worthily receives his Absolution and Justification that is he that discerns and then receives the Lords Body as torn and his Bloud as shed for the redemption of the world But that Christ as the Papists affirm should give his flesh and bloud to be received with the mouth and ground with the teeth so that not only the most wicked and Infidels but even Rats and Mice should swallow him down this our words and our hearts do utterly deny 6. So then to sum up this Controversie by applying to it all that hath been said It is not questioned whether the Body of Christ be absent from the Sacrament duly administred according to his Institution which we Protestants neither affirm nor believe For it being given and received in the Communion it must needs be that it is present though in some manner veiled under the Sacrament so that of it self it cannot be seen Neither is it doubted or disputed whether the Bread and Wine by the power of God and a supernatural vertue be set apart and fitted for a much nobler use and raised to a higher dignity than their nature bears for we confess the necessity of a supernatural and heavenly change and that the signs cannot become Sacraments but by the infinite power of God whose proper right it is to institute Sacraments in his Church being able alone to endue them with vertue and efficacy Finally we do not say that our blessed Saviour gave only the figure and sign of his body neither do we deny a Sacramental Union of the Body and Bloud of Christ with the sacred Bread and Wine so that both are really and substantially received together But that we may avoid all ambiguity we deny that after the words and prayer of Consecration the bread should remain bread no longer but should be changed into the substance of the Body of Christ nothing of the Bread but only the accidents continuing to be what they were before And so the whole question is concerning the Transubstantiation of the outward Elements whether the substance of the Bread be turned into the substance of Christs Body and the substance of the Wine into the substance of his Bloud or as the Romish Doctors describe their Transubstantiation whether the substance of Bread and Wine doth utterly perish and the substance of Christs Body and Bloud succeed in their place which are both denied by Protestants 7. The Church of Rome sings on Corpus Christi-day This is not bread but God and man my Saviour And the Council of Trent doth thus define it Because Christ our Redeemer said truly that that was his Body which he gave in the appearance of bread therefore it was ever believed by the Church of God and is now declared by this sacred Synod that by the power of Consecration the whole substance of the bread is changed into the substance of Christs Body and the whole substance of the Wine into the substance of his Bloud which change is fitly and properly called Transubstantiation by the holy Catholick Roman Church Therefore if any one shall say That the substance of Bread and Wine remains with the Body and Bloud of our Saviour Jesus Christ and shall deny that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the Bread and Wine into the substance of the Body and Bloud of Christ the only appearance and outward form of the Bread and Wine remaining which conversion the Catholick Roman Church doth fitly call Transubstantiation let him be accursed The Pope confirming this Council defines it after the same manner imposeth an Oath and Declaration to the same purpose and so makes it one of the new Articles of the Roman Faith in the form and under the penalty following I. N. do profess and firmly believe all and every the singulars contained in the Confession of Faith allowed by the holy Church of Rome viz. I believe in one God c. I also profess that the Body and Bloud with the Soul and Godhead of our Saviour Jesus Christ are truly really and substantially in the Mass and in the Sacrament of the Eucharist and that there is a conversion of the whole substance of the Bread into the Body and of the whole substance of the Wine into the Bloud of Christ which conversion the Roman Catholick Church calls Transubstantiation I fully embrace all things defined declared and delivered by the holy Council of Trent and withall I do reject condemn and accurse all things by it accurs'd condemned or rejected I do confidently believe that this Faith which I now willingly profess is the true Catholick Faith without the which it is impossible to be saved and I do promise vow and swear that I will constantly keep it whole and undefiled to my very last breath So help me God and these Holy Gospels Afterwards he bravely concludes this Decree with this Commination Let no man therefore dare to attempt the breaking of this our Deed and Injunction or be so desperate as to oppose it And if any one presumes upon such an attempt let him know that he thereby incurs the wrath of Almighty God and of his blessed Apostles Peter and Paul Given at Rome in St. Peters Church the Thirteenth of November in the year of our Lord 1564. the fifth of our Pontificat Which is as much as to say That he had received this his Roman Faith from Pope Innocent the Third who first decided and imposed this Doctrine of the Transubstantiation of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Bloud of Christ and made it an Article of Faith adding this new-devised Thirteenth to the ancient Twelve Articles for so we find it published in his Decretal propounded to the Assembly at Lateran in 1215. and proclaimed afterwards by his Nephew Pope Gregory the Ninth Thus We firmly believe and simply acknowledge that there is one only true God c. and that in the Sacrament of the Altar the Body and Bloud of Christ are truly contained under the accidents of Bread and Wine which are transubstantiated the Bread into the Body and the Wine into the Bloud To these definitions of Popes I will add only the Tenets of three Jesuits which are highly approved by the late followers of the new Roman Faith First Of Alphonsus Salmeron We must of necessity saith he hold Transubstantiation that the substance of Bread and Wine which Luther and some others admit may be excluded that the words of Christ which yet are most true without that may be verified that how few of these many are pertinent to their purpose will be seen hereafter many Testimonies of the Fathers concerning Conversion Mutation Consecration Benediction Transformation Sanctification for by all these names almost they have called Transubstantiation may stand firm and not be vain and insignificant and lastly that we may maintain a solid presence of the Body and Bloud of Christ Item as David changed his Countenance before Abimelech and then received the Shew bread
that was a certain Type of the Eucharist so Christ in the Sacrament seigns himself to be bread and yet is not bread though he seems so to be most visibly Secondly Of Cardinal Francis Tolet The words of Consecration are efficacious instruments whereby to Transubstantiate the substance of the Bread into the true Body of Christ so that after they are spoken there remains in the Host none of the substance of the Bread but only the accidents of it which are called the properties of the Bread under which the true Body of Christ is present Thirdly and lastly Of Cardinal Bellarmine The Catholick Church ever taught that by the conversion of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Bloud of Christ which conversion hath been in after times called Transubstantiation it comes to pass that the Body and Bloud of our Lord are truly and really present in the Sacrament It would be to no purpose to bring the Testimonies of others of the Latine or Roman Church who give to the Pope an absolute power of defining what he pleaseth for they are but the same stuff as these but if any one hath a mind let him consult Gretserus his defence of Bellarmine or his Dialogue who first writ against Luther who both reduce the whole matter to the judgment and decree of the Pope 8. Now we leave inquiring what God is able to do for we should first know his will in this matter before we examine his power Yet thus much we say that this Roman Transubstantiation is so strange and monstrous that it exceeds the nature of all Miracles And though God by his Almightiness be able to turn the substance of bread into some other substance yet none will believe that he doth it as long as it appears to our senses that the substance of the Bread doth still remain whole and entire Certain it is that hitherto we read of no such thing done in the Old or New Testament and therefore this Tenet being as unknown to the Ancients as it is ungrounded in Scripture appears as yet to be very incredible and there is no reason we should believe such an unauthorised figment newly invented by men and now imposed as an Article of Christian Religion For it is in vain that they bring Scripture to defend this their stupendious Doctrine and it is not true what they so often and so confidently affirm that the Universal Church hath always constantly owned it being it was not so much as heard of in the Church for many Ages and hath been but lately approved by the Popes Authority in the Councils of Lateran and Trent as I shall prove in the following Chapters CHAP. V. That neither the word nor name of Transubstantiation nor the Doctrine or the thing it self is taught or contained in holy Scripture or in the Writings of the ancient Doctors of the Church but rather is contrary to them and therefore not of Faith 1. THe word Transubstantiation is so far from being found either in the sacred Records or in the Monuments of the ancient Fathers that the maintainers of it do themselves acknowledge that it was not so much as heard of before the twelfth Century For though one Stephanus Bishop of Autun be said to have once used it yet it is without proof that some Modern Writers make him one of the tenth Century nor yet doth he say that the bread is Transubstantiated but as it were Transubstantiated which well understood might be admitted 2. Nay that the thing it self without the word that the Doctrine without the expression cannot be found in Scripture is ingeniously acknowledged by the most learned Schoolmen Scotus Durandus Biel Cameracensis Cajetan and many more who finding it not brought in by the Popes Authority and received in the Roman Church till 1200 years after Christ yet endeavoured to defend it by other Arguments 3. Scotus Confest That there is not any place in Scripture so express as to compel a man to admit of Transubstantiation were it not that the Church hath declared for it that is Pope Innocent III in his Lateran Council Durandus said That the word is found but that by it the manner they contend for cannot be proved Biel affirms That it is no where found in Canonical Scriptures Occam declared That it is easier more reasonable less inconvenient and better agreeing with Scripture to hold that the substance of the Bread remains After him Cardinal Cameracensis doth also confess That Transubstantiation cannot be proved out of the Scriptures Nay the Bishop of Rochester saith himself That there is no expression in Scripture whereby that conversion of substance in the Mass can be made good Cardinal Cajetan likewise There is not any thing of force enough in the Gospel to make us understand in a proper sense these words This is my body Nay that presence which the Church of Rome believes in the Sacrament cannot be proved by the words of Christ without the declaration of the Roman Church Lastly Bellarmine himself doth say That though he might bring Scripture clear enough to his thinking to prove Transubstantiation by to an easie man yet still it would be doubtful whether he had done it to purpose because some very acute and learned men as Scotus hold that it cannot be proved by Scripture Now in this Protestants desire no more but to be of the opinion of those learned and acute men 4. And indeed the words of institution would plainly make it appear to any man that would prefer truth to wrangling that it is with the Bread that the Lords Body is given as his Bloud with the Wine for Christ having taken blessed and broken the bread said This is my body and St. Paul than whom none could better understand the meaning of Christ explains it thus The bread which we break is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Communion or communication of the body of Christ that whereby his body is given and the Faithful are made partakers of it That it was bread which he reacht to them there was no need of any proof the receiver's senses sufficiently convinc'd them of it but that therewith his body was given none could have known had it not been declared by him who is the truth it self And though by the divine institution and the explication of the Apostle every faithful Communicant may be as certainly assured that he receives the Lords Body as if he knew that the Bread is substantially turned into it yet it doth not therefore follow that the Bread is so changed that its substance is quite done away so that there remains nothing present but the very natural Body of Christ made of bread For certain it is that the bread is not the Body of Christ any otherwise than as the Cup is the New Testament and two different consequences cannot be drawn from those two not different expressions Therefore as the Cup cannot be the New Testament but by a
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
of no evasion For saith he he that changed once the Water into Wine is he not worthy to be believed that he changed the Wine into Bloud Therefore let us with all certainty receive the Body and Bloud of Christ for his Body under the appearance of the Bread and his Bloud under the appearance of the Wine are given to thee Indeed Protestants do freely grant and firmly believe that the Wine as hath often been said is changed into the Bloud of Christ but every change is not a Transubstantiation neither doth Cyril say that this change is like that of the water for then it would also appear to our senses but that he who changed the Water sensibly can also change the Wine Sacramentally will not be doubted by any As for what he calls the Appearances of Bread and Wine he doth not thereby exclude but rather include their substance and mean the Bread and Wine it self For so he intimates by what there follows Do not look on them as bare Bread and Wine as much as to say it is bread indeed but yet not bare bread but something besides But that this conversion of the Water into Wine makes nothing for Transubstantiation may be thus made to appear That Gods Omnipotency can change one substance into another none will deny and we see it done by Christ in the Town of Cana of Galilee when he changed the Water into Wine and it was a true and proper Transubstantiation But the Papists in the Lords Supper tell us of quite another change which if well considered cannot so much as be understood For the substance of the Bread is not changed into another that had no being but as they say the bread is changed into that body of Christ which really existed and had a being these many hundred years ever since the Incarnation Whereas that very Wine which Christ made of the Water was not in being before the change which he wrought Now it is easie for any to understand that he who created all things out of nothing can well make a new Wine of Water or any other thing but it is more than absurd that the body of Christ or any other substance already in being perfect and complete should be made afresh of another substance when it really subsisted before Which they well understood who devised an adduction or bringing of the Body of Christ into the place of the Bread and that is as much as to deny Transubstantiation except it can be said that a man is Transubstantiated into another as often as he comes into his place which no man in his right wits can fancy 15. St. Ambrose said also that the nature is changed and indeed it is so for other is the nature of the Element and other that of the Sacrament neither do Protestants deny that the Element is changed by the blessing so that the bread being made sacred is no more that which nature formed but that which the Blessing consecrated and by consecrating changed Mean while St. Ambrose in that place doth not make the words or Blessing of Christ to have any other operation than to make that which was still to be and yet to be changed therefore the bread is not made the body of Christ by Transubstantiation but by a Sacramental change He adds That Sacrament which thou receivest is made by the word of Christ and if the word of Elias had so much power as to bring down fire from heaven shall not the words of Christ be efficacious enough to change the properties of the Elements Thou hast read of the Creation of all things that he said the word and it was done and shall not that word of Christ which made all out of nothing change that which is already into that which it was not Thou thy self wert but wert the old man but being baptized thou art now become a new Creature Now it is as much to give a new nature as to change the nature of a thing By these words he plainly declares his opinion that by vertue of this change the Elements of Bread and Wine cease not to be what they are by essence and yet by the Consecration are made what before they were not But where did our Transubstantiators learn out of St. Ambrose or any of the Fathers that to make the Sacrament is the same as to bring the natural body of Christ and put it under the accidents of the bread or in the place of its substance which is vanisht away They say That the comparison betwixt the things changed by Christ and the Prophet would be silly if there be no more than a Sacramental change in the Eucharist as though the Sacramental change were a thing of nought For saith Cardinal Bellarmine what power is there required to do nothing But Protestants answer that the Greatness Majesty Excellency and Dignity of the Sacrament is such that they admire no less the Omnipotency of God in sanctifying the Creatures to so high an office and so holy an use than in creating the world out of nothing or changing the nature of things by the Ministry of his Prophets For it is not by mans power but by the divine vertue that things earthly and mean of themselves are made to us assured Pledges of the Body and Bloud of Christ And if they urge the Letter of those words of St. Ambrose By the word of Christ the species of the Elements are changed as Bellarmine and others do why then they must confess that not only the substance but also the species or accidents as they call them of the Bread and Wine are changed into the Body and Bloud of Christ And so being St. Ambrose and all the Ancients said indifferently as well that the species of the Bread and Wine as that the Bread and Wine themselves are changed who will not from hence understand that the groundless Fabrick of Transubstantiation whereby they would have the substance of the Elements so abolished in the Sacrament that their meer accidents or appearances remain without any subject is strongly battered and utterly ruined 16. All other Testimonies of the Fathers if they say that the Bread is made the Body of Christ are willingly owned by Protestants For they hold that the Element cannot become a Sacrament nor the Sacrament have a being without the thing which it represents For the Cardinal himself will not affirm that the Body of Christ is produced out of the Pread This is therefore what we say with St. Austin and endeavour to prove by all means That the Sacrifice of the Eucharist is made of two things the visible Element and the invisible Flesh and Bloud of Christ as the Person of Christ consisteth of the Godhead and Manhood he being true God and true Man for every compound retains the nature of that whereof it is made Now the Sacrament is composed of two things the Sign and the thing signified that is the Body of
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
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
did humbly and religiously acknowledge her ignorance The real thing with its effects she joyfully own'd and received but meekly and devoutly abstained from inquiring into the manner Item Numb 73. the true and real Body of Christ is most certainly and undoubtedly given in the holy Sacrament yet not carnally but Spiritually Again Numb 169. I doubt not but all they that believe the Gospel will acknowledge that in the holy Communion we receive the true nature of the flesh of Christ real and substantial We all teach that the body of Christ is present as to its reality and nature but a carnal and corporal manner of presence we reject with St. Bernard and all the Fathers And in Appen ad Ambrosium Numb 7. I know and acknowledge that with the Bread still remaining bread the true and real body of Christ is given yet not corporally I assent in the thing but not in the manner Therefore though there is a change in the Bread when it brings into the Souls of worthy Communicants the true body of Christ which is the substance of the Sacrament Yet it doth not follow that the Bread loseth its own to become the substance of the body of Christ c. These and much more to the same purpose agreeable to the Religion and Church of England and all other Protestant Churches you may find in the same Chapter and in a Treatise annext to the sixth Book against the famous Jesuit Suarez who had writ against King James and the Errors as he calls them of the Church of England In the second Chapter our Prelate proves clearly according to its title That those Points which the Papists maintain against the Protestants belong not in any wise to the Catholick Faith as Transubstantiation c. 8. As for the opinion and belief of the German Protestants It will be known chiefly by the Augustan Confession presented to Charles the Fifth by the Princes of the Empire and other great Persons For they teach That not only the Bread and Wine but the Body and Bloud of Christ is truly given to the Receivers or as it is in another Edition That the Body and Bloud of Christ are truly present and distributed to the Communicants in the Lords Supper and refute those that teach otherwise They also declare That we must so use the Sacraments as to believe and embrace by Faith those things promised which the Sacraments offer and convey to us Yet we may observe here that Faith makes not those things present which are promised for Faith as it is well known is more properly said to take and apprehend than to promise or perform But the Word and Promise of God on which our Faith is grounded and not Faith it self make that present which is promised as it was agreed at a Conference at St. German betwixt some Protestants and Papists And therefore it is unjustly laid to our charge by some in the Church of Rome as if we should believe that the presence and participation of Christ in the Sacrament is effected meerly by the power of Faith 9. The Saxon Confession approved by other Churches seems to be a repetition of the Augustan Therein we are taught That Sacraments are actions divinely instituted and that although the same things or actions in common use have nothing of the nature of Sacraments yet when used according to the divine institution Christ is truly and substantially present in the Communion and his Body and Bloud truly given to the Receivers so that he testifies that he is in them as St. Hillary saith These things taken and received make us to be in Christ and Christ to be in us 10. The Confession of Wittemberg which in the year 1552 was propounded to the Council of Trent is like unto this For it teacheth That the true Body and Bloud of Christ are given in the holy Communion and refutes those that say That the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament are only signs of the absent Body and Bloud of Christ 11. The Bohemian Confession also that is of them who by contempt and out of ignorance are called by some Picards and Waldenses presented to King Ferdinand by the Barons and Nobles of Bohemia and approved by Luther and Melancthon and the Famous University of Wittemberg teacheth that we cought from the heart to believe and to profess by words that the Bread of the Lords Supper is the true Body of Christ which was given for us and the Wine his true Bloud that was shed for us And that it is not lawful for any person to bring or add any thing of his own to the words of Christ or in the least to take any thing from them And when this their Confession was defamed and abused by some of their Adversaries they answered That they would ever be ready to refute the Calumniators and to make it appear by strong Arguments and a stronger Faith that they never were and by Gods grace never would be what their Adversaries represented them 12. In the same manner The Conciliation of the Articles of the Lords Supper and the mutual agreement betwixt the Churches of the greater and lesser Polonia in the Synod of Sendomiris We hold together say they the belief of the words of Christ as they have been rightly understood by the Fathers or to speak more plain We believe and confess that the substantial Presence of Christ is not only signified in the Lords Supper but also that the Body and Bloud of our Lord is truly offered and granted to worthy Receivers together with those sacred signs which convey to us the thing signified according to the nature of Sacraments and lest the different ways of speaking should breed any contention we mutually consent to subscribe that Article concerning the Lords Supper which is in the Confession of the Churches of Saxony which they sent to the Council of Trent and we hold and acknowledge it to be sound and pious Then they repeat the whole Article mentioned and set down a little before 13. Luther was once of opinion that the Divines of Basil and Strasbourg did acknowledge nothing in the Lords Supper besides Bread and Wine To him Bucerus in the name of all the rest did freely answer That they all unanimously did condemn that error that neither they nor the Switzers ever believed or taught any such thing that none could expresly be charged with that Error except the Anabaptists And that he also had once been perswaded that Luther in his Writings attributed too much to the outward Symbols and maintained a grosser Union of Christ with the Bread than the Scriptures did allow as though Christ had been corporally present with it united into a natural substance with the Bread so that the wicked as well as the faithful were made partakers of grace by receiving the Element But that their own Doctrine and belief concerning that Sacrament was that the true Body and
Bloud of Christ was truly presented given and received together with the visible signs of Bread and Wine by the operation of our Lord and by vertue of his institution according to the plain sound and sense of his words and that not only Zuinglius and Oecolampadius had so taught but they also in the publick Confessions of the Churches of the Vpper Germany and other Writings confest it so that the Controversie was rather about the manner of the presence or absence than about the presence or absence it self All which Bucer's Associates confirm after him He also adds That the Magistrates in their Churches had denounced very severe punishments to any that should deny the presence of the Body and Bloud of Christ in the Lords Supper Bucerus did also maintain this Doctrine of the blessed Sacrament in presence of the Landgrave of Hesse and Melancthon confessing That together with the Sacrament we truly and substantially receive the body of Christ Also That the Bread and Wine are conferring signs giving what they represent so that together with them the Body of Christ is given and received And to these he adds That the Body and Bread are not united in the mixture of their substance but in that the Sacrament gives what it promiseth that is the one is never without the other and so they agreeing on both parts that the Bread and Wine are not changed he holds such a Sacramental Union Luther having heard this declared also his opinion thus That he did not locally include the Body and Bloud of Christ with the Bread and Wine and unite them together by any natural connexion and that he did not make proper to the Sacraments that vertue whereby they brought Salvation to the Receivers but that he maintained only a Sacramental Vnion betwixt the Body of Christ and the Bread and betwixt his Bloud and the Wine and did teach that the power of confirming our Faith which he attributed to the Sacraments was not naturally inherent in the outward signs but proceeded from the operation of Christ and was given by his Spirit by his Words and by the Elements And finally in this manner he spake to all that were present If you believe and teach that in the Lords Supper the true Body and Bloud of Christ is given and received and not the Bread and Wine only and that this giving and receiving is real and not imaginary we are agreed and we own you for dear Brethren in the Lord. All this is set down at large in the twentieth Tome of Luthers Works and in the English Works of Bucer 14. The next will be the Gallican Confession made at Paris in a National Synod and presented to King Charles IX at the Conference of Poissy Which speaks of the Sacrament on this wise Although Christ be in heaven where he is to remain until he come to judge the World yet we believe that by the secret and incomprehensible virtue of his Spirit he feeds and vivifies us by the substance of his Body and Bloud received by Faith now we say that this is done in a spiritual manner not that we believe it to be a fancy and imagination instead of a truth and real effect but rather because that Mystery of our Vnion with Christ is of so sublime a nature that it is as much above the capacity of our senses as it is above the order of nature Item We believe that in the Lords Supper God gives us really that is truly and efficaciously whatever is represented by the Sacrament with the signs we joyn the true Possession and fruition of the thing by them offered to us And so that Bread and Wine which are given to us become our spiritual nourishment in that they make it in some manner visible to us that the Flesh of Christ is our food and his Bloud our drink Therefore those Fanaticks that reject these Signs and Symbols are by us rejected our blessed Saviour having said This is my body and this Cup is my bloud This Confession hath been subscribed by the Church of Geneva 15. The Envoyes from the French Churches to Worms made a declaration concerning that Mystery much after the same manner We confess say they that in the Lords Supper besides the benefits of Christ the substance also of the Son of man his true body with his bloud shed for us are not only figuratively signified by Types and Symbols as memorials of things absent but also truly and certainly presented given and offered to be applied by signs that are not bare and destitute but on Gods part in regard of his offer and promise always undoubtedly accompanied with what they signifie whether they be offered to good or bad Christians 16. Now follows the Belgick Confession which professeth it to be most certain that Christ doth really effect in us what is figured by the signs although it be above the capacity of our reason to understand which way the operations of the Holy Ghost being always occult and incomprehensible 17. The more ancient Confession of the Switzers made by common consent at Basil and approved by all the Helvetick-Protestant Churches hath it That while the Faithful eat the bread and drink the cup of the Lord they by the operation of Christ working by the Holy Spirit receive the Body and Bloud of our Lord and thereby are fed unto Eternal life But notwithstanding that they affirm that this food is spiritual yet they afterwards conclude That by spiritual food they understand not imaginary but the very body of Christ which was given for us 18. And the latter Confession of the Switzers writ and Printed in 1566. affirms as expresly the true presence of Christs body in the Eucharist thus Outwardly the bread is offered by the Minister and the words of Christ heard Take eat this is my Body drink ye all of this this is my Bloud Therefore the Faithful receive what Christs Minister gives and drink of the Lords Cup And at the same time by the power of Christ working by the Holy Ghost are fed by the flesh and bloud of our Lord unto eternal life c. Again Christ is not absent from his Church celebrating his holy Supper The Sun in heaven being distant from us is nevertheless present by his efficacy how much more shall Christ the Sun of righteousness who is bodily in heaven absent from us be spiritually present to us by his life-giving virtue and as he declared in his last Supper he would be present Joh. 14. 15 16. Whence it follows that we have no Communion without Christ Now to this Confession not only the Reformed Switzers did subscribe but also the Churches of Hungary Pannonia or Transilvania Poland and Lithuania which follow neither the Augustan nor Bohemian Confessions It was subscribed also by the Churches of Scotland and Geneva 19. Lastly Let us hear the renowned Declaration of the Reformed Churches of Poland made in the Assembly of Thoran
whereby they profess that as to what concerns the Sacrament of the Eucharist they assent to that opinion which in the Augustan Confession in the Bohemian and that of Sendom is confirmed by Scripture Then afterwards in another Declaration they explain their own Mind thus saying 1. That the Sacrament consisteth of earthly things as Bread and Wine and things heavenly as the Body and Bloud of our Lord both of which though in a different manner yet most truly and really are given together at the same time earthly things in an earthly corporal and natural way heavenly things in a mystick spiritual and heavenly manner 2. Hence they in fer That the Bread and Wine are and are said to be with truth the very Body and Bloud of Christ not substantially indeed that is not corporally but Sacramentally and Mystically by vertue of the Sacramental Union which consisteth not in a bare signification or obligation only but also in a real exhibition and communication of both parts earthly and heavenly together at once though in a different manner 3. In that sense they affirm with the Ancients That the Bread and Wine are changed into the Body and Bloud of Christ not in nature and substance but in use and efficacy in which respect the sacred Elements are not called what they are to sense but what they are believed and received by faith grounded on the Promise 4. They deny to believe the signs to be bare inefficacious and empty but rather such as truly give what they seal and signifie being efficacious instruments and most certain means whereby the Body and Bloud of Christ and so Christ himself with all his benefits is set forth and offered to all Communicants but conferred and given to true Believers and by them received as the saving and vivifying food of their Souls 5. They deny not the true presence of the body and bloud of Christ in the Lords Supper but only the Corporal manner of his Presence They believe a Mystical Vnion betwixt Christ and us and that not imaginary but most true real and efficacious 6. Thence they conclude That not only the vertue efficacy operation or benefits of Christ are communicated to us but more especially the very substance of his Body and Bloud so that he abides in us and we in him 20. Now because great is the fame of Calvin who subscribed the Augustan Confession and that of the Switzers let us hear what he writ and believed concerning this sacred Mystery His words in his Institutions and elsewhere are such so conformable to the stile and mind of the Ancient Fathers that no Catholick Protestant would wish to use any other I understand saith he what is to be understood by the words of Christ that he doth not only offer us the benefits of his Death and Resurrection but his very body wherein he died and rose again I assert that the body of Christ is really as the usual expression is that is truly given to us in the Sacrament to be the saving food of our souls Also in another place Item That word cannot lie neither can it mock us and except one presumes to call God a deceiver be will never dare to say that the Symbols are empty and that Christ is not in them Therefore if by the breaking of the bread our Saviour doth represent the participation of his body it is not to be doubted but that he truly gives and confers it If it be true that the visible sign is given us to seal the gift of an invisible thing we must firmly believe that receiving the signs of the body we also certainly receive the body it self Setting aside all absurdities I do willingly admit all those terms that can most strongly express the true and substantial Communication of the Body and Bloud of Christ granted to the Faithful with the Symbols of the Lords Supper and that not as if they received only by the force of their imagination or an act of their minds but really so as to be fed thereby unto Eternal life Again We must therefore confess that the inward substance of the Sacrament is joyned with the visible sign so that as the Bread is put into our hand the Body of Christ is also given to us This certainly if there were nothing else should abundantly satisfie us that we understand that Christ in his Holy Supper gives us the true and proper substance of his Body and Bloud that it being wholly ours we may be made partakers of all his benefits and graces Again The Son of God offers daily to us in the holy Sacrament the same body which he once offered in sacrifice to his Father that it may be our spiritual food In these he asserts as clearly as any one can the true Real and substantial Presence and Communication of the Body of Christ but how he undertakes not to determine If any one saith he ask me concerning the manner I will not be ashamed to confess that it is a secret too high for my reason to comprehend or my tongue to express or to speak more properly I rather feel than understand it Therefore without disputing I embrace the truth of God and confidently repose on it He declares that his Flesh is the food and his Bloud the drink of my Soul And my Soul I offer to him to be fed by such nourishment He bids me take eat and drink his Body and Bloud which in his holy Supper he offers me under the Symbols of Bread and Wine I make no scruple but he doth reach them to me and I receive them All these are Calvins own words 21. I was the more willing to be long in transcribing these things at large out of publick Confessions of Churches and the best of Authors that it might the better appear how injuriously Protestant Divines are calumniated by others unacquainted with their opinions as though by these words Spiritually and Sacramentally they did not acknowledge a true and well-understood real Presence and Communication of the Body and Bloud of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament whereas on the contrary they do professedly own it in terms as express as any can be used CHAP. III. 1. What the Papists do understand by Christ being spiritually present in the Sacrament 2. What St. Bernard understood by it 3. What the Protestants 4. Faith doth not cause but suppose the presence of Christ 5. The Union betwixt the Body of Christ and the Bread is Sacramental 1. HAving now by what I have said put it out of doubt that the Protestants believe a spiritual and true presence of Christ in the Sacrament which is the reason that according to the example of the Fathers they use so frequently the term spiritual in this subject it may not be amiss to consider in the next place how the Roman Church understands that same word Now they make it to signifie That Christ is not present in the Sacrament either after that manner which
is natural to corporal things or that wherein his own body subsists in heaven but according to the manner of Existence proper to Spirits whole and entire in each part of the Host And though by himself he be neither seen toucht nor moved yet in respect of the Species or accidents joyned with him he may be said to be seen toucht and moved And so the accidents being moved the body of Christ is truly moved accidentally as the Soul truly changeth place with the Body so that we truly and properly say that the body of Christ is removed lifted up and set down put on the Patent or on the Altar and carried from hand to mouth and from the mouth to the stomach as Berengarius was forced to acknowledge in the Roman Council under Pope Nicholas that the Body of Christ was sensually toucht by the hands and broken and chewed by the teeth of the Priest But all this and much more to the same effect was never delivered to us either by holy Scripture or the ancient Fathers And if Souls or Spirits could be present as here Bellarmine teacheth yet it would be absurd to say that bodies could be so likewise it being inconsistent with their nature 2. Indeed Bellarmine confesseth with St. Bernard That Christ in the Sacrament is not given to us carnally but spiritually and would to God he had rested here and not outgone the holy Scriptures and the Doctrine of the Fathers For endeavouring with Pope Innocent III. and the Council of Trent to determine the manner of the presence and Manducation of Christs body with more nicety than was fitting he thereby foolishly overthrew all that he had wisely said before denied what he had affirmed and opposed his own Opinion His fear was lest his Adversaries should apply that word spiritually not so much to express the manner of presence as to exclude the very substance of the Body and Bloud of Christ therefore saith he upon that account it is not safe to use too muc◠that of St. Bernard The body of Christ is not Corporally in the Sacrament without adding presently the above-mentioned explanation How much do we comply with humane pride and curiosity which would seem to understand all things Where is the danger And what doth he fear as long as all they that believe the Gospel own the true nature the real and substantial presence of the body of Christ in the Sacrament using that Explication of St. Bernard concerning the manner which he himself for the too great evidence of truth durst not but admit And why doth he own that the manner is spiritual not carnal and then require a carnal presence as to the manner it self As for us we all openly profess with St. Bernard that the presence of the body of Christ in the Sacrament is spiritual and therefore true and real and with the same Bernard and all the Ancients we deny that the Body of Christ is carnally either present or given The thing we willingly admit but humbly and religiously forbear to enquire into the manner 3. We believe a Presence and Union of Christ with our soul and body which we know not how to call better than Sacramental that is effected by eating that while we eat and drink the consecrated Bread and Wine we eat and drink therewithal the Body and Bloud of Christ not in a corporal manner but some other way incomprehensible known only to God which we call spiritual for if with St. Bernard and the Fathers a man goes no further we do not find fault with a general explication of the manner but with the presumption and self-conceitedness of those who boldly and curiously inquire what is a spiritual presence as presuming that they can understand the manner of acting of Gods holy Spirit We contrariwise confess with the Fathers that this manner of presence is unaccountable and past finding out not to be searcht and pried into by Reason but believed by Faith And if it seems impossible that the flesh of Christ should descend and come to be our food through so great a distance we must remember how much the power of the holy Spirit exceeds our sense and our apprehensions and how absurd it would be to undertake to measure his Immensity by our weakness and narrow capacity and so make our Faith to conceive and believe what our Reason cannot comprehend 4. Yet our Faith doth not cause or make that Presence but apprehends it as most truly and really effected by the word of Christ And the Faith whereby we are said to eat the flesh of Christ is not that only whereby we believe that he died for our sins for this Faith is required and supposed to precede the Sacramental Manducation but more properly that whereby we believe those words of Christ This is my Body which was St. Austins meaning when he said Why dost thou prepare thy stomach and thy teeth Believe and thou hast eaten For in this Mystical eating by the wonderful power of the Holy Ghost we do invisibly receive the substance of Christs Body and Bloud as much as if we should eat and drink both visibly 5. The result of all this is That the Body and Bloud of Christ are Sacramentally united to the Bread and Wine so that Christ is truly given to the Faithful and yet is not to be here considered with sense or worldly reason but by Faith resting on the words of the Gospel Now it is said that the Body and Bloud of Christ are joyned to the Bread and Wine because that in the celebration of the holy Eucharist the Flesh is given together with the Bread and the Bloud together with the Wine All that remains is That we should with faith and humility admire this high and sacred Mystery which our tongue cannot sufficiently explain nor our heart conceive CHAP. IV. 1. Of the change of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Bloud of Christ which the Papists call Transubstantiation 2. Of Gods Omnipotency 3. Of the Accidents of the Bread 4. The Sacramental Union of the thing signified with the sign 5 and 6. The question is stated Negatively and Affirmatively 7. The definition of the Council of Trent The Bull of Pope Pius IV. and the form of the Oath by him appointed The Decretal of Innocent III. The Assertions of the Jesuits 8. Transubstantiation a very monstrous thing 1. IT is an Article of faith in the Church of Rome that in the Blessed Eucharist the substance of the Bread and Wine is reduced to nothing and that in its place succeeds the Body and Bloud of Christ as we shall see more at large § 6 and 7. The Protestants are much of another mind and yet none of them denies altogether but that there is a conversion of the Bread into the Body and consequently of the Wine into the Bloud of Christ For they know and acknowledge that in the Sacrament by vertue of the words and blessing of Christ
the condition use and office of the Bread is wholly changed that is of common and ordinary it becomes our Mystical and Sacramental food whereby as they affirm and believe the true Body of Christ is not only shadowed and figured but also given indeed and by worthy Communicants truly received Yet they believe not that the bread loseth its own to become the substance of the Body of Christ for the holy Scripture and the ancient Interpreters thereof for many ages never taught such an Essential change and conversion as that the very substance the matter and form of the Bread should be wholly taken away but only a mysterious and Sacramental one whereby our Ordinary is changed into Mystick bread and thereby designed and appointed to another use end and office than before This change whereby supernatural effects are wrought by things natural while their Essence is preserved entire doth best agree with the grace and power of God 2. There is no reason why we should dispute concerning Gods Omnipotency whether it can do this or that presuming to measure an infinite power by our poor ability which is but weakness We may grant that he is able to do beyond what we can think or apprehend and resolve his most wonderful acts into his absolute will and power but we may not charge him with working contradictions And though Gods Almightiness were able in this Mystery to destroy the substance of Bread and Wine and essentially to change it into the Body and Bloud of Christ while the accidents of Bread and Wine subsist of themselves without a subject yet we desire to have it proved that God will have it so and that 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
Transubstantiators It was not bread but meerly the accidents of bread which seemed to be bread 2. The Body of Christ is proved to be true by the figure of it which is said to be bread For the bread is fit to represent that divine Body because of its nourishing vertue which in the bread is earthly but in the body is heavenly Lastly The realty of the Body is proved by that of its figure and so if you deny the substance of the bread as the Papists do you thereby destroy the truth and realty of the Body of Christ in the Sacrament 10. Origen also about the same time with Tertullian speaks much after the same manner If Christ saith he as these men the Marcionites falsly hold had neither Flesh nor Bloud of what manner of Flesh of what Body of what Bloud did he give the Signs and Images when he gave the Bread and Wine If they be the signs and representations of the Body and Bloud of Christ though they prove the truth of his Body and Bloud yet they being signs cannot be what they signifie and they not being what they represent the groundless contrivance of Transubstantiation is overthrown Also upon Leviticus he doth expresly oppose it thus Acknowledge ye that they are figures and therefore spiritual not carnal examine and understand what is said otherwise if you receive as things carnal they will hurt but not nourish you For in the Gospel there is the Letter which kills him that understands not spiritually what is said for if you understand this saying according to the Letter Except you eat my Flesh and drink my Bloud the Letter will kill you Therefore as much as these words belong to the eating and drinking of Christs Body and Bloud they are to be understood mystically and spiritually Again writing on St. Matthew he doth manifestly put a difference betwixt the true and immortal and the Typick and Mystical Body of Christ For the Sacrament consisteth of both That food saith he which is sanctified by the Word of God and Prayer as far as it is material descends into the belly and is cast out into the draught this he saith of the Typick which is the figure of the true Body God forbid we should have any such thoughts of the true and heavenly Body of Christ as they must that understand his natural body by what Origen calls his material and Sacramental body which no man in his wits can understand of meer accidents 11. St. Cyprian Bishop of Carthage a glorious Martyr of Christ wrote a famous Epistle to Coecilius concerning the sacred Chalice in the Lords Supper whereof this is the sum Let that Cup which is offered to the people in commemoration of Christ be mixt with Wine against the opinion of the Aquarii who were for water only for it cannot represent the Bloud of Christ when there is no Wine in the Cup because the Bloud of Christ is exprest by the Wine as the Faithful are understood by the water But the Patrons of Transubstantiation have neither Wine nor Water in the Chalice they offer and yet without them especially the Wine appointed by our blessed Saviour and whereof Cyprian chiefly speaks the Bloud of Christ is not so much as Sacramentally present So far was the Primitive Church from any thing of believing a corporal presence of the Bloud the Wine being reduced to nothing that is to a meer accident without a substance for then they must have said that the Water was changed into the People as well as the Wine into the Bloud But there is no need that I should bring many testimonies of that Father when all his Writings do plainly declare that the true substance of the Bread and Wine is given in the Eucharist that that spiritual and quickning food which the Faithful get from the Body and Bloud of Christ and the mutual Union of the whole People joyned into one body may answer their Type the Sacrament which represents them 12. Those words of the Council of Nice are well known whereby the Faithful are called from the consideration of the outward visible Elements of Bread and Wine to attend the inward and spiritual act of the mind whereby Christ is seen and apprehended Let not our thoughts dwell low on that Bread and that Cup which are set before us but lifting up our minds by faith let us consider that on this sacred Table is laid the Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world And receiving truly his precious Body and Bloud let us believe these things to be the Pledges and Emblems of our Resurrection for we do not take much but only a little of the Elements that we may be mindful we do it not for Satiety but for Sanctification Now who is there even among the Maintainers of Transubstantiation that will understand this not much but a little of the Body of Christ Or who can believe that the Nicene Fathers would call his Body and Bloud Symbols in a proper sense When nothing can be an Image or a sign of it self And therefore though we are not to rest in the Elements minding nothing else for we should consider what is chiefest in the Sacrament that we have our hearts lifted up unto the Lord who is given together with the signs yet Elements they are and the earthly part of the Sacrament both the Bread and the Wine which destroys Transubstantiation 13. St. Athanasius famous in the time and present in the Assembly of the Nicene Council a stout Champion of the Catholick Faith acknowledgeth none other but a spiritual Manducation of the Body of Christ in the Sacrament Our Lord saith he made a difference betwixt the Flesh and the Spirit that we might understand that what he said was not carnal but spiritual For how many men could his body have fed that the whole world should be nourished by it But therefore he mentioned his ascension into heaven that they might not take what he said in a corporal sense but might understand that his Flesh whereof he spake is a spiritual and heavenly food given by himself from on high for the words that I spake unto you they are spirit and they are life as if he should say My Body which is shown and given for the world shall be given in food that it may be distributed spiritually to every one and preserve them all to the Resurrection to eternal life Cardinal Perron having nothing to answer to these words of this holy Father in a kind of despair rejects the whole Tractate and denies it to be Athanasius's which no body ever did before him there being no reason for it 14. Cyril Bishop of Jerusalam of the same Age with St. Athanasius treating of the Chrisme wherewith they then anointed those that were Baptized speaks thus Take heed thou dost not think that this is a meer Oyntment only For as the Broad of the
Eucharist after the Invocation of the Holy Ghost is no longer ordinary Bread but is the Body of Christ so this holy Oyntment is no longer a bare common Oyntment after it is consecrated but is the gift or grace of Christ which by his Divine Nature and the coming of the Holy Ghost is made â—fficacious so that the Body is anointed with the Oyntment but the soul is sanctified by the holy and vivifying Spirit Can any thing more clear be said Either the Oyntment is transubstantiated by consecration into the spirit and grace of Christ or the Bread and Wine are not transubstantiated by Consecration into the Body and Bloud of Christ Therefore as the Oyntment retains still its substance and yet is not called a meer or common ointment but the Charisme or grace of Christ So the Bread and Wine remaining so as to their substance yet are not said to be only Bread and Wine common and ordinary but also the Body and Bloud of Christ Vnder the Type of Bread saith he the Body is given thee and the Bloud under the type of the Wine This Grodecius doth captiously and unfaithfully interpret under the appearances of Bread and Wine for those meer appearances or accidents subsisting without a subject never so much as entred into the mind of any of the Ancients 15. Much to the same purpose we have in the Anaphora or Liturgy attributed to St. Basil We have set before you the Type of the Body and Bloud of Christ which he calls the Bread of the Eucharist after the Consecration If it be the Type of the Body then certainly it cannot be the Body and nothing else For as we said before nothing can be the figure of it self no more than a man can be his own Son or Father There be also Prayers in that Liturgy That the Bread may become the Body of Christ for the remission of sins and life eternal to the receivers Now true it is that to the faithful the Element becomes a vivifying Body because they are truly partakers of the heavenly bread the Body of Christ but to others who either receive not or are not believers to them the Bread may be the Antitype but is not neither doth become the Body of Christ for without Faith Christ is never eaten as is gathered from the same Father 16. St. Gregory Nyssene his Brother doth clearly declare what change is wrought in the Bread and Wine by Consecration saying As the Altar naturally is but common stone but being consecrated becomes an holy Table a spotless Altar so the bread of the Eucharist is at first ordinary but being mysteriously sacrificed it is and is called the Body of Christ and is efficacious to great purposes and as the Priest yesterday a Lay-man by the Blessing of Ordination becomes a Doctor of Piety and a Steward of Mysteries and though not changed in body or shape yet is transformed and made better as to his soul by an invisible power and grace so also by the same consequence water being nothing but water of it self yet blest by a heavenly grace renews the man working a spiritual regeneration in him Now let the Assertors of Transubstantiation maintain that a Stone is substantially changed into an Altar a man into a Priest the water in Baptism into an invisible grace or else that the Bread is not so changed into the Body of Christ For according to this Father there is the same consequence in them all 17 Likewise St. Ambrose explaining what manner of alteration is in the bread when in the Eucharist it becomes the Body of Christ saith Thou hadst indeed a being but wert an old creature but being now Baptized or consecrated thou art become a new creature The same change that happens to man in Baptism happens to the Bread in the Sacrament If the nature of man is not substantially altered by the new Birth no more is the bread by Consecration Man becomes by Baptism not what Nature made him but what Grace new-makes him and the Bread becomes by Consecration not what it was by Nature but what the Blessing consecrates it to be For Nature made only a meer man and made only common bread but Regeneration of a meer man makes a holy man in whom Christ dwells spiritually And likewise the Consecration of common bread makes Mystick and Sacramental bread Yet this change doth not destroy Nature but to Nature adds Grace As is yet more plainly exprest by that holy Father in the fore-cited place Perhaps thou wilt say saith he this my bread is common bread it is bread indeed before the blessing of the Sacrament but when it is consecrated it becomes the Body of Christ This we are therefore to declare how can that which is bread be also the body of Christ By Consecration And Consecration is made by the words of our Lord that the venerable Sacrament may be perfected You see how efficacious is the word of Christ If there be then so great a power in the word of Christ to make the Bread and Wine to be what they were not how much greater is that power which still preserves them to be what they were and yet makes them to be what they were not Therefore that I may answer thee it was not the Body of Christ before the Consecration but now after the Consecration it is the Body of Christ he said the word and it was done thou thy self wert befere but wert an old Creature after thou hast been consecrated in Baptism thou art become a new creature By these words St. Ambrose teacheth how we are to understand that the Bread is the Body of Christ to wit by such a change that the Bread and Wine do not cease to be what they were as to their substance for then they should not be what they were and yet by the Blessing become what before they were not For so they are said to remain as indeed they do 〈◊〉 what they were by nature that yet they are changed by grace that is they become assured Sacraments of the Body and Bloud of Christ and by that means certain pledges of our Justification and Redemption What is there can refute more expresly the dream of Transubstantiation 18. St. Chrysostome doth also clearly discard and reject this carnal Transubstantiation and eating of Christs Body without eating the bread Sacraments saith he ought not to be contemplated and considered carnally but with the eyes of our souls that is spiritually for such is the nature of mysteries where observe the opposition betwixt carnally and spiritually which admits of no plea or reply again As in Baptism the spiritual power of Regeneration is given to the material water so also the immaterial gift of the Body and Bloud of Christ is not received by any sensible corporal action but by the spiritual discernment of our faith and of our hearts and minds Which is no more than this that
of speaking that is that the Bread and Wine are the true Body and Bloud of Christ and that their substance still remaining they are Signs Types Resemblances and Pledges of them Images Figures Similitudes Representations and Samplers of them yet there was no cantrariety or diversity in the sense For they were not so Faithless as to believe that these are only naturall Elements or bare Signs and they were not of so gross and so dull an apprehension as not to distinguish betwixt the Sacramental and Mystick and the carnal and natural presence of Christ as it is now maintained by the Patrons of Transubstantiation For in this they understood no other change than that which is common to all Sacraments whereby the outward natural part is said to be changed into the inward and divine only because it represents it truly and efficaciously and makes all worthy Receivers partakers thereof and because by the vertue of the Holy Spirit and of Christ's holy institution the Elements obtain those divine Excellencies and Prerogatives which they cannot have of their own nature And this is it which was taught and believed for above a thousand years together by pious and learned Antiquity concerning this most holy Mystery 2. There are also some other things whereby we may understand that the Ancients did not belief Transubstantiation or that the presence of the Body and Bloud of Christ is so inseparably tyed to the accidents of Bread and Wine that Christ must needs be present as long as those accidents retain any resemblance of Bread and Wine even when they are not put to that use appointed by divine institution For it is certain that it was the custom of many of the Ancients to burn what remained of the Bread and Wine after the Comunion was ended And who can believe that any Christian should dare or be willing to burn his Lord and Saviour in Body and Bloud though it were never so much in his power Doubtless it would have been as horrid and detestable an action as was that of the perfidious Jews for Christians if they believed Transubstantiation to burn that very natural body which the Jews Crucified and which was born of the Virgin Mary Therefore those Christians who used anciently to burn those fragments of the Bread and remains of the Wine which were not spent in the celebration of the Sacrament were far enough from holding the present Faith and Doctrine of Rome The same appears further by the penalty threatned by the Canon to every Clergy-man by whose neglect a Mouse or any other Creature should eat the Sacrifice that is the Consecrated Bread And who but an Idiot a man deprived of his reason could ever believe that the natural Body of Christ can be gnawed and even eaten by Rats or any brute Creatures This sorely perplext the first maintainers of Transubstantiation who would invent any thing rather than own it possible well knowing how abominable it is and how dishonourable to Christian Religion Yet this is not inconsistent with the now Roman Faith nay it necessarily follows from the Tenet of Transubstantiation that the Body of Christ may be in the belly of a Mouse under the accidents of Bread And the contrary opinion is not only disowned now by the Papists but under pain of Excommunication forbidden by the Pope ever to be owned so that they must believe as an Article of Faith what is most abhorrent to Faith 3. But yet at last let us see what props these new builders pretend to borrow from Antiquity to uphold their Castle in the air Transubstantiation They use indeed to scrape together many Testimonies of the Fathers of the first and middle age whereby they would fain prove that those Fathers believed and taught the Transubstantiation of the Bread and Wine into the natural Body and Bloud of Christ just as the Roman Church at this day doth teach and believe We will therefore briefly examine them that it may yet more fully appear that Antiquity and all Fathers did not in the least favour the new Tenet of Transubstantiation but that that true Doctrin which I have set down in the begining of this book was constantly owned and preserved in the Church of Christ 4. Now almost all that they produce out of the Fathers will be conveniently reduced to certain heads that we may not be too tedious in answering each testimony by it self 5. To the first head belong those that call the Eucharist the Body and Bloud of Christ But I answer those Fathers explain themselves in many places and interpret those their expressions in such a manner that they must be understood in a Mystick and spiritual sense in that Sacraments usually take the names of those things they represent because of that resemblance which they have with them not by the reality of the thing but by the signification of the Mystery as we have shewn before out of St. Austin and others For no body can deny but that the things that are seen are signs and figures and those that are not seen the Body and Bloud of Christ And that therefore the nature of this mystery is such that when we receive the Bread and Wine we also together with them receive at the same time the body and Bloud of Christ which in the celebration of the holy Eucharist are as truly given as they are represented Hence came into the Church this manner of speaking the Consecrated Bread is Christs Body 6. We put in the second rank those places that say that the Bishops and Priests make the body of Christ with the sacred words of their mouth as St. Hierom speaks in his Epistle to Heliodorus and St. Ambrose and others To this I say that at the prayer and blessing of the Priest the common Bread is made Sacramental bread which when broken and eaten is the Communion of the body of Christ and therefore may well be called so Sacramentally For the bread as I have often said before doth not only represent the body of our Lord but also being received we are truly made partakers of that precious body For so saith S. Hier. The body and bloud of Christ is made at the Prayer of the Priest that is the Element is so qualified that being received it becomes the Communion of the Body and Bloud of Christ which it could not without the preceding Prayers The Greeks call this To prepare and to consecrate the Body of the Lord. As S. Chrysostam saith well These are not the works of mans power but still the operation of him who made them in the last Supper as for us we are only Ministers but be it is that sanctifies and changeth them 7. In the third place to what is brought out of the Fathers concerning the conversion change transmutation transfiguration and transelementation of the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist wherein the Papists do greatly glory boasting of the consent of
that by that food which he gives us we become his flesh Such is that of St. Austin Let us give thanks not only that we are made Christians but also made Christ Lastly such is that of B. Leo In that mystical distribution it is given us to be made his flesh Certainly if any man would wrangle and take advantage of these he might thereby maintain as well that we are Transubstantiated into Christ and Christs flesh into the Bread as that the Bread and Wine are Transubstantiated into his Body and Bloud But Protestants who scorn to play the Sophisters interpret these and the like passages of the Fathers with candour and ingenuity as it is most fitting they should For the expressions of Preachers which often have something of a Paradox must not be taken according to that harsher sound wherewith they at first strike the Auditors ears the Fathers spake not of any Transubstantiated bread but of the mystical and consecrated when they used those sorts of expressions and that for these Reasons 1. That they might extoll and amplifie the dignity of this Mystery which all true Christians acknowledge to be very great and peerless 2. That Communicants might not rest in the outward Elements but seriously consider the thing represented whereof they are most certainly made partakers if they be worthy Receivers 3. And lastly That they might approach so great a Mystery with the more zeal reverence and devotion And that those Hyperbolick expressions are thus to be understood the Fathers themselves teach clearly enough when they come to interpret them 9. Lastly Being the same holy Fathers who as the manner is to discourse of Sacraments speak sometimes of the Bread and Wine in the Lords Supper as if they were the very Body and Bloud of Christ do also very often call them Types Elements Signs the Figure of the Body and Bloud of Christ from hence it appears most manifestly that they were of the Protestants and not of the Papists opinion For we can without prejudice to what we believe of the Sacraments use those former expressions which the Papists believe do most favour them if they be understood as they ought to be Sacramentally But the latter none can use but he must thereby overthrow the groundless Doctrine of Transubstantiation these two the Bread is Transubstantiated into the Body and the Bread also is the Type the Sign the Figure of the body of Christ being wholly inconsistent For it is impossible that a thing that loseth its being should yet be the sign and representation of another neither can any thing be the Type and the Sign of it self 10. But if without admitting of a Sacramental sense the words be used too rigorously nothing but this will follow that the Bread and Wine are really and properly the very Body and Bloud of Christ which they themselves disown that hold Transubstantiation Therefore in this change it is not a newness of substance but of use and vertue that is produced which yet the Fathers acknowledged with us to be wonderful supernatural and proper only to Gods Omnipotency For that earthly and corruptible meat cannot become to us a spiritual and heavenly the Communion of the Body and Bloud of Christ without Gods especial power and operation And whereas it is far above Philosophy and Humane Reason that Christ from Heaven where alone he is locally should reach down to us the divine vertue of his Flesh so that we are made one body with him therefore it is as necessary as it is reasonable that the Fathers should tell us that we ought with singleness of heart to believe the Son of God when he saith This is my body and that we ought not to measure this high and holy Mystery by our narrow conceptions or by the course of nature For it is more acceptable to God with an humble simplicity of faith to reverence and embrace the words of Christ than to wrest them violently to a strange and improper sense and with curiosity and presumption to determine what exceeds the capacity of Men and Angels Thus much in general may suffice to answer those places of the Fathers which are usually brought in the behalf of Transubstantiation He that would have a larger refutation of those objections fetcht from Antiquity may read Hospinianus his History of the Sacrament and Antonius de Dominis in his Fifth Book of the Christian Commonwealth Chap. 6. and in his detection of the errors of Suarez Chap. 2. 11. That place of Ignatius cited by Theodoret out of the Epistle to the Smyrnenses where now it is not to be found and objected by some of the Romish Faith That the Hereticks Simoniani and Menandriani would have no Eucharistical Oblations because they denied the Sacrament to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ makes nothing for Transubstantiation as Bellarmine himself confesseth For saith he those Hereticks did not oppose the Sacrament of the Eucharist so much as the mystery of the Incarnation and therefore as Ignatius shews in that place they would deny that the Eucharist is the flesh of Christ that is as Theodoret interprets it that the divine Mysteries of Bread and Wine should be the signs of a real Body of Christ truly existing because they would not own that Christ had taken flesh And so lest they should be forced to acknowledge the reality of the flesh of Christ they would wholly reject the Signs and Sacraments of it for the signs of the body being given the true body is given also because the substance and the type infer one another and a Phantasm or Illusion is not capable of a sign or representation 12. The words out of Justin Martyr whereby they would prove Transubstantiation do strongly disprove it For saith he as by the word of God our Saviour was incarnate so by the Prayers of Gods word the Eucharist is made whereby our bodies are nourished the Body and Bloud of Christ Now when Christ took humane flesh none could say without Heresie that he was Transubstantiated 13. Neither is that against the Protestants which is brought out of St. Cyprian though it be none of his of the bread changed not in appearance but in nature For he whoever it was took not the word nature in a strict sense or else he was contrary to Theodoret Gelasius and others above-mentioned who expresly deny that the bread should be thus changed But at large as nature is taken for use qualities and condition For by the infinite power of the Word the nature of the bread is so changed that what was before a bare Element becomes now a divine Sacrament but without any Transubstantiation as appears by what follows in the same period of the Humane and Divine Natures of Christ where the Manhood is not substantially changed into the Godhead except we will follow Eutyches the Heretick 14. The words of Cyril as the Roman Doctors fay are so clear for them that they admit
Christ 17. Let the Champions of Transubstantiation strut and vapour now with their two and thirty stout Seconds who have stood for them as they say before the time of Pope Innocent the Third For what Innocent the Third decreed and the Council of Trent defined that it was ever the perswasion of the Catholick Church that the Bread is so changed into the Body of Christ that the substance of the bread vanishing away only the flesh of Christ should remain under the accidents of the bread is so far from being true that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation not only as to the name but as to the thing it self is wholly destitute of the Patronage of Antiquity and left to shift for it self Alphonsus à Castro said that in ancient Writers mention was made very seldom of Transubstantiation had he said never it had been more true For so our Jesuites in England confessed That the business of Transubstantiation was not so much as toucht by the ancient Fathers which is very true as will appear more at large in the following Chapter CHAP. VII Of the Writers of the Eleventh and Twelfth Century from whom we may easily deduce and trace the History of Papal Transubstantiation 1. What manner of Popes they were in those times 2. The unhappy Age wherein Divines were divided about the Point of the Eucharist 3. The opinion of Fulbertus 4. Followed by his Disciple Berengarius who is opposed by others 5 6. The Doctrine of Berengarius defended 7. The roaring of Leo the Ninth against Berengarius 8. The Synod of Tours under Victor the Second which cleared Berengarius as free from Error 9. Pope Nicolas the Second gathers another Synod against Berengarius who is forced to make a wondrous kind of Recantation 10. The Authors of the ordinary Gloss censure the Recantation imposed on Berengarius 11. He saith that he was violently compelled to make it for fear of being put to death Lanfrancus and Guitmundus write against him 12. Of Pope Hildebrand and his Roman Council wherein Berengarius was again cited and condemned in vain 13. The Doctrine of St. Bernard approved 14. The Opinion of Rupertus 15. Lombard could define nothing of the Transubstantiation of the Bread and reasons poorly upon the independency of the accidents 16. Otho Frisingensis and those of his time confest that the Bread and Wine remain in the Eucharist 17. P. Blesensis and St. Eduensis were the first that used the word of Transubstantiation 18. Of the thirteenth Century wherein Pope Innocent the Third published his Decree of the Transubstantiation of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Bloud of Christ 19 and 20. The wonderful pride of Innocent the Third The Lateran Council determined nothing concerning that Point 21. The cruelty of the same Innocent who by the Rack and the Fire sought to establish his new Doctrine 22. What Gerson said of the Roman Church in his time Many more Inventions proceed from Transubstantiation Inextricable and unheard of questions 23. New Orders of Monks and of the School-men 24. Of their fine wrangling and disputing 25. The Sacrament abused most grosly by the Patrons of Transubstantiation 26 and 27. Holkot Aquinas Albertus Magnus and other Schoolmen though sometimes they be not for Transubstantiation yet they wholly submit to the Judgment of the Pope 28. Of the Council of Constance which took the Cup from the Laity 29. Cardinal Cameracensis denies that Transubstantiation can be proved by holy Scripture 30. Of the Council of Florence and the Instruction of the Armenians by Pope Eugenius the Fourth 31. The Papal Curse in the Council of Trent not to be feared The Conclusion of the Book 1. WE have proved it before that the Leprosie of Transubstantiation did not begin to spread over the body of the Church in a thousand years after Christ But at last the thousand years being expired and Satan loosed out of his Prison to go and deceive the Nations and compass the Camp of the Saints about then to the great damage of Christian Peace and Religion they began here and there to dispute against the clear constant and universal consent of the Fathers and to maintain the new-started opinion It is known to them that understand History what manner of times were then and what were those Bishops who then governed the Church of Rome Sylvester II John XIX and XX Sergius IV Benedictus VIII John XXI Benedict IX Sylvester III Gregory VI Damasus II Leo IX Nicolas II Gregory VII or Hildebrand who tore to pieces the Church of Rome with grievous Schisms cruel Wars and great Slaughters For the Roman Pontificat was come to that pass that good men being put by they whose Life and Doctrine was pious being oppressed none could obtain that dignity but they that could bribe best and were most ambitious 2. In that unhappy Age the Learned were at odds about the presence of the Body of Christ in the Sacrament some defending the ancient Doctrine of the Church and some the new-sprung up opinion 3. Fulbert Bishop of Chartres was Tutor to Berengarius whom we shall soon have occasion to speak of and his Doctrine was altogether conformable to that of the Primitive Church as appears clearly out of his Epistle to Adeodatus wherein he teacheth That the Mystery of Faith in the Eucharist is not to be lookt on with our bodily eyes but with the eyes of our mind For what appears outwardly Bread and Wine is made inwardly the Body and Bloud of Christ not that which is tasted with the mouth but that which is relish'd by the hearts affection Therefore saith he prepare the palate of thy Faith open the throat of thy Hope and inlarge the bowels of thy Charity and take that Bread of life which is the food of the inward man Again The perception of a divine taste proceeds from the faith of the inward man whilst by receiving the saving Sacrament Christ is received into the soul All this is against those who teach in too gross a manner that Christ in this Mystery enters carnally the mouth and stomach of the Receivers 4. Fulbert was followed by Berengarius his Scholar Archdeacon of Anger 's in France a man of great worth by the holiness both of his life and doctrine as Platina Vincentius Bergomensis and many more Witness this Encomium writ soon after his death by Hildebert Bishop of Mans a most learned man is thus recorded by our William of Malmsbury That Berengarius who was so admired Although his name yet lives is now expired H' out-lives himself yet a sad fatal day Him from the Church and State did snatch away O dreadful day why didst thou play the Thief And fill the world with ruine and with grief For by his death the Church the Laws and all The Clergies glory do receive a fall His sacred wisdom was too great for fame And the whole World 's too little for his name Which to its
of St. Chrysostom In comes the Priest carrying the Holy Ghost 14. About the same time Rupertus Abbot of Tuitium famous by his Writings did also teach that the Substance of the Bread in the Eucharist is not converted but remains These be his words You must attribute all to the operation of the Holy Ghost who never spoils or destroys any substance he useth but to that natural Goodness it had before adds an invisible excellency which it had not He hath indeed an unwarrantable opinion of the Union of the Bread and Body of Christ into one Person but it came as some others as absurd in that Age from too great a curiosity about determining the manner of Christs Presence and of the Union of his Body with the Bread about which that learned man troubled himself too much However he neither taught nor mentioned Transubstantiation 15 Not long after that Algerus a Monk and some others had had some disputes about this subject Pet. Lombard made up his Books of Sentences in the fourth whereof he treats of the Eucharist and thinks that it is taught by some sayings of the Ancients That the substance of the Bread and Wine is changed into the Body and Bloud of Christ But soon after he adds If it be demanded what manner of change that is whether formal or substantial or of any other kind that I cannot resolve Therefore he did not yet hold Transubstantiation as a point of Faith Nay he doth not seem constant to himself in making it a probable opinion but rather to waver to say and unsay and to shelter his cause under the Fathers name rather than maintain it himself Of the accidents remaining without a subject and of the breaking into parts the body of Christ as Berengarius was bid to say by Pope Nicholas he reasons strangely but very poorly 16. Otho Bishop of Frisingen as great by his Piety and Learning as by his Bloud for he was Nephew to Henry the Fourth and the Emperour Henry the Fifth married his Sister he was also Uncle to Frederick and half Brother to King Conrade lived about the same time He believed and writ That the Bread and Wine remain in the Eucharist as did many more in that Age. 17. As for the new-coyn'd word Transubstantiation it is hardly to be found before the middle of this Century For the first that mention it are Petrus Blesensis who lived under Pope Alexander the Third and Stephen Eduensis a Bishop whose Age and Writings are very doubtful And those latter Authors who make it as ancient as the tenth Century want sufficient Witnesses to prove it by as I said before 18. The thirteenth Century now follows wherein the World growing both older and worse a great deal of trouble and confusion there was about Religion the Bishop of Rome exalted himself not only into his lofty Chair over the Universal Church but even into a Majestical Throne over all the Empires and Kingdoms of the world New Orders of Friers sprung up in this Age who disputed and clamoured fiercely against many Doctrines of the ancienter and purer Church and amongst the rest against that of the Sacrament of the Body and Bloud of Christ So that now there remained nothing but to confirm the new Tenet of Transubstantiation and impose it so peremptorily on the Christian world that none might dare so much as to hiss against it This Pope Innocent the Third bravely performed He succeeding Celestin the Third at thirty years of age and marching stoutly in the foot-steps of Hildebrand called a Council at Rome in St. John Lateran and was the first that ever presumed to make the new-devised-Doctrine of Transubstantiation an Article of Faith necessary to salvation and that by his own meer authority 19. How much he took upon himself and what was the mans spirit and humour will easily appear to any man by these his words which I here set down To me it is said in the Prophet I have set thee over Nations and over Kingdoms to root out and to pull down and to destroy and to throw down and to build and to plant To me also it is said in the person of the Apostle To thee will I give the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven For I am in a middle state betwixt God and man below God but above man yea greater than man being I judge all men and can be judged by none Am not I the Bridegroom and each of you the Bridegrooms friend The Bridegroom I am because I have the Bride the noble rich lofty and holy Church of Rome who is the Mother and Mistris of all the Faithful who hath brought me a precious and inestimable portion to wit the fulness of things spiritual and the vastness of temporal with the greatness and multitude of both God made two great Lights in the Firmament of heaven he hath also made two great Lights in the firmament of the Vniversal Church that is he hath instituted two dignities which are the Papal authority and the Regal But that which governs the day that is spiritual things is the greater and that which governs carnal things the less so that it ought to be acknowledged that there is the same difference between the Roman High Priest and Kings as between the Sun and Moon Thus he when he was become Christs Vicar or rather his Rival These things I rehearse that we may see how things went and what was the face of the Latine Church when Pope Innocent the Third propounded and imposed Transubstantiation as an Article of Faith as is plainly and at large set down by a learned Author George Calixtus who deserves equally to be praised and imitated 20. This Innocent therefore who to encrease his Power and Authority wrought great troubles to the Emperour Philip stript Otho the Fourth of the Empire forced John King of England to yield up into his hand this Kingdom and that of Ireland and make them Tributary to the See of Rome who under pretence of a spiritual Jurisdiction took to himself both the Supreme Power over things temporal and the things themselves who was proud and ambicious beyond all men covetous to the height of greediness they are the words of Matthew Paris and ever ready to commit the most wicked villanies so he might be recompenced for it this I say was the man who in his Lateran Council propounded that Transubstantiation should be made an Article of Faith and when the Council would not grant it did it himself by his own Arbitrary Power against which none durst open his mouth For those Canons which this day are shewn about under the name of the Council are none of his but meerly the Decrees of Pope Innocent first writ by him and read in the Council and disliked by many and afterwards set down in the Book of Decretals under certain titles by
the determination of the Church For that the Bread should still remain he confesseth That it is possible That it is not against reason or the authority of the Bible But concerning the conversion of the Bread he says That clearly it cannot be inferred from Scripture nor yet from the determination of the Church as he judgeth Yet because the common opinion was otherwise he yielding to the times was fain to follow though with some reluctancy 30. The Council of Florence which was not long after did not at all treat with the Greeks about Transubstantiation nor the Consecration of the Sacrament but left them undetermined with many other Controversies But that which is called the Armenians instruction and in this cause and almost all Disputes is cited as the Decree of the General Council of Florence by Soto Bellarmine and the Roman Catechism is no Decree of the Council as we have demonstrated somewhere else but a false and forged Decree of Pope Eugenius the Fourth who doth indeed in that Instruction prescribe to the Armenians a form of Doctrine about the Sacrament saying That by vertue of the words of Christ the substance of the Bread is turned into his Body and the substance of the Wine into his Bloud But that he did it with the approbation of the Council as he often says in his Decree is proved to be altogether false as well by the Acts of the Council as by the unanswerable Arguments of C. de Capite Fontium Archbishop of Caesarea in his Book De necessaria Theologiae Scholasticae correctione dedicated to Pope Sixtus the Fifth For how could the Council of Florence approve that Decree which was made more than three months after it was ended It being certain that after the Council was done the Armenians with the Greeks having each of them signed Letters of Union which yet were not approved by all nor long in force after they were subscribed departed out of Florence July 22 whereas the Instruction was not given while November 22. Therefore by the mutual consent of both Parties was nothing here done or decreed about Transubstantiation or the rest of the Articles of the new Roman Faith But Eugenius or whoever was the Forger of the Decree put a cheat upon his Reader Perhaps he had seen the same done by Innocent the Third or Gregory the Ninth in the pretended Decrees of the Council of Lateran which were the Popes only but not the Council's And certainly it is more likely Eugenius did it rather to please himself than for any hopes he could have that at his command the Armenians would receive and obey his Instruction sooner than the Greeks For to this day the Armenians believe that the Elements of Bread and Wine retain their nature in the Sacrament of the Eucharist 31. By these any considering person may easily see that Transubstantiation is a meer novelty not warranted either by Scripture or Antiquity invented about the middle of the Twelfth Century out of some misunderstood Sayings of some of the Fathers confirmed by no Ecclesiastick or Papal Decree before the year 1215. afterwards received only here and there in the Roman Church debated in the Schools by many disputes linble to many very bad consequences rejected for there was never those wanting that opposed it by many great and pious men until it was maintained in the Sacrilegious Council of Constance and at last in the year 1551. confirmed in the Council of Trent by a few Latine Bishops Slaves to the Roman See imposed upon all under pain of an Anathema to be feared by none and so spread too too far by the tyrannical and most unjust command of the Pope So that we have no reason to embrace it untill it shall be demonstrated that except the substance of the Bread be changed into the very Body of Christ his words cannot possibly be true nor his Body present Which will never be done A Table of the places of Scripture cited in this Book Exod XII 11 21. Chap. I. Art 4 Eccl. VII 29. Chap. VII 24 St. Mat. XXVI 26. Chap. I. 1 St. Luk. XXII 19. Ibid.  St. Job III. 3. Chap. VI. 7 St. Job III. 29. Chap. VII 19 St. Job VI. 55. Chap. I. 5 Rom. XII 3. Chap. VI. 7 1 Cor. IV. 15. Ibid.  1 Cor. X. 16. Chap. I. ◠1 Cor. X. 3 4 Ibid.  Gal. VI. 5. Chap. VII 7 Eph. IV. 22. Ibid.  1 Pet. I. 3. Ibid.  Jude v. 3. In the Preface  A Table of the Ancient Fathers Century I. CLemens Romanus Chap. VI. Art 1 St. Ignatius Ibid. 10 Century II. Theoph. Antioch Chap. VI. 1 Justinus Martyr Chap. V. 7  VI. 11 Athenagoras Tatianus Chap. VI. 1 Irenaeus Chap. V. 8  VI. 5 7 Century III. Tertullian Chap. V. 9  VI. 7 Origenes Chap V. 10  VI. 5 7 Cyprian Chap. V. 11  VI. 7 8 12 Clem. Alexand. Chap. VI. 1 7 Minutius Felix Ibid.  Arnobius Chap. V. 35 Century IV. Euseb Caesar Chap. VI. 1 Athanasius Chap. V. 13 Cyril Hieros Ibid. 14  VI. 5 7 Juvencus Macarius Hilarius Optatus Euseb Emiss Greg. Naz. Cyril Alex. Epiphanius Hieronimus Theoph. Alex. Gaudentius Chap. VI. 1 6 7 6 St. Basil Chap. V. 15  VI. 7 Greg Nyss Chap. V. 16  VI. 7 Ambrosius Chap. V. 17  VI. 6 7 13 Chrysost Chap. V. Art 18  VI. 6 7 8 Century V. St. Austin Chap. V. 19 Prosper III. Chap. V. 20 Leo IV.   Theodoret. Chap. V. 21  VI. 10 Gelasius Chap. V. 22 Sedulius Gennadius Chap. VI. 1 Faustus Reg. Ibid. 7 Century VI. Ephrem Chap. V. 24 Facundus Ibid. 25 Fulgentius Chap. VI. 1 Victor Antioch Primasius Procop. Gaz. Chap. VI. 1 Century VII Isidorus Hispal Chap. V. 26 Hesychius Chap. VI. 1 2 Maximus Ibid. 1 Century VIII Vener Beda Chap. V. 27 Carol. Magnus Ibid. 28 Damascenus Chap. VI. 1 Century IX Paschasius Chap. V. 29 Amalarius 30 Rabanus Maurus 31 Joh. Erigena 32 Wal. Strabo 33 Bertramus 34 Niceph. Patria Hincmarus Chap. VI. Art 1 Century X. Herigerus Chap. V. 36 Fulbertus Chap. VI. 1 Century XI Idem Fulbertus Chap. VII 3 Berengarius Ibid. 4 5 6 c. Hildebertus Chap. VII 4 Theophylact Oecumenius Chap. VI. 7 Century XII Bernardus Chap. VII 13  III. 2 Rupertus Chap. VII 14 A Table of the Schoolmen Century XIII LOmbardus Chap. VII Art 15 Alex. Alensis Ibid. 24  VI. 2 Albertus Magnus Ibid. 26 Tho. Aquinas 2 Rich. de Mediavilla Chap. VII 10 Century XIV Scotus Durandus Occamus Chap. V. 2 Baconus Chap. VII 27 Holcotus 26 Th. Argent 27 Brulifer 24 Century XV. Card. Camer Chap. V. Art 3  VII 29 Gabriel Biel Ibid  Century XVI Cajetan Ibid.  Dom. Soto Chap VII 24 A Table of the Councils NIcene I. Chap. V Art 12 Calced Ibid. 23 Ancyran Neocaesarien Laodiceum Carthagin Aurelian