after he was by some b Malms de gestis Rig. Angl. l. 2. Wal. Stra. 86â— De rebus Eccl. c. 16. others numbred among Holy Martyrs 33. Walafridus Strabo about the same time wrote on this manner Therefore in that Last Supper whereat Christ was with his Disciples before he was betrayed after the solemnities of the ancient Passeover he gave to his Disciples the Sacrament of his Body and Bloud in the substance of Bread and Wine and instructed us to pass from carnal to spiritual things from earthly to heavenly things and from shadows to the substance 34. As for the opinion of Bertram Bertram Priest and Abbot A. 860. otherwise called Ratramnus or Ratramus perhaps not rightly it is known enough by that Book which the Emperour Charles the Bald who loved and honoured him as all good men did for his great learning and piety commanded him to write concerning the Body and Bloud of our Lord. For when men began to be disturbed at the Book of Paschasius some saying one thing and some another the Emperour being moved by their disputes propounded himself two questions to Bertram 1. Whether what the Faithful eat in the Church be made the Body and Bloud of Christ in Figure and in Mystery 2. Or whether that natural body which was born of the Virgin Mary which suffered died and was buried and now sitteth on the right hand of God the Father be it self dayly received by the mouth of the Faithful in the Mystery of the Sacrament The first of these Bertram resolved Affirmatively the second Negatively and said that there was as great a difference betwixt those two bodies as betwixt the earnest and that whereof it is the earnest It is evident saith he that that Bread and Wine are figuratively the Body and Bloud of Christ Lib. de corp Sang Dom part 1. Ibid. Part. 2. According to the substance of the Elements they are after the Consecration what they were before For the Bread is not Christ substantially If this mystery be not done in a figure it cannot well be called a Mystery The Wine also which is made the Sacrament of the Bloud of Christ by the Consecration of the Priest shews one thing by its outward appearance and contains another inwardly For what is there visible in its outside but only the substance of the Wine These things are changed but not according to the material part and by this change they are not what they truly appear to be but are some thing else besides what is their proper being For they are made spiritually the Body and Bloud of Christ not that the Elements be two different things but in one respect they are as they appear Bread and Wine and in another the Body and Bloud of Christ Hence according to the visible Creature they feed the body but according to the vertue of a more excellent substance they nourish and sanctifie the souls of the Faithful Then having brought many Testimonies of holy Scripture and the ancient Fathers to confirm this he at last prevents that Calumny which the followers of Paschasius did then lay on the Orthodox as though they had taught that bare signs figures and shadows and not the Body and Bloud of Christ were given in the Sacrament Let it not be thought saith he because we say this that therefore the Body and Bloud of Christ are not received in the Mystery of the Sacrament where Faith apprehends what it believes and not what the eyes see for this meat and drink are spiritual feed the soul spiritually and entertain that life whose fulness is eternal For the question is not simply about the real truth or the thing signified being present without which it could not be a Mystery but about the false reality of things subsisting in imaginary appearances and about the Carnal Presence Index lib. prob in fine Concil Trid. Author Papae editus in Lit. B. 35. All this the Fathers of Trent and the Romish Inquisitors could not brook therefore they utterly condemned Bertram and put his Book in the Catalogue of those that are forbidden But the Professors of Doway judging this proceeding much too violent and therefore more like to hurt than to advance the Roman Cause went another and more cunning way to work and had the approbation of the Licencers of Books and the Authors of the Belgick Index expurgatorius Index expur Belg. jussu author Phil 2. Hisp Reg. atque Albani ducis concilio concinn p. 54. v. Bert. That Book of Bertram say they having been already Printed several times read by many and known to all by its being forbidden may be suffered and used after it is corrected for Bertram was a Catholick Priest and a Monk in the Monastery of Corbie esteemed and beloved by Charles the Bald. And being we bear with many errors in Ancient Catholick Authors and lessen and excuse them and by some cunning device behold the good mens fidelity often deny them and give a more commodious sense when they are objected to us in our disputes with our Adversaries we do not see why Bertram should not also be amended and used with the same Equity lest Hereticks cast us in the teeth that we burn and suppress those Records of Antiquity that make for them And as we also fear lest not only Hereticks but also stubborn Catholicks read the Book with the more greediness and cite it with the more confidence because it is forbidden and so it doth more harm by being prohibited than if it was left free What patch then will they sow to amend this in Bertram Those things that differ are not the same that Body of Christ which died and rose again and is become immortal dies no more being eternal and impassable But that which is celebrated in the Church is temporal not eternal is corruptible and not incorruptible To this last mentioned passage they give a very commodious sense namely that it should be understood of the corruptible species of the Sacrament or of the Sacrament it self and the use of it which will last no longer than this world If this will not do it may not be amiss to leave it all out to blot out visibly and write invisibly And this What the Creatures were in substance before the Consecration they are still the same after it must be understood according to the outward appearances that is the accidents of the Bread and Wine Though they confess that then Bertram knew nothing of those accidents subsisting without a substance and many other things which this latter age hath added out of the Scriptures with as great truth as subtilty How much easier had it been at one stroke to blot out the whole Book And so make short work with it as the Spanish Inquisitors did in their Index expurgat Index expur Hisp D. Gasp Quirogae Card Inquis gener in fine Let the whole Epistle Ausburg be blotted out cencerning the single life of the Clergy
it is Joh. 6.56 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 Mat. 26.26 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 favour 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 In the Book of Canons publish'd by authority anno 1571. ch of preach 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 Artic. of Relig. 1562. 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 Son Jesus Christ and to drink his bloud Comm. Service 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 Ibid. 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 we 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 everliving 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 Church Catech. 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 Doctine 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
us hear therefore what he taught and writ when he was in England in his Books de Repub. Eccl. Lib. 5. Cap. 6. Num. 20. For a thousand years together saith he the holy Catholick church content with a sober knowledge of Divine Mysteries believed soberly and safely did teach that in the Sacrament duly Consecrated the Faithful did own receive and eat the Body and Bloud of Christ which by the Sacred Bread and Wine are given to them but as to the particular manner how that precious Body and Bloud is offered and given by that Mysterious Sacrament the Church did humbly and religiously acknowledge her ignorance The real thing with its effects she joyfully own'd and received but meekly and devoutly abstained from inquiring into the manner Item Numb 73. the true and real Body of Christ is most certainly and undoubtedly given in the holy Sacrament yet not carnally but Spiritually Again Numb 169. I doubt not but all they that believe the Gospel will acknowledge that in the holy Communion we receive the true nature of the flesh of Christ real and substantial We all teach that the body of Christ is present as to its reality and nature but a carnal and corporal manner of presence we reject with St. Bernard and all the Fathers And in Appen ad Ambrosium Numb 7. I know and acknowledge that with the Bread still remaining bread the true and real body of Christ is given yet not corporally I assent in the thing but not in the manner Therefore though there is a change in the Bread when it brings into the Souls of worthy Communicants the true body of Christ which is the substance of the Sacrament Yet it doth not follow that the Bread loseth its own to become the substance of the body of Christ c. These and much more to the same purpose agreeable to the Religion and Church of England and all other Protestant Churches you may find in the same Chapter and in a Treatise annext to the sixth Book against the famous Jesuit Suarez who had writ against King James and the Error as he calls them of the Church of England In the second Chapter our Prelate proves clearly according to its title That those Points which the Papists maintain against the Protestants belong not in any wise to the Catholick Faith as Transubstantiation c. 8. As for the opinion and belief of the German Protestants It will be known chiefly by the Augustan Confession presented to Charles the Fifth by the Princes of the Empire and other great Persons The Augustan Confession of Germ Churches For they teach That not only the Bread and Wine but the Body and Bloud of Christ is truly given to the Receivers or as it is in another Edition That the Body and Bloud of Christ are truly present and distributed to the Communicants in the Lords Supper and refute those that teach otherwise They also declare That we must so use the Sacraments as to believe and embrace by Faith those things promised which the Sacraments offer and convey to us Yet we may observe here that Faith makes not those things present which are promised for Faith as it is well known is more properly said to take and apprehend than to promise or perform But the Word and Promise of God on which our Faith is grounded and not Faith it self make that present which is promised Collat. S. Germ. 1561. as it was agreed at a Conference at St. German betwixt some Protestants and Papists And therefore it is unjustly laid to our charge by some in the Church of Rome as if we should believe that the presence and participation of Christ in the Sacrament is effected meerly by the power of Faith The Saxon Confession 9. The Saxon Confession approved by other Churches seems to be a repetition of the Augustan Therein we are taught That Sacraments are actions divinely instituted and that although the same things or actions in common use have nothing of the nature of Sacraments Art 15. yet when used according to the divine institution Christ is truly and substantially present in the Communion and his Body and Bloud truly given to the Receivers so that he testifies that he is in them Hil. Trin. l. 8. as St. Hillary saith These things taken and received make us to be in Christ and Christ to be in us The Confession of Wittemb 10. The Confession of Wittemberg which in the year 1552 was propounded to the Council of Trent is like unto this For it teacheth That the true Body and Bloud of Christ are given in the holy Communion and refutes those that say In the Preface That the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament are only signs of the absent Body and Bloud of Christ Confess Bobem 11. The Bohemian Confession also that is of them who by contempt and out of ignorance are called by some Picards and Waldenses presented to King Ferdinand by the Barons and Nobles of Bohemia and approved by Luther and Melancthon and the Famous University of Wittemberg teacheth that we ought from the heart to believe and to profess by words Art 13. that the Bread of the Lords Supper is the true Body of Christ which was given for us and the Wine his true Bloud that was shed for us And that it is not lawful for any person to bring or add any thing of his own to the words of Christ or in the least to take any thing from them And when this their Confession was defamed and abused by some of their Adversaries they answered That they would ever be ready to refute the Calumniators and to make it appear by strong Arguments and a stronger Faith that they never were and by Gods grace never would be what their Adversaries represented them Consensus Polonicus 12. In the same manner The Conciliation of the Articles of the Lords Supper and the mutual agreement betwixt the Churches of the greater and lesser Polonia in the Synod of Sendomiris Near the begining We hold together say they the belief of the words of Christ as they have been rightly understood by the Fathers or to speak more plain We believe and confess that the substantial Presence of Christ is not only signified in the Lords Supper but also that the Body and Bloud of our Lord is truly offered and granted to worthy Receivers together with those sacred signs which convey to us the thing signified according to the nature of Sacraments and lest the different ways of speaking should breed any contention we mutually consent to subscribe that Article concerning the Lords Supper which is in the Confession of the Churches of Saxony which they sent to the Council of Trent and we hold and acknowledge it to be sound and pious Then they repeat the whole Article mentioned and set down a little before Confessio Theol. Argent Basil 13. Luther was once of opinion that the Divines of Basil and
the Roman Church Ibid. q. 45. art 14. Lastly Bell. de Euch. l. 3. c. 23. 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 other 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 Just Mart. An. Dom. 144. 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 Apol. 2. ad Anton. prope finem 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 St. Iren. A.D. 160. 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 Lib. 4. Cont. Haeres c. 34. 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 Lib. 5. c. 12. 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 Ibid. 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
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 Ibid. de init myst cap. 9. 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 De Sacr. l. 4. c. 4. 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 before 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 St. Chrys A. D. 390. without eating the bread Hom. 45. in St. Joh. 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 Casarius 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 In Ep. ad Caefar contra haeres Apol. 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 a L. de Euch. 2. c 24. but both he and b In appar Chrys Possevin do vainly contend that it is not extant among the works of Chrysostom For besides that at Florence c Steph. Gard. Ep. Wiâ—t cont Pet Mart. Lib. â— de Euchar. 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 S. Austin A.D. 400. but out of so many almost numberless places I shall chuse only three which are as the sum of all the rest In Psal 93. 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 vivifie you Thus St. Austin rehearsing the words of Christ again Epist 23. ad Bonif. 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 Cont. Max. l. 3. c. 22. 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 De Doctr. Christ cap. 7. 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
time by the power of Christ working by the Holy Ghost are fed by the flesh and bloud of our Lord unto eternal life c. Again Christ is not absent from his Church celebrating his holy Supper The Sun in heaven being distant from us is nevertheless present by his efficacy how much more shall Christ the Sun of righteousness who is bodily in heaven absent from us be spiritually present to us by his life-giving virtue and as he declared in his last Supper he would be present Joh. 14.15 16. Whence it follows that we have no Communion without Christ Now to this Confession not only the Reformed Switzers did subscribe but also the Churches of Hungary Pannonia or Transilvania Poland and Lithuania which follow neither the Augustan nor Bohemian Confessions It was subscribed also by the Churches of Scotland and Geneva 19. Lastly Let us hear the renowned Declaration of the Reformed Churches of Poland Conf. Thorun made in the Assembly of Thorâ—n 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 infer 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 Vnion 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 Comm. on 1 Cor. 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 Instit Book 4. Ch. 17. Also in another place Item That word cannot lie neither can it mock us and except one presumes to call God a deceiver he 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 Treat of the Lords Supper 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 Inst B. 4. Ch. 17. Num. 32. 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 Bell. De Euch l. 1. c ◠§. 3. Reg. sequ either after that manner which is natural to corporal things or that wherein his own body subsists in heaven but according to the manner of Existence proper to Spirits whole and entire in each part of the Host And though by himself he be neither seen toucht nor moved yet in respect of the Species or accidents joyned with him he may be said to be seen toucht and moved And so the accidents being moved Ibid. Part. 1. the body of Christ is truly moved accidentally as the Soul truly changeth place with the Body so that we truly and properly say that the body of Christ is removed lifted up and set down put on the Patent or on the Altar and carried from hand to mouth and from the mouth to the stomach as Berengarius was forced to acknowledge in the Roman Council under Pope Nicholas Ibid. § 5. Reg. that the Body of Christ was sensually toucht by the hands and broken and chewed by the teeth of the Priest But all this and much more to the same effect was never delivered to us either by holy Scripture or the ancient Fathers And if Souls or Spirits could be present as here Bellarmine teacheth yet it would be absurd to say that bodies could be so likewise it being inconsistent with their nature 2. Indeed Bellarmine confesseth with St Bernard St. Bern. Serm de S. Martin That Christ in the Sacrament is not given to us carnally but spiritually and would to God he had rested here and not outgone the holy Scriptures and the Doctrine of the Fathers For endeavouring with Pope Innocent III. and the Council of Trent to determine the manner of the presence and Manducation of Christs body with more nicety than was fitting he thereby foolishly overthrew all that he had wisely said before denied what he had affirmed and opposed his own Opinion His fear was lest his Adversaries should apply that word spiritually not so much to express the manner of presence as to exclude the very substance of the Body and Bloud of Christ therefore saith he upon that account it is not safe to use too muck that of St. Bernard The body of Christ is not Corporally in the Sacrament without adding presently the above-mentioned explanation How much do we comply with humane pride and curiosity which would seem to understand all things Where is the danger And what doth he fear as long as all they that believe the Gospel own the true nature the real and substantial presence of the body of Christ in the Sacrament using that Explication of St. Bernard concerning the manner which he himself for the too great evidence of truth durst not but admit And why doth he own that the manner is spiritual not carnal and then require a carnal presence as to the manner it self As for us we all openly profess with St. Bernard that the presence of the body of Christ in the Sacrament is spiritual and therefore true and real and with the same Bernard and all the Ancients we deny that the Body of Christ is carnally either present or given The thing we willingly admit but humbly and religiously forbear to enquire into the manner 3. We believe a Presence and Union of Christ with our soul and body which we know not how to call better than Sacramental that is effected by eating that while we eat and drink the consecrated Bread and Wine we eat and drink therewithal the Body and Bloud of Christ not in a corporal manner but some other way incomprehensible known only to God which we call spiritual for if with St. Bernard the Fathers a man goes no further we do not find fault with a general explication of the manner but with the presumption and self-conceitedness of those who boldly and curiously inquire what is a spiritual presence as presuming that they can understand the manner of acting of Gods holy Spirit We contrariwise confess with the Fathers that this manner of presence is unaccountable and past finding out not to be searcht and pried into by Reason but believed by Faith And if it seems impossible that the flesh of Christ should descend and come to be our food through so great a distance we must remember how much the power of the holy Spirit exceeds our sense and our apprehensions and how absurd it would be to undertake to measure his Immensity by our weakness and narrow capacity and so make our Faith to conceive and believe what our Reason cannot comprehend 4. Yet our Faith doth not cause or make that Presence but apprehends it as most truly and really effected by the word of Christ And the Faith whereby we are said to eat the flesh of Christ is not that only whereby we believe that he died for our sins for this Faith is required and supposed to precede the Sacramental Manducation but more properly that whereby we believe those words of Christ This is my Body Aug. super Joh. Tract 25. which was St. Austins meaning when he said Why dost thou prepare thy stomach and thy teeth Believe and thou hast eaten For in this Mystical eating by the wonderful power of the Holy Ghost we do invisibly receive the substance of Christs Body and Bloud as much as if we should eat and drink both visibly 5. The result of all this is That the Body and Bloud of Christ are Sacramentally united to the Bread and Wine so that Christ is truly given to the Faithful and yet is not to be here considered with sense or worldly reason but by Faith resting on the words of the Gospel Now it is said that the Body and Bloud of Christ are joyned to the Bread and Wine because that in the celebration of the holy Eucharist the Flesh is given together with the Bread and the Bloud together with the Wine All that remains is That we should with faith
and humility admire this high and sacred Mystery which our tongue cannot sufficiently explain nor our heart conceive CHAP. IV. 1. Of the change of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Bloud of Christ which the Papists call Transubstantiation 2. Of Gods Omnipotency 3. Of the Accidents of the Bread 4. The Sacramental Union of the thing signified with the sign 5 and 6. The question is stated Negatively and Affirmatively 7. The definition of the Council of Trent The Bull of Pope Pius IV. and the form of the Oath by him appointed The Decretal of Innocent III. The Assertions of the Jesuits 8. Transubstantiation a very monstrous thing 1. IT is an Article of faith in the Church of Rome that in the Blessed Eucharist the substance of the Bread and Wine is reduced to nothing and that in its place succeeds the Body and Bloud of Christ as we shall see more at large §6 and 7. The Protestants are much of another mind and yet none of them denies altogether but that there is a conversion of the Bread into the Body and consequently of the Wine into the Bloud of Christ For they know and acknowledge that in the Sacrament by vertue of the words and blessing of Christ 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 re 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 10.16 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 likewife 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 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 Conc. Trident Sess 13. c. 4. 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 whose substance of the Wine into the substance of his Bloud which change it fitly and properly called Transubstantiation by the holy Catholick Roman Church Ibid. Can. 2. 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 Bulla Pii Papae 4. Confir Conc. Trident 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
consider that on this sacred Table is laid the Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world And receiving truly his precious Body and Bloudy let us believe these things to be the Pledges and Emblems of our Resurrection for we do not take much but only a little of the Elements that we may be mindful we do it not for Satiety but for Sanctification Now who is there even among the Maintainers of Transubstantiation that will understand this not much but a little of the Body of Christ Or who can believe that the Nicene Fathers would call his Body and Bloud Symbols in a proper sense When nothing can be an Image or a sign of it self And therefore though we are not to rest in the Elements minding nothing else for we should consider what is chiefest in the Sacrament that we have our hearts lifted up unto the Lord who is given together with the signs yet Elements they are and the earthly part of the Sacrament both the Bread and the Wine which destroys Transubstantiation 13. St. Athanasius famous in the time St. Athan. A. D. 330. and present in the Assembly of the Nicene Council a stout Champion of the Catholick Faith acknowledgeth none other but a spiritual Manducation of the Body of Christ in the Sacrament Our Lord saith he made a difference betwixt the Flesh and the Spirit In illud Evangelii Quicunque dixerit verbuâ—n c. in c. 6. St. Joh. qui manduâ— cat carnem meam c. that we might understand that what he said was not carnal but spiritual For how many men could his body have fed that the whole world should be nourished by it But therefore he mentioned his ascension into heaven that they might not take what he said in a corporal sense but might understand that his Flesh whereof he spake is a spiritual and heavenly food given by himself from on high 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the words that I spake unto you they are spirit and they are life as if he should say My Body which is shewn and given for the world shall be given in food that it may be distributed spiritually to every one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and preserve them all to the Resurrection to eternal life Cardinal Perron having nothing to answer to these words of this holy Father De Euch. L. 2. c. 1. ar 10. in a kind of despair rejects the whole Tractate and denies it to be Athanasius's which no body ever did before him there being no reason for it 14. Cyril St. Cyril of Hicr A D. 350. Bishop of Jerusalem of the same Age with St. Athanasius treating of the Chrisme wherewith they then anointed those that were Baptized speaks thus Take heed thou dost not think that this is a meer Oyntment only Chatech myst 3. For as the Bread of 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 efficacious 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 ihto 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 Chatech Myst 4. Thy bodily Palate saith he tasteth one thing there and thy faith another 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 St. Basil A. D. 360. 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 Lib. De Spir. Sanc. 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 Lib. de Bapt. as is gathered from the same Father 16. St. Gregory Nyssene St. Greg. Nyss A. D. 370. 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 Orat. de S. Baptis 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 substantiation 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 St Ambr. A D. 380. when in the Eucharist it becomes the Body of Christ saith L de Sacram 4. cap. 4. 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
de Scrip Eccles verbo Pasch Sirm. in vita Pasc Praef. Editione Parisiensi whom Bellarmine and Sirmondus esteemed so highly that they were not ashamed to say that he was the first that had writ to the purpose concerning the Eucharist and that he had so explained the meaning of the Church that he had shewn and opened the way to all them who treated of that subject after him Yet in that whole Book of Paschasius there is nothing that favours the Transubstantiation of the Bread or its destruction or removal Indeed he asserts the truth of the Body and Bloud of Christs being in the Eucharist which Protestants deny not he denies that the Consecrated Bread is a bare figure a representation void of truth which Protestants assert not But he hath many things repugnant to Transubstantiation which as I have said the Church of Rome it self had not yet quite found out I shall mention a few of them Christ saith he left us this Sacrament a visible figure and character of his Body and Bloud that by them our Spirit might the better embrace spiritual and invisible things and be more fully fed by Faith Again We must receive our spiritual Sacraments with the mouth of the Soul and the taste of Faith Item Whilst therein we savour nothing carnal but we being spiritual and understanding the whole spiritually we remain in Christ And a little after The flesh and bloud of Christ are received spiritually And again To savour according to the flesh is death and yet to receive spiritually the true Flesh of Christ is life eternal Lastly The Flesh and bloud of Christ are not received carnally but spiritually In these he teacheth that the Mystery of the Lords Supper is not and ought not to be understood carnally but spiritually and that this dream of corporal and oral Transubstantiation was unknown to the Ancient Church As for what hath been added to this Book by the craft without doubt of some superstitious forgerer as Erasmus complains that it too frequently happens to the Writing of the Ancients it is Fabulous as the visible appearing of the Body of Christ in the form of an Infant with fingers of raw flesh such stuff is unworthy to be Fathered on Paschasius who profest that he delivered no other Doctrin concerning the Sacrament than that which he had learned out of the Ancient Fathers and not from idle and uncertain stories of Miracles 30. Now it may be requisite to produce the testimony of those Writers before mentioned to have written in this Century Amal. An. 810. In all that I write saith Amalarius I am swayed by the Judgment of holy men and pious Fathers yet I say what I think my self Praef. In libr de Eccl. â—ffic Those things that are done in the Celebration of Divine Service are done in the Sacrament of the Passion of our Lord as he himself commanded Therefore the Priest offering the Bread with the Wine and Water in the Sacrament doth it in the stead of Christ and the Bread Wine and Water in the Sacrament represent the Flesh and Bloud of Christ For Sacraments are somewhat to resemble those things whereof they are Sacraments Therefore let the Priest be like unto Christ as the Bread and Liquors are like the Body and Bloud of Christ Such is in some manner the immolation of the Priest on the Altar as was that of Christ on the Cross Again The Sacrament of the Body of Christ is in some manner the Body of Christ For Sacraments should not be Sacraments if in some things they had not the likeness of that whereof they are Sacraments Now by reason of this mutual likeness they oftentimes are called by what they represent Lastly Sacraments have the vertue to bring us to those things whereof they are Sacramenis These things writ Amalarius according to the Expressions of St. Austin and the Doctrine of the purest Church 31. Rabanus Maurus Raban A.D. 825. Trithem de Script Ecel Rabanus Maur. de Inst Cler. l. 1. c. 31. a great Doctor of this Age Who could hardly be matcht either in Italy or in Germany publisht this his open Confession Our blessed Saviour would have the Sacrament of his Body and Bloud to be received by the mouth of the Faithful and to become their nourishment that by the visible body the effects of the invisible might be known For as the material Food feeds the body outwardly and makes it to grow so the Word of God doth inwardly nourish and strengthen the soul Also He would have the Sacramental Elements to be made of the fruits of the earth that as he who is God invisible appeared visible in our Flesh and mortal to save us mortals so he might by a thing visible fitly represent to us a thing invisible Some receive the Sacred Sign at the Lords Table to their Salvation and some to their Ruine but the thing signified is life to every man and death to none whoever receives it is united as a member to Christ the head in the Kingdom of Heaven for the Sacrament is one thing and the efficacy of it another For the Sacrament is received with the mouth but the grace thereof feeds the inward man And as the first is turned into our substance when we eat it and drink it so are we made the Body of Christ when we live piously and obediently Therefore the Faithful do well and truly receive the body of Christ if they neglect not to be his members and they are made the Body of Christ if they will live of his Spirit All these agree not in the least with the new Doctrine of Rome and as little with that opinion they attribute to Paschasius G. Malm. A. â—00 and Tho. Wall A. 1400. and therefore he is rejected as erroneous by some Romish Authors who writ four and six hundred years after him But they should have considered that they condemned not only Rabanus but together with him all the Doctors of the Primitive Church 32. Johannes Erigena our Country-man Joh. Erig A. 860. whom King Alfred took to be his and his Childrens Tutor and to credit the new founded University of Oxford while he lived in France where he was in great esteem with Charles the Bald wrote a That Book was afterwards condemned under Leo IX two hundred years after by the maintainers of Transubstantiation a Book concerning the Body and Bloud of our Lord to the same purpose as Rabanus and back'd it with clear Testimonies of Scripture and of the Holy Fathers But entring himself into the Monastery of Malmsbury as he was interpreting the Book of Dyonisius about the heavenly Hierarchy which he translated into Latine and withal censuring the newly-hatcht Doctrine of the Carnal Presence of Christ in the Eucharist he was stabb'd b Anton. tit c. 2. §. 3. Vincent l 24 c 42. alit with Pen knives by some unworthy Schollars of his set on by certain Monks though not long
and let the whole Book of Bertram the Priest about the Body and Bloud of the Lord be supprest What is this but as Arnobius said against the Heathen Arnob. l 3 to intercept publick Records and fear the Testimony of the Truth For as for that which Sixtus Senensis and Possevin affirm Sixt. Sen. praef in Bibl. Sanc. Possev Prol. in Appa Saâ— That that Book of the Body and Bloud of the Lord was writ by Oecolampadius under the name of Bertram it is so great an untruth that a greater cannot be found 36. We are now come to the tenth Century wherein besides those many Sentences of Catholick Fathers against Innovaters in what concerns the Body and Bloud of Christ Herig Ab. A. D. 9â—0 collected by Herigerus Abbas Lobiensis we have also an ancient Easter Homily in Saxon English Hom. Pasc Angl. Sax. A. D. 990. impressa Lond MS. in publ Cant. Acad. Bib. which then used to be read publickly in our Churches out of which we may gather what was then the Doctrine received amongst us touching this Point of Religion but chiefly out of that part wherein are shewn many differences betwixt the natural Body of Christ and the Consecrated Host For thus it teacheth the people There is a great difference betwixt that body wherein Christ suffered and that wherein the Host is consecrated That Body wherein Christ suffered was born of the Virgin Mary consisting of bloud and bones skin and nerves humane members and a rational soul But his spiritual body which we call the Host is made of many united grains of corn and hath neither bloud nor bones neither members nor soul Afterwards The Body of Christ which once died and rose again shall die no more but remains eternal and impassible but this Host is temporal and corruptible divided into parts broken with the teeth and swallowed down into the stomach Lastly this Mystery is a pledge and a figure The body of Christ is that very truth What is seen is bread but what is spiritually understood is life There is also another Sermon of Bishop Wulfinus to the Clergy bearing the title of a Synod of Priests wherein the same opinion and Doctrine is explained in this manner Homil. Sacerd Synod impr Lond. cum Homil. Paschali That Host is the Body of Christ not corporally but spiritually not that Body wherein he suffered but that Body whereof he spake when he consecrated the Bread and Wine into an Host Which to this day in the Church of England we hold to be a Catholick truth 37. And so hitherto we have produced the agreeing Testimonies of Ancient Fathers for a thousand years after Christ and have transcribed them more at large to make it appear to every one that is not blind that the true Apostolick Doctrine of this Mystery hath been universally maintained for so long by all men some few excepted who more than eight hundred years after Christ presumed to dispute against the ancient Orthodox Doctrine of the manner of Christs Presence and of his being received in the Sacrament though they durst not positively determine any thing against it Now what more concerns this Point we refer to the next Chapter lest this should be too long CHAP. VI. Shews more at large that the Doctrine and Practice of the Primitive Church is inconsistent with Transubstantiation and Answers the Romish Objections vainly alleadged out of Antiquity Authors left out in the foregoing Chapter 1. MAny more Proofs out of Ancient Records might have been added to those we have hitherto brought for a thousand years but we desiring to be brief have omitted them in each Century As in the First After the holy Scriptures the Works of a Constit Ap. l. 6. c. 23. 29. Clemens 4Romanus commended by the Papists themselves and those of b Epist ad Philadel St. Ignatius Bishop of Antioch and Martyr are much against Transubstantiation In the Second likewise c Ad Aulol l. 2. St. Theophilus fourth Bishop of Antioch after Ignatius d Athenag legat pro Christ Athenagoras and e In Diatâ—es Tatianus Scholars to Justin Martyr In the Third f De Stro l. 1. de paedag l. 2. Clemens Alexandrinus Tutor to Origen and g In Octavio Minutius Felix a Christian Orator In the Fourth h De Dem. Evan. l. 1. c. 10. l. 8. c. 2. Eusebius Bishop of Cesarea i Juv. de Hist Evang l. 4. Juvencus a Spanish Priest k Mac. Hom. 37. Macarius Egyptius l In Mat. de Syn. St. Hilary Bishop of Poictiers m Contra Parm. l. 3. Optatus Bishop of Milevis n Hom. de Corp. Chr. Eusebius Emissenus o Orat. fun Gorg. Gregorius Nazianzenus p In Joh. l. 4. c. 14. Cyrillus Alexandrinus q In Ancorato Epiphanius Salaminensis r Contra Jovin in Jer. 31. in Mat. 26. St. Hierom Å¿ Epist Pasch 2. Theophilus Alexandrinus and t Gaud. in Exod 2. Gaudentius Bishop of Brixia In the Fifth u In Epist St Paul Sedulius a Scotch Priest x De Dogm Eccl. c. 25. Gennadius Massiliensis and y Homil. â— in Epiph. Faustus Bishop of Regium In the Sixth z De fide cap 16. Epist ad Ferrand Fulgentius Africanus a Com. in Mark 14. Victor Antiochenus b In Epist ad Cor. Primasius Bishop and c In Gen. â—9 Procopius Gazeus In the Seventh d In Levit. 1.6 Hesychius Priest in Jerusalem and e In Hierarch Dion Maximus Abbot of Constantinople In the Eighth f De fide Orthod Johannes Damascenus In the Ninth g De Cherub c. 6. Nicephorus the Patriarch and h In vita S. Remig. Hincmarus Archbishop of Rhemes Lastly in the Tenth i Epist ad Adeodat Fulbert Bishop of Chartres And to compleat all to these single Fathers we may add whole Councils of them as that of k An. 314. Can. 2. Ancyra of l A. codem Can. 13. Neocesarea and besides the first of m In Act. l. 2. Can. 30. Nice which I have mentioned that of n A. 364. Can. 25. Laodicea of o A. 397. Can. 24. Carthage of p A. 541. Can. 4. Orleans the fourth of q A. 633. Can. 17. Toledo that of r A. 675. Can. 2. Bracara the sixteenth of Å¿ A. 693. Can. 6. Toledo and that of t A. 691. Can. 32. Constantinople in Trullo Out of all these appears most certain that the infection of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation was not yet spread over the Christian world but that the sound Doctrine of the Body and Bloud of Christ and of their true yet spiritual not carnal Presence in the Eucharist with the Elements still the same in substance after Consecration was every where owned and maintained And though the Fathers used both ways of speaking that is that the Bread and Wine are the true
The body and bloud of Christ is made at the Prayer of the Priest that is the Element is so qualified that being received it becomes the Communion of the Body and Bloud of Christ which it could not without the preceding Prayers The Greeks call this St. Chrys-Hom 83. in St. Mat. To prepare and to consecrate the Body of the Lord. As S. Chrysostom saith well These are not the works of mans power but still the operation of him who made them in the last Supper as for us we are only Ministers but he it is that sanctifies and changeth them 7. In the third place An Answer to what is cited out of St. Cyp. Ambrose both the Cyrills Chrys Gre. Nyss aliorum to what is brought out of the Fathers concerning the conversion change transmutation transfiguration and transelementation of the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist wherein the Papists do greatly glory boasting of the consent of 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 a Joh. 3.3 1 Pet. 1.3 1 Cor. 4.15 Rom. 12.3 Eph. 4.22 Gal. 6.15 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 a Iren. l. 5. c. 10. Irenaeus b Clem. Alex. l. 4. Strom. Clemens Alexandrinus c Orig. Serm. 2. in diversos Origene d Cyril Hier. Catech 18. Cyril of Jerusalem e Basil exhort ad Bapt. S. Chrys hom 5. de Poenit. Basil f Greg. Naz. Orat 40. Gregory Nazianzen g Greg. Nyss lib 2. contra Eunom Hom. 1. de Resur Ep. ad Eustath Latin Ambros Gregory Nyssene h Cyril Alexand. Epist Pasch 6 7. 14. Cyril of Alexandria i S. Chrysost Hom. 23. in Act. Apost Idem Hom. 33. in 1 Cor. Chrysostom k Theod. Dial. 2. Theoph. In Joh. 6. Oecum in 1 Pet. 1. alii Theodoret Theophylact and Oecumenius to express the a Iren. l. 5. c. 10. Resurrection of the Body the efficacy b Clem. Alex. l. 4. Strom. of divine Doctrine the Sanctification of a c Orig. Serm. 2. in diversos regenerated person the immortality d Cyril Hier. Catech 18. of the flesh after the Resurrection the e Basil exhort ad Bapt. S. Chrys hom 5. de Poenit. repentance of sinners the f Greg. Naz. Orat 40. assumption of the humane nature in the Person of Christ the g Greg. Nyss lib 2. contra Eunom Hom. 1. de Resur Ep. ad Eustath Latin Ambros regeneration of Saints the h Cyril Alexand. Epist Pasch 6 7. 14. vertue of the divine grace the power of Baptism i S. Chrysost Hom. 23. in Act. Apost Idem Hom. 33. in 1 Cor. and the excellency of Charity and lastly the k Theod. Dial. 2. Theoph. in Joh. 6. Oecum in 1 Pet. 1. alii alteration for the better the greatness usefulness power and dignity of many things Neither are the Latine l St. Austin l. 4. contra Crescon cap. 54. St. Ambr. de Myst c. 9. de Sacr. l. 4. c. 4. 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 Faust Reg. sive Eus Emiss de Pasch 55. Facund l 9. c. ult 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 m Contra Marc l. 3. c. 9.24 26. 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 De Carne Christi cap 3. 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 Superius citati 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
from the Sacrament but in its right administration he joyned together the thing signified with the sacred Sign and taught that the Body of Christ was not eaten with the mouth in a carnal way but with the Mind and Soul and Spirit Neither did Berengarius alone maintain this Orthodox and ancient Doctrine for a Chron. à Miraeo editum Sigibert b In Contin Bedae William of Malmesbury c In hist majori ad An 1087. Matthew Paris and d Ad cúndum annum Matthew of Westminster make it certain that almost all the French Italians and English of those times were of the same opinion and that many things were said Baron ad An. 1035. §. 1.6 writ and disputed in its defence many men amongst whom was Bruno then Bishop of the same Church of Anger 's Now this greatly displeaseth the Papal faction who took great care that those mens Writings should not be delivered to Posterity and now do write that the Doctrine of Berengarius owned by the Fathers and maintained by many famous Nations sculkt only in some dark corner or other 7. The first Pope who opposed himself to Berengarius was Leo the e A 1050. Conc. Ver. sub Leone Papa 〈◊〉 Ninth a plain man indeed but too much led by Humbert and Hildebrand For as soon as he was desired f Lanfr in libro citato he pronounced sentence of Excommunication against Berengarius absent and unheard and not long after he called a Council at Verceil wherein John Erigena and Berengarius g But it was about 200 years after the death of this most innocent man were condemned upon this account that they should say that the Bread and Wine in the h Adelm in Ep. ad Bereng Eucharist are only bare Signs which was far from their thoughts and farther yet from their belief This roaring therefore of the Lion frighted not Berengarius nay the i These of Ren. Ang. Leon Dolae Maclo c. Gallican Churches did also oppose the Pope and his Synod of Verceil and defend with Berengarius the oppressed truth 8. To Leo succeeded Pope Victor the Second An. 1055. Conc. Turon sub Vict. Papa II who seeing that Berengarius could not be cast down and crusht by the Fulminations of his Predecessor sent his Legate Hildebrand into France and called another Council at Tours where Berengarius being cited did freely appear and whence he was freely dismist after he had given it under his hand that the Bread and Wine in the Sacrifice of the Church and not shadows and empty figures and that he held none other but the common Doctrine of the Church concerning the Sacrament For he did not alter his judgment as modern Papists give out but he persisted to teach and maintain the same Doctrine as before as Lanfrank complains of him 9. Yet his Enemies would not rest satisfied with this An. 1058. Con. Rom. sub Nicol. Papa 11. but they urged Pope Nicholas the Second who within a few months that Stephen the Tenth sate succeeded Victor without the Emperours consent to call a new Council at Rome against Berengarius For that sensual manner of presence by them devised to the great dishonour of Christ being rejected by Berengarius and he teaching as he did before That the Body of Christ was not present in such a sort as that it might be at pleasure brought in and out taken into the stomach cast on the ground trod under foot and bit or devoured by any beasts they falsly charged him as if he had denied that it is present at all An hundred and thirteen Bishops came to the Council An. 1059. to obey the Popes Mandate Berengarius came also And as k De Regn. Ital. l. 9. An. 1059. Sigonius and l In Chro. Cassin l. 3. c. 33. Leo Ostiensis say when none present could withstand him they sent for one Albericus a Monk of Mont Cassin made Cardinalby Pope Stephen who having asked seven days time to answer in writing brought at last his Scroll against Berengarius The Reasons and Arguments used therein to convince his Antagonist are not now extant but whatever they were Berengarius was commanded presently without any delay m Baron ad A. 1059 § 18. to recant in that form prescribed and appointed by Cardinal Humbeert which was thus n Habetur apud Gratian de Consecr dist 2. cap. 42. I Berengarius c. assent to the holy Roman and Apostolick See and with may heart and mouth do profess that I hold that Faith concerning the Sacrament of the Lords Table which our Lord and Venerable Pope Nicholas and this sacred Council have determined and imposed upon me by their Evangelick and Apostolick Authority to wit That the Bread and Wine which are set on the Altar are not after the Consecration only a Sacrament Sign and figure but also the very Body and Bloud of our Lord Jesus Christ thus far it is well enough but what follows is too horrid and is disowned by the Papists themselves and that they the Body and Bloud are touched and broken with the hands of the Priests and ground with the teeth of the Faithful not Sacramentally only but in truth and sensibly This is the Prescript of the Recantation imposed on Berengarius and by him at first rejected but by imprisonment and threats and fear of being put to death at last extorted from o Pap. Mass Annal Franc. l. 3. him 10. This form of Recantation is to be found entire in a Sub libri quem cont Bereng scripsit initium Lanfrank b Lib 2. c. 15. Algerus and c Ubi supra Gracian yet the Glosser on Gratian d In Câ—â—go Bereng de Consecrat dist â— John Semeca marks it with this note Except you understand well the words of Berengarius he should rather have said of Pope Nicholas and Cardinal Humbertus you shall fall into a greater Heresie than his was e In C. utrum sub figura 72. for he exceeded the truth and spake hyperbolically And so f In 4 dist 9. prin â— q. 1. Richard de Mediavilla Berengarius being accussed overshot himself in his Justification but the excess of his words should be ascribed to those who prescribed and forced them upon him Yet in all this we hear nothing of Transubstantiation 11. Berengarius at last escaped out of this danger and conscious to himself of having denied the truth took heart again and refuted in writing his own impious and absurd Recantation and said That by force it was exterted from him by the Church of Malignants the Council of vanity Lanfrank of Caen at that time head of a Monastery in France afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury and Guitmundus Aversanus answered him And though it is not to be doubted but that Berengarius and those of his Party writ and replied again and again yet so well did their Adversaries look to it that nothing
of theirs remains save some Citations in Lanfrank But it were to be wisht that we had now the entire Works of Berengarius who was a learned man and a constant follower of Antiquity for out of them we might know with more certainty how things went then we can out of what his profest enemies have said Concil Rom sub Hild. Papa A. 1079. 12. This Sacramental debate ceased a while because of the tumults of War raised in Apulia and elsewhere by Pope Nicholas the Second but it began again as soon as Hildebrand called Gregory the Seventh came to the Papal Chair For Berengarius was cited again to a new Council at Rome where some being of one opinion and some of another as it is in the g Excus cum Lanfran libro apud Binium Acts of that Council writ by those of the Popes Faction his cause could not be so intirely oppressed but that some Bishops were still found to uphold it Nay the Ring-leader himself Hildebrand is said to have doubted h Engilb Archiep. Trevir apud Goldast Imp. Tom. 1. Whether what we receive at the Lords Table be indeed the Body of Christ by a substantial conversion But i Bertold Const chron An. 1079. three months space having been granted to Berengarius and a Fast appointed to the Cardinals k Benno Card. in vita Hild. that God would shew by some sign from heaven which yet he did not who was in the right the Pope or Berengarius concerning the Body of the Lord a last the business was decided without any Oracle from above and a new form of retracttion imposed on l Habetur ista formula apud Tho. Wald ens Tom. ◠c. 42. in Regest Greg 7. Berengarius whereby he was henceforth forward to confess under pain of the Popes high displeasure that the Mystick Bread first made m Brix Syn. Episc apud Abb. Usperg in Chron. ad An 1080. Magical and enchanting by Hildebrand is substantially turned into n Addit formula praescripta in proprietate naturae the true and proper Flesh of Christ which whether he ever did is not certain For though o De Gest Angl. l. 3. c. 58. Et post eum ab aliis Vide Bell. Chronol An. 1079. Malmesbury tells us that he died in that Roman Faith yet p Pegm Comment 31. ad 2. part direct inquisit there are ancienter than he who q Bertol. Const qui tempore Brengar vixit ad An. 1083. say that he was never converted from his first opinion And some relate that after this last condemnation having given over his Studies and given to the poor all he had he wrought with his own hands for his r Vincent in Spec. l. 26. c. 40. Baron ad An. 1088. §. 15 c. living Other things related of him by some slaves of the Roman See deserve no credit These things hapned as we have said in the year 1079. and soon after Berengarius died 13. Berengarius being dead the Orthodox and ancient Doctrine of the Lords Supper which he maintained did not die with him as the ſ Chron. Cassin l. 3. c. 33. St. Bern. An. 1120. Chronicus Cassinensis would have it For it was still constantly retained by St. Bernard Abbot of Clairvaux who lived about the beginning of the twelfth Century Serm. de Coena Dom. Joh. 6.56 63. In his discourse on the Lords Supper he joyns together the outward form of the Sacrament and the spiritual efficacy of it as the shell and the kernel the sacred Sign and the thing signified the one he takes out of the words of the Institution and the other out of Christs Sermon in the sixth of St. John And in the same place explaining that Sacraments are not things absolute in themselves without any relation but Mysteries wherein by the gift of a visible sign an invisible and divine grace with the Body and Bloud of Christ is given he saith That the visible Sign is as a Ring which is given not for it self or absolutely but to invest and give possession of an Estate made over to one Many things saith he are done for their own sake and many in reference to something else and then they are called Signs A Ring is given absolutely as a gift and then it hath no other meaning it is also given to make good an Investiture or Contract and then it is a Sign So that he that receives it may say The Ring is not worth much it is what it signifies the Inheritance I value In this manner when the Passion of our Lord drew nigh he took care that his Disciples might be invested with his grace that his invisible grace might be assured and given to them by a visible sign To this end all Sacraments are instituted and to this the participation of the Eucharist is appointed Now as no man can fancy that the Ring is substantially changed into the Inheritance whether Lands or Houses none also can say with truth or without absurdity that the Bread and Wine are substantially changed into the Body and Bloud of Christ But in his Sermon on the Purification which none doubts to be his Serm. de Purif B. Mariae he speaks yet more plain The Body of Christ in the Sacrament is the food of the soul not of the belly therefore we eat him not corporally but in the manner that Christ is meat in the same manner we understand that he is eaten Also in his Sermon on St. Martin Serm. de S. Mart. which undoubtedly is his also To this day saith he the same flesh is given to us but spiritually therefore not corporally For the truth of things spiritually present is certain also As to what he saith in another place that the Priest holds God in his hands it is a flourish of Oratory as is that of St. Chrysostom Lib. 3. de Sacerd. In comes the Priest carrying the Holy Ghost 14. About the same time Rupertus Rupert Abb. An. 1125. Abbot of Tuitium famous by his Writings did also teach that the Substance of the Bread in the Eucharist is not converted but remains These be his words a In Exod. l. 2 c. 10. You must attribute all to the operation of the Holy Ghost who never spoils or destroys any substance he useth but to that natural Goodness it had before adds an invisible excellency which it had not He hath b Ex quâ Consequabatur Panem esse Corpus Christi sed Corpus non humanum neque carneum sed Panaceum indeed an unwarrantable opinion of the Union of the Bread and Body of Christ into one Person but it came as some others as absurd in that Age from too great a curiosity about determining the manner of Christs Presence and of the Union of his Body with the Bread about which that learned man troubled himself too much However he neither taught nor mentioned Transubstantiation 15. Not
a Hog should swallow down the Consecratet Host whole whether the Lords Body should pass into their belly together with the accidents Some indeed answer other some being otherwise minded that though the Body of Christ enters not into the Brutes mouth as corporal meat yet it enters together with the appearances by reason that they are inseparable one from the other meer nonsense for as long as the accidents of the Bread i. e. the shape and taste and colour c. remain in their proper a Ibid 4.53 m. 3. 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 b Tho. Aq. Sum. p. 3. q. 80. c. 3. 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 c Alger l. 2. c. 1. 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 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 d Thom. in 4. dist 9. q. â— a â— Brulif in 4. dist 13. q. 5. That whether they be cast into the Sink or the Privy as long as the appearances remain the Body of Christ is inseparable from them And for the contrary opinion they say that it is not tenable and that it is not safe for any to hold if because the Pope e Greg. Papa XI hath forbid it should be maintained under pain of Excommunication Therefore the Modern Schoolmen f Soto in 4 dist 12. q. â— a. 3. Vasq in 3. disp 195. c. 5. Direct Inquis p 1. n. â— p. 2. q. 10. add That if any should hold the contrary after the Popes determination he should he 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 nor 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 g Eccl. 7.29 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 h Leuncl de rebus Turc n. 116. 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 i In 4. q. 3. An. 1350. Robert Holkot who lived about the middle of that Century As also k 3. q. 75. a. 6. 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 Tutoâ— 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 l Th. Argent in 4. d. 11. q. 1. art 2. The common opinion is to be embraced not because reason requires it but because it is determined by the Bishop of Rome Item m Scot. in 4. dist 11. q. 3. 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 n Bacon in 4. dist 8. q. 1. a. 2. 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
Armenians by Pope Eugenius the Fourth 31. The Papal Curse in the Council of Trent not to be feared The Conclusion of the Book 1. WE have proved it before that the Leprosie of Transubstantiation did not begin to spread over the body of the Church in a thousand years after Christ But at last the thousand years being expired and Satan loosed out of his Prison to go and deceive the Nations and compass the Camp of the Saints about then to the great damage of Christian Peace and Religion they began here and there to dispute against the clear constant and universal consent of the Fathers and to maintain the new-started opinion It is known to them that understand History what manner of times were then and what were those Bishops who then governed the Church of Rome Sylvester II John XIX and XX Sergius IV Benedictus VlII John XXI Benedict IX Sylvester III Gregory VI Damasus II Leo IX Nicolas II Gregory VII or Hildebrand who tore to pieces the Church of Rome with grievous Schisms cruel Wars and great Slaughters For the Roman Pontificat was come to that pass Card. Bar. Tom. 10. Annal. an 897. §. 4. Gilb. Genebr Chron. sub init seculi 10. that good men being put by they whose Life and Doctrine was pious being oppressed none could obtain that dignity but they that could bribe best and were most ambitious 2. In that unhappy Age the Learned were at odds about the presence of the Body of Christ in the Sacrament some defending the ancient Doctrine of the Church and some the new-sprung up opinion 3. Fulbert Bishop of Chartres Fulbert Bishop of Chartres An. 1010. was Tutor to Berengarius whom we shall soon have occasion to speak of and his Doctrine was altogether conformable to that of the Primitive Church as appears clearly out of his Epistle to Adeodatus Ep. ad Adeod inter alia ejus opera impressa Paris An. 1608. wherein he teacheth That the Mystery of Faith in the Eucharist is not to be lookt on with our bodily eyes but with the eyes of our mind For what appears outwardly Bread and Wine is made inwardly the Body and Bloud of Christ not that which is tasted with the mouth but that which is relish'd by the hearts affection Therefore saith he prepare the palate of thy Faith open the throat of thy Hope and inlarge the bowels of thy Charity and take that Bread of life which is the food of the inward man Again The perception of a divine taste proceeds from the faith of the inward than whilst by receiving the saving Sacrament Christ is received into the soul All this is against those who teach in too gross a manner that Christ in this Mystery enters carnally the mouth and stomach of the Receivers 4. Fulbert was followed by Berengarius his Scholar Bereng Archdeacon of Anger 's An. 1030. Archdeacon of Anger 's in France a man of great worth by the holiness both of his life and doctrine as Platina Vincentius Bergomensis and many more Witness this Encomium writ soon after his death by Hildebert Bishop of Mans a most learned man is thus recorded by our William of Malmsbury Guliel Malms de gestis Regum Anglorum lib. 3. That Berengarius who was so admired Although his name yet lives is now expired H' out-lives himself yet a sad fatal day Him from the Church and State did snatch away O dreadful day why didst thou play the Thief And sill the world with ruine and with grief For by his death the Church the Laws and all The Clergies glory do receive a fall His sacred wisdom was too great for fame And the whole World 's too little for his name Which to its proper Zenith none can raise His merits do so far exceed all praise Then surely thou art blest nor dost thou less Heaven with thy Soul Earth with thy Body bless When I go hence O may I dwell with thee In thine appointed place where e're it be Now this Berengarius was not only Archdeacon of Anger 's A. Thevet Vit illust Vir. l. 3. c. 62. Pap. Mass Annal. Franc. l. 3â— but also the Scholasticus or Master of the Chair of the same Church which dignity is ever enyoyed by the Chancellor of the Vniversity for his Office is in great Churches to teach the Clergy and instruct them in sound doctrine All this I have produced more at large to manifest the base and injurious Calumnies cast upon this worthy and famous man by latter Writers as a Garet de verâ praesent in Epist nuncup Clas 5. A. 1â—40 John Garetius of Lovain b Alan de Euch. l. 1â— c. 21. William Alan our Country-man and others who not only accuse him of being an Heretick but also a worthless and an unlearned man 5. Berengarius stood up valiantly in defence of that Doctrine which 170 years before was delivered out of Gods Word and the holy Fathers in France by Bertram and John Erigena and by others elsewhere against those who taught that in the Eucharist neither Bread nor Wine remained after the Consecration Yet he did not either believe or teach as many falsly and shamelesly have imputed to him that nothing more is received in the Lords Supper but bare Signs only or meer Bread and Wine but he believed and openly profest as St. Austin and other faithful Doctors of the Church had taught out of Gods Word that in this Mystery the souls of the Faithful are truly fed by the true Body and Bloud of Christ to life eternal Nevertheless it was neither his mind nor his doctrine that the substance of the Bread and Wine is reduced to nothing or changed into the substance of the natural Body of Christ or as some then would have had the Church believe that Christ himself comes down carnally from heaven Intire books he wrote upon this subject but they have been wholly supprest by his Enemies and now are not to be found Yet what we have of him in his greatest Enemy Lanfrank I here set down Extant apud Lan. fr. deverit corp Dom. in Euch. By the Consecration at the Altar the Bread and Wine are made a Sacrament of Religion not to cease to be what they were but to be changed into something else and to become what they were not agreeable to what St. Ambrose had taught Again There are two parts in the Sacrifice of the Church this is according to St. Irenaeus the visible Sacrament and the invisible thing of the Sacrament that is the Body of Christ Item The Bread and Wine which are Consecrated remain in their substance having a resemblance with that whereof they are a Sacrament for else they could not be a Sacrament Lastly Sacraments are visible Signs of divine things but in them the invisible things are honoured All this agrees well with St. Austin and other Fathers above cited 6. He did not therefore by this his Doctrine exclude the Body of Christ