibl. l. 6. annot 66. found no better expedient than to say That 't was probable This passage had been corrupted by the Hereticks Gennebrard and Du Perron suspected Erasmus to have ill translated it But the learned Monsieur Huet nominated to be Bishop of Soissons saith It evidently appears by the Original Greek that this passage is no way changed The same Origen saith in Tom. 32. of his Commentary on S. John that the morsel of Bread Christ gave to Judas and those he gave the Apostles saying Take Eat were of the same sort Now if the morsel given to Judas was true Bread as it is granted and if the Bread given the other Apostles was not true Bread then the one and the other were not of the same kind The same Origen in the Seventh Homily on Leviticus saith That Jesus Christ before his Passion drank Wine but being ready to suffer he refused to drink it Ubi vero tempus advenit Crucis suae accipiens inquit Galicem benedixit dedit Discipulis suis dicens Accipite Bibite ex hoc Vos inquit bibite quia non accessuri estis and altare ipse autem tanquam accessurus ad altare dicit Amen dico vobis quia non bibam de generatione vitis hujus usque quò bibam illud novum vobiscum in Regno Patris mei Origen affirms That our Saviour in celebrating the Eucharist did not drink Wine because he was ready to approach the Altar of his Passion and that the Apostles did drink Wine because they were not yet ready to approach to the Altar of Martyrdom And that in this sense the Figure of the Old Testament was accomplished where 't was forbidden to Aaron and his Priests to drink Wine when they were about to approach to the Altar All this Discourse is false if Jesus Christ spake not these words of true Wine I will not drink c. and if what the Apostles drank was not true Wine Let us see now what St. Cyprian saith The Sacrifice of the Lord recommends to us Unity for when Jesus Christ called his Body the Bread which is made of several Grains he recommended the Unity of Christian People and when he called his Blood the Wine made of several Grains and Grapes he represented one Flock united by the Band of Charity Now these words where Jesus Christ called the Bread his Body and the Wine his Blood is as if he had said of the Bread This is my Body and of the Wine This is my Blood. And if hereunto we add the words of the Jesuite Salmeron who said If Jesus Christ had said This Bread is my Body and this Wine is my Blood it would have obliged us to have understood these words in a figurative sense because the Bread cannot be a humane Body nor the Wine Blood but in a figurative Sense Bellarmine saith the same If Jesus Christ had said This Bread is my Body this proposuion must be understood in a figurative Sense otherwise the Expression would be absurd and impossible Now as we see S. Cyprian saith that Jesus Christ said of the Body That 't is his Body and of the Wine That 't was his Blood it must be concluded therefore that Jesus Christ said of the Bread and Wine That they were his Body and Blood that is to say That the Bread and Wine were his Body and Blood in Figure both the one and the other being represented and signified by the Bread and Wine And therefore in his Epistle to Cecilius where at large he proves the Wine must be mingled with Water he saith If there be no Wine in the Cup the Blood of Jesus Christ cannot be represented to us because 't is the Wine that represents to us the Blood of Jesus Christ. And again Vini ubique mentio est ideo ponitur ut I omini Sanguis Vino intelligatur He saith of the Water that Sola Christi sanguinem non potest exprimere In aqua vidimus populum intelligi in Vino ostendi Sanguinem Christi So that seeing St. Cyprian saith That the Wine representeth expresseth sheweth and makes us see the Blood of Jesus Christ as the Water representeth expresseth and shews us the Christian People it cannot be imagin'd that St. Cyprian believed the Wine was destroy'd but on the contrary he believed that after Consecration the Wine remained and that 't was true Wine that he called his Blood according to what he saith in the same Letter Quia in parte invenimus Calicem mixtum fuisse quem Dominus obtulit vinum fuisse quod Sanguinem suum dixit That the Fathers of the FOURTH CENTURY did not believe Transubstantiation EUstathius Patriarch of Antioch upon these words of Solomon in the Proverbs Eat my Bread and drink the Wine which I have prepar'd saith That the wise Man by the Bread and Wine did foreshew the Antitypes of the Body of Jesus Christ Now that which is a Type is an Image what is an Image cannot be the thing but in Figure so that the Bread is not destroy'd because it is the Type and the Image Eusebius of Caesarea interpreting these words of Genesis Chap. 49. Vers. 12. His Eyes shall be red with Wine and his Teeth white with Milk saith That the first words signifie the Joy that the mystical Wine doth cause in the Disciples of Jesus Christ when he saith to them Take Drink ye ALL
of this c. And these words The Teeth white with Milk do signifie the purity and cleanness of the Mystical Food which are the Symbols which Jesus Christ left to his Disciples commanding them to celebrate the Image of his proper Body not requiring any more bloody Sacrifices and commanded to make use of Bread for the Symbol of his Body Seeing then that according to this ancient Doctor the Wine is the Symbol of the Blood of Christ and the Bread the Figure of his Body and both the one and the other an Image of the Body and Blood the Image is not that of which 't is an Image and by consequence in the Eucharist besides the Body of Jesus Christ there is also Bread and Wine which do represent and shew him it being evident by the Text of this Author that he understood the words of Jesus Christ This is my Body in this sense This is the Symbol of my Body Cyril of Jerusalem saith Quemadmodum Panis Eucharisticus post Spiritûs Sancti invocationem non amplius est Panis communis sed est Corpus Christi sic sanctum hoc unguentum non amplius est unguentum illud Macharius a noted Hermite in Egypt who wrote his Homilies about the year 368. saith in the 27th Homily That before the birth of Jesus Christ the wise Men Holy Men Kings and Prophets knew that Jesus Christ was to come to be a redeemer but they knew not that he was to suffer death that he was to be Crucify'd and that he should shed his Blood on the Cross and that they had not attain'd so far as to know there should be a Baptism of Fire and of the Holy Ghost and that in the Church should be offered Bread and Wine Antitypes of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and that those which eat of this visible Bread should spiritually eat the Flesh of the Lord. This Father saying that the Antitype of the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ is Bread and Wine doth suppose the Bread remains as not being the Real Body of Jesus Christ but a Type of it now the Type is not the verity sed umbra veritatis saith St. Ambrose de side l. 3. c. 8. and by consequence there is in the Eucharist something else besides the Body it self of Jesus Christ. And when he saith That those which take the visible Bread do spiritually eat the Flesh of Christ he gives us sufficiently to understand that in this august Sacrament there is besides the Flesh of Jesus Christ a visible Bread and that the visible Bread is eaten corporally and the Flesh of Jesus Christ spiritually St. Basil Bishop of Caesaria in his Epistle to Caesarea saith That at Alexandria and in Aegypt each Lay-person for the most part kept the Eucharist by them and communicated themselves when they pleased and if they receive from the Priest a morsel of the consecrated Bread they may receive the Holy Sacrament daily if they list taking some of it to day and the rest to morrow For saith he the Priest in the Church gives a good Piece or Morsel of the Eucharist and he that takes it doth communicate himself at his pleasure Now saith he as to the validity and vertue of the Sacrament it is one and the same whether one receives one morsel or two of the Priest. In what sense can it be understood that one receives several parts or parcels in the Eucharist It cannot be meant of Jesus Christ whose Body cannot be divided into morsels it must therefore be understood that St. Basil believed that the Bread remained in the Eucharist as a Typical and Symbolical Body of Jesus Christ. Ephrem Deacon of the Church of Edessa contemporary with St. Basil and whose Writings St. Jerom reports in his Catalogue were read in the Church after the Holy Scriptures he saith in the Treatise he wrote That Men should not search too curiously into the Nature of God consider diligently saith this holy Deacon how Jesus Christ taking the Bread into his hands blessed and broke it as a Figure of his immaculate Body and taking the Cup he blessed it as a Type of his blessed Blood and gave it to his Disciples It is evident that Ephrem believed the Bread is the figure of the Body and the Wine the Type of the Blood of Christ figura autem non est veritas sed imitatio verit atis saith S. Gaudentius upon Exodus Tract 2. the Body of Jesus Christ is the verity there must then be in the Sacrament besides the real Body a material and Typical Body which may be the figure of the true Body of Jesus Christ. S. Epiphanius having said That Jesus Christ descended into the Waters to be Baptiz'd not to receive any virtue from the Waters but to confer it upon them he adds That 't is in Jesus Christ the Prophecy of Esay is accomplished who in the third Chap. speaks of the vertue of Bread and Water he gave strength to the Waters illuminans eas roboran◠in Typo earum que in ipso erant perficienda and as for the Bread Cibus quidem panis est sed virtus in eo est ad vivisicationem S. Epiphanius speaks here of the Eucharist as he doth of Baptism he saith That both one and the other receive their virtue from Jesus Christ who communicates to them spiritual strength sufficient to sanctify now as the Water of Baptism is changed only by a change of virtue and quality it is apparent S. Epiphanius did not mean that the Bread of the Eucharist should be destroy'd no more than the Water was in Baptism else he would not have said that the Consecrated Bread was a food for accidents cannot nourish nothing can be fed by that which is not a Body nourishment proceeds from a substance or matter saith Aristotle and Boëtius in Praedic saith that 't is impossible an accident should pass into the nature of a substance ut accidens in substantis naturam transeat fieri nullo modo potest Gregory Nazianzen speaking of the miraculous recovery of his Sister Gorgonia speaks in these terms pouring forth a Flood of tears after the example of her that washed Christ's feet with her tears she said she would not depart thence till she had recover'd her health her tears were the perfume which she spread over all his Body she mingled them with the Antitypes or the Symbols of the mody and Blood of Jesus Christ as much at least as she could hold in her hands and immediately O the Miracle she found her self healed And in his seventeenth Oration this godly Prelate interceding to the Emperor 's Prefect that he would extend his favour and not deliver up the City to be plundred I set before your Eyes the Table where we joyntly receive the Sacrament and the figure of my Salvation which I consecrate with the same Mouth wherewith I make my request
more drink the Fruit of the Vine until I drink it with you in a new manner whereof you shall bear testimony for you shall see me after my Resurrection But wherefore continues S. Chrysostom did he drink Wine after his Resurrection and not Water it is because he would thereby destroy a pernicious Heresy For because there would be Hereticks that would only make use of water in the Mysteries be would represent the Mysteries he gave Wine and when after the Resurrection he eat his common Repast he drank Wine the Fruit of the Vine now the Vine doth produce Wine and not Water This Passage marketh in the first place That Jesus Christ drinking the Fruit of the Vine after his Resurrection and not Water he accomplish'd what he said in celebrating the Eucharist I will no more drink of this Fruit of the Vine until I drink it new in my Fathers Kingdom This shews that Jesus Christ drank true Wine in the Institution of the Eucharist for what is to be done again must needs be done before Secondly St. Chrysostom doth not only say that Jesus Christ drank Wine but he saith further That he distributed Wine amongst his Disciples and the Fruit of the Vine which doth not produce Water but Wine So that these words of St. Chrysostom import clearly That the Wine remains in the Eucharist The same Father on these words of the First to the Corinthians The Bread which we break is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ speaks thus What is the Bread it is the Body of Jesus Christ. What becomes of them which receive it they become the Body of Jesus Christ. Now this Proposition The Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ cannot be in a Literal Sense for saith Vasquez The Bread without a Figure cannot be called the Body of Jesus Christ nor the Body of Jesus Christ be called Bread. The same Father in his Commentary upon the Epistle to the Galatians Chap. 5. explaining these words of the Apostle The Flesh lusteth against the Spirit and the Spirit against the Flesh The Manicheans understood by the Flesh the substance of the Body and by the Spirit they understood the Soul and they said That the Apostle cut Man into two and intimated that Man was compos'd of two contrary Substances one bad which was the Flesh and the other good which was the Spirit which proceeded from the good God and the Body from the bad God S. Chrysostom answers That the Apostle in this place doth not call the Flesh the Body Apostolum non hic carnem appellare Corpus as the Manicheans supposed and saith That the Apostle do's not always mean by the Flesh the nature of the Body Naturam Corporis but that very often by the Flesh he means something else as evil Desires and having proved this by sundry passages of the Apostle and other holy Writers he proves it at last by the example of the Iucharist and of the Church which he saith is called Body in the Holy Scriptures he saith farther That the Scripture is wont to call by the name of Flesh as well the Church as the Mysteries saving It is his Body Rursum Carnis vocabulo Scriptura solet appellare tum Mysteria tum totam Ecclesiam dicens eam Christi Corpus esse It appears by these words of St. Chrysostom's That he did not believe that the Consecrated Bread and Wine were the same with the Body of Christ seeing he proves by the Eucharist that the Consecraeted Bread and Wine are called Flesh and that the Word Flesh in this place is taken for something else besides Body and that he puts the Term Flesh given to the Consecrated Bread and Wine which are the Mysteries in the rank of other Terms of Flesh given to evil Desires and to the Church which are mystical and figurative Terms So St. Chrysostom believed the Bread and Wine remained and are so called the Body of Jesus Christ mystically as the Church is called the Body of Jesus Christ. The same St. Chrysostom wrote a Letter to Caesarius which indeed is not inserted in his Works but is sound in Manuscript in the Library at Florence and it was also found in England in Archbishop Cranmer's Library it is mention'd in the Bibliotheca Patrum Printed at Collen 1618. in this Bibliotheque Tom. 4. there is found the Collections of an ancient nameless Author who wrote against the Severian and Acephalian Hereticks wherein is recited a Passage taken out of this Letter So also Monsieur de Marca Arch-Bishop of Paris acknowledges the truth of this Letter in his Posthume and French Treatise of the Eucharist witness the Abbot Fagget in his Letter to Monsieur de Marca President of the Parliament at Pan who saith also this Letter was found by Monsieur Bigot in a Library at Florence St. Chrysostom in this Letter writeth against Apollinarius and saith Jesus Christ is both God and Man God because of his Impassibility Man by his Passion one Son one Lord both Natures united making but one the same Power the same Dominion although they be two different Natures each conserves its own Nature because they are two and yet without confusion for as the Bread before it is sanctified is called Bread when by the intercession of the Priest Divine Grace has sanctified it it loses the name of Bread and becomes worthy to be called the Body of Jesus Christ although the Nature of Bread abides in it so that they are not two Bodies but one sole Body of the Son so the Divine Nature being united to the Humane Nature of Jesus Christ it did not make two Persons but one only Person and one Son. St. Chrysostom saith plainly That the Nature of Bread abideth after Consecration and this Father's Argument would be of no validity if this nature of the Bread was nothing but in shew for Apollinarius might have made another opposite Argument and say That indeed it might be said there were two Natures in Jesus Christ but that the Humane Nature was only in appearance as the Bread in the Eucharist is but in shew and hath only outward and visible qualities remaining in it whereby it is term'd to be Bread. The Author of the imperfect Work upon St. Matthew written in the time of the Emperour Theodosius did not believe Transubstantiation when he spake in these Terms in Homily Eleventh If it be dangerous to employ the holy Vessels about common uses wherein the true Body of Jesus Christ is not contain'd but the Mysteries of his Body how much rather the Vessels of our Bodies which God has prepared to dwell in That the Fathers of the FIFTH CENTURY did not believe Transubstantiation S. Jerom in his Epistle to Eustochium speaking of Virgins saith That when they were reproved for Drunkenness they excus'd themselves by adding Sacriledge to Drunkenness saying God forbid that I should abstain from the Blood of the Lord. In the Second Book against Jovinian
it is said The Lord in the Type of his Blood did not offer Water but Wine These words are indeed Jovinian's but St. Jerom sinds no fault with them For he himself saith the same upon the 31 Chapter of Jeremy Vers. 12. on these Words They run after God's Creatures the Wheat the Wine and the Oyl the Bread and the Wine saith he whereof is made the Bread of the Lord and wherein is accomplished the Type of his Blood. Now saith St. Ambrose The Type is not the Truth but it is the shadow of the Truth There must then be in the Eucharist Bread and Wine distinct from the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ to be the Types and Figures of it The same Father in his Letter to Hedibia Let us hear that the Bread which the Lord broke and gave his Disciples was the Lord's own Body saying Take Eat This is my Body and a little after he saith If the Bread that came down from Heaven is the Body of the Lord and the Wine which he distributed among his Disciples his Blood c. St. Jerom saith That Jesus Christ brake and distributed Bread to his Disciples that he gave them Bread and that the Bread and Wine were his Flesh and Blood. It cannot then be said That what Jesus Christ gave in communicating his Disciples was not Bread and Wine and when he saith both the one and the other was his Body and Blood it cannot be understood but only figuratively for we see above in St. Cyprian that the Jesuites Salmeron and Bellarmine do confess That if Jesus Christ said of the Bread This is my Body it must be meant This Bread is the Figure of my Body the one not being capable of being the other but figuratively And the Reason is given by Vasquez when he saith If the Pronoun This in the words of Consecration be understood of the Bread undoubtedly by virtue of it there can be wrought no Transubstantiation because of necessity the Bread must needs remain Si Pronomen hoc in illis verbis demonstraret panem fatemur fore ut nulla conversio virtute illorum fieri posset quia panis de quo enunciatur manere debeat The same S. Jerom in his Commentary upon the 26 Chapter of St. Matthew saith Jesus Christ having eaten the Paschal Lamb took Bread which strengthens the Heart of Man and proceeded to the accomplishment of the Sacrament of the true Passover that as Melchisedeck had offered Bread and Wine in Figure he also himself would represent the truth of his Body According to this Father the Bread and Wine represent the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and therefore are not properly and truly the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ but are something else besides them and by consequence remain in the Sacrament For to say as the Author of the Second Book of the perpetuity of the Faith of the Eucharist doth against Monsieur Claude that St. Jerom means by representing to make a thing be present we before refuted this Fancy in Tertullian who speaks just as St. Jerom And the terms sufficiently declare that St. Jerom's meaning is That Jesus Christ made use of Bread and Wine to signifie and shew forth his Body and Blood as Melchisedeck had done that is to say as he had represented both the one and the other by the Oblation of Bread and Wine St. Austin in his Sermon to the newly Baptized which it's true is not found in his other Works but was preserv'd and is cited by St. Fulgentius de Baptismo Aethiop Cap. 7. What you see saith he upon the Altar of God you saw also the last Night but you were not yet aware of how great a thing it is a Sacrament That which you see is Bread and a Cup of Wine and it is also what your Eyes declare unto you but what your Faith should instruct you in is That the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ and the Cup his Blood. If you tell me Jesus Christ is born he was crucified he was buried he rose again and is ascended into Heaven whither he has carry'd his Body and is at present on the right hand of God from whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead how then can the Bread be his Body and the Cup his Blood these things my Brethren are called Sacraments because one thing is seen in them and another thing is understood by them what is seen hath a Corporeal Substance what is understood hath a Spiritual Fruit. If then you desire to understand what the Body of Jesus Christ is hearken to the Apostle which saith You are the Body of Christ and his Members If then you are the Body of Jesus Christ and his Members it is the Mystery of what you are which is upon the Holy Table it is the Mystery of the Lord which you receive in saying Amen you answer and subscribe to what you are All you that are united in Charity you make but one Body of Jesus Christ of which you are the Members which is what is signified by the Bread compos'd of several Grains and by the Wine which is made of sundry Grapes For as Bread to be made a visible Species of Bread is made of sundry Grains collected together in one and the Wine c. St. Austin saith That the Bread is the Body of Christ which cannot be but improperly and figuratively as hath been shewed above for by Confession of Roman Catholick Doctors every Proposition that saith of the Bread That it is the Body must needs be typical and figurative He saith what is seen is Bread as our Eyes declare to us now what our Eyes report to us is true Bread as when one says What you see is true Gold and Silver or Marble and 't is what your Eyes testifie that is to say That one sees true Gold and true Marble and that one makes use of their Eyes to confirm it In the same sense he saith That Jesus Christ although in Heaven yet the Bread is the Body and the Wine the Blood because they are the Sacraments of it He saith What one sees hath a bodily species now in this Passage by bodily species he means the very Substance and not the Accidents For he saith afterwards speaking of Bread in general as Bread to be a visible species of Bread must be made of several Grains reduced into one lump now by the species of Bread it is plain St. Austin there means true Bread and a true Substance He saith What you see is Bread and a Cup now by Cup he doth not mean the appearance of a Cup he means a true Cup. He saith this Bread is the Mystery of the Lord. Which is nothing else but that 't is the Figure of the Lord as when he saith This Bread is the Mystery of Believers Mysterium vestrum in Mensa Domini accipitis That is to say That the Bread and Wine are the Figure of
no longer after Consecration Eleventhly Monsieur de Marca Archbishop of Paris in his posthumous Dissertations saith in his French Treatise of the Sacrament of the Eucharist That until S. Chrysostom's time it was believed the Bread was the Body of Jesus Christ by a marvelous change that comes on the Bread but that it becomes united to the incarnate Word and to his Natural Body the Bread not changing its Nature and yet not going into the Draught which is a kind of pious consideration which he added against Origen PART II. AS for the Second Point which is to see if there is effectively to be found in the Writings of the Ancients sufficient Authorities to believe that the Ancients did not believe Transubstantiation Before I alledge their Authorities two Reflections may be made First that our own Authors do observe that Transubstantiation is not expresly mention'd nor taught in the Scriptures Scotus cited by Bellarmine of the Eucharist Lib. 3. cap. 23. saith It doth not plainly follow from the words of Jesus Christ This is my Body that the Bread is transubstantiated Ockam saith of Transubstantiation that it cannot be proved by natural Reason nor by Authority of the Bible but only by the Authority of the Ancients Alfonsus de Castro disapproves what Ockham says That it can be proved by the Authority of the Ancients for he saith That it was not to be found no more than Indulgences were in the Writings of the Ancients Gabriel Biel speaking of Transubstantiation saith That it is not expresly taught in the Holy Scriptures Cardinal Cajetan does not find the words of Jesus Christ This is my Body clear neither for the Real Presence nor for Transubstantiation without the determination of the Church be joyned to them The second Reflection is that Transubstantiation comprehending a great many Difficulties quite contrary to natural Reason none of the Jews nor Pagan Philosophers disputing against the ancient Christians ever dream'd of making any objections against it in their Disputations Trypho the Jew charges us with things monstrous incredible and strangely invented as what we teach of Jesus Christ's being before Aaron and Abraham that he took on him our Nature that he was horn of a Virgin that God should be born be made Man that we should adore a Man that we should put our trust in him and that we should invoke another God besides the Creator all this appears in S. Justin Martyr in his Dialogue against Trypho The Pagans reproach us for saying God has a Son that this Son should appear in humane shape and they stile it the Follies of the Christian Discipline that God should be born and that he should be born of a Virgin and be a God of flesh crucised and buried The last Judgment the pains of eternal Fire the Joys of Heaven the Resurrection of the Dead All this appears by Clement of Alexandria Stromat l. 6. by Tertullian his Apologet. ch 21. 47. in his Treatise of the Flesh of Christ ch 4. and 5. And in his Treatise of the Testimony of the Soul ch 4. By S. Justin in his second Apology and Arnobius in his second Book Celsus in Origen scoffs at the Incarnation as of a thing unworthy of God. In the Sixth Book he laughs that we should believe God should be born of a Virgin. In the Third and Eighth Book he saith of Christians That they honour with a Religious Worship even above all Religion a Man that was a Prisoner and that suffered Death He even thereby pleads for the plurality of his Gods as if Christians were not satisfi'd in worshipping one God under colour that they adored Jesus Christ If Christians saith he in the Eighth Book worshipped but one God they might have some colour to despise others But they pay infinite Honours to him that has but very lately appear'd and yet they don't think they displease God when they serve and honour his Minister Julian the Apostate oppos'd the Mystery of the Incarnation the Divinity of Jesus Christ the Salvation he purchas'd for us by the price of his Blood he reproaches us with the glorious Title of Mother of God which we give to the Blessed Virgin he contests the Mystery of the Trinity of Persons and Unity of Essence accusing us of contradicting Moses who said There is but one God. He reproaches us for Baptism See saith he what Paul saith to them that they are sanctified and cleansed by Water as if Water could penetrate to the Soul to wash and purifie it Baptism can't so much as cleanse a Leper nor a Scurf it cannot heal a Cancer nor the Gout He aggravates what we read that God Visits the Iniquity of the Fathers upon the Children thereby to endeavour to attack the Doctrine of Original Sin. He boldly questions what God saith in the Book of Numbers touching Phineas that thrust his Javelin through the Body of an Israelite that committed Folly with a Midianitish Woman which turn'd away God's Anger from the Children of Israel and hinder'd him from consuming them Let us suppose saith he that there had been to the Number of one Thousand that had attempted to have transgressed the Law of God ought six hundred Thousand to have been destroy'd for the sake of one Thousand it seems to me to have been much juster to have saved one ill Man with so many good ones than to involve so much good Men in the ruine of one bad one There 's scarce any of our Mysteries that have not been censur'd by the Jews or Pagans yet 't is very strange that not one should accuse us of admitting in the Eucharist accidents without substance whiteness without any thing that 's white roundness without any thing round weight without any thing that 's weighty a corruption whereunto the species are subject without any thing that 's capable of being corrupted a Nourishment in the Symbols without any thing that can nourish a power in the Wine to be smelt without any thing that may be smelled No body ever reproach'd us with so strange a thing that a Man with one word should destroy a substance which he holdeth in his hands and that nevertheless against the testimony of all the Senses I see that which is no more I feel that which I do not feel I taste that which I do not taste I understand that which I do not understand I touch that which I do not touch that I should be nourished with nothing that my taste should be delighted with nothing that my Eyes and Ears should de struck with Nothing The three Reflections we have hitherto made That many of the antient Catholick Doctors have not believed Transubstantiation to be antient That they have Judged it could not evidently be deduced from the Holy Scriptures and That the antient Pagan Philosophers have not reproached us with it are three very strong Suppositions to make us mightily doubt the Antiquity of this
Jesus Christ as they are the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ. To conclude St. Austin saith The Faith of the New-baptized was to be strengthened it was therefore here the proper place for him to have said That the Bread was no more Bread that the Wine was no longer Wine but that there remained only the Accidents of the one and the other The same Holy Father answering Bishop Boniface who desired to know how it might be said of an Infant newly Baptis'd he hath Faith he Believes who is incapable of believing and of whom no assurance can be given what he will be afterwards he saith That as every Sunday and Easter Day is called Easter and the Resurrection although the Lords Easter and Resurrection are things happened several Ages past so it may be said An Infant hath Faith because he hath the Sacrament of Faith. For saith he if the Sacraments had not some resemblance with the things whereof they are Sacraments they would be no Sacraments as therefore in some sort the Sacrament of the Body of Jesus Christ is the Body of Jesus Christ and the Sacrament of his Blood is the Blood of Christ so also the Sacrament of Faith is Faith now to believe is nothing else but to have Faith. He saith The Eucharist is called Flesh and Blood because it is both the one and the other in some sort now according to St. Gregory Nyssen What is not truly that by the name by which it is called is but figuratively or improperly that by the name whereof it is called Now that the Bread and Wine which are the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are his Body and Blood in some sort secundum quendam modum it follows The Bread and Wine are not properly the Flesh and Blood and by consequence are not Transubstantiated Moreover St. Austin doth explain the Manner according to which the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ and he shews it by reason that generally the signs are called by the name of the things they signifie not that they are the things they signifie but because they are the signs and that they have some resemblance to them The same Father upon the third Psalm admires the Patience of Jesus Christ that bore the Treachery of Judas to the end although he was not ignorant of his Thoughts and admitted him to the Banquet at which saith St. Austin Jesus Christ recommended and gave to his Disciples the Figure or Type of his Flesh and Blood Cum adhibuit ad convivium in quo Corporis Sanguinis sui Figuram Discipulis commendavit tradidit Now the Figure is not the Truth but the Imitation of the Verity saith Gaudentius in Exod. Tractatu 2. Moreover St. Austin cannot find in the Scriptures that Jesus Christ in instituting the Sacrament gave to his Disciples the Figure of his Body and Blood but in these words Take Eat This is my Body This is my Blood he must then understand these words of the Institution in a figurative sense And according to the same Doctor a Sign is that which shews it self to the Senses and besides that shews something else to the Mind It must then follow That the Sign is a thing which remains to shew it self The same Father disputing against Adimantus the Manichean Chap. 12. and against the Adversary of the Law and the Prophets in the Second Book Cap. 6. who said The Blood is the Soul as is said Deuteronom 12. and by consequence that Men killed the Soul when they shed Blood. S. Austin replies That this Precept in Deuteronomy That Blood must not be eat because 't is the Soul is a Precept that must he understood as many other things contained in the Scriptures which are to be taken in Types and Figures Illud praeceptum posicum esse dicimus sicut alia multa pene omnia Scripturarum illarum Sacramenta signis figuris plena sunt And concludes towards the end of that Chapter That the Blood is the Soul as the Rock was Christ Sanguis est Anima quomodo petra erat Christus And upon Leviticus Quest. 54. The thing which signisies is wont to be called by the name of the thing signified as 't is written the Rock was Christ For 't is not said The Rock signifi'd Christ but as if it were that which indeed it was not in substance but only in signification And as in the beginning of the Chapter he saith That it must be understood in the Sign Jesus Christ making no difficulty to say This is my Body when he gave the Sign of his Body Sanguis est Anima praeceptum illud est in signo positum non enim Dominus dubitavit dicere Hoc est Corpus meum cum daret signum Corporis sui Seeing then St. Austin doth say That the Blood is the Soul as the Rock was Christ and as the Eucharist is the Sign of Jesus Christ he must of necessity have understood the Words of Institution of the Sacrament in a figurative sense and that so much the rather because this manner of speech Jesus Christ made no difficulty plainly shews that Jesus Christ did not speak in a proper but in a figurative sense as Fulgentius saith Although the Apostle saith That Jesus Christ is the Head of the Body of the Church nevertheless he makes no Scruple to call Jesus Christ the Church which is his Body This manner of speech is never used in proper expressions no Body will say Jesus Christ made no difficulty to give Gold or Water if it were true Gold or Water which he gave The same holy Doctor saith in several places after the Apostle That the Bread in the Sacrament after Consecration is broken and distributed and he doth very well recommend this breaking the Bread as being a great mystery In his Epistle to Paulinus he saith In that Jesus Christ was known by the two Disciples in breaking the Bread no body ought to question but this breaking was the Sacrament whereby Jesus Christ brings us all to the knowledge of his Person A little before he saith By the Prayers we mean those which are said before one begins to bless what is upon the Lords Table The Prayers are said when that which is on the Lords Table is blessed sanctifyed and distributed In his Epistle to Casulanus he saith of S. Paul that in the night time he went to break Bread as it is broken in the Sacrament of his Body In his Commentary upon the first Epistle of S. John It was very reasonable that Jesus Christ recommending his Flesh broke Bread and it was very just that the Disciples knew him in breaking of Bread. In the 140. Sermon de temp and in the Hom. Of the consent of Evangelists lib. 3. c. 25. and de diversis Serm. 87. he saith Where would Jesus Christ be known In the breaking of Bread. We are then secure we break Bread
denote the gladness which the Lord left to his Disciples in giving them the Mystical Wine by the words of Institution Take drink ye all of this These words saith he do shew that Jesus Christ doth with mercy look on all those that believe in him because 't is the nature of wine to make every one merry And upon these words his teeth are white as milk milk saith he doth denote to us the whiteness and purity of the mystical nourishment for Jesus Christ gave to his Disciples the Image of his true Body not desiring any of the bloody sacrifices of the Law he would by the white teeth signifie to us the purity of the food wherewith we are nourished for according to holy David Sacrifice and burnt-offerings thou wouldest not but a Body hast thou prepared me When Procopius speaketh of the Mystical Wine that rejoyced the Disciples it being the nature of Wine to make merry this Mystical Wine is not the Blood of Jesus Christ for 't is not the nature of Blood to rejoyce It must therefore be meant that Procopius said by the Wine which Jesus Christ distributed to his Disciples was to be understood true Wine and by the whitness of the Mystical food he meant the whiteness of the Bread which is both food and Image which cannot be understood of the true Body of Jesus Christ which is neither the Image of himself nor bodily food nor of the accidents which cannot nourish the Body because nourishment proceedeth from matter The same Procopius in his Commentary on Esay expounding these words of the Prophet Chap. 3. The Lord of Hosts will take away from Judah and Jerusalem the staff of Bread and Water saith that in the first place these words of the Prophet may be understood of Jesus Christ and of his Flesh and Blood. The Bread being to be understood of him of whom David saith He gave them bread from Heaven and the waters of those of which Jesus Christ said to the Samaritan Whosoever drinketh of this water it shall be a fountain flowing unto everlasting Life Then he adds There is another bread which giveth life to the world which was taken from the Jews and another water which is that of Baptism Now by this other bread which was taken from the Jews he means that of the Eucharist and whereas he distinguishes it from the bread which is the Lord as he distinguisheth the water of Baptism from that which was given to the Samaritan it follows that the Bread of the Eucharist is something that is distinguisht from Jesus Christ himself the Bread of Heaven Gelasius Bishop of Rome in the year 492 wrote a Treatise of the two Natures against Nestorius and Eutyches and he excludes Transubstantiation when he saith that the substance or nature of Bread and VVine doth still remain This work is assuredly of Pope Gelasius As is confessed by Cardinal Du Perron because first Fulgentius cites four passages of this Treatise as being writ by Pope Gelasius And Pope John the Second in Epist. ad Amaenum also cites some passages of this Work as being writ by Gelasius and though he doth not give him the Title of Pope 't is because his name was well enough known at Rome when John the Second lived That the Fathers of the SIXTH CENTURY did not believe Transubstantiation SAint Fulgentius saith The Catholick Church doth continually offer to God the Father Son and Holy Ghost a Sacrifice of Bread and Wine throughtout all the World. For in the fleshly Sacrifices of the Old Testament there is a type of the Flesh of Jesus Christ which he was to offer without spot for our Sins but in this Sacrifice there is a Thanksgiving and commemoration of the same Flesh which he offer'd for us and of the Blood which he shed for us He saith That this Sacrifice consists in offering Bread and Wine there must then be true Bread and Wine in this Sacrifice to be offer'd Ephraem first a Lieutenant of the Eastern part of the Empire then made Bishop of Antioch in the Year 526. wrote Books which he intituled Sacred Laws in the first of which disputing against the Eutychians he saith When our Fathers said That Jesus Christ is compos'd of two Natures they meant two Substances as by two Substances two Natures No body of any sense but may say that the Nature of that which is to be felt and not felt in Jesus Christ is the same Nature Thus it is that the body of Jesus Christ which is received by Believers doth not quit its sensible Nature and remains without being separated from the intelligible Grace The which he confirms by the Example of Water which doth not lose its Nature by Consecration This Argument is of the same kind of that we see of Theodoret and of Gelasius whereby these three others prove that in the Incarnation the presence of the Word did not destroy the human Nature in Jesus Christ as the presence of the Holy Ghost doth not destroy the Substance of Bread and Wine in the Eucharist We may say of this Triple and same Argument Funiculus triplex difficile rumpitur Mons. de Marca saith in reference to this passage and of those we have instanced of Theodoret and St. Chrysostom that these three Authors have owned a real change of the Bread which nevertheless leaves the Species in their natural Substance Facundus Bishop of Hermiana in Africa in the year 552. whose Books which he wrote in Defence of the Three chapters of the Council of Chalcedon are justly praised by Victor of Tunes in his Chronology and by St. Isidore of Sevil and which Father Sirmond the Jesuit got out of the Vatican Library going about to excuse Theodore de Mopsuest who taught that Jesus Christ had taken the Adoption of the Children of God from whence it might have been concluded that he believed that Jesus Christ is only an adoptive Son saith Baptism which is the Sacrament of Adoption may be call'd Adoption as we call the Sacrament of his Body and Blood which is in the consecrated Bread and Wine his Body and Blood not that the Bread is properly his Body and the Cup his Blood but because they contain in them the Mystery of his Body and Blood. Therefore as the faithful Servants of Jesus Christ receiving the Sacrament of his Body and Blood are very rightly said to receive his Body and Blood so also Jesus Christ having received the Sacrament of the Adoption of Children might very well be said to have received the Adoption of Children Certainly if the Sacrament of Bread and Wine is not properly the Body of Jesus Christ as Facundus saith but barely Body and Blood as Baptism is Adoption the Bread and Wine are not Transubstantiated into the Eucharist and are but simple signs and something that is distinguished from the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. Primasius Bishop of Adruemetum in Africa in his
the Chalice or on the Plate By these words the Roman Order gives us to understand that it speaks of such a Body and Blood that a part of it may be separated from the whole Now this is what can only be said of the Bread and VVine improperly called the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. The now Roman Order at present used in the Church of Rome doth also furnish us with the like reflections It expresly marketh That Jesus Christ gave in the Oblation Bread and Wine to celebrate the Mysteries of his Body and Blood. Therein is desired That this Blessed Oblation may be accepted of God in such a manner as that it might be made to us the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ after all which is recited the History of the Institution and the Sacramental words The Eucharist is called the Sacred Bread of Eternal Life and the Cup the Cup of everlasting Salvation To conclude They pray God to behold those Gifts and that he will accept them as he did the offering of Abel and the Sacrifice of Melchisedeck which it's very well known was Bread and Wine All which doth plainly shew That the Roman Order at this time observed cannot reasonably be interpreted but in supposing that the Bread and Wine remain in the Eucharist after Consecration That the Fathers of the NINTH CENTURY did not believe Transubstantiation THeodorus Studita as is related by Michael Studita in Baronius in the year 816. N. 15. seeing himself reduced to the extremity of being starv'd said to his Disciple If men are so cruel as to make me perish with hunger the participation of the Body and Blood of the Lord which is the ordinary food of my Body and Soul shall be my only nourishment Now the real Body of Jesus Christ cannot be the nourishment of the Body therefore of necessity this Author must be understood to speak of Bread which is his Body figuratively and improperly It is what is also confirm'd by this Michael Studita who saith in the same place that Theodore had always about him some parcels of the quickning Body of the Lord which cannot be meant of the true Body of Jesus Christ which is not now subject to be broken nor divided Ahyto Bishop of Basil sent Ambassador by Charlemaine in the year 814 to Constantinople to Treat a Peace with the Emperor of the East as is declared by the Annals of France by Eginhart Author of the Life of Charlemaine the Annals of Fulda Herman Contract and others This Ahyto died in the year 836 and left a Capitulary for instruction of the Priests of his Diocess publisht by Dom Luke D'achery in the Sixth Tome of his Spicilegium pag. 692. now amongst many other Instructions he gives his Priests in his Capitularies this is one In the fifth place the Priest should know what the Sacrament of Baptism and Confirmation is and also what the Mystery of the body and blood of our Lord doth mean. How a visible creature is seen in the same Mysteries and is nevertheless the invisible Salvation is communicated for the Souls eternal happiness which is contained in faith only By visible creature he can only mean a creature not in appearance but effective for otherwise according to this Author it must be said that in Baptism and Confirmation there should be only an apparent creature and not the substance of water and chrism Besides Ahyto attributed the same effect to these three Sacraments to wit the communication of eternal and invisible Salvation to them that with faith do receive these holy Sacraments Theodulphus in the year 810 Bishop of Orleans saith in his Treatise of the Order of Baptism There is one saving Sacrifice which Melchisedeck also offer'd under the Old Testament in Type of the body and blood of our Saviour the which the Mediator of God and Man accomplished under the New before he was crucify'd when taking the bread and wine he blessed and gave them to his Disciples commanding them to do those things in remembrance of him It is this Mystery which the Church doth celebrate having put an end to the ancient sacrifices offering bread because of the bread which came down from Heaven and wine because of him which said I am the true Vine to the end that by the visible Oblation of Priests and by the invisible consecration of the Holy Ghost the bread and wine should have the dignity of the body and blood of our Lord with which blood there is mingled some water either because there came out of the side of our Saviour water with the blood or because according to the Interpretation of our Ancestors as Jesus Christ is signify'd by the wine so also the people is signify'd by the water Now this Bishop saying that Jesus Christ gave bread to his Disciples in commemoration that this Mystery is an Oblation of visible bread which is consecrated by the Holy Spirit and which receiveth the dignity of the body that he indifferently calls the blood wine and the wine blood that with the blood water is mingled and that Jesus Christ is signify'd by the wine that 't is said the wine signifies Jesus Christ as the water doth the people these words cannot suppose any Transubstantiation The Opposers of Paschasius Radbertus Frier of the Monastry of Corby who wrote a Book of the body and blood of Jesus Christ did not believe Transubstantiation That the said Paschasius had several adversaries appears by his own Writings for towards the end of his Commentary upon St. Matthew he saith himself I have inlarged upon the Lords Supper a little more than the brevity of a Commentary would permit because there be several others that are of a different judgment touching these holy Mysteries and that several are blind and do not perceive that this bread and cup is nothing else but what is seen with the eyes and tasted with the palate And in his Epistle to Frudegard as well as in his Commentary on St. Matthew ch 12. it appears he had Opposers because in his Epist. to Frudegard he saith You advise with me touching a thing that many do make doubt of And in his Commentary I am told that many saith he do censure me as if I had attributed to the words of our Lord either more or something quite contrary to what the genuine sense permits So that Paschasius had adversaries and they did not believe Transubstantiation because they held that in the Eucharist there was only the virtue of the flesh and not the very flesh the virtue of the blood and not the very blood of Christ. That the Eucharist was figure and not verity shadow of the body and not the body it self They would saith Paschasius extenuate the word body and perswade Quod non sit vera caro Christi sed quaedam virtus figura corporis Christi Now Paschasius Rathbertus was the first Author that wrote fully and seriously of the truth of the
body and blood of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist as Bellarmin saith de Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis in Paschasio Ratberto And Father Sirmond saith he is the first that hath explain'd the sense of the Church touching this Mystery so that saith he he hath opened the way to others In vitae Ratberti praefixa ejus operibus Therefore it is nothing strange that Paschasius had enemies and that he was accused for departing from the common Faith and to have spread abroad Visions of a young Man. For he saith to Frudegard You have saith he at the end of this Work the Authorities of Catholick Fathers succinctly marked by which you may perceive that 't was not through rashness that formerly when I was young I believed these things but by Divine authority He also endeavours to clear himself from this charge in alledging passages as of Saint Austins the which nevertheless are not to be found in him as these words Receive in the Bread what hung on the Cross receive in the Cup what issued out of the side of Jesus Christ. Which is not to be found in St. Austin Rabanus Archbishop of Mayance in the year 847 stiled by Baronius in the year 843. N. 31. the bright Star of Germany Fulgens Germaniae Sidus saith in his institution of Clerks Lib. 1. cap. 31. Our Saviour liked better that believers should receive with their mouth the Sacarments of his Body and Blood and that they should be turned into their nourishment to the end that by the visible work the invisible effect should be shewn For as the material food doth materially nourish the Body and support it so also the Word of God doth nourish the Soul inwardly and doth strengthen it And in the same place The Sacrament is one thing and the virtue of the Sacrament is another The Sacrament is turned into the nourishment of the Body but by the virtue of the Sacrament one acquires everlasting life As the Sacrament therefore is turn'd into our selves when we do eat and drink it so also we are converted into the Body of Jesus Christ when we live with Piety and Obedience The same Doctor on St. Matthew Chap. 26. saith with Venerable Beda that Jesus Christ hath substituted instead of the Flesh and Blood of the Paschal Lamb the Sacrament of his Body and Blood. That the Creator of the World and the Redeemer of Mankind making of the very fruits of the Earth that is to say of Bread and Wine a fit Mystery turn'd it into the Sacrament of his Body and Blood that unleavened Bread and Wine mixt with water must be sanctified to be the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. Afterwards he gives the reason wherefore our Saviour chose Bread and Wine to make them Sacraments of his Flesh and Blood and saith that 't is because Melchisedeck offer'd Bread and Wine and that Jesus Christ being a Priest after the Order of Melchisedeck he was to imitate his Oblation And shewing the Reason why the Sacrament takes the name of the Body and Blood of the Lord he saith with Isidore Archbishop of Sevil 'T is because Bread strengthens the Body it is conveniently called the Body of Jesus Christ and because Wine augments Blood in the Flesh and Veins for this reason it is compar'd to the Blood. Now both these things are visible nevertheless being sanctifi'd by the Holy Ghost they pass into the Sacrament of the Divine Body A Sacrament which in the 33. Chap. he calls the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ in opposition to his Natural Body from which he distinguishes it and draws a resemblance from the Mystical Body to the proper Body of Jesus Christ. The holy Vessels saith he are set on the Altar viz. the Cup and Patten which in some sort are the figure of the Grave of Jesus Christ for as at that time the Body of Jesus Christ was laid in the Sepulcher having been embalm'd by godly People so also at present the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ as it were imbalm'd with holy Prayers is kept in the holy Vessels to be administred to Believers by the hands of the Ministers The same Doctor in his Penitential or Letter to Herribald Bishop of Auxerre which Monsieur Baluze got printed at the end of his Regino at Paris in 1671 saith Chap. 33. As to what you demand of me whether the Sacrament after it is eat and consum'd and cast into the draft after the manner of all other meats does return to the former nature it had before 't was consecrated at the Altar to such a needless question may be reply'd The Lord himself said in the Gospel that what enters into the Body goes into the Belly and is cast into the draft As for the Sacrament of the Body and Blood it is made of corporeal and visible things but it produceth an invisible sanctification as well to the Body as to the Soul. What reason is there that that which is digested in the Stomack and is cast out into the draft should return to its former state there being never any that affirmed that such a thing was done For of late some persons not having a right Judgment of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ have said that the same Body and the same Blood of the Lord which was Born of the Virgin Mary and in which the Lord suffered on the Cross and rose again from the Dead is the same which is taken at the Altar against which Error we have as much as was necessary written to the Abbot Egilon explaining what ought truly to be believed of the Body of Christ in the Eucharist Amalarius esteemed a very Learned man in the Manuscripts cited by Dom Luke D'achery a Learned Benedictin in his Preface to the Seventh Tome of his Spicilegium was sent by the Emperor Charles le Debonnair to Pope Gregory to find out Antiphonaries Amalar. in Prolog Antiphon and who by express command of the same Emperor was chosen in a Council held at Aix la Chappel Auno 816. to make Rules for Prebends as is testified by Ademar a Monk of Angoulism in his Chronicle on the year 816 saith in his Treatise of Church-Offices Lib. 3. cap. 25. That the Sacrament is to us instead of Jesus Christ. The Priest saith he bows and recommends to God the Father that which was offered in the room of Jesus Christ. In the 26th chap. he saith The Oblation and the Cup do signifie the Body of the Lord when Jesus Christ said This is the Cup of my Blood he sanctified his Blood which Blood was in the Body as the Wine is in the Chalice In the third Book chap. 25. he calls the Eucharist the Sacrament of Bread and Wine and saith that Jesus Christ hath in this Bread recommended his Body and in the Cup his Blood. The same Amalarius having been consulted by Rangart Bishop of Noyon how he understood those words of Institution of the Eucharist
had created from the beginning of the World which he creates every year by Propagation and Reparation which he sanctifies which he sills with Grace and Heavenly Benediction the which himself expounds to be Bread and Wine See here Nine or Ten Authors Contemporaries with Paschasius which are formally contrary to his Doctrine besides those which Paschasius himself speaks of in general in his own Writings To conclude the Ninth Century there might be added the manner that Charles the Bald and the Count of Barcelona signed the Peace which was done with the Blood of the Eucharist as is reported by Monsieur Baluze in his Notes on Agabard out of Odo Aribert in the year 844. It was in the same manner that Pope Theodore in the Seventh Century signed the Condemnation of Pirrbus the Monotholite as appears by Baronius on the year 648. § 15. That the Fathers of the TENTH CENTURY did not believe Transubstantiation ALferick Archbishop of Canterbury about the year 940. in one of his Sermons to be seen in the Fourth Book of Bedes Ecclesiastical History cap. 24. which we have Copied in the Library of St. Victor saith The Eucharist is not the Body of Jesus Christ corporally but spiritually not the Body in which he suffered but the Body of which he spake when consecrating the Bread and Wine he said This is my Body this is my Blood he adds the Bread is his Body just as the Manna and the Wine his Blood as the Water in the Desart was There is another Sermon cited by some under the name of Wolfin Bishop of Salisbury others say 't is of Alfric wherein the Author uses near the same Language This Sacrifice saith he is not the Body of Jesus Christ wherein he suffered for us nor his Blood which he shed but it is spiritually made his Body and Blood as the Manna that fell from Heaven and the Water that sprang out of the Rock Besides these two Testimonies which shew what was believed of the Sacrament in England there is a Sermon seen which was read every year to the People at Easter to keep in their minds the Idea of the Ancient Faith It is almost wholly taken out of Ratramne There is great difference saith this Homily betwixt the Body wherein Jesus Christ suffered and the Body which is consecrated for the Eucharist for the Body wherein Jesus Christ suffered was born of the Virgin Mary and was provided with Blood Bones Nerves and Skin with bodily Members and a reasonable Soul but his spiritual Body which we call Eucharist is compos'd of several Grains of Wheat without Blood without Bones Nerves and without a Soul. The Body of Christ which suffer'd Death and rose again shall never dye more it is Eternal and Immortal but the Eucharist is temporal and not eternal it is corruptible and divided into sundry parcels ground by the Teeth and goes along with the other Excrements This Sacrament is a pledg and figure the Body of Jesus Christ is the Truth it self we have this pledg Sacramentally until we attain to the Truth and then the pledg shall be fulfill'd And a little lower If we consider the Eucharist after a corporal manner we see 't is a changeable and corruptible Creature but if we consider the spiritual Virtue that is in it we easily see that Life abides in it and that it gives Immortality to those that receive it with Faith. There is great difference betwixt the invisible Virtue of this Holy Sacrament and the visible Form of its proper Nature By Nature it is corruptible Bread and corruptible Wine but by the Virtue of the Word of God it is truly his Body and Blood yet not corporally but spiritually A little below he explains this change in saying Jesus Christ by an invisible Virtue did change the Bread and Wine into his Body and Blood but 't was after the same manner as he heretofore changed Manna and the Water that came out of the Rock into the same Body and Blood. Fulcuin Abbot of the Monastry of Lobes in the County of Liege who departed this Life in the year 990. speaking of the Eucharistical Table saith That 't is the Table on which is consumed the Sacred Body of our Lord which not being to be said of the proper Body cannot be understood but of the Bread which is called Body an Expression which in all likelihood this Abbot had learn'd of St. Austin who faith The Bread made for that use is consumed in receiving the Sacrament That which is set on the Table is consum'd the holy Celebration being ended Herriger Successor to Fulcuin and whom he that continued the History of the Abbots of Lobes mentions as a man whose Virtue and Knowledg was known even to Strangers He collected saith this Author several Passages of Catholick Fathers against Paschasius Ratbertus touching the Body and Blood of our Lord. The Ancient Customs of the Monastry of Cluny Reprinted by the care of Dom Luke D' Achery l. 2. ch 30. say The outside of the Challice is carefully rub'd lest there should the least drop of the Wine and Water remain and being consecrated it should fall to the ground and perish by which it appears they believed the Wine and water still remain'd after Consecration for the true Body of Jesus Christ cannot perish Again The Priest divides the Host and puts part of it into the Blood of one moiety he communicates himself and with the other he communicates the Deacon It cannot be so spoke of the Body of Jesus Christ then after the Priest has broke the Host he puts part of it into the Cup after the usual manner two parts on the Patten and covers both the one and the other with a clean Cloath but first of all he very carefully rubs the Challice and shakes it with the same hand with which he touched it fearing lest that breaking the Bread there should rest some part of the Body of our Lord which cannot be said of the true Body of Jesus Christ and elsewhere is prescrib'd what should be done If there chance to remain ever so little of the Body of our Saviour which is expounded to be a very little Crum as 't were indivisible and like an Atome To conclude treating of the Communion of sick Folks it is observ'd that the Body of our Lord is brought from the Church that it is broke and that the Priest holds on the Challice the part that he is to bring It must needs be that by the sence of these customs there must be Bread and Wine in the Sacrament that it may be broken and improperly called Body Ratherius Bishop of Verona saith As to the Corporal substance which the Communicant doth receive seeing that 't is I that do now ask the Question I must also answer my self and I thereto yield for seeing that to him that receives worthily it is the true Body altho one sees