and real Presence of the Body and Bloud of Christ in the Sacrament that stout Roman Champion applies to his Transubstantiation and then crows over his Adversaries supposing that he hath utterly overthrown the Protestants cause whereas there is such a wide difference as may be called a great Gulf fixed betwixt the true or real Presence of Christ in the Lords Supper and the Transubstantiation of the Bread and Wine into his Body and Bloud This last is such a Prodigie as is neither taught by Scripture nor possible to be apprehended by faith it is repugnant to right reason and contrary to sense and is no where to be found in Ancient Writers But the other is agreeable to Scripture and to the Analogy of faith it is not against Reason although being spiritual it cannot be perceived by our bodily senses and it is back'd by the constant and unanimous Doctrine of the holy Fathers For it makes nothing against it that sometimes the same Fathers do speak of the Bread and Wine of the holy Eucharist as of the very Body and Bloud of Christ it being a manner of speech very proper and usual in speaking of Sacraments to give to the sign the name of the thing signified And however they explain themselves in other places when they frequently enough call the Sacramental Bread and Wine Types Symbols Figures and Signs of the Body and Bloud of Christ thereby declaring openly for us against the Maintainers of Transubstantiation For we may safely without any prejudice to our Tenet use those Expressions of the Ancients which the Papists think to be most favourable to them taking them in a Sacramental sense as they ought to be whereas the last mentioned that are against them none can use but by so doing he necessarily destroys the whole contrivance of Transubstantiation it being altogether inconsistent to say the Bread is substantially changed into the Body of Christ and the Bread is a Figure a Sign and a Representation of the Body of Christ For what hath lost its being can in no wise signifie or represent any other thing Neither was ever any thing said to represent and be the Figure and Sign of it self But this is more at large treated of in the Book it self Now having given an account of the occasion of writing and publishing this Discourse perhaps the Reader will expect that I should say something of its excellent Author But should I now undertake to speak but of the most memorable things that concern this great Man my thoughts would be overwhelmed with their multitude and I must be injurious both to him and my Readers being confined within the narrow limits of a Preface But what cannot be done here may be done somewhere else God willing This only I would not have the Reader to be ignorant of That this Learned man and as appears by this constant Professor and Defendor of the Protestant Religion was one of those who was most vehemently accused of Popery by the Presbyterians before the late Wars and for that reason bitterly persecuted by them and forced to forsake his Country whereby he secured himself from the violence of their Hands but not of their Tongues for still the good men kept up the noise of their clamorous Accusation even while he was writing this most substantial Treatise against Transubstantiation John Durel CHAP. I. 1. The Real that is true and not imaginary Presence of Christ in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is proved by Scripture 2 and 3. Yet this favours not the Tenet of Transubstantiation being it is not to be understood grosly and carnally but spiritually and Sacramentally 4. The nature and use of the Sacraments 5. By means of the Elements of Bread and Wine Christ himself is spiritually eaten by the Faithful in the Sacrament 6. The eating and presence being spiritual are not destructive of the truth and substance of the thing 7. The manner of Presence is unsearchable and ought not to be presumptuously defined 1. THose words which our blessed Saviour used in the institution of the Blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist This is my body which is given for you This is my bloud which is shed for you for the remission of sins are held and acknowledged by the Universal Church to be most true and infallible And if any one dares oppose them or call in question Christs Veracity or the truth of his words or refuse to yield his sincere assent to them except he be allowed to make a meer figment or a bare figure of them we cannot and ought not either excuse or suffer him in our Churches for we must embrace and hold for an undoubted truth whatever is taught by Divine Scripture And therefore we can as little doubt of what Christ saith Joh. 6. 55 My flesh is meat indeed and my bloud is drink indeed which according to St. Paul are both given to us by the consecrated Elements For he calls the Bread the Communion of Christs Body and the Cup the Communion of his bloud 2. Hence it is most evident that the Bread and Wine which according to St. Paul are the Elements of the holy Eucharist are neither changed as to their substance nor vanisht nor reduc'd to nothing but are solemnly consecrated by the words of Christ that by them his blessed body and bloud may be communicated to us 3. And further it appears from the same words that the expression of Christ and the Apostle is to be understood in a Sacramental and mystick sense and that no gross and carnal presence of body and bloud can be maintained by them 4. And though the word Sacrament be no where used in Scripture to signifie the blessed Eucharist yet the Christian Church ever since its Primitive ages hath given it that name and always called the presence of Christs body and bloud therein Mystick and Sacramental Now a Sacramental expression doth without any inconvenience give to the sign the name of the thing signified And such is as well the usual way of speaking as the nature of Sacraments that not only the names but even the properties and effects of what they represent and exhibite are given to the outward Elements Hence as I said before the Bread is as clearly as positively called by the Apostle the Communion of the body of Christ 5. This also seems very plain that our Blessed Saviour's design was not so much to teach what the Elements of Bread and Wine are by nature and substance as what is their use and office and signification in this Mystery For the body and bloud of our Saviour are not only fitly represented by the Elements but also by vertue of his institution really offered to all by them and so eaten by the faithful Mystically and Sacramentally whence it is that he truly is and abides in us and we in him 6. This is the spiritual and yet no less true and undoubted than if it were corporal eating of Christ's flesh not
indeed simply as it is flesh without any other respect for so it is not given neither would it profit us but as it is crucified and given for the redemption of the world neither doth it hinder the truth and substance of the thing that this eating of Christ's body is spiritual and that by it the souls of the Faithful and not their stomachs are fed by the operation of the Holy Ghost For this none can deny but they who being strangers to the Spirit and the divine vertue can savour only carnal things and to whom what is Spiritual and Sacramental is the same as if a meer nothing 7. As to the manner of the presence of the body and bloud of our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament we that are Protestant and Reformed according to the ancient Catholick Church do not search into the manner of it with perplexing inquiries but after the example of the primitive and purest Church of Christ we leave it to the power and wisdom of our Lord yielding a full and unfeined assent to his words Had the Romish maintainers of Transubstantiation done the same they would not have determined and decreed and then imposed as an Article of faith absolutely necessary to Salvation a manner of presence newly by them invented under pain of the most direful Curse and there would have been in the Church less wrangling and more peace and unity than now is CHAP. II. 1 2 and 3 c. The unanimous consent of all Protestants with the Church of England in maintaining a real that is true but not a carnal presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament proved by publick Confessions and the best of Authorities 1. SO then none of the Protestant Churches doubt of the real that is true and not imaginary Presence of Christ's body and bloud in the Sacrament and there appears no reason why any man should suspect their common Confession of either fraud or error as though in this particular they had in the least departed from the Catholick faith 2. For it is easie to produce the consent of Reformed Churches and Authors whereby it will clearly appear to them that are not wilfully blind that they all zealously maintain and profess this truth without forsaking in any wise the true Catholick Faith in this matter 3. I begin with the Church of England wherein they that are in holy Orders are bound by a Law and Canon Never to teach any thing to the people to be by them believed in matters of Religion but what agrees with the Doctrine of the Old and New Testament and what the Catholick Fathers and Ancient Prelates have gathered and inferred out of it Vnder pain of Excommunication if they transgress troubling the people with contrary Doctrine It teacheth therefore that in the Blessed Sacrament the body of Christ is given taken and eaten so that to the worthy Receivers the consecrated and broken bread is the communication of the body of Christ and likewise the consecrated Cup the communication of his bloud But that the wicked and they that approach unworthily the Sacrament of so sacred a thing eat and drink their own damnation in that they become guilty of the body and bloud of Christ And the same Church in a solemn Prayer before the consecration prays thus Grant us gracious Lord so to eat the flesh of thy dear SonJesus Christ and to drink his bloud that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his body and our souls washed through his most precious bloud and that we may evermore dwell in him and he in us The Priest also blessing or consecrating the Bread and Wine saith thus Hear us O merciful Father we most humbly beseech thee and grant that we receiving these thy Creatures of Bread and Wine according to thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ's holy institution in remembrance of his Death and Passion may be partakers of his most blessed body and bloud Who in the same night that he was betrayed took bread and when he had given thanks he brake it and gave it to his Disciples saying take eat this is my body which is given for you do this in remembrance of me Likewise after Supper he took the Cup and when he had given thinks he gave it to them saying drink ye all of this for this is my bloud of the New Testament which is shed for you and for many for the remission of sins Do this as oft as ye shall drink it in remembrance of me The same when he gives the Sacrament to the people kneeling giving the bread saith The body of our Lord Jesus Christ which was given for thee preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life Likewise when he gives the Cup he saith The bloud of our Lord Jesus Christ which was shed for thee preserve thy body and soul to everlasting life Afterwards when the Communion is done follows a thanksgiving Almighty and ever living God we most heartily thank thee for that thou dost vouchsafe to feed us who have duly received these holy Mysteries with the spiritual food of the most precious body and bloud of thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ With the Hymn Glory be to God on high c. Also in the publick Authorized Catechism of our Church appointed to be learned of all it is answered to the question concerning the inward part of the Sacrament that it is the body and bloud of Christ which are verily and indeed taken and received by the Faithful in the Lords Supper And in the Apology for this Church writ by that worthy and Reverend Prelate Jewel Bishop of Salisbury it is expresly affirmed That to the faithful is truly given in the Sacrament the body and bloud of our Lord the life-giving flesh of the Son of God which quickens our souls the bread that came from heaven the food of immortality grace and truth and life And that it is the Communion of the body and bloud of Christ that we may abide in him and he in us and that we may be ascertained that the flesh and bloud of Christ is the food of our souls as bread and wine is of our bodies 4. A while before the writing of this Apology came forth the Dialectick of the famous Dr. Poinet Bishop of Winchester concerning the truth nature and substance of the body and bloud of Christ in the blessed Sacrament writ on purpose to explain and manifest the Faith and Doctrine of the Church of England in that point In the first place it shews that the holy Eucharist is not only the figure but also contains in it self the truth nature and substance of the body of our blessed Saviour and that those words nature and substance ought not to be rejected because the Fathers used them in speaking of that Mystery Secondly He inquires whether those expressions truth nature and substance were used in this Mystery by the Ancients in their common acceptation or in a sense more particular
the condition use and office of the Bread is wholly changed that is of common and ordinary it becomes our Mystical and Sacramental food whereby as they affirm and believe the true Body of Christ is not only shadowed and figured but also given indeed and by worthy Communicants truly received Yet they believe not that the bread loseth its own to become the substance of the Body of Christ for the holy Scripture and the ancient Interpreters thereof for many ages never taught such an Essential change and conversion as that the very substance the matter and form of the Bread should be wholly taken away but only a mysterious and Sacramental one whereby our Ordinary is changed into Mystick bread and thereby designed and appointed to another use end and office than before This change whereby supernatural effects are wrought by things natural while their Essence is preserved entire doth best agree with the grace and power of God 2. There is no reason why we should dispute concerning Gods Omnipotency whether it can do this or that presuming to measure an infinite power by our poor ability which is but weakness We may grant that he is able to do beyond what we can think or apprehend and resolve his most wonderful acts into his absolute will and power but we may not charge him with working contradictions And though Gods Almightiness were able in this Mystery to destroy the substance of Bread and Wine and essentially to change it into the Body and Bloud of Christ while the accidents of Bread and Wine subsist of themselves without a subject yet we desire to have it proved that God will have it so and that it is so indeed For that God doth it because he can is no Argument and that he wills it we have no other proof but the confident Assertion of our Adversaries Tertullian against Praxias declared That we should not conclude God doth things because he is able but that we should enquire what he hath done For God will never own that praise of his Omnipotency whereby his unchangeableness and his truth are impaired and those things overthrown and destroy'd which in his word he affirms to be for take away the Bread and Wine and there remains no Sacrament 3. They that say that the matter and form of the Bread are wholly abolished yet will have the accidents to remain But if the substance of the Bread be changed into the substance of Christs Body by vertue of his words what hinders that the accidents of the Bread are not also changed into the accidents of Christs Body They that urge the express Letter should shew that Christ said This is the substance of my Body without its accidents But he did not say That he gave his Disciples a Phantastick Body such a visionary figment as Marcion believed but that very Body which was given for us without being deprived of that extention and other accidents of humane bodies without which it could not have been crucified since the Maintainers of Transubstantiation grant that the Body of Christ keeps its quantity in Heaven and say it is without the same in the Sacrament they must either acknowledge their contradiction in the matter or give over their opinion 4. Protestants dare not be so curious or presume to know more than is delivered by Scripture and Antiquity they firmly believing the words of Christ make the form of this Sacrament to consist in the Union of the thing signified with the sign that is the exhibition of the Body of Christ with the consecrated bread still remaining bread by divine appointment these two are made one and though this Union be not natural substantial personal or local by their being one within another yet it is so straight and so true that in eating the blessed Bread the true body of Christ is given to us and the names of the sign and thing signified are reciprocally changed what is proper to the body is attributed to the bread and what belongs only to the bread is affirmed of the body and both are united in time though not in place For the presence of Christ in this Mystery is not opposed to distance but to absence which only could deprive us of the benefit and fruition of the object 5. From what hath been said it appears that this whole controversie may be reduced to four Heads 1. Concerning the Signs 2. Concerning the thing signified 3. Concerning the Union of both and 4. Concerning their participation As for the first The Protestants differ from the Papists in this that according to the nature of Sacraments and the Doctrine of holy Scripture we make the substance of Bread and Wine and they accidents only to be signs In the second they not understanding our opinion do misrepresent it for we do not hold as they say we do that only the merits of the Death of Christ are represented by the blessed Elements but also that his very Body which was crucified and his Bloud which was shed for us are truly signified and offered that our Souls may receive and possess Christ as truly and certainly as the material and visible signs are by us seen and received And so in the third place because the thing signified is offered and given to us as truly as the sign it self in this respect we own the Union betwixt the Body and bloud of Christ and the Elements whose use and office we hold to be changed from what it was before But we deny what the Papists affirm that the substance of Bread and Wine are quite abolished and changed into the Body and Bloud of our Lord in such sort that the bare accidents of the Elements do alone remain united with Christs Body and Bloud And we also deny that the Elements still retain the nature of Sacraments when not used according to divine institution that is given by Christs Ministers and received by his People so that Christ in the consecrated bread ought not cannot be kept and preserved to be carried about because he is present only to the Communicants As for the fourth and last point we do not say that in the Lords Supper we receive only the benefits of Christs Death and Passion but we joyn the ground with its fruits that is Christ with those advantages we receive from him affirming with St. Paul That the bread which we break is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Communion of the body of Christ and the Cup which we bless the Communion of his bloud of that very substance which he took of the blessed Virgin and afterwards carried into heaven differing from those of Rome only in this that they will have our Union with Christ to be corporal and our eating of him likewise and we on the contrary maintain it to be indeed as true but not carnal or natural And as he that receives unworthily that is with the mouth only but not with a faithful heart eats and drinks his own damnation so he that doth it
Sacramental figure no more can the Bread be the Body of Christ but in the same sense 5. As to what Bellarmine and others say That it is not possible the words of Christ can be true but by that conversion which the Church of Rome calls Transubstantiation that is so far from being so that if it were admitted it would first deny the Divine Omnipotency as though God were not able to make the Body of Christ present and truly to give it in the Sacrament whilst the substance of the Bread remains 2. It would be inconsistent with the Divine Benediction which preserves things in their proper being 3. It would be contrary to the true nature of a Sacrament which always consisteth of two parts And lastly It would in some manner destroy the true substance of the Body and Bloud of Christ which cannot be said to be made of Bread and Wine by a Priest without a most high presumption But the truth of the words of Christ remains constant and can be defended without overthrowing so many other great truths Suppose a Testator puts Deeds and Titles in the hand of his Heir with these words Take the House which I bequeath thee There is no man will think that those Writings and Parchments are that very House which is made of Wood or Stones and yet no man will say that the Testator spake falsly or obscurely Likewise our blessed Saviour having sanctified the Elements by his words and prayers gave them to his Disciples as Seals of the New Testament whereby they were as certainly secured of those rich and precious Legacies which he left to them as Children are of their Fathers Lands and Inheritance by Deeds and Instruments signed and delivered for that purpose 6. To the Sacred Records we may add the judgment of the Primitive Church For those Orthodox and holy Doctors of our holier Religion those great Lights of the Catholick Church do all clearly constantly and unanimously conspire in this That the presence of the Body of Christ in the Sacrament is only mystick and spiritual As for the entire annihilation of the substance of the Bread and the Wine or that new and strange Tenet of Transubstantiation they did not so much as hear or speak any thing of it Nay the constant stream of their Doctrine doth clearly run against it how great soever are the brags and pretences of the Papists to the contrary And if you will hear them one by one I shall bring some of their most noted passages only that our labour may not be endless by rehearsing all that they have said to our purpose on this subject 7. I shall begin with that holy and ancient Doctor Justin Martyr who is one of the first after the Apostles times whose undoubted Writings are come to us What was believed at Rome and elsewhere in his time concerning this holy mystery may well be understood out of these his words After that the Bishop hath prayed and blessed and the people said Amen those whom we call Deacons or Ministers give to every one of them that are present a portion of the Bread and Wine and that food we call the Eucharist for we do not receive it as ordinary Bread and Wine They received it as bread yet not as common bread And a little after By this food digested our flesh and bloud are fed and we are taught that it is the Body and Bloud of Jesus Christ Therefore the substance of the Bread remains and remains corruptible food even after the Consecration which can in no wise be said of the immortal Body of Christ For the flesh of Christ is not turned into our flesh neither doth it nourish it as doth that food which is Sacramentally called the Flesh of Christ But the Flesh of Christ feeds our souls unto eternal life 8. After the same manner it is written by that holy Martyr Irenaeus Bishop much about the same time The bread which is from the earth is no more common bread after the invocation of God upon it but is become the Eucharist consisting of two parts the one earthly and the other heavenly There would be nothing earthly if the substance of the bread were removed Again As the grain of wheat falling in the ground and dying riseth again much increased and then receiving the word of God becomes the Eucharist which is the Body and Bloud of Christ So likewise our bodies nourished by it laid in the ground and dissolved shall rise again in their time Again We are fed by the Creature but it is he himself that gives it he hath ordained and appointed that Cup which is a Creature and his Bloud also and that Bread which is a Creature and also his Body And so when the Bread and the Cup are blessed by Gods Word they become the Eucharist of the Body and Bloud of Christ and from them our bodies receive nourishment and increase Now that our flesh is fed and encreased by the natural body of Christ cannot be said without great impiety by themselves that hold Transubstantiation For naturally nothing nourisheth our bodies but what is made flesh and bloud by the last digestion which it would be blasphemous to say of the incorruptible body of Christ Yet the sacred Elements which in some manner are and are said to be the body and bloud of Christ yield nourishment and encrease to our bodies by their earthly nature in such sort that by vertue also of the heavenly and spiritual food which the faithful receive by means of the material our bodies are fitted for a blessed Resurrection to immortal glory 9. Tertullian who flourished about the two hundredth year after Christ when as yet he was Catholick and acted by a pious zeal wrote against Marcion the Heretick who amongst his other impious opinions taught that Christ had not taken of the Virgin Mary the very nature and substance of a humane body but only the outward forms and appearances out of which Fountain the Romish Transubstantiators seem to have drawn their Doctrine of accidents abstracted from their subject hanging in the air that is subsisting on nothing Tertullian disputing against this wicked Heresie draws an Argument from the Sacrament of the Eucharist to prove that Christ had not a Phantastick and imaginary but a true and natural body thus The figure of the Body of Christ proves it to be natural for there can be no figure of a Ghost or a Phantasm But saith he Christ having taken the Bread and given it to his Disciples made it his Body by saying This is my Body that is the figure of my Body Now it could not have been a figure except the body were real for a meer appearance an imaginary Phantasm is not capable of a figure Each part of this Argument is true and contains a necessary Conclusion For 1. The bread must remain bread otherwise Marcion would have returned the Argument against Tertullian saying as the
sensible things are called by the name of those spiritual things which they seal and signifie But he speaks more plainly in his Epistle to Caesarius where he teacheth that in this Mystery there is not in the bread a substantial but a Sacramental change according to the which the outward Elements take the name of what they represent and are changed in such a sort that they still retain their former natural substance The bread saith he is made worthy to be honoured with the name of the Flesh of Christ by the consecration of the Priest yet the Flesh retains the proprieties of its incorruptible nature as the bread doth its natural substance Before the bread be sanctified we call it bread but when it is consecrated by the divine grace it deserves to be called the Lords Body though the substance of the bread still remains When Bellarmine could not answer this testimony of that Great Doctor he thought it enough to deny that this Epistle is St. Chrysostoms but both he and Possevin do vainly contend that it is not extant among the works of Chrysostom For besides that at Florence and else where it was to be found among them it is cited in the Collections against the Severians which are in the version of Turrianus the Jesuit in the fourth Tome of Antiq. lectionum of Henry Canisius and in the end of the book of Joh. Damascenus against the Acephali I bring another Testimony out of the imperfect work on St. Matthew written either by St. Chrysostome or some other ancient Author a Book in this at least very Orthodox and not corrupted by the Arrians In these sanctified vessels saith he the true body of Christ is not contained but the Mystery of his Body 19. Which also hath been said by St. Austin above a thousand times but out of so many almost numberless places I shall chuse only three which are as the sum of all the rest You are not to eat this Body which you see nor drink this Bloud which my Crucifiers shall shed I have left you a Sacrament which spiritually understood will vivisie you Thus St. Austin rehearsing the words of Christ again If Sacraments had not some resemblance with those things whereof they are Sacraments they could not be Sacraments at all From this resemblance they often take the names of what they represent Therefore as the Sacrament of Christs body is in some sort his body so the Sacrament of Faith is faith also To the same sense is what he writes against Maximinus the Arrian We mind in the Sacraments not what they are but what they shew for they are signs which are one thing and signifie another And in another place speaking of the Bread and Wine Let no man look to what they are but to what they signifie for our Lord was pleased to say this is my Body when he gave the sign of his body This passage of St. Austin is so clear that it admits of no evasion nor no denial For if the Sacraments are one thing and signifie another then they are not so changed into what they signifie as that after that change they should be no more what they were The water is changed in baptism as the Bread and Wine in the Lords Supper but all that is changed is not presently abolished or Transubstantiated For as the water remains entire in Baptism so do the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist 20. St. Prosper Orthodox in all things who lived almost in the time of Austin teacheth That the Eucharist consisteth of two things the visible appearance of the Elements and the invisible Flesh and Bloud of our Saviour Christ that is the Sacrament and the grace of the Sacrament as the person of Christ is both God and Man Who but the infamous Heretick Eutyches would say that Christ as God was substantially changed into man or as man into God 21. Upon this subject nothing can be more clear than this of Theodor. whence we learn what the Primitive Church believes in this matter Our Saviour in the Institution of the Eucharist changed the names of things giving to his body the name of its Sacrament and to the Sacrament the name of his Body Now this was done for this reason as he saith that they that are partakers of the Divine Mysteries might not mind the nature of what they see but by the change of names might believe that change which is wrought by Grace For he that called what by nature is his body Wheat and Bread he also honoured the Elements and Signs with the names of his Body and Bloud not changing what is natural but adding Grace to it He therefore teacheth that such an alteration is wrought in the Elements that still their nature and substance continues as he explains more plainly afterwards For when the Heretick that stands for Eutichius had said As the Sacrament of the Lords Body and Bloud are one thing before the Prayer of the Priest and afterwards being changed become another so also the Body of our Lord after his ascention is changed into the divine substance and nature according to the Tenet of the Transubstantiator this Eutychian Argument is irrefragable but Catholick Antiquity answers it thus Thou are entangled in the nets of thine own knitting for the Elements or Mystick signs depart not from their nature after Consecration but remain in their former substance form and kind and can be seen and toucht as much as before and yet withal we understand also what they become now they are changed Compare therefore the Copy with the Original and thou shalt see their likeness For a figure must answer to the truth That body hath the same form and fills the same space as before and in a word is the same substance but after its resurrection it is become immortal c. All this and much more is taught by Theodoret who assisted at the universal Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon It is an idle exception which is made by some in the Church of Rome as though by the nature and substance of the Elements which are said to remain Theodoret had understood the nature and substance of the accidents as Cardinal Bellarmine is pleased to speak most absurdly but the whole context doth strongly refute this gloss for Theodoret joyns together nature substance form and figure and indeed what Answer could they have given to the Eutychian Argument if the substance of the bread being annihilated after the Consecration the accidents only remain Or did Christ say concerning the accidents of the Bread and Wine these accidents are or this accident is my body But though we have not that liberty yet the Inventors of Transubstantiation may when they please make a Creator of a Creature substances of accidents accidents of substances and any thing out of any thing But sure they are too immodest and uncharitable who to elude the authority of so
famous and so worthy a Father as Theodoret alledge that he was accused of some errours in the Council of Ephesus though he repented afterwards as they themselves are forced to confess Fain would they if they could get out at this door when they cannot deny that he affirmed that the Elements remain in their natural substance as he wrote in the Dialogues which he composed against the Eutychian Hereticks with the applause and approbation of the Catholick Church And indeed the evidence of this truth hath compelled some of our Adversaries to yield that Theodoret is of our side For in the Epistle before the Dialogues of Theodoret in the Roman Edition set forth by Stephan Nicolinus the Popes Printer in the year 1547 it is plainly set down That in what concern'd Transubstantiation his opinion was not very sound but that he was to be excused because the Church of Rome had made no decree about it 22. With Theodoret we may joyn Gelasius who whether he were Bishop of Rome or no as Bellarmine confesseth was of the same age and opinion as he and therefore a witness ancient and credible enough He wrote against Eutyches and Nestorius concerning the two natures in Christ in this manner Doubtless the Sacrament of the Body and Bloud of Christ which we receive is a very divine thing whereby we are made partakers of the divine nature and yet it doth not cease to be Bread and Wine by substance and nature And indeed the image and resemblance of the Body and Bloud of Christ is celebrated in this mysterious action By this therefore we see manifestly enough that we must believe that to be in Christ which we believe to be in his Sacrament that as by the perfecting vertue of the Holy Ghost it becomes a divine substance and yet remains in the propriety of its nature so this great Mystery the Incarnation of whose power and efficacy this is a lively image doth demonstrate that there is one intire and true Christ consisting of two natures which yet properly remain unchanged It doth plainly appear out of these words that the change wrought in the Sacrament is not substantial for first the sanctified Elements are so made the Body and Bloud of Christ that still they continue to be by nature Bread and Wine Secondly The Bread and Wine retain their natural properties as also the two natures in Christ Lastly The Elements are said to become a divine substance because while we receive them we are made partakers of the Divine Nature by the Body and Bloud of Christ which are given to us These things being so their blindness is to be deplored who see not that they bring again into the Church of Rome the same Error which Antiquity piously and learnedly condemned in the Eutychians And as for their thread-bare objection to this That by the substance of Bread and wine the true substance it self is not to be understood but only the nature and essence of the accidents it is a very strange and very poor shift There is a great deal more of commendation due to the ingenuity of Cardinal Contarenus who yielding to the evidence of truth answered nothing to this plain Testimony of Gelasius 23. Now I add Cyril of Alexandria who said That the Body and Bloud of Christ in the Sacrament are received only by a pure faith as we read in that Epistle against Nestorius which six hundred Fathers approved and confirmed in the Council of Chalcedon I omit to mention the other Fathers of this Age though many things in their Writings be as contrary to Transubstantiation and the independency of accidents as any I have hitherto cited 24. I come now to the Sixth Century about the middle whereof Ephrem Patriarch of Antioch wrote a Book which was read and commended by Photius concerning sacred Constitutions and Ceremonies against the Eutychians therein that he might prove the Hypostatical Union that in Christ there is no confusion of natures but that each retains its own substance and properties he brings the comparison of the Sacramental Union and denies that there should be any conversion of one substance into another in the Sacrament No man saith he that hath any reason will say that the nature of the palpable and impalpable and the nature of the visible and invisible is the same For so the Body of Christ which is received by the faithful remains in its own substance and yet withal is united to a spiritual grace and so Baptism though it becomes wholly spiritual yet it loseth not the sensible property of its substance that 's water neither doth it cease to be what it was made by grace 25. It is not very long since the works of Facundus an African Bishop were Printed at Paris but he lived in the same Century Now what his Doctrine was against Transubstantiation as also of the Church in his time is plainly to be seen by those words of his which I here transcribe The Sacrament of Adoption may be called Adoption as the Sacrament of the Body and Bloud of Christ consecrated in the Bread and Wine is said to be his Body and Bloud not that his Body be Bread or his Bloud Wine but because the Bread and Wine are the Sacrament of his Body and Bloud and therefore so called by Christ when he gave them to his Disciples Sirmondus the Jesuit hath writ Annotations on Facundus but when he came to this place he had nothing to say but that the Bread is no Bread but only the likeness and appearance of Bread An opinion so unlike that of Facundus that it should not have been Fathered upon him by a learned and ingenuous man as Sirmondus would be thought to be For he cannot so much as produce any one of the ancient Fathers that ever made mention of accidents subsisting without a subject called by him the appearances of Bread And as for his thinking That some would take the expressions of Facundus to be somewhat uncouth and obscure how unjust and injurious it is to that learned Father may easily be observed by any 26. Isidore Bishop of Hispal about the begining of the Seventh Century wrote thus concerning the Sacrament Because the bread strengthens our body therefore it is called the Body of Christ and because the Wine is made bloud therefore the Bloud of Christ is expressed by it Now these two are visible but yet being sanctified by the Holy Spirit they become the Sacraments of the Lords Body For the Bread which we break is the Body of Christ who said I am the Bread of life and the Wine is his Bloud as it is written I am the true Vine Behold saith he they become a Sacrament not the substance of the Lords Body for the Bread and Wine which feed our Flesh cannot be substantially nor be said to be the Body and Bloud of Christ but Sacramentally they are so as certainly as that they are
so called But this he declares yet more clearly Lib. 6. Etymol cap. 19. For as the visible substance of Bread and Wine nourish the outward man so the Word of Christ who is the bread of Life refresheth the souls of the faithful being received by Faith These words were recorded and preserved by Bertram the Priest when as in the Editions of Isidore they are now left out 27. And the same kind of expressions as those of Isidorus were also used by Venerable Bede our Country-man who lived in the Eighth Century In his Sermon upon the Epiphany of whom we also take these two testimonies following In the room of the flesh and bloud of the Lamb Christ substituted the Sacrament of his Body and Bloud in the figure of Bread and Wine Also At Supper he gave to his Disciples the figure of his holy Body and Bloud These utterly destroy Transubstantiation 28. In the same Century Charles the Great wrote an Epistle to our Alcuinus wherein we find these words Christ at Supper broke the bread to his Disciples and likewise gave them the Cup in figure of his Body and Bloud and so left to us this great Sacrament for our benefit If it was the figure of his body it could not be the Body it self Indeed the Body of Christ is given in the Eucharist but to the faithful only and that by means of the Sacrament of the Consecrated bread 29. But now about the beginning of the Ninth Century started up Paschafius a Monk of Corbie who first as some say whose Judgment I follow not among the Latines taught that Christ was Consubstantiated or rather inclosed in the Bread corporally united to it in the Sacrament for as yet there was no thoughts of the Transubstantiation of Bread But these new sorts of expressions not agreeing with the Catholick Doctrine and the Writings of the ancient Fathers had few or no Abettors before the Eleventh Century And in the Ninth whereof we now treat there were not wanting learned men as Amalarius Archdeacon of Triars Rabanus at first Abbot of Fulda and afterwards Archbishop of Ments John Erigena an English Divine Walafridus Strabo a German Abbot Ratramus or Bertramus first Priest of Corbie afterwards Abbot of Orbec in France and many more who by their Writings opposed this new Opinion of Pascasius or of some others rather and delivered to Posterity the Doctrine of the Ancient Church Yet we have something more to say concerning Paschasius 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 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 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 Sacraments These things writ Amalarius according to the Expressions of St. Austin and the Doctrine of the purest Church 31. Rabanus Maurus 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
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 appearance that is the accidents of the Bread and Wine Though they confess that then Bertram knew nothing of those accidents subsisting without 〈◊〉 substance and many other things which thi◠latter age hath added out of the Scriptures wit◠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 i◠their Index expurgat Let the whole Epistle say they of Udalricus Bishop of Ausburg be blotted out cencerning the single life of the Clergy 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 to intercept publick Records and fear the Testimoy of the Truth For as for that which Sixtus Senensis and Possevin affirm 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 collected by Herigerus Abbas Lobiensis we have also an ancient Easter Homily in Saxon English 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 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 consecrate◠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 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 Clemens Romanus commended by the Papists themselves and those of St. Ignatius Bishop of Antioch and Martyr are much against Transubstantiation In the Second likewise St. Theophilus fourth Bishop of Antioch after Ignatius Athenagoras and Tatianus Scholars to Justin Martyr In the Third Clemens Alexandrinus Tutor to Origen and Minutius Felix a Christian Orator In the Fourth Eusebius Bishop of Cesarea Juvencus a Spanish Priest Macarius Egyptius St. Hilary Bishop of Poictiers Optatus Bishop of Milevis Eusebius Emissenus Gregorius Nazianzenus Cyrillus Alexandrinus Epiphanius Salaminensis St. Hierom Theophilus Alexandrinus and Gaudentius Bishop of Brixia In the Fifth Sedulius a Scotch Priest Gennadius Massiliensis and Faustus Bishop of Regium In the Sixth Fulgentius Africanus Victor Antiochenus Primasius Bishop and Procopius Gazeus In the Seventh Hesychius Priest in Jerusalem and Maximus Abbot of Constantinople In the Eighth Johannes Damascenus In the Ninth Nicephorus the Patriarch and Hincmarus Archbishop of Rhemes Lastly in the Tenth Fulbert Bishop of Chartres And to compleat all to these single Fathers we may add whole Councils of them as that of Ancyra of Neocesarea and besides the first of Nice which I have mentioned that of Laodicea of Carthage of Orleans the fourth of Toledo that of Bracara the sixteenth of Toledo and that of 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
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 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 John Garetius of Lovain 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 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 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 Sigibert William of Malmesbury Matthew Paris and 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 writ and disputed in its defence by 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 Ninth a plain man indeed but too much led by Humbert and Hildebrand For as soon as he was desired 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 were condemned upon this account that they should say that the Bread and Wine in the 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 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 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 are 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 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 to obey the Popes Mandate Berengarius came also And as Sigonius and Leo Ostiensis say when none present could withstand him they sent for one Albericus a Monk of Mont Cassin made Cardinal by 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 to recant in that form prescribed and appointed by Cardinal Humbert which was thus I Berengarius c. assent to the holy Roman and Apostolick See and with my 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 Saerament 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 him 10. This form of Recantation is to be found entire in Lanfrank Algerus and Gracian yet the Glosser on Gratian 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 for he exceeded the truth and spake hyperbolically And so Richard de Mediavilla Berengarius being accused 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 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 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 Whether what we receive at the Lords Table be indeed the Body of Christ by a substantial conversion But three months space having been granted to Berengarius and a Fast appointed to the Cardinals 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 at last the business was decided without any Oracle from above and a new form of retractation imposed on Berengarius whereby he was henceforth forward to confess under pain of the Popes high displeasure that the Mystick Bread first made Magical and enchanting by Hildebrana is substantially turned into the true and proper Flesh of Christ which whether he ever did is not certain For though Malmesbury tells us that he died in that Roman Faith yet there are ancienter than he who 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 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 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 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 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 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
and proper to the Sacraments Because we must not only observe what words they used but also what they meant to signifie and to teach by them And though with the Fathers he acknowledged a difference betwixt the body of Christ in its natural form of a humane body and that Mystick body present in the Sacrament yet he chose rather to put that difference in the manner of presence and exhibition than in the subject it self that is the real body and bloud of our Saviour being it is most certain that no other body is given to the faithful in the Sacrament than that which was by Christ given to death for their Redemption Lastly he affirms according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers that this matter must be understood in a spiritual sense banishing all grosser and more carnal thoughts 5. To Bishop Poinet succeeded in the same See the right Reverend Doctors T. Bilson and L. Andrews Prelates both of them throughly learned and great defenders of the Primitive Faith who made it most evident by their Printed Writings that the Faith and Doctrine of the Church of England is in all things agreeable to the holy Scriptures and the Divinity of the Ancient Fathers And as to what regards this Mystery the first treats of it in his Answer to the Apology of Cardinal Alan and the last in his Answer to the Apology of Cardinal Bellarmine where you may find things worthy to be read and noted as follows Christ said this is my body in this the object we are agreed with you the manner only is controverted We hold by a firm belief that it is the body of Christ of the manner how it comes to be so there is not a word in the Gospel and because the Scripture is silent in this we justly disown it to be a matter of Faith We may indeed rank it among Tenets of the School but by no means among the Articles of our Christian Belief We like well of what Durandus is reported to have said We hear the Word and feel the motion we know not the manner and yet believe the Presence For we believe a Real Presence no less than you do We dare not be so bold as presumptuously to define any thing concerning the manner of a true Presence or rather we do not so much as trouble our selves with being inquisitive about it no more than in Baptism how the bloud of Christ washeth us or in the Incarnation of our Redeemer how the Divine and Humane Nature were united together We put it in the number of sacred things or Sacrifices the Eucharist it self being a Sacred Mystery whereof the remnants ought to be consumed with fire that is as the Fathers elegantly have it ador'd by faith but not searcht by reason 6. To the same sense speaks Is Causabon in the Epistle he wrote by order from King James to Cardinal Perron so doth also Hooker in his Ecclesiastical Polity Book 5. § 67. John Bishop of Rochester in his Book of the Power of the Pope R. Mountague Bishop of Norwich against Bullinger James Primate of Armach in his Answer to the Irish Jesuit Francis Bishop of Eli and William Laud Archbishop of Canterbury in their Answer to Fisher John Overall Bishop of Norwich and many others in the Church of England who never departed from the Faith and Doctrine of the ancient Catholick Fathers which is by Law established and with great care and veneration received and preserved in our Church 7. To these also we may justly add that famous Prelate Antonius de Domino Archbishop of Spalato a man well versed in the Sacred Writings and the Records of Antiquity who having left Italy when he could no longer remain in it either with quiet or safety by the advice of his intimate Friend Paulus Venetus took Sanctuary under the protection of King James of blessed memory in the bosome of the Church of England which he did faithfully follow in all Points and Articles of Religion But being daily vex'd with many affronts and injuries and wearied by the unjust persecutions of some sour and over-rigid men who bitterly declaimed every where against his life and actions he at last resolved to return into Italy with a safe conduct Before he departed he was by order from the King questioned by some Commissionated Bishops what he thought of the Religion and Church of England which for so many years he had owned and obeyed and what he would say of it in the Roman Court to this Query he gave in writing this memorable answer I am resolved even with the danger of my life to profess before the Pope himself that the Church of England is a true and Orthodox Church of Christ This he not only promised but faithfully performed for though soon after his departure there came a Book out of the Low Countries falsly bearing his name by whose title many were deceived even among the English and thereby moved to tax him with Apostacy and of being another Eubolius yet when he came to Rome where he was most kindly entertained in the Palace of Pope Gregory the Fifteenth who formerly had been his Fellow-student he could never be perswaded by the Jesuits and others who daily thronged upon him neither to subscribe the new-devised-Tenets of the Council of Trent or to retract those Orthodox Books which he had Printed in England and Germany or to renounce the Communion of the Church of England in whose defence he constantly persisted to the very last But presently after the decease of Pope Gregory he was imprisoned by the Jesuits and Inquisitors in Castle St. Angelo where by being barbarously used and almost starved he soon got a mortal sickness and died in a few days though not without suspicion of being poysoned The day following his Corps was by the sentence of the Inquisition tyed to an infamous stake and there burnt to ashes for no other reason but that he refused to make abjuration of the Religion of the Church of England and subscribe some of the lately-made-Decrees of Trent which were prest upon him as Canons of the Catholick Faith I have taken occasion to insert this narration perhaps not known to many to make it appear that this Reverend Prelate who did great service to the Church of God may justly as I said before be reckoned amongst the Writers of the Church of England Let us hear therefore what he taught and writ when he was in England in his Books de Repâ—b 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