Posthume and French Treatise of the Eucharist witness the Abbot Fagget in his Letter to Monsieur de Marca President of the Parliament at Pau who saith also this Letter was found by Monsieur Bigot in a Library at Florence St. Chrysostom in this Letter writeth against Apollinarius and saith Jesus Christ is both God and Man God because of his Impassibility Man by his Passion one Son one Lord both Natures united making but one the same Power the same Dominion although they be two different Natures each conserves its own Nature because they are two and yet without confusion for as the Bread before it is sanctified is called Bread when by the intercession of the Priest Divine Grace has sanctified it it loses the name of Bread and becomes worthy to be called the Body of Jesus Christ although the Nature of Bread abides in it so that they are not two Bodies but one sole Body of the Son so the Divine Nature being united to the Humane Nature of Jesus Christ it did not make two Persons but one only Person and one Son. St. Chrysostom saith plainly That the Nature of Bread abideth after Consecration and this Father's Argument would be of no validity if this nature of the Bread was nothing but in shew for Apollinarius might have made another opposite Argument and say That indeed it might be said there were two Natures in Jesus Christ but that the Humane Nature was only in appearance as the Bread in the Eucharist is but in shew and hath only outward and visible qualities remaining in it whereby it is term'd to be Bread. The Author of the imperfect Work upon St. Matthew written in the time of the Emperour Theodosius This Author goes under S. Chrysostom's Name did not believe Transubstantiation when he spake in these Terms in Homily Eleventh If it be dangerous to employ the holy Vessels about common uses wherein the true Body of Jesus Christ is not contain'd but the Mysteries of his Body how much rather the Vessels of our Bodies which God has prepared to dwell in That the Fathers of the FIFTH CENTURY did not believe Transubstantiation AGE v. S. Jerom in his Epistle to Eustochium speaking of Virgins S. Jerom. saith That when they were reproved for Drunkenness they excus'd themselves by adding Sacriledge to Drunkenness saying God forbid that I should abstain from the Blood of the Lord. In the Second Book against Jovinian it is said It appears by these words that they imply the common belief that there was true Wine in the Eucharist because they say That should they abstain from Wine they must abstain also from the Blood of the Lord. The Lord in the Type of his Blood did not offer Water but Wine These words are indeed Jovinian's but St. Jerom finds no fault with them For he himself saith the same upon the 31 Chapter of Jeremy Vers 12. on these Words They run after Gods Creatures the Wheat the Wine and the Oyl the Bread and the Wine saith he whereof is made the Bread of the Lord and wherein is accomplished the Type of his Blood. Now saith St. Ambrose * De fide l. 2. c. 5. The Type is not the Truth but it is the shadow of the Truth There must then be in the Eucharist Bread and Wine distinct from the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ to be the Types and Figures of it The same Father in his Letter to Hedibia Let us hear that the Bread which the Lord broke and gave his Disciples was the Lord's own Body saying Take Eat This is my Body and a little after he saith If the Bread that came down from Heaven is the Body of the Lord and the Wine which he distributed among his Disciples his Blood c. St. Jerom saith That Jesus Christ brake and distributed Bread to his Disciples that he gave them Bread and that the Bread and Wine were his Flesh and Blood. It cannot then be said That what Jesus Christ gave in communicating his Disciples was not Bread and Wine and when he saith both the one and the other was his Body and Blood it cannot be understood but only figuratively for we see above in St. Cyprian that the Jesuites Salmeron and Bellarmine do confess That if Jesus Christ said of the Bread This is my Body it must be meant This Bread is the Figure of my Body the one not being capable of being the other but figuratively And the Reason is given by Vasquez when he saith If the Pronoun This in the words of Consecration be understood of the Bread undoubtedly by virtue of it there can be wrought no Transubstantiation because of necessity the Bread must needs remain Si Proâ—omen hoc in illis verbis demonstraret panem fatemur fore ut nulla conversio virtute illorum fieri posset quia panis de quo enunciatur manere debeat The same S. Jerom in his Commentary upon the 26 Chapter of St. Matthew saith Jesus Christ having eaten the Paschal Lamb took Bread which strengthens the Heart of Man and proceeded to the accomplishment of the Sacrament of the true Passover that as Melchisedeck had offered Bread and Wine in Figure he also himself would represent the truth of his Body According to this Father the Bread and Wine represent the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and therefore are not properly and truly the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ but are something else besides them and by consequence remain in the Sacrament For to say as the Author of the Second Book of the perpetuity of the Faith of the Eucharist doth against Monsieur Claude that St. Jerom means by representing to make a thing be present we before refuted this Fancy in Tertullian who speaks just as St. Jerom And the terms sufficiently declare that St. Jerom's meaning is That Jesus Christ made use of Bread and Wine to signifie and shew forth his Body and Blood as Melchisedeck had done that is to say as he had represented both the one and the other by the Oblation of Bread and Wine St. Austin in his Sermon to the newly Baptized St. Austin which it's true is not found in his other Works but was preserv'd and is cited by St. Fulgentius de Baptismo Aethiop Cap. 7. What you see saith he upon the Altar of God you saw also the last Night but you were not yet aware of how great a thing it is a Sacrament That which you see is Bread and a Cup of Wine and it is also what your Eyes declare unto you but what your Faith should instruct you in is That the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ and the Cup his Blood. If you tell me Jesus Christ is born he was crucified he was buried he rose again and is ascended into Heaven whither he has carry'd his Body and is at present on the right hand of God from whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead how then can the Bread be
Blood of Jesus Christ to be partakers of the incorruption of the Lord. Now the virtue of the Word is the Holy Spirit as the Blood is the virtue of the Flesh By Analogy then the Wine mixt with Water as the Spirit with Man and this mixture makes the Wine the pleasanter to drink but the Spirit leadeth to incorruption Now this mixture of the one with the other to wit of the Wine and the Word is called Eucharist which is highly esteem'd whereby those who worthily partake of it by Faith are sanctify'd both in their Body and Soul. When Clement of Alexandria said that the Eucharist is a mixture of Wine and the Word Graecè 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies mixture it is a composition a mixture which could not be if there was but the Word only in the Eucharist For a mixture is at least of two things So the Fathers have called Jesus Christ a mixture of God and Man. The Body of Man saith S. S. Austin Ep. 3. ad Volusen Austin is a mixture of Body and Soul the Person of Christ is a mixture of God and Man. The Epitome of Theodotus saith Theodotus The Bread and Oyl are sanctified by the virtue of the name and they remain not what they were before though to look on them they seem to be the same but by virtue they are changed into a Spiritual force So water sanctified is become Baptism it not only retains what 's less but also acquires a sanctification The author saith The Bread is changed but when he adds that 't is into a Spiritual virtue he quite excludes the change of its substance for by virtue and Spiritual cannot be understood any other change but that of virtue and quality seeing this Author speaks of this change as being common to the Water of Baptism to the Oyl of Unction and to the Bread of the Eucharist That the Fathers of the THIRD CENTURY did not believe Transubstantiation AGE iii. TErtullian in his first Book against Marcion Tertullian shewing that Jesus Christ is not contrary to the Creator as this Heretick affirm'd saith in his 14th Chap. Hitherto Jesus Christ has not condemn'd the Water wherewith he cleanseth his Children nor the Oyl wherewith he anoints them nor the Hony nor the Milk whereby he makes them his Children nor the Bread by which he represents his body By this passage the Bread represents the Body of Jesus Christ therefore the Bread remains in the Sacrament and this Bread is not really Jesus Christ because what doth represent is another thing than what is represented Two things have been said on this place of Tertullian first that the Bread signifies the accidents of Bread the second that the Word represent does signify in this place to make present As when in a Court of Justice a Prisoner is made appear as often as he is demanded Against the former there 's no reason to believe that Tertullian speaking of Water of Oyl of Hony and Milk should intend to speak of their accidents but of their very substance and that speaking of Bread he should speak only of its accidents Against the second it 's most certain that in matter of Sacraments the term to signify is taken literally to signify S. Austin saith Ep. 5. the signs when applyed to Holy things are called Sacraments Tertullian explains himself clearly Lib. 3. against Marcion so that there 's no cause of doubting when he saith That Jesus Christ has given to the Bread the priviledge of being the figure of his Body The same Tertullian lib. 4. contra Marcion cap. 40. doth prove that Jesus Christ had a real Body and not one in shew only as Marcion dream'd and he proves it by this argument That which hath a figure ought to be real and true now Jesus Christ hath in the Eucharist a figure of his Body therefore the Body of Jesus Christ is real and true and not a Phantome Jesus Christ Tertulliar saith Tertullian having taken the Bread which he aristributed amongst his Disciples he made it his Body saying This is the figure of my Body now it had been no figure if Jesus Christ had not had a real and true Body for an empty thing as a Phantasm is is not capable of having any figure From hence 't is concluded that the Bread being the figure of the Body of Jesus Christ and that which is a figure being distinguished from the thing signified the Bread of the Eucharist is not properly and truly the Body of Jesus Christ and so the Bread is not destroy'd but remains to be the figure of the Body of Jesus Christ If it be said the Bread is destroy'd and that the accidents of Bread are the figure of the Body of Jesus Christ this gives up the victory to Marcion to prove that Jesus Christ had a true Body and not one in shew only because Jesus Christ hath in the Eucharist the figure of Bread which is Bread only in appearance Marcion might have retorted the argument and said according to you Tertullian the Sacrament is the figure of the Body of Jesus Christ now as this figure is Bread in appearance and is called Bread only because of the outward accidents and qualities which it retains so also the Body of Jesus Christ was only a Body in appearance and was called a Body because it had the outward accidents and qualities Again as Tertullian saith That Jesus Christ distributed to his Disciples the Bread which he had taken to make it the figure of his Body it is most certain he took true Bread and by consequence that he distributed true Bread. The same Tertullian in his Treatise of the Soul disputing against the Academitians that question'd the truth of the testimony of the Senses saith to them that we must not at all doubt of the testimony of the Senses lest occasion might farther be taken to doubt the actions of the humanity of Jesus Christ that it might not be said That it was untrue that he saw Satan fall from Heaven That it was not true that he heard the Father's voice from heaven bearing witness to his Son That he was deceived when he touched Peter's Wifes Mother That he was deceived when he sinelt the sweet odour which he was pleas'd to accept for the preparation to his Death or That he tasted the Wine that he consecrated in remembrance of his Blood. It is evident that to consecrate Wine in remembrance of Blood cannot be understood of a substance which is destroy'd all saving the accidents This manner of expression in the language of the Ancients signifying no more but that a substance remains always in its first state only attains to a higher degree which is to be the Sacrament of a Heavenly and supernatural thing To conclude if Tertullian had believed that the Wine had been destroy'd and that nothing but the appearance was left against the testimony of all the Senses had it not been an unpardonable fault
Bread of the Sacrament as the true Image of the Natural Flesh of Jesus Christ is sanctified by the coming of the Holy Ghost and becomes the Body of Jesus Christ because the Priest transfers the Oblation from the state of a common thing to something that is holy To conclude they clearly distinguish the natural Flesh of Jesus Christ which is living and intelligent from his Image which is the Heavenly Bread filled with the Holy Spirit All these continued Expressions are so far from any Idea of Transubstantiation that one must needs see that the destruction of the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament was not beleieved by the Fathers of the Council nor by the Church in their time Alcuin speaking of the Consecrating of Bread and Wine to be the Body and Blood of Christ Alcuinus saith that the Sanctification of this Mystery doth foreshew to us the effect of our Salvation Ep. 69. That by the Water is signified the Christian People by the grains of the Wheat ground into Meal to make Bread is meant the Union of the Universal Church which is made one Body by the fire of the Holy Ghost which unites the Members to the Head and that by the Wine is shewed the Blood of the Passion of the Lord. Doubtless Alcuin did not believe Transubstantiation seeing he places in the Bread and Wine the signification of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and that he saith by the Wine is shewed the Blood of Jesus Christ for that which is a Figure and that which is figured that which sheweth and that which is shewed are two different things the one of which is not the other Therefore the same Alcuin doth formally distinguish the Eucharist from the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ when he saith after St. Austin Whosoever abideth not in Jesus Christ and he in whom Christ abideth not In Joan. c. 13. v. 15. doubtless doth not spiritually eat his flesh altho he visibly and carnally eats with his teeth the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Charles the great his Disciple writing to the same Alcuin calls the Eucharist the Figure of the Body and Blood of the Lord. The Lord saith he being at Supper with his Disciples broke Bread and gave likewise the Cup in figure of his Body and Blood Carol. M. De Offic. Septuag ad Aluin and by this means offered us a very profitable Sacrament Now whatever he said of the figure it contain'd or that it contain'd not the truth the figure was never the same as the thing is that 's figured In the Ambrosian Office which was abolish'd in the year 796 Ambrosian Office. there was this Clause which is still to be seen in the 4th Book of St. Ambrose his Sacraments Nobis hanc oblationem adscriptam rationabilem acceptabilem quod est figura Corporis Sanguinis Domâ—ni nostri Jesu Christi The Ancient Roman Order doth frequently call the Bread and VVine the Body and Blood of the Lord Ordo Romen but it sufficiently shews by these manner of expressions that it doth not mean that the Bread and VVine are the same thing with the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ for in the first place it saith that the Sub-Deacons when they see the Chalice wherein is the Blood of the Lord cover'd with a Cloth and when the Priest hath said these words at the end of the Lords Prayer libera nos a malo they should go from the Altar and prepare Chalices and clean Cloths to receive the Body of the Lord fearing lest it should fall to the ground and crumble to dust Now who doth not see that this cannot be spoken but of the Bread figuratively and improperly called the Body of Jesus Christ 2ly It saith That the Bishop breaketh the Oblation on the right side and that he leaveth the part which he brake on the Altar Now who can say that the Body of Jesus Christ can be broke into parts 3dly The Fraction being made the Deacon receives from the Sub-Deacon the Cup and carries it to the Chair that the Bishop might communicate who having communicated puts part of the holy Oblation of which he bit a Morsel into the Arch-Deacons hands Can it be said that one doth bite the true Bedy of Jesus Christ and that one breaks off part of it 4thly It adds he is to take great heed that no part of the Body and Blood of the Lord doth remain in the Chalice or on the Plate By these words the Roman Order gives us to understand that it speaks of such a Body and Blood that a part of it may be separated from the whole Now this is what can only be said of the Bread and Wine improperly called the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ The now Roman Order at present used in the Church of Rome doth also furnish us with the like reflections It expresly marketh That Jesus Christ gave in the Oblation Ordo Romanus Bread and VVine to celebrate the Mysteries of his Body and Blood. Therein is desired That this Blessed Oblation may be accepted of God in such a manner as that it might be made to us the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ after all which is recited the History of the Institution and the Sacramental words The Eucharist is called the Sacred Bread of Eternal Life ond the Cup the Cup of everlastiug Salvation To conclude They pray God to behold those Gifts and that he will accept them as he did the offering of Abel and the Sacrifice of Melchisedeck which it's very well known was Bread and Wine All which doth plainly shew That the Roman Order at this time observed cannot reasonably be interpreted but in supposing that the Bread and Wine remain in the Eucharist after Consecration That the Fathers of the NINTH CENTURY did not believe Transubstantiation THeodorus Studita AGE ix as is related by Michael Studita in Baronius in the year 816. N. 15. seeing himself reduced to the extremity of being starv'd said to his Disciple If men are so crvel as to make me perrish with hunger Thecdorus Studita the participation of the Body and Blood of the Lord which is the ordinary food of my Body and Soul shall be my only nourishment Now the real Body of Jesus Christ cannot be the nourishment of the Body therefore of necessity this Author must be understood to speak of Bread which is his Body figuratively and improperly It is what is also confirm'd by this Michael Studita who saith in the same place that Theodore had always about him some parcels of the quickning Body of the Lord which cannot be meant of the true Body of Jesus Christ which is not now subject to be broken nor divided Ahyto Bishop of Basil Ahyto sent Ambassador by Charlemaine in the year 814 to Constantinople to Treat a Peace with the Emperor of the East as is declared by the Annals of France by Eginhart Author of the Life of
is so that the Cup of the Blood is his Blood that the Body is poured forth upon our Members for our Salvation that there is a Body of Jesus Christ that may be cast out by spitting and whereof some part may be flung out of the Mouth That he will not dispute whether this Body evaporates in the Air or whether it departs out of the body with the blood or whether it goes out at the pores or into the Draft all this doth sufficiently shew That this Doctor distinguished the Bread and Wine as a Typical body from the real Body of Jesus Christ and that by consequence he believed the bread and wine remained after Consecration to be called the body and blood of Jesus Christ but improperly Valafridus Strabo Valafridus Strabo Abbas Augiensis stiled a very Learned Man by Herman Contracted in the year 849. Jesus Christ said he gave to his Disciples the Sacrament of his Body and Blood in the substance of bread and wine Lib. de Reb. Eccles c. 16. Bill p. 7. to 10. teaching them to celebrate it in remembrance of his most holy Passion because there could nothing be found fitter than these things to signify the unity of the Head and Members for as Bread is made of sundry Grains and brought into one body by means of Water and as the Wine is squeez'd from several Grapes so also the body of Jesus Christ is made of the anion of a multitude of Saints And a little after he declares That Jesus Christ hath chose for us a very fit Sacrifice for the Mystery of his body and blood in that Melchisedeck having offer'd bread and wine he gave to his Children the same kinds of Sacraments And afterwards cap. 18. That for that great Number of Legal Ordinances Jesus Christ gave us the word of his Gospel so also instead of the great diversity of Sacrifices Believers are to rest satisfied with the sole Oblation of bread and wine It is evident Strabo makes the Holy Sacrament to consist in the substance of bread and wine which according to him is differenced from the body because it is but the memorial of it That 't is the figure that it consists in being made of sundry Grains and the Wine of sundry Grapes That the Sacrifice of the New Testament is of the same kind as that of Melchisedeck and that the Eucharist is an Oblation of bread and wine All these things intimate that the bread and wine remain in the Eucharist after Consecration Herribald was Bishop of Auxerre Herribald in the time that Vallafridus Strabo wrote Tom. 2. ch 19.52 and 61. Now he was of the same Opinion with Rabanus Thomas Waldensis assures us so Herribald of Auxerre saith he and Rabanus of Mayence say That the Sacrament of the Eucharist goes into the Draft The Anonimous Author contemporary with Herribald which was published by Father Cellot the Jesuit saith also the same Nevertheless Lupus Abbot of Ferriers Ep. 19. speaking of him calls him a most excellent Prelate excellentissimum Praesulem In the 37th Ep. he stiles him a Man of a lofty and Divine understanding Altissimi Divini ingenii And Hinemarus Archbishop of Reims calls him the Bishop of Venerable Qualities De Praed ch 6. So that the very Chronicle of Auxerre intimates that there was ingrav'd on his Monument this Inscription Here lies the body of St. Herribald Therefore the Author of the 1st Treatise of the Perpetuity of the Eucharist saith in page 843 That Herribald and Rhabanus were Adversaries to Pascasius Tho in the 2d Treatise of the Perpetuity in page 842. he saith speaking of the Minister Claude who told him that Amalarius and Herribald were in any wise Adversaries to Paschas It appears by the Letter Paschasius wrote to Frudegard Frndegardus that he was not of the same Judgment Paschasius was of seeing he opposes to him St. Austin's 23d Letter to Boniface Sic VVidefort contra VVickliff ad art 1. * Trithem de Script Eccles Ratramne Priest and Frier of Corby experienc'd in the Scriptures Ratramnus equally esteem'd for his Learning and Manners whom †De Praedest Hinemar ‖ Ep. 79. Lupus Abbot of Ferriers his Contemporaries ₠De Script Eccles Sigebert who liv'd in the xi Century and Father ‡ De Euchr. ch 1. Cellot the Jesuits Anonimus do all make mention of under his true name of Ratramne wrote a Book under the Reign of Charles the Bald as is reported by the same Trythemius which he intitul'd Of the Body and Blood of the Lord From a Monk of Corby he was made Abbot of Ovais The President ₠Maug dissert Hist Chron. c. 17. tom 2. pag. 133 135. Mauguin speaking of him saith he was a Learned Doctor of the Church eminent in Probity and in Doctrine an undaunted defender and protector of the Catholick Truth against Innovators He dedicated his Book to the Emperor Charles the Bald. Now this Author did not believe Transubstantiation because he saith For as to the substance of those Creatures they are after Consecration what they were before they were before bread and wine and it is plainly seen that after Consecration these created substances do remain in the very same species And a little after he saith Ratramnus in the Apology of the Fathers is stiled a learn'd Benedictin Defender of Grace a Man of great Wisdom and Reputation and in the 1st treatise of the Perpetuity p. 3. c. 5. he is stiled an obscure kind of a person that evaporated himself in obscure Reasonings which he added to those of the Church and explained as he pleased himself as some are pleased to say This spiritual flesh which spiritually feeds Believers is made of grains of Wheat by the hands of the Baker such as it appears to our sight but it hath neither bones nor sinews nor no distinction of parts nor is it enliven'd with a Soul or reasonable substance To conclude it is unable to move of it self and if it gives life it is the effect of a spiritual virtue of an invisible and a Divine Virtue and Efficacy A little after he saith again As the Water represents the People in the Sacrament if it were true that the Bread consecrated by Ministers was corporally changed into the Body of Jesus Christ it must also necessarily follow that the water which is mingled with it were changed into the blood of the faithful people for where there is but one sanctification there ought to be but one operation and the Mystery should be equal where the Reason of the Mystery is the same It is evident there is no corporal change in the water and by consequence there is no corporal change to be expected in the wine All that is said of the Body of the people represented by water is understood spiritually it is then a necessary consequence that what is said of the blood of Jesus Christ represented by
Charlemaine the Annals of Fulda Herman Contract and others This Ahyto died in the year 836 and left a Capitulary for instruction of the Priests of his Diocess publisht by Dom Luke D'achery in the Sixth Tome of his Spicilegium pag. 692. AGE viii now amongst many other Instructions he gives his Priests in his Capitularies this is one In the fifth place the Priest should know what the Sacrament of Baptism and Confirmation is Ahyto and also what the Mystery of the body and blood of our Lord doth mean. How a visible creature is seen in the same Mysteries and is nevertheless the invisible Salvation is communicated for the Souls eternal happiness which is contained in faith only By visible creature he can only mean a creature not in appearance but effective for otherwise according to this Author it must be said that in Baptism and Confirmation there should be only an apparent creature and not the substance of water and chrism Besides Ahyto attributed the same effect to these three Sacraments to wit the communication of eternal and invisible salvation to them that with faith do receive these holy Sacraments Theodulphus in the year 810. Bishop of Orleans Theodulphus saith in his Treatise of the Order of Baptism There is one saving sacrifice which Melchisedeck also offer'd under the Old Testament in Type of the body and blood of our Saviour the which the Mediator of God and Man accemplished under the New before he was crucify'd when taking the bread and wine he blessed and gave them to his Disciples commanding them to do those things in remembrance of him It is this Mystery which the Church doth celebrate having put an end to the ancient sacrifices offering bread because of the bread which came down from Heaven and wine because of him which said I am the true Vine to the end that by the visible Oblation of Priests and by the invisible consecration of the Holy Ghost the bread and wine should have the dignity of the body and blood of our Lord with which blood there is mingled some water either because there came out of the side of our Saviour water with the blood Or because according to the Interpretation of our Ancestors as Jesus Christ is signify'd by the wine so also the people is signify'd by the water Now this Bishop saying that Jesus Christ gave bread to his Disciples in commemoration that this Mystery is an Oblation of visible bread which is consecrated by the Holy Spirit and which receiveth the dignity of the body that he indifferently calls the blood wine and the wine blood that with the blood water is mingled and that Jesus Christ is signify'd by the wine that 't is said the wine signifies Jesus Christ as the water doth the people these words cannot suppose any Transubstantiation The Opposers of Paschasius Radbertus Frier of the Monastry of Corby who wrote a Book of the body and blood of Jesus Christ did not believe Transubstantiation Opposers of Paschasius Radbertus That the said Paschasius had several adversaries appears by his own Writings for towards the end of his Commentary upon St. Matthew he saith himself I have inlarged upon the Lords Supper a little more than the brevity of a Commentary would permit because there be several others that are of a different judgment touching these holy Mysteries and that several are blind and do not perceive that this bread and cup is nothing else but what is seen with the eyes and tasted with the palate And in his Epistle to Frudegard as well as in his Commentary on St. Matthew ch 12. it appears he had Opposers because in his Epist to Frudegard he saith You advise with me touching a thing that many do make doubt of And in his Commentary I am told that many saith he do censure me as if I had attributed to the words of our Lord either more or something quite contrary to what the genuine sense permits So that Paschasius had adversaries and they did not believe Transubstantiation because they held that in the Eucharist there was only the virtue of the flesh and not the very flesh the virtue of the blood and not the very blood of Christ That the Eucharist was figure and not verity shadow of the body and not the body it self They would saith Paschasius extenuate the word body and perswade Quod non sit vera caro Christi sed quaedam virtus figura corporis Christi Now Paschasius Rathbertus was the first Author that wrote fully and seriously of the truth of the body and blood of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist as Bellarmin saith de Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis in Paschasio Ratherto And Father Sirmond saith he is the first that hath explain'd the sense of the Church touching this Mystery so that saith he he hath opened the way to others In vitae Ratherti praefixa ejus operibus Therefore it is nothing strange that Paschasius had enemies and that he was accused for departing from the common Faith and to have spread abroad Visions of a young Man. For he saith to Frudegard You have saith he at the end of this Work the Authorities of Catholick Fathers succinctly marked by which you may perceive that 't was not through rashness that formerly when I was young I believed these things but by Divine authority He also endeavours to clear himself from this charge in alledging passages as of Saint Austins the which nevertheless are not to be found in him as these words Receive in the Bread what hung on the Cross receive in the Cup what issued out of the side of Jesus Christ. Which is not to be found in St. Austin Rabanus Archbishop of Mayance in the year 847 AGE ix stiled by Baronius in the year 843 No. 31. the bright Star of Germany Fulgens Germaniae Sidus saith in his Institution of Clerks Lib. 1. cap. 31. Rabanus Our Saviour liked better that believers should receive with their mouth the Sacraments of his Body and Blood and that they should be turned into their nourishment to the end that by the visible work the invisible effect should be shewn For as the material food doth materially nourish the Body and support it so also the VVord of God doth nourish the Soul inwardly and doth strengthen it And in the same place The Sacrament is one thing and the virtue of the Sacrament is another The Sacrament is turned into the nourishment of the Body but by the virtue of the Sacrament one acquires everlasting life As the Sacrament therefore is turn'd into our selves when we do cat and drink it so also we are converted into the Body of Jesus Christ when we live with piety and obedience The same Doctor on St. Matthew Chap. 26. saith with Venerable Beda that Jesus Christ hath substituted instead of the flesh and blood of the Pascal Lamb the Sacrament of his Body and Blood. That the Creator of the World and the Redeemer of Mankind
spake when consecrating the Bread and Wine he said This is my Body this is my Blood he adds the Bread is his Body just as the Manna and the Wine his Blood as the water in the Desart was There is another Sermon cited by some under the name of Wolfin Bishop of Salisbury others say 't is of Alfric Wolphinus wherein the Author uses near the same Language This Sacrifice saith he Apud Vsserium de Christianae Ecclesi Success Stat. c. 2. p. 54. is not the Body of Jesus Christ wherein he suffered for us nor his Blood which he shed but it is spiritually made his Body and blood as the Manna that fell from Heaven and the Water that sprang out of the Rock Besides these two testimonies which shew what was believed of the Sacrament in England there is a Sermon seen which was read every year to the People at Easter to keep in their minds the Idea of the Ancient Faith It is almost wholly taken out of Ratramne There is great difference saith this Homilly betwixt the Body wherein Jesus Christ suffered and the Body which is consecrated for the Eucharist for the Body wherein Jesus Christ suffered was born of the Virgin Mary and was provided with Blood Bones Nerves and Skin with bodily members and a reasonable Soul but his Spiritual Body which we call Eucharist is compos'd of several grains of Wheat without Blood without Bones Nerves and without a Soul. The Body of Christ which suffer'd death Saxon Homily and rose again shall never dye more it is eternal and immortal but the Eucharist is temporal and not eternal it is corruptible and divided into sundry parcels ground by the Teeth and goes along with the other excrements This Sacrament is a pledge and figure the Body of Jesus Christ is the Truth it self we have this pledge Sacramentally until we attain to the Truth and then the pledg shall be fulfill'd And a little lower If we consider the Eucharist after a corporal manner we see 't is a changeable and corruptible Creature but if we consider the spiritual virtue that is in it we easily see that life abides in it and that it gives immortality to those that receive it with Faith. There is great difference betwixt the invisible virtue of this Holy Sacrament and the visible form of its proper Nature By Nature it is corruptible Bread and corruptible Wine but by the virtue of the Word of God it is truly his Body and Blood yet not corporally but spiritually A little below he explains this change in saying Jesus Christ by an invisible virtue did change the Bread and Wine into his Body and Blood but 't was after the same manner as he heretofore changed Manna and the Water that came out of the Rock into the same Body and Blood. Fulcuin Abbot of the Monastry of Lobes Fulcuinus in the Country of Liege Tom. 6. Spicil de gestis Abb. Lob. p. 573. who departed this Life in the year 990. speaking of the Eucharistical Table saith That 't is the Table on which is consumed the sacred Body of our Lord which not being to be said of the proper Body cannot be understood but of the Bread which is called Body an expression which in all likelihood this Abbot had learn'd of St. Austin who saith The Bread made for that use is consumed in receiving the Sacrament That which is set on the Table is consum'd the holy celebration being ended Herriger Herriger Successor to Fulcuin and whom he that continued the History of the Abbots of Lobes Idem tom 6. p. 591. mentions as a man whose virtue and knowledg was known even to strangers he collected saith this Author several passages of Catholick Fathers against Paschasius Ratbertus touching the Body and Blood of our Lord. The Ancient Customs of the Monastry of Cluny Reprinted by the care of Dom Luke D'Achery Monastry of Cluny l. 2. ch 30. say The outside of the Challice is carefully rub'd Tom. 4. in Spec. p. 146. lest there should the least drop of the Wine and Water remain and being consecrated it should fall to the ground and perish by which it appears they believed the wine and water still remain'd after Conscration for the true Body of Jesus Christ cannot perish Again The Priest divides the Host and puts part of it into the Blood of one moiety he communicates himself Customs of the Monastry of Cluny and with the other he communicates the Deacon It cannot be so spoke of the Body of Jesus Christ then after the Priest has broke the Hest he puts part of it into the Cup after the usual manner two parts on the Patten and covers both the one and the other with a clean Cloath but first of all he very carefully rubs the Challice and shakes it with the same hand with which he touched it fearing lest that breaking the Bread there should rest some part of the Body of our Lord which cannot be said of the true Body of Jesus Christ and elsewhere is prescrib'd what should be done If there chance to remain ever so little of the Body of our Saviour which is expounded to be a very little Crum as 't were indivisible and like an Atome To conclude treating of the Communion of sick Folks Lib. 3. Ch. 28. p. 217. it is observ'd that the Body of our Lord is brought from the Church that it is broke and that the Priest holds on the Challice the part that he is to bring It must needs be that by the sense of these customs there must be Bread and Wine in the Sacrament that it may be broken and improperly called Body Ratherius Bishop of Verona saith Ratherius As to the Corporal substance which the Communicant doth receive seeing that 't is I that do now ask the Question I must also answer my self De Contemp. Canon port Spirileg Tom. 2. and I thereto yield for seeing that to him that receives worthily it is the true Body altho one sees that the Bread is the same it was before and true Blood altho the Wine is seen to be the same it was I confess I cannot say nor think what it is to him that doth receive unworthily that is to say that doth not abide in God. Now the Communicant can he receive a corporal Substance Can one say that one sees that the Bread is what 't was before if the Communicant receives no Substance It is known on the contrary that what is seen is not Bread nor Wine Moreover Ratherius condemning Drunkenness and Excess in some of his Priests saith that some of them spew'd before the Altar of our Lord upon the Body and Blood of the Lamb this can be understood only of the Sacrament which borrows the Name of the thing signifi'd the abuse whereof reflects on him that instituted it That the Authors of the ELEVENTH CENTURY did not believe Transubstantiation AGE xi THE Author of the Life
extra de summa Trinit fide Cathol C. firmiter Oredimus de Celebratione Missarum cap. cum Marta Albertus Magnus expounds the Eucharist by Transubstantiation but he saith salvo Meliori judicio which shews that he did not believe it as of Faith. Durandus of St. Porcien taught that the substance of Bread Remain'd but that the form was chang'd Durand in the 4. Sent. dist 10. q. 13. saith In 4. dist 11. Q. 3. That in his time there were Catholick Doctors which taught the Bread remain'd in the Eucharist and did prove it by the Confession which Berenger was forc'd to make affirming this opinion was not condemn'd Cornelius Bishop of Bitonte declared against Transubstantiation in the Council of Trent Canus Locor Theol. l. 12. c. 13. Dominicus Bannes taught Disp 49. Sect. 4. Disp 9. Sect. 8. that the Existence of Bread doth remain that so the Accidents of Bread and Wine may remain by this Existence At least Suarez and Mairat attribute this oppinion to him To all which if we add the Doctors that we have mention'd in our first Part that could not speak of Transubstantiation but as of a New Doctrine and which could not be proved by the Scriptures without intimating that they were not at all satisfied with it we shall see it plainly appears that we cannot apply to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation the Rule of Vincentius Lirrinensis which is offer'd to us by the Bishops of France The CONCLUSION WHerefore the Bishops are humbly desired That they would not continue to exercise so much rigor and severity against the Protestants of France who having yielded farther than they well could with a safe Conscience to obey the Kings Orders yet cannot in any wise resolve to make any profession of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation it appearing that they oppose it only for Conscience sake and as being contrary to the very Rule offered to them by the Bishops themselves If St. Austin could say Epist 162. That those ought not to be esteemed Hereticks that with an honest mind maintained the Errors of their Ancestors and are ready to relinquish them when they are better inform'd of the Truth how much greater Reason is there to bear with People who do shew by the very confession of Romish Catholick Doctors That the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is a new invention and by consequence that it ought not to be imposed as an Article of Faith by the very Rule laid down by the Bishops of France No reasonable person can find any question in matter of Religion whereto this Rule of St. Austin's can be more justly applied For if it he not observ'd in this controversy of Transubstantiation there will never be any thing found that it may be used in If then such Persons are not Hereticks for seeking the Truth and that they think 't is their duty to seek it that they are of the judgment of Catholick Doctors and that they observe the Rule prescribed by the Bishops it is no way safe to persecute them to that degree of violence to make them believe that which is contrary to the Rule which is laid down and therefore what is said by St. Austin on Psalm 54. should seriously be consider'd Plerumque cum tibi videris Odisse inimicum fratrum odisti nescis FINIS ADDENDA THese words in their place are also to be added The Gloss on the Canon hoc est in the 2. dist of the Consecrat The heavenly Sacrament which truly represents the flesh of Jesus Christ is called the Body of Christ but improperly and nevertheless it is so called after its manner not according to the truth of the thing but by a significant Mystery so that the meaning is 't is called the Body of Jesus Christ that is to say that the Body is thereby signified And also the Text of the Canon taken out of St. Austin De consec 2. c. 48. Sicut Caelestis panis qui Christi caro est suo modo vocatur Corpus Christi cum re vera sit Sacramentum Corporis Christi illius videlicet quod visibile palpabile mortale c. Books lately Printed for Richard Chiswell A Dissertation concerning the Government of the Ancient Church more particularly of the Encroachments of the Bishops of Rome upon other Sees By WILLIAM CAVE D. D. Octavo An Answer to Mr. Serjeant's Sure Footing in Christianity concerning the Rule of Faith With some other Discourses By WILLIAM FALKNER D. D. 4 to A Vindication of the Ordinations of the Church of England in Answer to a Paper written by one of the Church of Rome to prove the Nullity of our Orders By GILBERT BVRNET D. D. Octavo An Abridgment of the History of the Reformation of the Church of England By G. BVRNET D. D. Octavo The APOLOGY of the Church of England and an Epistle to one Signior Scipio a Venetian Gentleman concerning the Council of Trent Written 〈…〉 in Latin by the Right Reverend Father in God. JOHN JEWEL Lord 〈…〉 of Salisbury Made English by a Person of Quality To which is added The Life of the said Bishop Collected and written by the same Hand Octaâ—â— The Life of WILLIAM BEDEL D. D. Bishop of Kilmore in Ireland Together with Certain letters which passed betwixt him and James Waddesâ—â—â—◠〈◊〉 a late Pensioner of the Holy Inquisition of Sevil in Matter of Religion concerning the General Motives to the Roman Obedience Octavoâ— The Decree made at ROME the 2d of March 1679. condemning some Opinions of the Jesuits and other Casuists Quarto A Discourse concerning the Necessity of Reformation with respect to the Errors and Corruptions of the Church of Rome Quarto First and Second Parts A Discourse concerning the Celebration of Divine Service in an Unknown Tongue Quarto A Papist not Misrepresented by Protestants Being a Reply to the Reflections upon the Answer to A Papist Misrepresented and Represented Quarto An Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England in the several Articles proposed by the late Bishop of CONDOM in his Exposition of the Doctrine of the Catholick Church Quarto A Defence of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England against the Exceptions of Monsieur de Meaux late Bishop of Condom and his Vindicator Quarto A CATECHISM explaining the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome With an Answer thereunto By a Protestant of the Church of England 8vo A Papist Represented and not Misrepresented being an Answer to the First Second Fifth and Sixth Sheets of the Second Part of the Papist Misrepresented and Represented and for a further Vindication of the CATECHISM truly representing the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome Quarto The Lay-Christian's Obligation to read the Holy Scriptures Quarto The Plain Man's Reply to the Catholick Missionaries 24 o. An Answer to THREE PAPERS lately printed concerning the Authority of the Catholick Church in Matters of Faith and the Reformation of the Church of England Quarto A Vindication of the Answer to THREE PAPERS concerning the Unity and Authority of the Catholick Church and the Reformation of the Church of England Quarto