That the Fathers of the SECOND CENTURY Iust. Mar­tyr. did not believe Transubstantiation.

S. Iustin Martyr saith, ‘ That after the common Prayers were ended, there was presented to the chief of the Brethren, which was God's Minister, the Bread and the Wine, mixt with Water, which he receiv'd into his hands, and giving thanks and glory to the Father of Heaven and Earth, through Iesus Christ his Son, and the Holy Ghost, &c. and the said President or Minister having ended his thanksgiving, the People ha­ving all said Amen, those whom we call Deacons and Ministers, at­tending on this Holy Service, give to every one present at the Holy Communion, part of this Holy Bread, so blessed and glorify'd; and also of the Holy liquor mixt of Wine and Water, upon which Prayers had been made.’ And a little lower, ‘ Behold, Lord, we do not receive this Bread nor this Wine as common Bread and Wine, but as Iesus Christ is become Flesh and Blood by the Word, so also the nourishment which by the Word is become a Sacrament, and of which by conversion and change, our flesh and Blood are nourish'd, is as we have learned, the Flesh and Blood of Iesus Christ incarnate.’

If St. Iustin had believed that the substance of the Bread, Wine, and Water had been changed after Consecration, so that they had been destroy'd, how could he have said, that after Consecra­tion the Deacons did distribute to the People the Bread, the Wine, and the Water?

Secondly, When he saith, we do not take this Bread and Wine as common Bread and Wine: this language amongst the antient Doctors intimates, that both the one and the other do still subsist, but that by Consecration, they have acquir'd a new use and quality. As when Cyril of Ierusalem Catech. 3. Ad Illum. saith, Approach not to Baptism as to common Water. Or as Gregory Nyssen saith of Baptism, Do not despise the Holy Font, and look not upon it as common Water.

To conclude, this blessed Martyr saith, Our Body and Blood are nourish'd by the change of the Eucharistical food, which converts [Page 9] and turns it self into our Flesh and Blood. These words plainly shew, that 'tis the Bread and Wine which are turn'd into our Substance, into our Flesh, and into our Blood, seeing that 'tis certain, that the real Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ, is not converted into our Iustin Martyr. Flesh and Blood. So when Iustin saith, That the Sacramental Food is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, that imports, that 'tis not common Bread and Wine, but a Bread and Wine which is to be consider'd as the Flesh and Blood of the Word incarnate.

S. Irenaeus proves against Valentine and his followers, that our Bodies shall not be destroy'd, and by consequence that they shall Irenaeus be raised incorruptible by receiving the Sacrament, as the Bread of the Eucharist becomes supernatural by the invocation of the Holy Ghost.

We establish in the Eucharist, saith S. Irenaeus, the Communion Adversus He­res. l. 4. c. 24. and unity of the Flesh and of the Spirit; for as the Bread which is of the Earth, receiving the invocation of God, is no longer common Bread, but is the Sacrament compos'd of two things, one Terrestrial, and the other Celestial: So also our Bodies which receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, but have the Hope of a future Resurrection.

This passage doth suppose, that the Bread remains in the Eu­charist; in the first place, because if Consecration did destroy the substance of the Bread and Wine, it must be confess'd the Holy Doctor had taken wrong measures, to shew that the Flesh is not destroy'd by the grace of the Holy Spirit, by the Bread of the Eucharist, which it self should be destroy'd by the grace of the Spirit which comes upon it.

Secondly, Because a little before, Irenaeus saith, How is it they say, the Flesh shall be destroy'd and turn to corruption, seeing it is nourish'd with the body and blood of Christ?

Now the Flesh is fed by the conversion of nourishment into the body, which not being to be said of Iesus Christ, is only to be apply'd to the Bread. Moreover these words, That the Eucharist is compos'd of two things, sufficiently shew, that the Bread remains; for to say Irenaeus means by a Terrestrial thing, the accidents of Bread & Wine, besides that S. Austin saith in the second Book of Soliloquies, Chap. 12. that 'tis a thing monstrous to say that accidents subfist without a subject; Irenaeus also himself saith, Book 2. cap. 14. that Water cannot be without moisture, Fire without heat, a Stone without hardness. For these things are so united, that the one cannot be separated from the other, but the one must subsist in the other. So in like manner, by this Terrestrial thing must be [Page 10] understood the Bread, as S. Gregory Naz. saith in his fourth Oration according to Bilius his version, Baptism also is compos'd of two things, Water and the Spirit; the one is visible and is meant in a corporal manner, but the other is invisible and operates after a spiri­tual Irenaeus manner; the one is Typical, the other cleanseth that which is in­ward, and most hidden.

Clement of Alexandria saith the same in different terms. ‘ The Clem. Alexand. P. edag. l. 2. Blood of Christ is twofold, the one is carnal, whereby we are deliver'd from corruption, the other is spiritual, whereby we are anointed, and that is to drink the Blood of Iesus Christ, to be partakers of the incorruption of the Lord. Now the virtue of the Word is the Holy Spirit, as the Blood is the vertue of the Flesh. By Analogy then, the Wine, mixt with Water, as the Spirit with Man; and this mixture makes the Wine the pleasanter to drink, but the Spirit leadeth to incorruption. Now this mixture of the one with the other, to wit, of the Wine and the Word, is called Eucharist, which is highly esteem'd, whereby those who worthily partake of it by Faith, are sanctify'd both in their Body and Soul.’

When Clement of Alexandria said that the Eucharist is a mix­ture Graece [...] signifies mix­ture. of Wine and the Word, it is a composition, a mixture, which could not be, if there was but the Word only in the Eucharist. For a mixture is at least of two things. So the Fathers have called Jesus Christ, a mixture of God and Man. The Body of Man, saith S. Austin, is a mixture of Body and Soul; the Person of S. Austin F. p. 3. ad Volusen. Christ is a mixture of God and Man.

The Epitome of Theodotus saith, The Bread and Oyl are sancti­fied Theodotus. by the virtue of the name, and they remain not what they were be­fore, though to look on them they seem to be the same, but by virtue, they are are changed into a Spiritual force. So water sanctified is be­come Baptism, it not only retains what's less, but also acquires a sanctification.

The author saith, The Bread is changed, but when he adds that 'tis into a Spiritual virtue, he quite excludes the change of its substance; for by virtue, and Spiritual, cannot be understood any other change but that of virtue and quality, seeing this Author speaks of this change, as being common to the Water of Baptism, to the Oyl of Unction, and to the Bread of the Eucharist.

That the Fathers of the THIRD CENTURY did not believe Transubstantiation.

TErtullian in his first Book against Marcion, shewing that Tertullian. Jesus Christ is not contrary to the Creator, as this Here­tick affirm'd, saith in his 14th. Chap. Hitherto Jesus Christ has not condemn'd the Water wherewith he cleanseth his Children, nor the Oyl wherewith he anoints them, nor the Hony nor the Milk where­by he makes them his Children, nor the Bread by which he represents his body.

By this passage, the Bread represents the Body of Jesus Christ, therefore the Bread remains in the Sacrament, and this Bread is not really Jesus Christ, because what doth represent, is ano­ther thing than what is represented.

Two things have been said on this place of Tertullian; first, that the Bread signifies the accidents of Bread; the second that the Word represent, does signify in this place, to make present: As when in a Court of Justice a Prisoner is made appear as often as he is demanded.

Against the former, there's no reason to believe that Tertullian speaking of Water, of Oyl, of Hony, and Milk, should intend to speak of their accidents, but of their very sub­stance, and that speaking of Bread, he should speak only of its accidents.

Against the second it's most certain that in matter of Sa­craments, the term to signify is taken literally, to signify. S. Austin saith, Ep. 5. the signs, when applyed to Holy things, are called Sacraments. Tertullian explains himself clearly Lib. 3. against Marcion, so that there's no cause of doubt­ing, when he saith, That Jesus Christ has given to the Bread the priviledge of being the figure of his Body. The same Tertullian lib. 4. contra Marcion. cap. 40. doth prove that Jesus Christ had a real Body, and not one in shew only, as Marcion dream'd, and he proves it by this argu­ment: That which hath a figure ought to be real and true; [Page 12] now Jesus Christ hath in the Eucharist a figure of his Body, there­fore the Body of Jesus Christ is real and true, and not a Phan­tome.

Jesus Christ, saith Tertullian, having taken the Bread which Tertullian. he distributed amongst his Disciples, he made it his Body, saying, This is the figure of my Body: now it had been no figure, if Jesus Christ had not had a real and true Body; for an empty thing as a Phantasm is, is not capable of having any figure.

From hence 'tis concluded, that the Bread being the figure of the Body of Jesus Christ, and that which is a figure, being distinguished from the thing signified, the Bread of the Eucharist is not properly and truely the Body of Jesus Christ, and so the Bread is not destroy'd, but remains to be the figure of the Body of Jesus Christ.

If it be said, the Bread is destroy'd, and that the acci­dents of Bread are the figure of the Body of Jesus Christ, this gives up the victory to Marcion, to prove, that Jesus Christ had a true Body, and not one in shew only, because Jesus Christ hath in the Eucharist the figure of Bread, which is Bread only in appearance. Marcion might have retorted the argument and said, according to you, Tertullian, the Sacrament is the figure of the Body of Jesus Christ; now as this figure is Bread in appearance, and is called Bread on­ly because of the outward accidents and qualities which it re­tains, so also the Body of Jesus Christ was only a Body in appearance, and was called a Body because it had the outward ac­cidents and qualities.

Again, as Tertullian saith, That Jesus Christ distributed to his Disciples the Bread which he had taken to make it the figure of his Body; it is most certain he took true Bread, and by consequence, that he distributed true Bread.

The same Tertullian in his Treatise of the Soul, disputing against the Accademitians that questioned the truth of the testimony of the Senses, saith to them, that we must not at all doubt of the testimony of the Senses, lest occasion might farther be taken to doubt the actions of the humanity of Jesus Christ, that it might not be said, That it was untrue that he saw Satan fall from Heaven; That it was not true, that he heard the Father's voice from heaven bearing witness to his Son; [Page 13] That he was deceived when he touched Peter's Wifes Mother; That he was deceived when he smelt the sweet odour which he was pleas'd to accept for the preparation to his Death; or, That he tasted the Wine that he consecrated in remem­brance Tertullian. of his Blood.

It is evident that to consecrate Wine in remembrance of Blood, cannot be understood of a substance which is de­stroy'd all saving the accidents; This manner of expression in the language of the Ancients signifying no more, but that a substance remains always in its first state, only at­tains to a higher degree, which is, to be the Sacrament of a Heavenly and supernatural thing. To conclude, if Ter­tullian had believed that the Wine had been destroy'd, and that nothing but the appearance was left, against the testimony of all the Senses, had it not been an unpar­donable fault in Tertullian, to prove that the Senses could not be deceived by the Example of the Eucharist, where the Senses are quite deceived?

Origen did not believe Transubstantiation when he said in his Commentary on the 13th. Chap. of S. Matth. expoun­ding Origen. these words of the Gospel, ‘ what enters into the Mouth defiles not the Man &c. as there's nothing that's impure of it self to him that's polluted and incredulous, but a thing is impure, Du Perron saith on this passage, Chri­stians, stop your Ears. by reason of his impurity and incredulity; so also, that which is sanctifyed by the word of God and Prayer, doth not sanctify by its proper nature, him that uses it: If it were so, it would also sanctify him that cats unworthily of the Lord, and none should have been weak, nor sick, nor should have fallen asleep, by reason of so eating—. If all that enters into the Mouth goes into the Belly, and there is cast out into the draught, this food which is sanctifyed by the word of God, and by Prayer, goes also into the Belly and is cast out into the draught, according to its material substance; But according to the Prayer which has been thereunto added, it becomes profitable according to the measure of Faith, by causing the mind to become inlightned, having regard to what is profitable; And 'tis not the matter of Bread, but the words which have been pronounc'd upon it, that avails him which eateth in such a manner as is not unwor­thy of the Lord, and this may be said of the Body Typical, or Symbolical; Many things might be said also of the Word made [Page 14] Flesh, and true nourishment, the which whosoever eats shall never dye, and which no wicked person can eat; for could it be that he which continues wicked should eat of the Word incarnate, seeing he is the Word and Bread of Life, it would not have been written, Origen. Whosoever eateth this Bread shall live Eternally.’

When he saith of the Bread of the Eucharist, that it sanctifieth not of it self, it cannot he understood of the true Body of Jesus Christ, but of the Bread which remains. When he saith, This Bread sanctified by the invocation of God, and by Prayer, remains in its material being, it means plainly, That it remains in its former substance. When he saith, That this Bread as to the matter of it goes down in­to the Belly, and is cast into the draught as the other meats: This not being to be understood of Jesus Christ without Blas­pheming, is necessarily to be understood of the Bread. When he calls this Bread the Typical Body, it shews plainly, That this not being the true Body, it is not Transubstantiated. When having spoken of the Typical Body, he after speaks of the Word made Flesh, which cannot but give life to those which eat and receive him; he sufficiently distin­guisheth the Bread of the Eucharist from Jesus Christ; the former of which may be mortal, but the latter can never be so to those who receive and eat him.

This passage is so clear and evident, that Sixtus Senen­sis in his Bibl. l. 6. annot. 66. found no better expedi­ent than to say, That 'twas probable, This passage had been corrupted by the Hereticks. Gennebrard and Du Per­ron suspected Erasmus to have ill translated it: But the learned Monsieur Huet, nominated to be Bishop of Soissons, saith, Origeniana l. 2. q. 14. It evidently appears by the Original Greek, that this passage is no way changed.

The same Origen saith, in Tom. 32. of his Commen­tary on S. John, that the morsel of Bread Christ gave to Pag. 411. Edit. Huet. G. L. Judas and those he gave the Apostles, saying, Take, Eat, were of the same sort. Now if the morsel given to Judas was true Bread, as it is granted, and if the Bread given the other Apo­stles was not true Bread, then the one and the other were not of the same kind.

[Page 15] The same Origen in the Seventh Homily on Leviticus, saith, That Jesus Christ before his Passion, drank Wine, but being ready to suffer, he refused to drink it; Ubi vero tempus advenit Crucis suae, accipiens, inquit, Galicem benedixit, & dedit Disci­pulis Origen. suis, dicens, Accipite & Bibite ex hoc. Vos, inquit, bi­bite quia non accessuri estis and altare, ipse autem tanquam accessurus ad altare dicit, Amen, dico vobis quia non bibam de generatione vitis hujus, usque quò bibam illud novum vo­biscum in Regno Patris mei. Origen affirms, That our Saviour in celebrating the Eucharist, did not drink Wine, because he was ready to approach the Altar (of his Passion) and that the Apostles did drink Wine, because they were not yet ready to approach to the Altar of Martyrdom. And that in this sense, the Figure of the Old Testament was accomplished, where 'twas forbidden to Aaron and his Priests to drink Wine when they were about to approach to the Altar. All this Discourse is false, if Jesus Christ spake not these words of true Wine, I will not drink, &c. and if what the Apostles drank was not true Wine.

Let us see now what St. Cyprian saith, The Sacrifice of the Cyprian. Lord recommends to us Unity: for when Jesus Christ called his Body, the Bread which is made of several Grains, he re­commended the Unity of Christian People; and when he called his Blood, the Wine, made of several Grains and Grapes, he represented one Flock united by the Band of Charity. Now these words, where Jesus Christ called the Bread his Body, and the Wine his Blood, is as if he had said of the Bread, This is my Body, and of the Wine, This is my Blood. And if hereunto we add the words of the Jesuite Salmeron, who said, If Tom. 9. Tract. 2. & Tract. 16. Jesus Christ had said, This Bread is my Body, and this Wine is my Blood, it would have obliged us to have understood these words in a figurative sense, because the Bread cannot be a hu­mane Body, nor the Wine Blood, but in a figurative Sense. Bellarmine saith the same; If Jesus Christ had said, This Bread is my Body, this proposuion must be understood in a figu­rative De Euch. l. 1. c. 1. Sense; otherwise the Expression would be absurd and im­possible. Now as we see S. Cyprian saith, that Jesus Christ said of the Body, That 'tis his Body, and of the Wine, That 'twas his Blood, it must be concluded therefore that Jesus Christ said of the Bread and Wine, That they were his Body [Page 16] and Blood, that is to say, That the Bread and Wine were his Body and Blood in Figure, both the one and the other being represented and signified by the Bread and Wine. And therefore in his Epistle to Cecilius, where at large he proves the Wine must be mingled with Water, he saith, If there be no Wine in the Cup, the Blood of Jesus Christ cannot be represented to us, because 'tis the Wine that represents to us the Blood of Jesus Christ. And again, Vini ubique mentio est, & ideo ponitur ut I omini Sanguis Vino intelligatur. He saith of the Water, that, Sola Christi sanguinem non potest ex­primere. In aqua vidimus populum intelligi, in Vino ostendi Sanguinem Christi. So that seeing St. Cyprian saith, That the Wine representeth, expresseth, sheweth, and makes us see the Blood of Jesus Christ, as the Water representeth, ex­presseth, and shews us the Christian People, it cannot be ima­gin'd that St. Cyprian believed the Wine was destroy'd, but on the contrary, he believed that after Consecration, the Wine remained, and that 'twas true Wine that he called his Blood, according to what he saith in the same Letter, Quia in parte invenimus Calicem mixtum fuisse quem Dominus obtulit, & vinum fuisse quod Sanguinem suum dixit.

That the Fathers of the FOURTH CENTURY did not believe Transubstantiation.

EUstathius, Patriarch of Antioch, upon these words of Eustathius. Solomon in the Proverbs, Eat my Bread, and drink the Nicen. Syn. 2. Act. 6. Wine which I have prepar'd; saith, That the wise Man by the Bread and Wine did foreshew the Antitypes of the Body of Jesus Christ: Now that which is a Type, is an Image; what is an Image cannot be the thing but in Figure: so that the Bread is not destroy'd, because it is the Type and the Image.

Eusebius of Caesarea, interpreting these words of Genesis, Eusebius Chap. 49. Vers. 12. His Eyes shall be red with Wine, and his Lib. 8. de Dem. Evang. [Page 17] Teeth white with Milk, saith, That the first words signifie the Joy that the mystical Wine doth cause in the Disciples of Jesus Christ when he saith to them, Take, Drink ye ALL of this, &c. And these words, The Teeth white with Milk, do signifie Eusebius. the purity and cleanness of the Mystical Food, which are the Symbols which Jesus Christ left to his Disciples, commanding them to celebrate the Image of his proper Body; not requiring any more bloody Sacrifices, and commanded to make use of Bread for the Symbol of his Body.

Seeing then that according to this ancient Doctor, the Wine is the Symbol of the Blood of Christ, and the Bread the Figure of his Body, and both the one and the other an Image of the Body and Blood, the Image is not that of which 'tis an Image; and by consequence, in the Eucharist, besides the Body of Jesus Christ, there is also Bread and Wine, which do represent and shew him; it being evident by the Text of this Author, that he understood the words of Jesus Christ, This is my Body, in this sense, This is the Sym­bol of my Body.

Cyril of Jerusalem saith, Quemadmodum Panis Eucharisticus Cyrillus Hierosol. post Spiritûs Sancti invocationem, non amplius est Panis communis, sed est Corpus Christi, sic & sanctum hoc unguentum non amplius est Catech. Myst. 3. unguentum illud.

Macharius, a noted Hermite in Egypt, who wrote his Macharius. Homilies about the year 368. saith in the 27th Homily, That before the birth of Jesus Christ, the wise Men, Holy Men, Kings and Prophets, knew that Jesus Christ was to come to be a redee­mer, but they knew not that he was to suffer death, that he was to be Crucify'd, and that he should shed his Blood on the Cross, and that they had not attain'd so far as to know there should be a Baptism of Fire and of the Holy Ghost, and that in the Church should be offered Bread and Wine, Antitypes of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, and that those which eat of this visible Bread, should spiritually eat the Flesh of the Lord. This Fa­ther saying that the Antitype of the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ is Bread and Wine, doth suppose the Bread remains, as not being the Real Body of Jesus Christ, but a Type of it: now the Type is not the verity, sed umbra veritatis, saith St. Ambrose, de side l. 3. c. 8. and by consequence, there is in the Eucharist something else besides the Body it self of [Page 18] Jesus Christ. And when he saith, That those which take the visible Bread, do spiritually eat the Flesh of Christ, he gives us sufficiently to understand, that in this august Sacrament, there is besides the Flesh of Jesus Christ a visible Bread, and that the Macharius. visible Bread is eaten corporally, and the Flesh of Jesus Christ spiritually.

St. Basil, Bishop of Caesaria, in his Epistle to Caesarea, saith, St. Basil. That at Alexandria, and in Aegypt, each Lay-person for the Ep. 289. most part, kept the Eucharist by them, and communicated them­selves when they pleased; and if they receive from the Priest a morsel of the consecrated Bread, they may receive the Holy Sa­crament daily if they list, taking some of it to day, and the rest to morrow. For, saith he, the Priest in the Church gives a good Piece or Morsel of the Eucharist, and he that takes it, doth com­municate himself at his pleasure. Now, saith he, as to the validity and vertue of the Sacrament, it is one and the same, whether one receives one morsel, or two, of the Priest. In what sense can it be understood that one receives several parts or parcels in the Eucharist? It cannot be meant of Jesus Christ, whose Body cannot be divided into morsels; it must therefore be understood, that St. Basil believed that the Bread remained in the Eucharist as a Typical and Symbolical Body of Jesus Christ.

Ephrem Deacon of the Church of Edessa, contemporary Ephrem. with St. Basil, and whose Writings St. Jerom reports in his Catalogue, were read in the Church after the Holy Scriptures; he saith, in the Treatise he wrote, That Men should not search too curiously into the Nature of God; consider diligently (saith this holy Deacon) how Jesus Christ taking the Bread into his hands, blessed and broke it as a Figure of his immaculate Body; and taking the Cup, he blessed it as a Type of his blessed Blood, and gave it to his Disciples. It is evident that Ephrem believed the Bread is the figure of the Body, and the Wine the Type of the Blood of Christ; figura autem non est veritas, sed imitatio verit atis, saith S. Gaudentius upon Exodus, Tract. 2. the Body of Jesus Christ is the verity, there must then be in the Sacrament, besides the real Body, a material and Typi­cal Body, which may be the figure of the true Body of Jesus Christ.

[Page 19] S. Epiphanius having said, That Jesus Christ descended into the Waters to be Baptiz'd, not to receive any virtue from the Waters, but to confer it upon them, he adds, That 'tis in Epiphanius. Jesus Christ the Prophecy of Esay is accomplished, who in S. Ep. in Com­pond. de side Eccles. Deus ad aquas de­scendit. the third Chap. speaks of the vertue of Bread and Water, he gave strength to the Waters, illuminans eas, & roboran [...] in Typo earum que in ipso erant perficienda; and as for the Bread, Cibus quidem panis est, sed virtus in eo est ad vivisicationem. S. Epiphanius speaks here of the Eucharist as he doth of Baptism, he saith, That both one and the other receive their virtue from Jesus Christ, who communicates to them spiritual strength, sufficient to sanctify; now as the Water of Baptism is changed only by a change of virtue, and quality, it is appa­rent S. Epiphanius did not mean that the Bread of the Eu­charist should be destroy'd, no more than the Water was in Baptism; else he would not have said, that the Consecrated Bread was a food, for accidents cannot nourish, nothing can Incorporea re nihil augetur. Arist. de ge­nerat. & cor­ruptione. Ali­mentum vel materiam par­tim. Ibid. l. 2. be fed by that which is not a Body; nourishment proceeds from a substance or matter, saith Aristotle, and Boëtius. in Praedic. saith, that 'tis impossible an accident should pass into the nature of a substance, ut accidens in substantis naturam transeat fieri nullo modo potest.

Gregory Nazianzen, speaking of the miraculous recovery of his Sister Gorgonia, speaks in these terms, pouring forth a Greg. Naz. Flood of tears after the example of her that washed Christ's feet Orat. 11. with her tears, she said, she would not depart thence till she had recover'd her health, her tears were the perfume which she spread over all his Body, she mingled them with the Antitypes, or the Symbols of the mody and Blood of Jesus Christ, as much at least as she could hold in her hands, and immediately, O the Mi­racle, she found her self healed. And in his seventeenth Ora­tion, this godly Prelate interceding to the Emperor's Pre­fect, that he would extend his favour, and not deliver up the City to be plundred, I set before your Eyes the Table where we joyntly receive the Sacrament, and the figure of my Salvation, which I consecrate with the same Mouth wherewith I make my request to you; this Sacrament, I say, which lifts us up to Heaven.

[Page 20] It appears by these words, that S. Gregory lookt upon the Consecrated Bread and Wine as figures of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ: now if they are figures, then they are not that whereof they be figures, and by consequence, there Gregory Nazianz. is in the Sacrament something else besides the very Body of Jesus Christ, to wit, the Bread and Wine, which are the Types and figures of it. For to say that S. Gregory means only that the accidents of Bread and Wine are the Types and figures, when he saith, his Sister mingled her tears with the Antitypes of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, as many as she could keep in her hands, Si quid Antityporum pretiosi Corporis aut Sanguinis manus thesaurisasset, these words, as many as she could gather in her hands, signify, as many portions and parts of the Eucharist as she could gather up, paululum Eucharistiae, as Eusebius speaks in the sixth Book of his Hist. chap. 36. as ha­ving gather'd together a little of the Sacrament, and having separated it from a greater Mass, or from a greater quantity of liquor. Now all antiquity agree, that the lines, the superficies, the qualities, are inseparable from their subject, so that this little parcel of Antitypes, this parcel of the figures, cannot be a part of accidents, and of appearances.

Gregory Nyssen going to prove that the Water of Baptism, for Greg. Nyss. being Water, ought not to be despised, but that after Conse­cration it hath a marvellous Virtue, he proves it by the Example In his Oration of the Baptis. of J. C. of the Eucharist, and extream Unction. ‘ The Bread, saith he, before Consecration is but common Bread, but after Consecration it is called, and is the Body of Christ; so also the Mystical Oyl, and Wine, before Benediction, are common things, and of no virtue, but after Benediction, both of them have a great virtue.’ Now these words shew, that the Bread and Wine remain after Consecration; for it appears that St. Gregory's Design is to prove, that common and ordinary things have a marvellous force after Consecration, and if the Bread and Wine were de­stroy'd after Consecration, what did operate would not be a vile and mean thing, because it would be the very Body of Jesus Christ, and St. Gregory would not well have proved that vile things have any marvellous virtue in them after Consecration; for instance, Bread and Wine, which not subsi­sting after Consecration, could not have the virtue to sanctify.

[Page 21] S. Ambrose in his Epistle to Justus, explaining what Gomer is, saith, it is a measure, and that this measure signi­fies the quantity of Wine which rejoyces the heart of Man; and having explain'd the Wine, of the drinking Wisdom, S. Ambrose. l. 1. Ep. 1. Sobriety, and Temperance, he saith, That it is to be understood more fully of the Blood of Jesus Christ, which neither admits increase, nor decrease, as to grace; But of which if one receive more or less, the measure however of Redemption is equal to all. Plenius de sanguine intelligitur cujus ad gratiam nihil minuitur, nihil adaugetur, & si parum sumas, & si plurimum haurias, eadem perfecta est omnibus mensura Redemptionis. This manner of speaking of taking more or less of the Blood of Jesus Christ, is not to be understood of the proper Body of Jesus Christ, which is indivisible; there must be therefore in the Eucharist, besides the proper Blood of Jesus Christ, a Typical and Symbolical Blood, which is the Wine, which is so called, and of which we may say, we receive more or less.

The same Father saith elsewhere, That as often as we receive Id. Tom. 4. de side l. 4. c. 5. the Sacraments, which by the virtue of Holy Prayer are transfigur'd into the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ, we shew forth the Death of Christ. It is certain that by these words, S. Ambrose lookt upon the Bread and Wine as figures of the Flesh and Blood; now the figure being a thing distinct from what it represents, as being two correlatives, the one of which is not the other, it must be concluded, that S. Ambrose believed that there is Bread and Wine in the Eucharist, which are the figures of the Bread and Heavenly Power.

The same Father speaking of the blessing of Aser, explain­ing Idem Tom. 1. of the blessing of the Patri­archs, c. 9. these Words, Ashur his Bread is fat, he shall feed Princes; saith, Jesus Christ who is Ashur, that is rich, has nourish'd Prin­ces. When he multiply'd the five and seven Loaves, and gave them to his Apostles to distribute to the multitude, he every day gives us this Bread, saith he, when the Priest doth consecrate: we may also by this Bread understand the Lord himself (con­tinues S. Ambrose) who has given us his Flesh to eat. By these words it appears S. Ambrose distinguishes three sorts of Bread which Jesus Christ gave to these Princes; the first is that which he gave in multiplying the five and seven Loaves, John 6. and Matth. 15. the second is the Bread [Page 22] which the Priest consecrates at Mass; the third is that of which it is said, I am the Bread of Life, which is Jesus Christ himself. As then the second is not the first, so neither is the second the third: The Consecrated Bread is another thing Ambrose. than Jesus Christ, the Bread of Life; and by consequence, there is in the Sacrament a Bread distinct from Jesus Christ, the Heavenly Bread.

Gaudentius upon Exodus saith, With great reason we receive Gaudentius. with the Bread the figure of the Body of Christ, because as the Bread is compos'd of many grains, which being ground into Flower Gaud. Bishop of Bress, Tract. 2. is kneaded with Water, and baked by Fire, so also the Body of Christ is made and collected of the whole race of Mankind, and is perfected by the Fire of the Holy Ghost. Now as this Author places the figure of the Body of Jesus Christ in that the Bread is made up of sundry grains, reduced into Meal, kneaded with Water, and baked with fire: it follows, that he believed the Bread remained in the Sacrament, and so much the rather because this Bishop saith elsewhere, figura non est veritas sed imitatio veritatis.

S. Chrysostom expounding these words, ‘ I will no more drink of this fruit of the vine, until I drink it new in the Chrysostom. Kingdom of my Father, saith, because Jesus Christ had spoke S. Chrys. Hom. 83. on S. Matth. to his Disciples of his Passion and of his Death, now he speaks to them of his Resurrection, making mention of his Kingdom, calling his resurrection by this name; Now wherefore did Jesus Christ drink after his Resurrection, fearing lest ignorant per­sons should think his Resurrection was only imaginary, because many took the act of drinking as a true sign of the Resurrection; Therefore the Apostles going to prove his Resurrection, say, we that have eat and drank with him, Jesus Christ. Therefore assuring them that they should see him after his Resurrection, and that he would stay with them, and that they might bear witness of his Re­surrection, might see and behold him, tells them, I will no more drink the Fruit of the Vine, until I drink it with you in a new manner, whereof you shall bear testimony, for you shall see me after my Resurrection; But wherefore, continues S. Chrysostom, did he drink Wine after his Resurrection and not Water? it is be­cause he would thereby destroy a pernicious Heresy. For because there would be Hereticks that would only make use of water in the Mysteries, be would represent the Mysteries; he gave Wine, [Page 23] and when, after the Resurrection, he eat his common Repast, he drank Wine, the Fruit of the Vine; now the Vine doth produce Wine and not Water.’ This Passage marketh in the first place, That Jesus Christ drinking the Fruit of the Vine after his Re­surrection, Chrysost [...]. and not Water, he accomplish'd what he said in celebrating the Eucharist, I will no more drink of this Fruit of the Vine, until I drink it new in my Fathers Kingdom. This shews that Jesus Christ drank true Wine in the Institution of the Eucharist, for what is to be done again, must needs be done before. Secondly, St. Chrysostom doth not only say that Jesus Christ drank Wine, but he saith further, That he distributed Wine amongst his Disciples, and the Fruit of the Vine, which doth not produce Water but Wine. So that these words of St. Chrysostom import clearly, That the Wine re­mains in the Eucharist.

The same Father on these words of the First to the Corin­thians, Idem in Hom. 24. The Bread which we break is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ? (speaks thus) What is the Bread? it is the Body of Jesus Christ. What becomes of them which receive it? they become the Body of Jesus Christ. Now this Proposition, The Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ, cannot be in a Li­teral Sense, for saith Vasquez, The Bread without a Figure, cannot be called the Body of Jesus Christ, nor the Body of Jesus Christ be called Bread.

The same Father in his Commentary upon the Epistle to the Galatians, Chap. 5. explaining these words of the Apostle, The Flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the Flesh; The Manicheans understood by the Flesh, the sub­stance of the Body, and by the Spirit they understood the Soul; and they said, That the Apostle cut Man into two, and intimated, that Man was compos'd of two contrary Substances, one bad, which was the Flesh; and the other good, which was the Spirit, which proceeded from the good God, and the Body from the bad God—S. Chry­sostom answers, That the Apostle in this place doth not call the Flesh the Body, Apostolum non hic carnem appel­lare Corpus, as the Manicheans supposed, and saith, That the Apostle do's not always mean by the Flesh, the nature of the Body, Naturam Corporis, but that very often by the [Page 24] Flesh, he means something else, as evil Desires; and having proved this by sundry passages of the Apostle, and other holy Writers, he proves it at last by the example of the Iucharist, and of the Church, which, he saith, is Chrysostom. called Body in the Holy Scriptures; he saith farther, That the Scripture is wont to call by the name of Flesh, as well the Church, as the Mysteries, saving, It is his Body, Rursum Carnis vocabulo Scriptura solet appellare tum Mysteria, tum totam Ecclesiam, dicens eam Christi Corpus esse. It ap­pears by these words of St. Chrysostom's, That he did not be­lieve that the Consecrated Bread and Wine were the same with the Body of Christ, seeing he proves by the Eucharist, that the Consecraeted Bread and Wine are called Flesh; and that the Word Flesh in this place, is taken for some­thing else besides Body, and that he puts the Term Flesh, given to the Consecrated Bread and Wine, which are the Mysteries, in the rank of other Terms of Flesh given to evil Desires, and to the Church, which are mystical and figurative Terms. So St. Chrysostom believed the Bread and Wine remained, and are so called the Body of Jesus Christ mystically, as the Church is called the Body of Jesus Christ.

The same St. Chrysostom wrote a Letter to Caesarius, which indeed is not inserted in his Works, but is sound in Ma­nuscript in the Library at Florence, and it was also found in England in Archbishop Cranmer's Library, it is men­tion'd in the Bibliotheca Patrum, Printed at Collen, 1618. in this Bibliotheque, Tom. 4. there is found the Collecti­ons of an ancient nameless Author, who wrote against the Severian, and Acephalian Hereticks, wherein is recited a Passage taken out of this Letter. So also Monsieur de Marca Arch-Bishop of Paris, acknowledges the truth of this Let­ter in his Posthume and French Treatise of the Eucharist, witness the Abbot Fagget in his Letter to Monsieur de Marca, President of the Parliament at Pan, who saith also this Letter was found by Monsieur Bigot in a Library at Florence. St. Chrysostom in this Letter writeth against Apol­linarius, and saith, ‘Jesus Christ is both God and Man, God because of his Impassibility, Man by his Passion, one Son, [Page 25] one Lord, both Natures united making but one, the same Power, the same Dominion; although they be two different Natures, each conserves its own Nature, because they are two, and yet without confusion; for as the Bread before it is sanctified, is called Bread, when by the intercession of the Priest, Divine Chrysostom. Grace has sanctified it, it loses the name of Bread, and be­comes worthy to be called the Body of Jesus Christ, al­though the Nature of Bread abides in it, so that they are not two Bodies, but one sole Body of the Son; so the Di­vine Nature being united to the Humane Nature of Jesus Christ, it did not make two Persons, but one only Person and one Son.’

St. Chrysostom saith plainly, That the Nature of Bread a­bideth after Consecration; and this Father's Argument would be of no validity, if this nature of the Bread was no­thing but in shew, for Apollinarius might have made ano­ther opposite Argument, and say, That indeed it might be said there were two Natures in Jesus Christ, but that the Humane Nature was only in appearance, as the Bread in the Eucharist is but in shew, and hath only outward and visible qualities remaining in it, whereby it is term'd to be Bread.

The Author of the imperfect Work upon St. Matthew This Author goes under S. Chrysostom's Name. written in the time of the Emperour Theodosius, did not believe Transubstantiation, when he spake in these Terms in Homily Eleventh, If it be dangerous to employ the holy Ves­sels about common uses, wherein the true Body of Jesus Christ is not contain'd, but the Mysteries of his Body; how much rather the Vessels of our Bodies, which God has prepared to dwell in.

That the Fathers of the FIFTH CENTURY did not believe Transubstantiation.

S. Jerom in his Epistle to Eustochium speaking of Vir­gins, S. Jerom. saith, That when they were reproved for Drun­kenness, they excus'd themselves by adding Sacriledge to Drunkenness, saying, God forbid that I should abstain from the Blood of the Lord.

In the Second Book against Jovinian it is said, The Lord in the Type of his Blood, did not offer Water, but Wine. It appears by these words, that they im­ply the com­mon belief, that there was true Wine in the Eucharist; because they say, That should they abstain from Wine, they must abstain also from the Blood of the Lord. These words are indeed Jovinian's, but St. Jerom sinds no fault with them. For he himself saith the same, upon the 31 Chapter of Jeremy, Vers. 12. on these Words, They run after God's Creatures, the Wheat, the Wine, and the Oyl, the Bread, and the Wine, saith he, whereof is made the Bread of the Lord, and wherein is accomplished the Type of his Blood. Now saith St. Ambrose De fide l. 2. c. 5., The Type is not the Truth, but it is the shadow of the Truth. There must then be in the Eucharist, Bread, and Wine, distinct from the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, to be the Types and Figures of it.

The same Father in his Letter to Hedibia, Let us hear, that the Bread which the Lord broke and gave his Disciples was the Lord's own Body, saying, Take, Eat, This is my Body; and a little after he saith, If the Bread that came down from Heaven is the Body of the Lord, and the Wine which he distri­buted among his Disciples his Blood, &c.

St. Jerom saith, That Jesus Christ brake and distributed Bread to his Disciples, that he gave them Bread, and that the Bread and Wine were his Flesh and Blood. It cannot then be said, That what Jesus Christ gave in communicating his Di­sciples was not Bread and Wine; and when he saith, both the one and the other was his Body and Blood, it cannot be un­derstood but only figuratively; for we see above in St. Cy­prian, [Page 27] that the Jesuites Salmeron and Bellarmine, do confess, That if Jesus Christ said of the Bread, This is my Body, it must be meant, This Bread is the Figure of my Body, the one not be­ing capable of being the other but figuratively: And the Reason St. Jerom. is given by Vasquez, when he saith, If the Pronoun, This, in the words of Consecration be understood of the Bread, undoubtedly by virtue of it, there can be wrought no Transubstantiation, because of necessity the Bread must needs remain; Si Pronomen hoc in illis verbis demonstraret panem, fatemur fore ut nulla conversio vir­tute illorum fieri posset, quia panis de quo enunciatur manere debeat.

The same S. Jerom in his Commentary upon the 26 Chapter of St. Matthew, saith, Jesus Christ having eaten the Paschal Lamb, took Bread which strengthens the Heart of Man, and proceeded to the accomplishment of the Sacrament of the true Passover, that as Melchisedeck had offered Bread and Wine in Figure, he also him­self would represent the truth of his Body.

According to this Father, the Bread and Wine, represent the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, and therefore are not pro­perly and truly the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ, but are something else besides them, and by consequence remain in the Sacrament. For to say, as the Author of the Second Book of the perpetuity of the Faith of the Eucharist doth against Monsieur Claude, that St. Jerom means by representing, to make a thing be present, we before refuted this Fancy, in Tertullian, who speaks just as St. Jerom: And the terms sufficiently declare, that St. Jerom's meaning is, That Jesus Christ made use of Bread and Wine, to signifie and shew forth his Body and Blood, as Melchisedeck had done, that is to say, as he had represented both the one and the other by the Oblation of Bread and Wine.

St. Austin in his Sermon to the newly Baptized, which it's true is not found in his other Works, but was preserv'd and is St. Austin. cited by St. Fulgentius de Baptismo Aethiop. Cap. 7. ‘ What you see, saith he, upon the Altar of God, you saw also the last Night, but you were not yet aware of how great a thing it is a Sacrament; That which you see is Bread, and a Cup of Wine, and it is also what your Eyes declare unto you; but what your Faith should instruct you in, is, That the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ, and the Cup his Blood. If you tell me, Jesus Christ is born, he was crucified, he was buried, he rose again, and is ascended into Heaven, whither he has carry'd his Body, and is [Page 28] at present on the right hand of God, from whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead, how then can the Bread be his Body, and the Cup his Blood? these things, my Brethren, are called Sacra­ments, because one thing is seen in them, and another thing is under­stood St. Austin. by them? what is seen hath a Corporeal Substance; what is understood hath a Spiritual Fruit. If then you desire to understand what the Body of Jesus Christ is, hearken to the Apostle which saith, You are the Body of Christ and his Members: If then you are the Body of Jesus Christ and his Members, it is the Mystery of what you are, which is upon the Holy Table, it is the Mystery of the Lord, which you receive; in saying Amen, you answer and subscribe to what you are. All you that are united in Charity, you make but one Body of Jesus Christ, of which you are the Members, which is what is signified by the Bread compos'd of several Grains, and by the Wine which is made of sundry Grapes. For as Bread to be made a visible Species of Bread, is made of sundry Grains collected together in one, and the Wine, &c.’

St. Austin saith, That the Bread is the Body of Christ, which St. Austin cannot be but improperly and figuratively, as hath been shewed above; for by Confession of Roman Catholick Doctors, every Proposition that saith of the Bread, That it is the Body, must needs be typical and figurative.

He saith what is seen is Bread, as our Eyes declare to us; now what our Eyes report to us is true Bread, as when one says, What you see is true Gold, and Silver, or Marble, and 'tis what your Eyes testifie, that is to say, That one sees true Gold, and true Marble, and that one makes use of their Eyes to confirm it.

In the same sense he saith; That Jesus Christ although in Heaven, yet the Bread is the Body, and the Wine the Blood, be­cause they are the Sacraments of it.

He saith, What one sees hath a bodily species; now in this Pas­sage, by bodily species, he means the very Substance, and not the Ac­cidents. For he saith afterwards, speaking of Bread in general, as Bread to be a visible species of Bread, must be made of several Grains reduced into one lump; now by the species of Bread, it is plain, St. Austin there means true Bread, and a true Substance.

He saith, What you see, is Bread, and a Cup; now by Cup, he doth not mean the appearance of a Cup, he means a true Cup. He saith this Bread is the Mystery of the Lord. Which is nothing else, but that 'tis the Figure of the Lord, as when he saith, This [Page 29] Bread is the Mystery of Believers. Mysterium vestrum in Mensa Domini accipitis. That is to say, That the Bread and Wine are the Figure of Jesus Christ, as they are the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ. To conclude, St. Austin saith, The Faith of the St. Austin. New-baptized was to be strengthened; it was therefore here the proper place for him to have said, That the Bread was no more Bread, that the Wine was no longer Wine, but that there remained only the Accidents of the one and the other.

The same Holy Father answering Bishop Boniface, who de­sired to know how it might be said of an Infant newly Baptis'd, Ep. 23. ad Bonif. he hath Faith, he Believes, who is incapable of believing, and of whom no assurance can be given what he will be afterwards; he saith, That as every Sunday, and Easter Day, is called Easter, and the Resurrection, although the Lords Easter, and Resurrection, are things happened several Ages past; so it may be said, An Infant hath Faith, because he hath the Sacrament of Faith. For, saith he, if the Sacraments had not some resemblance with the things whereof they are Sacraments, they would be no Sacraments; as therefore in some sort the Sacrament of the Body of Jesus Christ is the Body of Jesus Christ, and the Sacrament of his Blood, is the Blood of Christ, so also the Sacrament of Faith, is Faith; now to believe, is nothing else but to have Faith.

He saith, The Eucharist is called Flesh and Blood, because it is both the one and the other in some sort: now according to St. Gregory Nyssen, What is not truly that by the name by which it De Opif. l. 1. c. 15. is called, is but figuratively or improperly that by the name whereof it is called. Now that the Bread and Wine which are the Sacra­ments Quod non per omnia est id quod esse dici­tur, illud abu­sive appellati­onem illam habet. of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, are his Body and Blood in some sort, secundum quendam modum, it follows, The Bread and Wine are not properly the Flesh and Blood, and by consequence, are not Transubstantiated. Moreover St. Austin doth explain the Manner according to which the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ, and he shews it, by reason that generally the signs are called by the name of the things they signifie, not that they are the things they signifie, but because they are the signs, and that they have some resemblance to them.

The same Father upon the third Psalm, admires the Patience of Jesus Christ that bore the Treachery of Judas to the end, although he was not ignorant of his Thoughts, and admitted him to the Banquet, at which, saith St. Austin, Jesus Christ [Page 30] recommended and gave to his Disciples, the Figure or Type of his Flesh and Blood, Cum adhibuit ad convivium, in quo Corporis & Sanguinis sui Figuram Discipulis commendavit & tradidit. Now the Figure is not the Truth, but the Imitation of the Verity, saith St. Austin. Gaudentius in Exod. Tractatu 2. Moreover, St. Austin cannot find in the Scriptures, that Jesus Christ in instituting the Sacrament, gave to his Disciples the Figure of his Body and Blood, but in these words, Take, Eat, This is my Body, This is my Blood, he must then understand these words of the Insti­tution, in a figurative sense. And according to the same Doctor, a De Princip. Dialect. l. 5. Signum est quod seipsum sensibus, & praeter si ali­quid animo ost endit. Sign is that which shews it self to the Senses, and be­sides that shews something else to the Mind; It must then follow, That the Sign is a thing which remains, to shew it self.

The same Father disputing against Adimantus the Mani­chean, Chap. 12. and against the Adversary of the Law and the Prophets, in the Second Book, Cap. 6. who said, The Blood is the Soul, as is said, Deuteronom. 12. and by conse­quence, that Men killed the Soul when they shed Blood. S. Au­stin replies, That this Precept in Deuteronomy, That Blood must not be eat, because 'tis the Soul, is a Precept that must he understood as many other things contained in the Scri­ptures, which are to be taken in Types, and Figures, Illud praeceptum posicum esse dicimus sicut alia multa & pene omnia Scripturarum illarum Sacramenta signis & figuris plena sunt. And concludes towards the end of that Chapter, That the Blood is the Soul, as the Rock was Christ, Sanguis est Anima quomodo petra erat Christus. And upon Leviticus, Quest. 54. The thing which signisies, is wont to be called by the name of the thing signified, as 'tis written, the Rock was Christ: For 'tis not said, The Rock signifi'd Christ, but as if it were that which indeed it was not in substance, but only in signification. And as in the beginning of the Chapter he saith, That it must be understood in the Sign, Jesus Christ making no difficulty to say, This is my Body, when he gave the Sign of his Body. San­guis est Anima, praeceptum illud est in signo positum, non enim Dominus dubitavit dicere, Hoc est Corpus meum, cum daret signum Corporis sui. Seeing then St. Austin doth say, That the Blood is the Soul, as the Rock was Christ; and as the Eucharist is the Sign of Jesus Christ, he must of necessity have under­stood the Words of Institution of the Sacrament, in a figura­tive [Page 31] sense; and that so much the rather, because this manner of speech, Jesus Christ made no difficulty, plainly shews, that Jesus Christ did not speak in a proper but in a figurative sense, as Fulgentius saith, Although the Apostle saith, That Jesus St. Austin. Christ is the Head of the Body of the Church, nevertheless he makes Ad Monym. l. 2. c. 10.. cum Electionis Vas dicat quia Christus caput est corporis Ec­clesiae, ipsum tamen corpus Christi non du­bitat Christus veraciter ap­pellare. no Scruple to call Jesus Christ the Church, which is his Body.

This manner of speech is never used in proper expressions: no Body will say, Jesus Christ made no difficulty to give Gold, or Water, if it were true Gold or Water which he gave.

The same holy Doctor saith in several places after the Apostle, That the Bread in the Sacrament after Consecration, is bro­ken, and distributed; and he doth very well recommend this breaking the Bread, as being a great mystery. In his Epistle to Paulinus, he saith, In that Jesus Christ was known by the two Dis­ciples in breaking the Bread, no body ought to question but this Ad Paulin. Ep. 59. breaking was the Sacrament whereby Jesus Christ brings us all to the knowledge of his Person. A little before he saith; By the Prayers, we mean those which are said before one begins to bless what is upon the Lords Table. The Prayers are said when that which is on the Lords Table is blessed, sanctifyed, and distributed. In his Epistle to Casulanus he saith of S. Paul, that in the night time he went to break Bread, as it is broken Ep. 86. in the Sacrament of his Body. In his Commentary upon the first Epistle of S. John, It was very reasonable that Je­sus Christ recommending his Flesh, broke Bread, and it was Tract. 2. very just that the Disciples knew him in breaking of Bread.

In the 140. Sermon de temp. and in the Hom. Of the con­sent of Evangelists, lib. 3. c. 25. and de diversis, Serm. 87. he saith, Where would Jesus Christ be known? In the breaking of Bread. We are then secure; we break Bread, and we know the Lord. If then after consecration we break Bread to distribute, then of necessity the Bread must remain: for to say that 'tis the accidents which are broken, and distributed, S. Austin doth say the contrary, when he affirms, that one breaks and distributes what is on the Table, being blessed and sanctify'd. Now to bless and sanctify, one shall never find to have signifi'd to destroy, and change the substance.

The same Doctor in several places does always call the Eucharist, the Sacrament of Bread and Wine, he saith, S. Paul De consensu Evangelist. l. 3. c. 25. doth teach the unity of the Church in the Sacrament of Bread, when he saith, We are all one Bread, and one Body. In the [Page 32] questions upon the Evangelists, he saith, Jesus Christ by the Sacrament of Wine, recommends his Blood. In his Books against Faustus, we are very far from doing what the Heathens did for their Gods, Ceres and Bacchus, although we have a ceremony of St. Austin. celebrating the Sacrament of Bread and Wine. Now to what end l. 1. q. 43. were it to call the Eucharist a Sacrament of Bread and Wine, if there did not remain Bread and Wine after Consecration? for l. 20. c. 13. what means this manner of speech, the Sacrament of Bread and Wine, but the Bread and Wine which is the Sacrament? As when the Apostle saith, Rom. 4. v. 11. the sign of Circumci­sion. What else doth this import, but the Circumcision which is the sign? When Tertullian de Baptismo, calls Baptism Sacramen­tum aquae nostrae: What else can that mean, but our Water which is a Sacrament? When S. Austin upon S. John Tract. 11. saith, The figure of the Sea, figura Maris; What more can this signify, but the Sea which is the figure? When it is frequently said, the Sacrament of the Eucharist, what else can that import, but the Eucharist which is a Sacrament?

The same Father in his 52 Sermon, de verbis Domini, saith, almost all do call the Sacrament the Body of Jesus Christ. Now if the Bread Penè quidem Sacramentum omnes corpus ejus dicunt. were the real Body of Jesus Christ, wherefore should S. Anstin ob­serve that all called it the Body of Jesus Christ? For one cannot make such a remark, but when one saith of a thing, that 'tis that which properly it is not. It would be ridiculous to say, almost all call Lewis 14 King; & the reason is, because 'tis not strange that per­sons should be called by their names: but on the contrary, it is very strange, to call one by a name that doth not at all belong to him.

The same Father in his 26. Treatise upon S. John, going to shew upon these words of the Apostle, They did all eat the same Spiritual meat, and drink the same Spiritual drink: The rela­tion and difference there is betwixt the Sacraments of the old and new Testament, saith, The Fathers did eat the same spiri­tual food as we do, not the same corporal food as we do; because they did eat Manna, and as for us, we eat something else; They drank the same spiritual drink we do, the same as to the significa­tion, but different as to visible and outward kind. And upon S. John, Treatise 45. If you consider the visible species, it was another drink, if you consider what was signify'd by their drink, and ours, it was one and the same thing. Si speciem visibilem intendas aliud est, si intelligibilem significationem, cundem potum spiritualem biberunt. [Page 33] And upon the 77. Psalm, Their food was the very same with ours, the same as to what it signify'd, but different in kind. Idem in mysterio cibus illorum qui noster; Sed significatione idem, non specie. This reasoning does intimate, That the Fathers under the old St. Austin. Testament did, and we now do eat a corporal food, and that we drink a corporal liquor. Now by this corporal meat and drink, we must understand either the accidents of Bread and Wine, or the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, or the Bread and Wine it self. It cannot be spoken of the first, because the accidents of Bread and Wine are only qualities, or dimensions; now qualities and dimensions are not corporal. The quality is some­thing which is incorporeal, saith Nemesius, of the Soul; as concerning dimensions, S. Austin de genesi ad literam, saith, We call that a Body which taketh up some space by its length, by its breadth, and by its depth. Nemesius gives the reason of it, be­cause, saith he, nothing that is immaterial is a Body, for all Bodies are material. There being nothing material then in the Eucha­rist, as is suppos'd, there being nothing that takes up place, that is large or long, or deep; There is nothing corporeal in the Sacrament, and by consequence, nothing that can be ter­med corporal meat or drink. Moreover, when Jesus Christ speaks of corporal nourishment and drink in the Eucharist, as the Fathers under the old Testament had done, he speaks of bodily meat and drink, S. Austin did not understand the cor­poral meat and drink spoke of by the Fathers of the old Testa­ment, to be only the accidents of one and the other, so that S. Austin speaking in the same terms of bodily meat and drink, in relation to that of the Antients, he did not mean meer acci­dents or qualities. The Body of Jesus Christ nor his Hood, can­not be this corporal nourishment which S. Austin compares to that of the Fathers under the Law: for by bodily meat and drink which he saith we receive in the Eucharist, he means a visible subject, aliud illi, aliud nos, sed specie visibili, si speciem visibilem inten­das, aliud est. It remains then that in S. Austin's sense, we un­derstand by the corporal nature of the Eucharist the visible Bread, the visible Wine, and not their qualities and accidents.

The same Father in the third Book of the Trin. cap. 10. speaking of things that are taken to signify, saith, a thing is taken to signify, either after such a manner, as that the thing should subsist and remain some time, as did the Brazen Serpent, lift up in [Page 34] the Wilderness, or as do the letters of the Alphabet, or in such a man­ner as the thing taken to signify is not to subsist any long time, but is to pass away and be destroy'd when the thing 'tis to represent is passed away; as the Bread of the Sacrament, which being taken to signify St. Austin. passeth away and is consumed in receiving the Sacrament. S. Austin there saith, That the Bread of the Sacrament which is taken to signify, passeth and is consumed in receiving the Sacrament; Now if the Bread be destroyed and Transubstantiated by these words, This is my Body, then it passeth not away, and is not consumed in the act of receiving.

The same Doctor in the seventeenth Of the City of God saith, To eat Bread, is in the New Testament the sacrifice of Chri­stians; and against the Enemy of the Law. l. 7. c. 20. Those, saith he, which read know what Melchisedeck offered where he blessed Abraham, and those which are partakers, see that the like sacrifice is now offer'd through all the World. How is it that the Sacrifice of Christians, is to eat Bread, if the Bread do not re­main? How is it that communicating, one is partaker of what Melchisedeck offer'd, if in communicating, one do not receive neither Bread, nor Wine?

The same Father in the third Book against Parmenian, re­proving the Donatists for forsaking the Church, tells them, S. Cyprian, and the other Bishops, did not separate themselves because they would not communicate with covetous persons, and Usurers; but that on the contrary, they did eat with them the Bread of the Lord, and drank his Cup. This passage sheweth, that when S. Austin said to the new Baptised, as hath been shewn, that the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ, it could not be understood but figuratively: for here the Bread is said to be of the Lord; now saith S. Athanasius, that which is another's is not that other himself, to whom it belongs. Id quod ali­cujus est, non idipsum est cujus est. And S. Austin elsewhere distinguisheth betwixt the Bread which belongs to the Lord, and the Bread which is the Lord. Speaking of Judas and the In Joan. Tract. 59. other Apostles, he saith of the Apostles, they are the Bread which was the Lord; and of Judas, He did eat the Bread of the Lord against the Lord; they ate life, he Death; for 'tis said by S. Paul, That he which eateth unworthily, eateth his own judgment and condemnation. Seeing then that the Eucharist is distinguish'd from the Lord, it necessarily follows, That Bread remains in the Sacrament after Consecration.

[Page 35] The same Father in his 33 Sermon of the Words of our Lord, saith, ‘ The Lord gave to his Disciples the Blessed Sacrament with his own hands, but we were not at the Banquet; nevertheless by Faith we daily eat the same Supper; and do not think that it had been any great St. Augustin. advantage to have been present at that Supper that he gave with his own hands to his Disciples, without Faith; Faith afterwards was of greater advantage than treachery was then; St. Paul who believed, was not there present, and Judas who betray'd his Master, was pre­sent. How many be there now that come to the Communion, that al­tho they did not see that Table, and tho they never saw with their Eyes, nor tasted with their Palate, the Bread which the Lord held in his hands, nevertheless, because the same Supper is still prepared, do there eat and drink their own Damnation?’ It plainly appears, That the Bread which St. Austin saith our Saviour had in his hands during the Sacrament, was true Bread, because St. Austin saith, That those who at present participate of the Sacrament, do not Tast, nor Eat the Bread which our Saviour held in his hands, and which he distri­buted, and of which the Disciples did formerly eat.

The same Father teaching that the Good might participate of the Divine Sacraments with the Wicked, saith, Judas and Peter had Lib. Con. Do­nat. c. 6. de ipso quippe Pane, de ipsa Dominica Manu, &c. each of them a part of the same Bread, which they received at the same hand of the Lord; and nevertheless what society or likeness was there betwixt Peter and Judas? In the 7th Chap. the wicked and the good hear the same Word of God, do partake of the same Sacraments, and eat the same holy nourishment. Now what is this holy Food? What is this Bread, whereof one receives one Portion, and another, ano­ther Part? Are they Accidents? But Accidents are neither Bread nor Food. It is not the real Body of Jesus Christ, for it cannot be re­ceived by Parcels; it must then be true Bread which remains after Consecration, and which is, as is said before, Blessed, Sanctified, and Broke in Pieces on the Holy Table to be distributed. Benedicitur & Sanctificatur, & ad distribuendum comminuitur. Ep. 59.

The same Doctor in Ep. 120. speaking of the Rich in opposition Et ipsi quidem adducti sunt ad Mensam Christi, &c. to the Poor, of whom it is said, That they shall eat and be satisfied. These Rich Persons, saith St. Austin, have been brought to the Lords Table, and receive from his hand his Body and Blood, but they only adore, and are not satisfied. For just as St. Ambrose distinguisheth betwixt drinking the Wine, Vinum bibere; and drinking of the Wine, de Vino bibere; that is to say, to tast of a little Wine, de ejus portione libare: so also St. Austin his Disciple, distinguisheth De Noe & Ar­ca. c. 29. [Page 36] betwixt receiving the Body and Blood of the Lord, accipere Corpus & Sanguinum Domini, and to receive of the Body and Blood of the Lord, Accipere de Corpore & Sanguine Christi. St. Austin explains himself more fully, when he saith in his 86th Epist. That one re­ceives S. Augustine. in the Eucharist a Portion of the Body of the immaculate Lamb, De Agni immaculati Corpore partem sumere: And in the 35th Sermon on the Words of our Lord, he saith, In receiving the Sa­crament, we know what we should think of, we receive a little, and we are satned in the heart, modulum accipimus & in corde saginamur. Now that cannot be understood of the proper Body of Jesus Christ, which cannot be received by Parcels; therefore it must be meant of Bread, which is the Figure of his Body, or the Sacrament of it. It is what St. Austin intends, when he saith, Nec quando manduca­mus (when we eat Jesus Christ) de illo partes facimus; equidem in Sacramento sic fit. We do not make Morsels, but it is done in Sa­crament, that is to say, That we break and divide the Sign and the Bread, which is the Sacrament.

The same Father saying that the Accidents cannot in any wise subsist without their Subject, saith in his 2d Book of Soliloquies, Chap. 12. What can reconcile what you demand? Or who can think it possible to be done, that that which is in a Subject should remain, the Subject it self ceasing to be? For 'tis a thing monstrous, and very far from the Truth, that that which doth not subsist, if it be not in a Subject, can be, the Subject it self not remaining. Also in the 13th Chap. 19th Book, and in the Book of the Immortality of the Soul, Chap. 5. The Subject being changed, of necessity all that was in the Subject must be changed. In the 8th Chap. What is not of it self, if it be abandoned by that by which it is, must undoubtedly cease to be. Also in the 10th Chap. and in the Book of Categories, speaking of Accidents, A colour cannot be without a Subject. And in the Epistle to Dardanus, Take away the Bodies from the qualities of Bodies, they will have no place to remain in, and by consequence it is necessary that they cannot be. And against Julian, Chap. 5. It's true, saith St. Austin, that the things that are in a Subject as the qualities are, cannot be without the Subject wherein they are, as the colour or form, &c. It's impossible, had St. Austin believed that the Bread did not remain in the Eucharist after Con­secration, that he should have esteemed that absurd and ridiculous which happened every day. It also seems that St. Austin had been too wide, when he doubts in the 146th Ep. to Consentius; Whether Jesus Christ has Blood, when he saith on the 98th Psalm, You shall [Page 37] not eat this Body which you see, nor shall drink this Blood, which those that shall crucify me shall shed, I have given you a Sacrament, &c. And in the 20th Book against Faustus, The Flesh and Blood of this Sacrifice was promised by Sacrifices of resemblance before the coming of S. Augustine. Jesus Christ; It was given by the verity in the Passion of Jesus Christ; after the Ascension of Jesus Christ, it is celebrated by the Sacrament of Commemoration.

To conclude, St. Austin in his 33d Sermon on the Words of our Lord, having said, as hath been seen before, That of things which are put to signify, there are some that are to remain, others to be destroy'd, when the Ministry of their Signification is accomplish'd; as the Bread of the Sacrament; he adds, But because these things are obvious to men, as being practic'd by Men, they may deserve our Veneration, as being Holy and Religious things; but they cannot cause any wonder in us, as if they were miraculous. Certainly if St. Austin had held Transubstantiation, as it comprehends many things repug­nant to natural Reason, which are so many astonishing Miracles, St. Austin could not have said, That the Sacraments, wherein he in­cludes that of the Eucharist, have something in them that deserves our Respect and Veneration; but have nothing that deserves our Astonishment and Admiration.

These are some of the Reasons which made Monsieur De Mar­ca, Archbishop of Paris, Predecessor to him that with so much French Post­hum. Treatise of the Euch. Reputation now fills the chiefest. See of France, say, That the Catho­lick Doctors are to blame, when they pretend that St. Austin ex­pounded the Text of the Institution of the Eucharist, as it is done in the Schools. And a little before; that in St. Austin's Divinity, This is my Body, should be expounded in this manner, This Bread is the Sign and Sacrament of my Body: For according to St. Austin, saith Monsieur De Marca, The Bread, to speak properly, is but the Sign and Sacrament of the Body, to which Jesus Christ made no scru­ple to give the name of the thing signified. It is also the Judgment of Tertullian, when he saith, When Jesus Christ said, this is my Body, That is to say, this is the Figure of my Body; and saith Monsieur De Marca, The Reasons that are given to the contrary, are not satis­factory.

Bullenger writing against Casaubon, recites this passage of Theo­doret, who was a Priest at Antioch, in the year 411. As the King, Theodoret. saith he, and his Image are not two Kings; so also the personal Body of Jesus Christ, which Body is in the Heavens, and the Bread which is [Page 38] his Antitype, and is distributed to Believers by the Priest, are not two Bodies. It appears by this comparison, That Theodoret did believe the Bread of the Eucharist is something else besides the Body of Christ; and by consequence, he believed that there remained Theodoret. true Bread in the Sacrament, and not Bread in shew and appearance only.

Theodoret, who in the year 423 was Bishop of Cyrus, doth so ful­ly explain himself hereupon, that there is no doubt to be made of his Opinion, He was pleas'd, saith he, that those who participated of Dial. 1. the Divine Mysteries, should not have any regard to the nature of the things that are seen; but that they should believe by the change of Names, the change that is made by Grace: For having called his Body, Wheat and Bread, and having called himself a Vine, he honours the visible Symbols with the name of his Body and Blood, not in changing their Nature, but in adding Grace to their Nature. He could not more fully express that he did not hold Transubstantiation.

Arnobius the younger, who wrote in the year 431. upon the 4th Arnobius ju­nior. Psalm saith, speaking of the Sacrament, We have received Wheat in the Body, Wine in the Blood, and Oyl in the Chrism. On the 22d Psalm, Accipimusfru­mentum, &c. Quod nunc ha­beat intra se Ecclesia vide­amus, &c. and on the 51st and 54th Psalms: Let us see what the Church keep­eth; She hath a Table, from which she gives Bread to Believers; She hath Oyl, wherewith she refresheth the Head, in libertatem conscientiae praesumenti, &c.

On Psalm 103. We receive Bread because it strengthens the Body; we receive Wine, because it rejoyces the Heart; and having re­ceived Accipimus pa­nem quod con­firmat, &c. double comfort in the Heart, our Faces are made shine by the Oyl of Chrism. To conclude, on Psalm 104. he saith these words, speaking of the Lord, That the Lord in the Eucharist gives us the Species of Bread and Wine, as he doth the Species of Oyl in Bap­tism; Exurgens a Mortuis, &c. which cannot be understood of appearances and Accidents, as the terms of Species of Oyl cannot be taken for the Accidents and appearances of Oyl. Moreover, he observes we receive in the Eucha­rist Bread and Wine, as we receive Oyl in the Holy Chrism; Now in the Holy Chrism, it is true Oyl that we receive; Arnobius then could not reason so, if he believed Transubstantiation.

The Author of the Books of the Promises and Predictions of God, attributed to St. Prosper by Cassiodorus, and which were written Prosper. about the year 450, under the Empire of Valentinian the 3d, re­lates a History of a young unchast Girl that was possessed with the Devil, who in Communicating, had received a little morsel of the [Page 39] Lord's Body, which the Priest had moistned; it was half an hour before she could swallow it down, till such time as the Priest tou­ched her throat with the Chalice; then she cried out instantly that she was healed. After which, prayers being made for her, she re­ceived Prosper. a portion of the Sacrifice, and was restor'd to her former health. These terms of some portion of the Sacrifice, and of a little part of the moistned Body of the Lord by the Priest, cannot be understood of the true Body of Jesus Christ; of necessity then the Bread by this Author must be called by the name of the Body of Je­sus Christ; and by consequence he believed it remained in the Sa­crament after Consecration.

Hesychius, one of the Priests of the Church of Jerusalem, in the year 480, saith in the second Book on Leviticus, ch. 8. This My­stery Hesychius. (speaking of the Eucharist) is at once Bread and Flesh, Illud Mysterium simul panis & caro. In this same place he saith, it was the custom of the Church of Jerusalem in his time, to burn what re­mained after the Communion.

Procopius of Gaza, who in all likelihood wrote in the end of the Procopius Ga­zeus. fifth Century, expounding these words of Genesis, where Jacob saith to Juda, His eyes be red with wine, and his teeth white with milk, &c. applying them to our Blessed Saviour in the Mystery of the Sacrament, saith, that 'tis a Metaphor taken from those that ha­ving drank, are the merrier for it, &c. and saith that the holy Scri­tures would denote the gladness which the Lord left to his Disci­ples in giving them the Mystical Wine by the words of Institution, Take, drink ye all of this: These words, saith he, do shew that Jesus Christ doth with mercy look on all those that believe in him, because 'tis the nature of wine to make every one merry. And upon these words, his teeth are white as milk; milk, saith he, doth denote to us the whiteness and purity of the mystical nourishment; for Jesus Christ gave to his Disciples the Image of his true Body; not desiring any of the bloody sacrifices of the Law, he would by the white teeth, signifie to us the purity of the food wherewith we are nourished; for according to holy David, Sacrifice and burnt-offerings thou wouldest not, but a Body hast thou pre­pared me.

When Procopius speaketh of the Mystical Wine that rejoyced the Disciples, it being the nature of Wine to make merry; this Mystical Wine is not the Blood of Jesus Christ, for 'tis not the nature of Blood to rejoyce. It must therefore be meant, that Procopius said, by the Wine which Jesus Christ distributed to his Disciples, was to be un­derstood [Page 40] true Wine: and by the whitness of the Mystical food, he meant the whiteness of the Bread which is both food and Image, which cannot be understood of the true Body of Jesus Christ, which is neither the Image of himself, nor bodily food; nor of the acci­dents, Procopius. which cannot nourish the Body, because nourishment pro­ceedeth from matter.

The same Procopius in his Commentary on Esay, expounding these words of the Prophet, Chap. 3. The Lord of Hosts will take away from Judah and Jerusalem the staff of Bread and Water; saith, that in the first place these words of the Prophet may be under­stood of Jesus Christ, and of his Flesh and Blood. The Bread be­ing to be understood of him of whom David saith, He gave them bread from Heaven; and the waters, of those of which Jesus Christ said to the Samaritan, Whosoever drinketh of this water, it shall be a fountain flowing unto everlasting Life. Then he adds, There is another bread which giveth life to the world, which was taken from the Jews; and another water, which is that of Baptism. Now by this other bread which was taken from the Jews, he means that of the Eu­charist; and whereas he distinguishes it from the bread, which is the Lord, as he distinguisheth the water of Baptism from that which was given to the Samaritan; it follows, that the Bread of the Eu­charist is something that is distinguisht from Jesus Christ himself, the Bread of Heaven.

Gelasius Bishop of Rome, in the year 492, wrote a Treatise of the two Natures against Nestorius and Eutyches, and he excludes Tran­substantiation, P. Gelasius. when he saith, that the substance or nature of Bread and VVine doth still remain.

This work is assuredly of Pope Gelasius. As is confessed by Car­dinal Du Perron, because first Fulgentius cites four passages of this Treatise as being writ by Pope Gelasius. And Pope John the Se­cond in Epist. ad Amaenum, also cites some passages of this Work, Resp. 1. ad 2. Interrog. Ferr. as being writ by Gelasius; and though he doth not give him the Title of Pope, 'tis because his name was well enough known at Rome when John the Second lived.

That the Fathers of the SIXTH CENTURY did not believe Transubstantiation.

SAint Fulgentius saith, The Catholick Church doth continually offer to God, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, a Sacrifice of Bread and Fulgentius. Wine throughtout all the World. For in the fleshly Sacrifices of the Old De fide ad Pet. Diac. c. 19. Testament, there is a type of the Flesh of Jesus Christ, which he was to offer without spot for our Sins; but in this Sacrifice, there is a Thanks­giving and commemoration of the same Flesh, which he offer'd for us, and of the Blood which he shed for us. He saith, That this Sacrifice consists in offering Bread and Wine; there must then be true Bread and Wine in this Sacrifice to be offer'd.

Ephraem first a Lieutenant of the Eastern part of the Empire, then Ephraem. made Bishop of Antioch, in the Year 526. wrote Books, which he inti­tuled Apud Pho. Bibl. cod. 329. Sacred Laws, in the first of which disputing against the Eu­tychians, he saith, When our Fathers said, That Jesus Christ is compos'd of two Natures, they meant two Substances, as by two Substances two Natures. No body of any sense, but may say, that the Nature of that which is to be felt, and not felt in Jesus Christ, is the same Nature. Thus it is, that the body of Jesus Christ, which is re­ceived by Believers, doth not quit its sensible Nature, and remains with­out being separated from the intelligible Grace. The which he con­firms by the Example of Water, which doth not lose its Nature by Consecration. This Argument is of the same kind of that we see of Theodoret, and of Gelasius, whereby these three others prove, that in the Incarnation, the presence of the Word did not destroy the hu­man Nature in Jesus Christ, as the presence of the Holy Ghost doth not destroy the Substance of Bread and Wine in the Eucharist. We may say of this Triple and same Argument, Funiculus triplex dif­ficile Ecclesiast. 4. v. 12. rumpitur. Mons. de Marca, saith in reference to this passage, and of those we have instanced, of Theodoret, and St. Chrysostom, that these three Authors have owned a real change of the Bread, which nevertheless leaves the Species in their natural Substance.

Facundus Bishop of Hermiana in Africa, in the year 552. whose Facundus. Books, which he wrote in Defence of the Three chapters of the Coun­cil Lib. 9. De viris illu­stribus, c. 18. of Chalcedon, are justly praised by Victor of Tunes in his Chro­nology, and by St. Isidore of Sevil, and which Father Sirmond the [Page 42] Jesuit got out of the Vatican Library; going about to excuse Theo­dore de Mopsuest, who taught that Jesus Christ had taken the Adop­tion of the Children of God; from whence it might have been con­cluded, that he believed that Jesus Christ is only an adoptive Son, Facundus. saith, Baptism, which is the Sacrament of Adoption, may be call'd Adoption, Lib. 9. as we call the Sacrament of his Body and Blood, which is in the consecra­ted Bread and Wine, his Body and Blood; not that the Bread is properly his Body, and the Cup his Blood; but, because they contain in them the Mystery of his Body and Blood. Therefore, as the faithful Servants of Jesus Christ, receiving the Sacrament of his Body and Blood, are very rightly said to receive his Body and Blood; so also Jesus Christ having received the Sacrament of the Adoption of Children, might very well be said to have received the Adoption of Children.

Certainly, if the Sacrament of Bread and Wine is not properly the Body of Jesus Christ, as Facundus saith, but barely Body and Blood, as Baptism is Adoption; the Bread and Wine are not Transubstantiated into the Eucharist, and are but simple signs, and something that is distinguished from the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.

Primasius Bishop of Adruemetum in Africa, in his Commentary up­on the 10th Chapter of the 1st to the Corinth. saith, As the Bread Primasius. which we break, is the Participation of the body of Christ, so also the Bread of Idols, is the Participation of Devils. Now as the Participation of the Bread of Idols, is no Transubstantiation, or real change into De­vils: so also the Participation of the Bread of the Lord, is not a real and substantial change of Bread into the Body of the Lord.

The same Doctor, on the words of the 11th Chap. of the same Epistle, where 'tis said, That the Lord took Bread the night in which he was betrayed, relates. That Jesus Christ thereby gave to us the commemoration of his Body. And on the following words, The Lord, saith he, hath given us an Example, to the end that as often as we do this, we should think in our minds, that Christ died for us. It is for this end, that 'tis said to us, the Body of Christ, that so thinking of it, we should not be ungrateful and unthankful for his Grace. As if any one at his Death, should leave to his Friend a pledg of his Love, could he, when he saw it, refrain from Tears, if he really loved his Friend? There must therefore needs be in the Sacrament Bread and Wine to be Pledges of Jesus Christ, for he cannot be a pledg of himself.

That the Fathers of the SEVENTH and EIGHTH CENTURY 's did not believe Transubstantiation.

ISidore Bishop of Sevil, Anno 600. saith, That by the command of Jesus Christ himself, we do call Body and Blood, that which Isidorus Hi­spalensis. being the Fruits of the Earth, is sanctified and made a Sacrament by the invisible Operation of the Holy Ghost. In the 1st Book of Ec­clesiastical Orig. l. 6. c 19. Offices, he saith, That the Bread is called the Body of Jesus Christ, because it strengthens the Body, and that the Wine is called his Blood, because it increaseth Blood in the Body; and that the Bread and Wine are two visible things, which being sanctified by the Holy Ghost, do go on to be the Sacrament of the Divine Body. Now a Sacrament sig­nifies a holy Sign. It would therefore be a strange kind of way of Isidore, if he had believ'd the Bread and Wine were transubstantiated, to say, the Bread and Wine are two things visible, which being san­ctified by the Holy Ghost, do become the Sacraments of the Divine Body. By this Language it might as well be said, That the Fathers believed that the Water of Baptism was transubstantiated after their Consecration.

The same Bishop saith, Melchisedeck, that offer'd of the Fruits of In Alleg. Ve­ter. Test. the Earth a Sacrifice to God, thereby represented the Priesthood or Reign of Jesus Christ, which is the true King of Peace, of whose Body and Blood, that is to say, the Oblation of Bread and Wine, is offer'd throughout the VVorld. And in the Treatise De Vocat. Gen­tium, cap. 26. These are not any longer Jewish Sacrifices, such as were offer'd by Aaron the Priest, which are now offer'd by Believers, but they are such Sacrifices as were presented by Melchisedeck King of Sa­lem, that is to say, it is Bread and Wine, the true Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. He saith, The Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ is Bread and Wine, That both the one and the other are such Sacrifices as those offer'd by Melchise­deck; there is therefore no question, but St. Isidore did not believe that the Bread was destroy'd in the Sacrament, because he esta­blishes the Sacrament in the Bread and Wine, such as Melchisedeck had offer'd.

[Page 44] Beda, an English Priest, saith, That Jesus Christ having ended the Ceremony of the Ancient Passover, which was celebrated in Commemora­tion of the Bondage in Egypt, out of which the Jews had been deliver'd, proceeded to the new Passover, which the Church celebrates in remem­brance Beda. of His Redemption, the Figure of his Body; to the end, that in­stead In Lucae 22. & in Marc. 14. & in Hom. quadrages. Fe­ria 3a palma­rum. of the Flesh and Blood of the Lamb, substituting the Sacrament of his Flesh and Blood in the Figure of Bread and Wine, he might shew that it was him to whom God had sworn, and repented not, saying, Thou art a Priest for ever after the Order of Melchisedeck. Now, conti­nues Beda, Jesus Christ broke the Bread which he distributed to his Dis­ciples, to shew, That the breaking of his Body did not come to pass with­out his good will. It appears from these words, (substituting the Sa­crament of his Flesh and Blood in the Figure of Bread and Wine) that the Bread and Wine remain after Consecration, to be the Figure of the Body and Blood of Christ. As when the Apostle saith, the sign Rom. 4. 11. of Circumcision, signum Circumcisionis; That is to say, Circumci­sion which is a sign and a figure. So Beda maketh the Sacrament consist in the Bread and Wine. Therefore in the Homily, De Sanct is in Epiphania, he saith, That Jesus Christ the Heavenly Lamb, having been offer'd up, transfer'd into the Creatures of Bread and Wine, the Mystery of his Passion, and thereby became a Priest for ever after the Order of Melchisedeck. And elsewhere he saith, Melchisedeck Priest of the most High God, did long before the time of the legal Priest­hood, Hom. aest. & c. 55. in Virg. St. Joan. Bapt. offer up Bread and Wine. Therefore our Saviour is called Priest after the Order of Melchisedeck, because he abrogated the Sa­crifices of the Law, and instituted a Sacrifice of the same kind to be under the New Testament, the Mystery of his Body and Blood. Certainly, As our Mystery is no Mystery till after Consecration; and that 'tis of the same Nature as was that of Melchisedeck, it must be concluded, that the Bread and Wine do remain in the Sacrament of the Eu­charist.

Sedulius a Scotchman, Author of the Commentaries upon St. Paul, and who flourished about the year 735. in his Commentary upon Sedulius. the first to the Corinthians, Chap. 11. saith, Jesus Christ in the Eu­charist, hath left us the remembrance of himself, as if one going a far journey should leave with his Friend the pledg of his love, to remember their ancient Amity. There must then needs be something that is not Jesus Christ himself, for no one is a pledg of himself.

Damascen a Fryer, who lived about the year 750, saith in his fourth Book of Orthodox Law, Chap. 14. The Shew-bread did typifie J. Damascen. [Page 45] this Bread, and 'tis this pure and unbloody Sacrifice which our Saviour foretold by the Prophet, should be offered to him from the rising of the Sun to the setting of the same, to wit, the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, which passeth into the substance of our Body and Soul, without being Damascen. consumed, without being corrupted, without going into the draft, God forbid, but passing into our substance for our Preservation. Now every Body agrees this cannot be said of the proper Body of Jesus Christ. It must then be concluded, Damascen supposed that the Bread re­mained.

In the same place he adds, That as in Baptism, because men are wont to wash with Water, and anoint them with Oyl, God has added to the Water and Oyl, the Grace of his Holy Spirit, and has made it the washing of Regeneration; so also, they being accustom'd to eat Bread, and to drink Wine and Water, he has joined them to his Divinity, and has made them his Body and Blood.

In the same place, The Prophet Esay saw a light Coal; now the Coal is not of meer Wood, but it is joined to Fire; so also the Bread of the Eucharist is not common Bread, but it is united to the Divinity, and the Body which is united to the Divinity, is not one and the same Nature, but the Nature of the Body is one, and that of the Divinity which is united to it, is another.

In the same place, How is it that the Bread is made the Body of Je­sus Christ, and the Wine and Water his Blood? He answers, The Holy Ghost comes and disposes these things after such a manner as surpasseth our Thoughts and Expressions. The Bread and Wine are taken, Panis & Vinum assumuntur, in Greek [...], a word used by St. Athanasius to express the Hypostatical Union. Now these kinds of Expressions of Damascen do imply, that the Bread and Wine do re­main in the Sacrament.

The Council of Constantinople composed of 338 Bishops, held in the viiith Century, for regulating the business of Image-worship, ha­ving Concil. Con­stant. Act. 6. condemn'd their use, they would by the way explain the Do­ctrine of the Church touching the Eucharist, and to draw a proof against those very Images, they call it the true Image of Jesus Christ; they say he gave it to his Disciples to be a Type of the evident Commemoration of his Death; they say that Jesus Christ chose no other Species under Heaven, nor no other Type that should express his Incarnation. Behold then, say they, the Image of his quickned Body, which was made after a precious and honourable manner. They affirm, that as the Word did not take a Person, [Page 46] that so the addition of a Person might not be made to the Divinity: so also he appointed, that an Image should be offered, which is a chosen matter, to wit, the Substance of Bread, that has not the Figure of Man, to avoid giving occasion of Idolatry: As then, Conc. Const. say they, the Body of Jesus Christ which is according to Nature, is Holy, as having been Deified; so also 'tis apparent, that that Body also that is by Institution, is Holy, and it's Image is Holy, as having been Deified by Grace, by a kind of Sanctification. They maintain, that as the Human Nature was Deified by its Union with the Word, so also the Bread of the Sacrament, as the true Image of the natural Flesh of Jesus Christ, is sanctified by the coming of the Holy Ghost, and becomes the Body of Jesus Christ, because the Priest transfers the Oblation from the state of a common thing, to something that is Holy. To conclude, they clear­ly distinguish the natural Flesh of Jesus Christ, which is living and intelligent, from his Image, which is the Heavenly Bread, filled with the Holy Spirit. All these continued Expressions are so far from any Idea of Transubstantiation, that one must needs see, that the destruction of the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament, was not believed by the Fathers of the Council, nor by the Church in their time.

Alcuin speaking of the Consecrating of Bread and Wine to be the Body and Blood of Christ, saith, that the Sanctification of this Alcuinus. Mystery doth foreshew to us the effect of our Salvation: That by the Water is signified the Christian People; by the grains of the Wheat Ep. 69. ground into Meal to make Bread, is meant the Union of the Universal Church which is made one Body by the Fire of the Holy Ghost, which unites the Members to the Head; and that by the Wine is shewed the Blood of the Passion of the Lord. Doubtless Alcuin did not believe Transubstantiation, seeing he places in the Bread and Wine, the sig­nification of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ; and that he saith by the Wine is shewed the Blood of Jesus Christ; for that which is a Figure, and that which is figured; that which sheweth, and that which is shewed, are two different things, the one of which is not the other. Therefore the same Alcuin doth formally distinguish the Eucharist from the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, when he saith after St. Austin, Whosoever abideth not in Jesus Christ, and he in whom In Joan. c. 13. v. 15. Christ abideth not, doubtless doth not spiritually eat his Flesh, altho he visibly and carnally eats with his teeth the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.

[Page 47] Charles the great, his Disciple, writing to the same Alcuin, calls the Eucharist, the Figure of the Body and Blood of the Lord. The Lord, saith he, being at Supper with his Disciples, broke Bread, and gave likewise the Cup, in figure of his Body and Blood; and by Carol. M. this means offered us a very profitable Sacrament: Now what­ever De Offic. Sep­tuag. ad Al­quin. he said of the figure it contain'd, or that it contain'd not the truth, the figure was never the same as the thing is that's fi­gured.

In the Ambrosian Office which was abolish'd in the year 796, there was this Clause, which is still to be seen in the fourth Book of Ambrosian Office. St. Ambrose his Sacraments, Nobis hanc oblationem adscriptam ratio­nabilem, acceptabilem, quod est figura Corporis & Sanguinis Domini nostri Jesu Christi.

The Ancient Roman Order doth frequently call the Bread and VVine, the Body and Blood of the Lord; but it sufficiently shews Ordo Roman. by these manner of expressions, that it doth not mean that the Bread and VVine are the same thing with the Body and Blood of Je­sus Christ; for in the first place it saith, that the Sub Deacons when they see the Chalice wherein is the Blood of the Lord cover'd with a Cloth, and when the Priest hath said these words at the end of the Lords Prayer, libera nos a malo, they should go from the Al­tar, and prepare Chalices and clean Cloths to receive the Body of the Lord, fearing lest it should fall to the ground, and crumble to dust. Now who doth not see that this cannot be spoken but of the Bread, figuratively and improperly called the Body of Jesus Christ? 2ly, It saith, That the Bishop breaketh the Oblation on the right side, and that he leaveth the part which he brake, on the Altar: Now who can say that the Body of Jesus Christ can be broke into parts? 3dly, The Fraction being made, the Deacon receives from the Sub-Deacon the Cup, and carries it to the Chair, that the Bishop might communicate, who having communicated, puts part of the holy Oblation of which he bit a Morsel, into the Arch-Deacons hands. Can it be said that one doth bite the true Body of Jesus Christ, and that one breaks off part of it? 4thly, It adds, he is to take great heed that no part of the Body and Blood of the Lord doth remain in the Chalice, or on the Plate. By these words, the Roman Order gives us to un­derstand, that it speaks of such a Body and Blood that a part of it may be separated from the whole: Now this is what can only be said of the Bread and VVine, improperly called the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.

[Page 48] The now Roman Order at present used in the Church of Rome, doth also furnish us with the like reflections. It expresly marketh, That Jesus Christ gave in the Oblation, Bread and Wine, to cele­brate the Mysteries of his Body and Blood. Therein is desired, That Ordo Roma­nus. this Blessed Oblation may be accepted of God in such a manner, as that it might be made to us the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ; after all which, is recited the History of the Institution, and the Sacramen­tal words. The Eucharist is called, the Sacred Bread of Eternal Life; and the Cup, the Cup of everlasting Salvation. To conclude, They pray God to behold those Gifts, and that he will accept them as he did the offering of Abel, and the Sacrifice of Melchise­deck, which it's very well known, was Bread and Wine. All which doth plainly shew, That the Roman Order at this time observed, cannot reasonably be interpreted, but in supposing that the Bread and Wine remain in the Eucharist after Consecration.

That the Fathers of the NINTH CENTURY did not believe Transubstantiation.

THeodorus Studita, as is related by Michael Studita in Baronius, in the year 816. N. 15. seeing himself reduced to the extre­mity of being starv'd, said to his Disciple, If men are so cruel as to make me perish with hunger, the participation of the Body and Blood of Theodorus Studita. the Lord, which is the ordinary food of my Body and Soul, shall be my only nourishment: Now the real Body of Jesus Christ cannot be the nourishment of the Body; therefore of necessity this Author must be understood to speak of Bread, which is his Body figuratively and improperly. It is what is also confirm'd by this Michael Studita, who saith in the same place, that Theodore had always about him, some parcels of the quickning Body of the Lord; which cannot be meant of the true Body of Jesus Christ, which is not now subject to be broken, nor divided.

Ahyto Bishop of Basil, sent Ambassador by Charlemaine in the Ahyto. year 814, to Constantinople, to Treat a Peace with the Emperor of the East, as is declared by the Annals of France, by Eginhart Author of the Life of Charlemaine, the Annals of Fulda, Herman Contract, and others. This Ahyto died in the year 836, and left a Capitulary for instruction of the Priests of his Diocess, publisht by [Page 49] Dom Luke D'achery in the Sixth Tome of his Spicilegium, pag. 692. now amongst many other Instructions he gives his Priests in his Ca­pitularies, this is one: ‘In the fifth place, the Priest should know what the Sacrament of Baptism and Confirmation is, and also what Ahyto. the Mystery of the body and blood of our Lord doth mean. How a visible creature is seen in the same Mysteries, and is nevertheless the invisible. Salvation is communicated for the Souls eternal hap­piness, which is contained in faith only.’ By visible creature, he can only mean a creature, not in appearance, but effective; for otherwise, according to this Author, it must be said that in Bap­tism, and Confirmation, there should be only an apparent creature, and not the substance of water and chrism. Besides, Ahyto attri­buted the same effect to these three Sacraments, to wit, the com­munication of eternal and invisible Salvation to them that with faith do receive these holy Sacraments.

Theodulphus in the year 810, Bishop of Orleans, saith in his Trea­tise of the Order of Baptism, ‘ There is one saving Sacrifice which Mel­chisedeck Theodulphus. also offer'd under the Old Testament, in Type of the body and blood of our Saviour, the which the Mediator of God and Man accom­plished under the New, before he was crucify'd, when taking the bread and wine he blessed and gave them to his Disciples, commanding them to do those things in remembrance of him. It is this Mystery which the Church doth celebrate, having put an end to the ancient sacrifices, offer­ing bread, because of the bread which came down from Heaven; and wine, because of him which said, I am the true Vine; to the end that by the visible Oblation of Priests, and by the invisible consecration of the Holy Ghost, the bread and wine should have the dignity of the body and blood of our Lord, with which blood there is mingled some water, ei­ther because there came out of the side of our Saviour water with the blood; or because according to the Interpretation of our Ancestors, as Jesus Christ is signify'd by the wine, so also the people is signify'd by the water.’ Now this Bishop, saying that Jesus Christ gave bread to his Disciples in commemoration that this Mystery is an Oblation of visible bread which is consecrated by the Holy Spirit, and which receiveth the dignity of the body; that he indifferently calls the blood, wine, and the wine, blood; that with the blood, water is ming­led, and that Jesus Christ is signify'd by the wine; that 'tis said the wine signifies Jesus Christ, as the water doth the people; these words cannot suppose any Transubstantiation.

[Page 50] The Opposers of Paschasius Radbertus Frier of the Monastry of Corby, who wrote a Book of the body and blood of Jesus Christ, did not believe Transubstantiation. That the said Paschasius had se­veral adversaries, appears by his own Writings, for towards the Opposers of Paschasius Radbertus. end of his Commentary upon St. Matthew, he saith himself, I have inlarged upon the Lords Supper a little more than the brevity of a Com­mentary would permit, because there be several others that are of a differ­ent judgment touching these holy Mysteries, and that several are blind, and do not perceive that this bread and cup is nothing else but what is seen with the eyes, and tasted with the palate. And in his Epistle to Frudegard, as well as in his Commentary on St. Matthew, ch. 12. it appears he had Opposers, because in his Epist. to Frudegard, he saith, You advise with me touching a thing that many do make doubt of. And in his Commentary, I am told that many, saith he, do cen­sure me, as if I had attributed to the words of our Lord, either more, or something quite contrary to what the genuine sense permits. So that Paschasius had adversaries, and they did not believe Transubstantia­tion, because they held that in the Eucharist, there was only the virtue of the flesh, and not the very flesh; the virtue of the blood, and not the very blood of Christ. That the Eucharist was figure, and not verity; shadow of the body, and not the body it self. They would, saith Paschasius, extenuate the word, body, and perswade, Quod non sit ve­ra caro Christi, sed quaedam virtus & figura corporis Christi. Now Paschasius Rathbertus was the first Author that wrote fully and se­riously of the truth of the body and blood of Jesus Christ in the Eu­charist, as Bellarmin saith, de Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis in Paschasio Ratberto. And Father Sirmond saith, he is the first that hath ex­plain'd the sense of the Church touching this Mystery; so that, saith he, he hath opened the way to others, In vitae Ratberti prae­fixa ejus operibus. Therefore it is nothing strange that Paschasius had enemies, and that he was accused for departing from the com­mon Faith, and to have spread abroad Visions of a young Man. For he saith to Frudegard, You have, saith he, at the end of this Work, the Authorities of Catholick Fathers succinctly marked, by which you may perceive, that 'twas not through rashness, that formerly when I was young I believed these things, but by Divine authority. He also en­deavours to clear himself from this charge in alledging passages, as of Saint Austins, the which nevertheless are not to be found in him; as these words, Receive in the Bread what hung on the Cross, receive in the Cup what issued out of the side of Jesus Christ. Which is not to be found in St. Austin.

[Page 51] Rabanus Archbishop of Mayance in the year 847, stiled by Ba­ronius in the year 843. N. 31. the bright Star of Germany, Fulgens Germaniae Sidus; saith in his institution of Clerks Lib. 1. cap. 31. Our Saviour liked better that believers should receive with their mouth Rabanus. the Sacarments of his Body and Blood, and that they should be turned into their nourishment, to the end that by the visible work the invisible effect should be shewn. For as the material food, doth materially nourish the Body and support it, so also the Word of God doth nourish the Soul inwardly, and doth strengthen it. And in the same place, The Sacra­ment is one thing, and the virtue of the Sacrament is another. The Sa­crament is turned into the nourishment of the Body, but by the virtue of the Sacrament one acquires everlasting life. As the Sacrament therefore is turn'd into our selves, when we do eat and drink it, so also we are converted into the Body of Jesus Christ, when we live with Piety and Obedience.

The same Doctor on St. Matthew, Chap. 26. saith with Venera­ble Beda, that Jesus Christ hath substituted instead of the Flesh and Blood of the Paschal Lamb, the Sacrament of his Body and Blood. That the Creator of the World, and the Redeemer of Mankind, making of the very fruits of the Earth, that is to say, of Bread and Wine, a fit Mystery, turn'd it into the Sacrament of his Body and Blood, that un­leavened Bread and Wine mixt with water, must be sanctified to be the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.

Afterwards he gives the reason wherefore our Saviour chose Bread and Wine to make them Sacraments of his Flesh and Blood, and saith, that 'tis because Melchisedeck offer'd Bread and Wine, and that Jesus Christ being a Priest after the Order of Melchisedeck, he was to imitate his Oblation. And shewing the Reason why the Sacrament takes the name of the Body and Blood of the Lord, he saith with Isidore Archbishop of Sevil, 'Tis because Bread strengthens the Body, it is conveniently called the Body of Jesus Christ; and because Wine augments Blood in the Flesh and Veins, for this reason it is com­par'd to the Blood. Now both these things are visible, nevertheless being sanctifi'd by the Holy Ghost, they pass into the Sacrament of the Divine Body. A Sacrament which in the 33. Chap. he calls the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, in opposition to his Natural Body, from which he distinguishes it, and draws a resemblance from the Mystical Body, to the proper Body of Jesus Christ. The holy Vessels, saith he, are set on the Altar, viz. the Cup and Patten, which in some sort are the figure of the Grave of Jesus Christ; for as at that time the Body of [Page 52] Jesus Christ was laid in the Sepulcher, having been embalm'd by godly People; so also at present, the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, as it were imbalm'd with holy Prayers, is kept in the holy Vessels to be administred to Believers by the hands of the Ministers. Rabanus.

The same Doctor in his Penitential, or Letter to Herribald Bi­shop of Auxerre, which Monsieur Baluze got printed at the end of his Regino at Paris in 1671, saith, Chap. 33. As to what you de­mand of me, whether the Sacrament after it is eat and consum'd, and cast into the draft after the manner of all other meats, does return to the former nature it had before 'twas consecrated at the Altar: to such a needless question may be reply'd, The Lord himself said in the Go­spel, that what enters into the Body goes into the Belly, and is cast into the draft. As for the Sacrament of the Body and Blood, it is made of corporeal and visible things, but it produceth an invisible sanctification, as well to the Body as to the Soul. What reason is there, that that which is digested in the Stomack, and is cast out into the draft, should return to its former state, there being never any that affirmed that such a thing was done? For of late some persons not having a right Judgment of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, have said, that the same Body, and the same Blood of the Lord which was Born of the Virgin Mary, and in which the Lord suffered on the Cross, and rose again from the Dead, is the same which is taken at the Altar; against which Error we have as much as was necessary written to the Abbot Egilon, explaining what ought truly to be believed of the Body of Christ in the Eucharist.

Amalarius, esteemed a very Learned man, in the Manuscripts Amalarius. cited by Dom Luke D'achery a Learned Benedictin, in his Preface to the Seventh Tome of his Spicilegium, was sent by the Emperor Charles le Debonnair to Pope Gregory to find out Antiphonaries, (Amalar. in Prolog. Antiphon.) and who by express command of the same Emperor, was chosen in a Council held at Aix la Chappel, Auno 816. to make Rules for Prebends, as is testified by Ademar a Monk of Angoulism, in his Chronicle on the year 816, saith in his Treatise of Church-Offices, Lib. 3. cap. 25. That the Sacra­ment is to us instead of Jesus Christ. The Priest, saith he, bows and recommends to God the Father, that which was offered in the room of Jesus Christ. In the 26th chap. he saith, The Oblation and the Cup, do signifie the Body of the Lord, when Jesus Christ said, This is the Cup of my Blood, he sanctified his Blood, which Blood was in the Body, as the Wine is in the Chalice. In the third Book, chap. 25. he calls [Page 53] the Eucharist, the Sacrament of Bread and Wine: and saith, that Je­sus Christ hath in this Bread recommended his Body, and in the Cup, his Blood.

The same Amalarius having been consulted by Rangart Bishop of Amalarius. Noyon, how he understood those words of Institution of the Eucha­rist, Amal. ad Ran­gart, Tom. 7. Spicilegii, pag. 166. This is the Cup in my Blood of the New and Eternal Testament, with this addition which is in the Canon of the Mass, the Mystery of Faith; answers him by a Letter, wherein after having spoken of the Cup of the Passover, he proceeds to that of the Eucharist; and having alledged what is mention'd by St. Luke, he adds, ‘ The Cup is in type of my Body, wherein is the Blood that shall run out of my side, to accomplish the ancient Law; and after it is shed, it shall be the New Testament.’ And a little lower he saith, ‘ The Mystery is Faith, as St. Austin saith in his Letter to the Bishop Boniface, as the Sacrament of the Body of Jesus Christ is in some manner the Body of Jesus Christ, and the Sacrament of his Blood, his Blood; so the Sacrament of Faith, is Faith. So also we may say, This is the Cup of my Blood of the New and Eternal Testament. As if he should say, This is my Blood which is given for you.’

The same Doctor in a Letter which he wrote to one Gontard, whom he calls his Son, saith, ‘ That it is our Saviours good pleasure to shed his Blood by the Members and Veins, for our Eternal Salvation. That 'tis a Body of Jesus Christ that may be cast out in spitting after ha­ving receiv'd it, and of which, a part may be flung out of the mouth. To all which he adds, having so received the Body of the Lord with a good intention; I don't pretend to dispute, whether he be invisibly lifted up to Heaven, or whether he remains in our Body, till the day of our Death, or whether he evaporates into the Air, or whether he issues out of the Body with the Blood, or whether he goes out at the pores; our Sa­viour saying, All that enters in at the Mouth, goes down into the Belly, and from thence into the draft, &c.’

Now when this great Man saith, That the Sacrament is to us in the stead of Jesus Christ; that what is offered in the Eucharist is sacrific'd instead of Jesus Christ; that the Cup is in Type of the Body; that the Blood is in the Body, as the Wine is in the Cup; that Jesus Christ represents his Body by the Bread, and his Blood in the Wine; that the Sacrament of the Body is in some sort his Body, and that 'tis so that the Cup of the Blood is his Blood, that the Body is poured forth upon our Members for our Salvation; that there is a Body of Jesus Christ that may be cast out by spitting, and whereof [Page 54] some part may be flung out of the Mouth; That he will not dispute whether this Body evaporates in the Air, or whether it departs out of the body with the blood, or whether it goes out at the pores, or into the Draft, all this doth sufficiently shew, That this Doctor di­stinguished Amalarius. the Bread and Wine, as a Typical body, from the real Body of Jesus Christ; and that by consequence, he believed the bread and wine remained after Consecration, to be called the body and blood of Jesus Christ, but improperly.

Valafridus Strabo, Abbas Augiensis, stiled a very Learned Man, Valafridus Strabo by Herman Contracted, in the year 849. ‘ Jesus Christ, said he, gave to his Disciples the Sacrament of his Body and Blood in the sub­stance Lib. de Reb. Eccles. c. 16. Bill. p. 7. To. 12. of Bread and Wine, teaching them to celebrate it in remembrance of his most holy Passion, because there could nothing be found fitter than these things to signifie the Unity of the Head and Members; for as Bread is made of sundry Grains, and brought into one Body by means of Water; and as the Wine is squeez'd from several Grapes, so also the Body of Jesus Christ is made of the Union of a multitude of Saints. And a little after, he declares, That Jesus Christ hath chose for us a very fit Sacrifice, for the Mystery of his Body and Blood, in that Melchisedeck having offer'd Bread and Wine, he gave to his Children the same kinds of Sacraments.’ And afterwards, cap. 18. That for that great Number of Legal Ordinances, Jesus Christ gave us the Word of his Gospel; so also instead of the great diversity of Sacri­fices, Believers are to rest satisfied with the sole Oblation of Bread and Wine.

It is evident Strabo makes the Holy Sacrament to consist in the substance of Bread and Wine, which according to him, is differenced from the Body, because it is but the memorial of it: That 'tis the Figure, that it consists in being made of sundry Grains, and the Wine of sundry Grapes. That the Sacrifice of the New Testa­ment, is of the same kind as that of Melchisedeck, and that the Eucharist is an Oblation of Bread and Wine. All these things inti­mate, that the Bread and Wine remain in the Eucharist after Conse­cration.

Herribald was Bishop of Auxerre, in the time that Vallafridus Herribald. Strabo wrote. Now he was of the same Opinion with Rabanus. Tom. 2. ch. 19. 52, and 61. Thomas Waldensis assures us so. Herribald of Auxerre, saith he, and Rabanus of Mayence say, That the Sacrament of the Eucharist goes into the Draft. The Anonimous Author, contemporary with Herribald, which was published by Father Cellot the Jesuit, saith [Page 55] also the same. Nevertheless Lupus Abbot of Ferriers, Ep. 19. speaking of him, calls him a most excellent Prelate, excellentissimum Praesulum. In the 37th Ep. he stiles him a Man of a lofty and Divine understanding, Altissimi & Divini ingenii. And Hincmarus Herribald. Archbishop of Reims, calls him the Bishop of Venerable Qualities. So that the very Chronicle of Auxerre intimates, that there was De Praed ch. 6. ingrav'd on his Monument this Inscription, Here lies the body of St. Herribald. Therefore the Author of the 1st Treatise of the Per­petuity of the Eucharist, saith in pag. 843, That Herribald and Rha­banus, were Adversaries to Paschasius: Tho in the 2d Treatise of the Perpetuity, in pag 842. he saith, speaking of the Minister Claude, Who told him, that Amalarius and Herribald were in any wise Ad­versaries to Paschas?

It appears by the Letter Paschasius wrote to Frudegard, that he was not of the same Judgment Paschasius was of, seeing he opposes Frudegar­dus. to him St. Austin's 23d Letter to Boniface, Sic Widefort contra Wick­liff, ad Art. 1.

Trithem. de Script. Eccles. Ratramne, Priest and Frier of Corby, experienc'd in the Scriptures, equally esteem'd for his Learning and Manners, whom De Praedest. Hincmar, Ratramnus. Ep. 79. Lupus Abbot of Ferriers, his Contemporaries; De Script. Eccles. Sigebert who liv'd in the xi. Century, and Father De Euchr. ch. 1. Cellot the Jesuits Anonimus, do all make mention of, under his true name of Ratramne; wrote a Book under the Reign of Charles the Bald, as is reported by the same Trythemius, which he intitul'd, Of the Body and Blood of the Lord: From a Monk of Corby, he was made Abbot of Ovias. The Pre­sident: Maug. disser. Hist. & Chron. c. 17. tom. 2. pag. 133. & 135. Mauguin speaking of him, saith, he was a Learned Doctor of the Church, eminent in Probity, and in Doctrine, an undaunted defender and protector of the Catholick Truth, against Innovators. He dedicated his Book to the Emperor Charles the Bald. Now this Author did not believe Transubstantiation, because he saith, ‘For as to the substance of those Creatures, they are after Con­secration what they were before; they were before Bread and Wine, and it is plainly seen, that after Consecration these created substances do remain in the very same species.’

And a little after he saith, ‘ This spiritual flesh which spiritually feeds Believers, is made of grains of Wheat, by the hands of the Baker, Ratramnus in the Apology of the Fathers, is stiled a learned Benedictin Defender of Grace, a Man of great Wisdom and Reputation; and in the first treatise of the Perpetuity, p. 3. c. 5. he is stiled an obscure kind of a person; that evaporated himself in obscure Reasonings, which he added to those of the Church, and explained as he pleased himself, as some are pleased to say. [Page 56] such as it appears to our sight; but it hath neither Bones nor sinews, nor no distinction of parts, nor is it enliven'd with a Soul, or reasona­ble substance. To conclude, it is unable to move of it self, and if it gives life, it is the effect of a Spiritual virtue, of an invisible, and a Ratramnus. Divine Virtue and Efficacy. A little after he saith again, As the Water represents the People in the Sacrament, if it were true, that the Bread consecrated by Ministers was corporally changed into the Body of Jesus Christ, it must also necessarily follow, that the Water which is mingled with it were changed into the Blood of the faithful people; for where there is but one Sanctification, there ought to be but one Operation; and the Mystery should be equal where the Reason of the Mystery is the same. It is evident there is no corporal change in the Water, and by consequence, there is no corporal change to be expected in the wine. All that is said of the Body of the people represented by water, is understood spiritually; it is then a necessary consequence, that what is said of the Blood of Jesus Christ represented by the wine, must be understood spiritually. Again, The things which differ amongst themselves, are not one and the same thing. The Body of Je­sus Christ which was dead and rose again, and become immortal, doth dye no more, Death has no more dominion over it, it is Eternal, and can no more suffer; but that which is celebrated in the Church is temporal and not eternal, and it is corruptible and not incorruptible. And again; it must then be said, that the body of Jesus Christ, such as it is made in the Church, was incorruptible and eternal. Neverthe­less it cannot be denied that what is so cut into morsels to be eat, changed and corrupted, and that being eat with the teeth, it goes into the Body. Again, Now 'tis true that the figure and the reallity are things distinct, therefore the body and blood which are celebrated in the Church, are dif­ferent from the flesh and blood of the Body of Jesus Christ, which it is well known, is glorious since his Resurrection, therefore the body that we celebrate is a pledg and figure.’

These words of Ratramne or Bertram, are so clear, that it is won­der'd the Author of the Perpetuity should say in the first Treatise, p. 3. that Bertram is an obscure Author, and not evidently favourable to Calvinists, but that the Catholicks may explain him in a good sense. I cannot tell what to call this Confidence.

John Erigen, a Scotch man, whom the Emperor Charles the Joan. Erige­na. Bald commanded to write touching the Body and Blood of the Lord, as he had done also to Ratramne, which appears by Bor­renger's Letter to Richard, publish'd by Dom Luke D' Achery in the [Page 57] 2d Tome of his Spicileg, was of an Opinion contrary to Paschasius, as is acknowledged by De Euchar. Lanfrank; and Berenger in his Epistle to the same Lanfrank; and Hincmar saith of John Erigen, that he taught, De praedest. chap. 41. That the Sacrament of the Altar was not the real Body and Jo Erigena. Blood of Jesus Christ, but only the Remembrance both of the one and the other: And Berenger writing to Lanfrank, saith to him, If you hold John for a Heretick, whose Judgment we have been inform'd of touching the Sacrament, you must also hold for Hereticks, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Austin, not to mention many more. Nevertheless De Gest. Reg. Angl. l. 1. c. 5. Wil­liam of Malmsbury, Annal, per pred. ad 882. Roger de Hoveden, and Ad. An. 883. Matthew of Westmin­ster, speak of John Scot, as of the greatest Man of his time; and Molanus Professor in Divinity at the University of Lovain, in his Appendix to the Martyrology of Ussuart, at the Letter J has left these Words engraven, John Scot, Martyr, translated Dionysius' s Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, after which by Authority of the Popes, he was put into the number of the Martyrs of Jesus Christ. To conclude, the Roman Martyrology, which we have in our Library, Printed at Antwerp, Anno 1586. by order of Gregory the 13th, as is said in the Title of the Book, Martyrologium Romanum Jussii Gregorii 13, editum, at the 4 of the Ides of November, makes mention of John Scot: It's true, the Author of the 1st Dissertation upon John Scot, which the Author of the Perpetuity chose, having placed the said Dissertation at the end of his 2d Treatise, to which he often refers his Readers, has made in the same Dissertation, a Chapter which bears the Title, that John Scot was not put into the Cata­logue of Martyrs by the sacred Authority of Popes, and that his Name is not to be sound in any Edition of the Roman Martyrology. But it is also certain, that the same Author, who hath also pub­lish'd the belief of the Greek Church touching Transubstantiation, has inserted in the end of his Book, a Treatise Entituled, A Re­futation of the Answer of a Minister of Charenton, to the Disser­tation which is in the end of Monsieur Arnauds Book, concerning the Employments, the Martyrdom, and the Writings of John Scot, or Erigen; and the last Chapter of this Refutation hath this Title, A sincere Declaration of the Author touching some things he had said in his Dissertation, the which he since confesses were not true. And in Numb. 6. of this Chapter, the Author saith in these Terms, in Art. 7. p. 25. (he speaks of the 7th Art. of the first Dissertation upon John Scot, which is at the end of Mr. Arnauds Perpetuity;) it is said that 'tis false that there was a Martyrology Printed at Antwerp [Page 58] by command of Gregory the 13th in the Year 1586. 2dly, That there is not to be found in any Roman Martyrology, Printed at Antwerp or any where else, the Commemoration of John Scot on the 4th of the Ides of November. It would be superfluous here to J. Erigena. relate the Reasons that they have had, so positively to deny these matters of Fact. It is sufficient to observe, First, That there is a Roman Martyrology set forth by Order of Gregory the 13th, and Printed by Platin at Antwerp in the Year 1586. 2dly, That there is seen in this Martyrology, the Commemoration of John Scot on the 4th of the Ides of November in these words, Eodem Die Sancti Jo­annis Scoti qui Grafiis puerorum confessus, Martyrii Coronam adeptus est. This Author is of good reputation, and doubtless was not ignorant of what St. Austin saith in some of his Works, That to Lye in a matter of Religion, is meer Blasphemy. Nevertheless we may observe, be­fore proceeding any farther, that if Scot had advanced any new Doctrine, he would certainly have been reproved for it by the Church of Lyons, by Prudentius, by Florus, by the Councils of Va­lence and Langres, which condemn'd and censur'd his Opinions on the Doctrine of Predestination.

St. Prudentius Bishop of Troys in Champaign, who assisted at the Prudentius. Councils of Paris in the Year 846, of Tours in 849, at Soissons in the Year 853. to whom Leo the 4th wrote an honourable Letter, which is to be seen in the 6th Tome of the Councils, of the which the Bishop of Toul in the French Martyrology on the 7th of April, having said, that at Troys his Anniversary is solemnized, as of a holy Bishop and Confessor; he also makes a magnificent Elegy of him. This holy Bishop, I say, was of the same Judgment with John Scot in the Subject of the Eucharist, for Hincmar Arch-bishop Hincmar de Praedest. c. 31. of Rhemes, numbers him with John Scot, against whom he ob­serves nevertheless, that he wrote touching Predestination, and saith, that they both held, That the Sacraments of the Altar are not the true Body and Blood of our Lord, but only the commemoration of his Body and Blood.

Christianus Drutmar Priest and Frier of Corby, famous for his Christianus Drutmarus. Learned Works, saith Sigebert of Illustrious Men, as also the Abbot Trythemius; wrote a Commentary upon St. Matthew, about the year 845. It is in the Bibliotheca Patrum, Tom. 16. pag. 301. ‘ Jesus Christ, saith Drutmar, took Bread, because Bread strengthens the heart of man, and doth better fortifie our Body than any other food. He therein establishes the Sacrament of his Love; but this propriety [Page 59] ought much rather to be attributed to the spiritual Bread which perfectly strengthens all Men, and all Creatures, because 'tis by him we Live, Move, and have our Being. He blessed it: He blessed it first, be­cause as in his Person he blessed all Mankind, then afterwards he shew­ed Christianus Drutmanes. that the blessing and power of the Divine and Immortal Nature was truly in that Nature which he had taken from the Virgin Mary. He broke it: He broke the Bread which was Himself, because exprsing himself willingly to Death, he broke and shattered the Habitation of his Soul, to the end that he might satisfie us, according to what himself saith, I have power to lay down my Life, or to save it. And he gave it to his Disciples, saying to them, Take and Eat, this is my Body. He gave to his Disciples the Sacrament of his Body for the Remission of Sins, and for the keeping of Charity, to the end that not forgetting this action, they should always perform this in Figure, and that they should not be unmindful of what he was about to do for them. This is my Bo­dy, that is to say, Sacramentally; and having taken the Cup, he bles­sed it, and gave it to his Disciples. As amongst all things which are necessary to preserve Life, Bread and Wine are those that do most of all repair and strengthen the weakness of Nature: It is with great reason that our Saviour was pleas'd in these two things to establish the Myste­ry of his Sacrament; for Wine rejoyces the heart, and increases Blood, therefore it is very fit to represent the Blood of Jesus Christ, because whatsoever comes from him, rejoyces with true Joy, and encreaseth whatsoever there is of good in us. To conclude, as a Person that is go­ing a long Journey, leaves to those u hom be loves, some particular pledg of his kindness, on condition that they should look daily upon it, to the end that they may retain him always in Remembrance; so in like manner, God by spiritually changing the Bread into his Body, and the Wine into his Blood, has commanded us to celebrate this Mystery, that these two things should make us never forget what he hath done for us with his Body and Blood, and keep us from being unthankful and ungrateful for his so tender Love. Now because water is wont to be mingled with the Sacrament of his Blood, this Water represents the People for whom Jesus Christ was pleas'd to suffer, and the Water is not without the Wine, nor the Wine without the Water, because as he died for us, so also we should be ready to die for Him, and for our Brethren, that is to say, for the Church, therefore there came out of his side Water and Blood.’

This passage is taken out of the Commentary, where the Author expounds these words of the Institution, This is my Body, by these [Page 60] other words, That is to say, in Sacrament, which are words quite contray to those of Paschasius; for Paschasius said in his Letter to Frudegard, fearing it should be thought that Jesus spake in Sacra­ment, he said demonstratively, This is my Body. Ne putares quia Christianus Drutmanes. in Sacramento loquebatur (Deminus) &c. demonstrative dixit, hoc est Corpus meum. So Drutman makes a difference 'twixt the Body and the Sacrament which he establishes in the Bread and Wine, which he blessed, brake and gave to his Disciples; he ascribes to the Wine, only the Dignity of representing the Blood of Christ; and that, to conclude, the Bread and Wine are pledges of his Love. Therefore the same Author, Chap. 56. on these words, I will drink no more of this fruit of the Vine, until I drink it new with you in my Father's Kingdom; from that very hour of Supper, saith he, he drank no Wine, until he became immortal and incorruptible after his Resurrection.

The Deacon Florus wrote about the same time, an Exposition of Florus Dia­conus. the Mass, which is mention'd in the Bibliotheca Patrum, Tom. 6. pag. 170. he there saith, This Body and this Blood is not gather'd in Ears of Corn, or in clusters of Grapes; nature doth not give it us, but it is Consecration that makes it Mystical to us: Jesus Christ is eaten when the Creatures of Bread and Wine do pass to the Sacrament of the Body and Blood, by the ineffable Sanctification of the Holy Ghost. He is eaten by parcels in the Sacrament, and remains whole and intire in Heaven, and whole and intire in our Hearts. Again, All that is done in this Oblation of the Body and Blood of our Saviour, is a Mystery, we there see one thing, and we understand another; what we see, hath a corporal substance; what we understand, hath a spiritual Fruit. He saith, Jesus Christ saith to them, take, eat ye all of this; and speaking of the Cup, The Wine, saith he, was the Mystery of our Redemption, and he proves it by these words, I will drink no more of the Fruit of the Vine. To conclude, Explaining these last words of the Canon, By which, O Lord, thou daily makest these good things for us, which contain a kind of Thanksgiving, which in the Latin Liturgy does follow the Consecration; he sufficiently intimates to us, that he did not believe the Bread and Wine were changed into the substance of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, seeing he speaks of them, as things God had created from the beginning of the World, which he creates every year by Propagation and Reparation, which he san­ctifies, which he sills with Grace and Heavenly Benediction, the which himself expounds to be Bread and Wine.

[Page 61] See here Nine or Ten Authors, Contemporaries with Paschasius, which are formally contrary to his Doctrine, besides those which Paschasius himself speaks of in general, in his own Writings.

To conclude the Ninth Century, there might be added the manner that Charles the Bald, and the Count of Barcelona signed the Peace, which was done with the Blood of the Eucharist, as is report­ed by Monsieur Baluze in his Notes on Agabard, out of Odo Aribert, in the year 844. It was in the same manner that Pope Theodore in the Seventh Century signed the Condemnation of Pirrbus the Mo­notholite, as appears by Baronius on the year 648. § 15.

That the Fathers of the TENTH CENTURY did not be­lieve Transubstantiation.

ALferick Archbishop of Canterbury, about the year 940. in one of his Sermons to be seen in the Fourth Book of Bedes Ecclesi­astical History, cap. 24. which we have Copied in the Library of Alferic A. B. Cant. St. Victor, saith, ‘The Eucharist is not the Body of Jesus Christ corporal­ly, but spiritually; not the Body in which he suffered, but the Body The Expurgat. Index Orders these words to be blotted out of which he spake, when consecrating the Bread and Wine he said, This is my Body, this is my Blood; he adds, the Bread is his Body, just as the Manna; and the Wine his Blood, as the Water in the Desart was.’

There is another Sermon cited by some under the name of Wol­fin Bishop of Salisbury, others say 'tis of Alfric, wherein the Au­thor Wolphinus. uses near the same Language. This Sacrifice, saith he, is not Apud Usseri­um de Christi­anae Ecclesi Success. & Stat. c. 2. p. 54. the Body of Jesus Christ wherein he suffered for us, nor his Blood which he shed, but it is spiritually made his Body and Blood, as the Manna that fell from Heaven, and the Water that sprang out of the Rock Besides these two Testimonies, which shew what was believed of the Sacrament in England, there is a Sermon seen, which was read every Saxon Homily. year to the People at Easter, to keep in their minds the Idea of the Ancient Faith; It is almost wholly taken out of Ratramne; There is great difference, saith this Homily, betwixt the Body wherein Jesus Christ suffered, and the Body which is consecrated for the Eucharist; for the Body wherein Jesus Christ suffered, was born of the Virgin Mary, and was provided with Blood, Bones, Nerves and Skin, with bodily Members, and a reasonable Soul; but his spiritual Body, which we call [Page 62] Eucharist, is compos'd of several Grains of Wheat, without Blood, without Bones, Nerves, and without a Soul. The Body of Christ which suffer'd Death, and rose again, shall never dye more, it is Eternal and Immortal; but the Eucharist is temporal and not eternal, it is corrupti­ble Saxon Homily. and divided into sundry parcels, ground by the Teeth, and goes along with the other Excrements. This Sacrament is a pledg and figure; the Body of Jesus Christ is the Truth it self; we have this pledg Sacramen­tally until we attain to the Truth, and then the pledg shall be fulfill'd. And a little lower, If we consider the Eucharist after a corporal man­ner, we see 'tis a changeable and corruptible Creature; but if we con­sider the spiritual Virtue that is in it, we easily see that Life abides in it, and that it gives Immortality to those that receive it with Faith. There is great difference betwixt the invisible Virtue of this Holy Sa­crament, and the visible Form of its proper Nature. By Nature it is corruptible Bread, and corruptible Wine, but by the Virtue of the Word of God, it is truly his Body and Blood, yet not corporally but spiritually. A little below, he explains this change, in saying, Jesus Christ by an invisible Virtue did change the Bread and Wine into his Body and Blood; but 'twas after the same manner as he heretofore changed Man­na, and the Water that came out of the Rock, into the same Body and Blood.

Fulcuin Abbot of the Monastry of Lobes, in the County of Liege, who departed this Life in the year 990. speaking of the Eucharistical Fulcuinus. Table, saith, That 'tis the Table on which is consumed the Sacred Body Tom. 6. Spicil. de gestis Abb. Lob. p. 573. of our Lord, which not being to be said of the proper Body, cannot be understood but of the Bread which is called Body, an Expression which in all likelihood this Abbot had learn'd of St. Austin, who faith, The Bread made for that use, is consumed in receiving the Sacra­ment. That which is set on the Table is consum'd, the holy Celebration being ended.

Herriger, Successor to Fulcuin, and whom he that continued the History of the Abbots of Lobes, mentions as a man whose Virtue and Herriger. Idem tom. 6. p. 591. Knowledg was known even to Strangers, He collected, saith this Au­thor, several Passages of Catholick Fathers against Paschasius Ratber­tus, touching the Body and Blood of our Lord.

The Ancient Customs of the Monastry of Cluny, Reprinted by the care of Dom Luke D' Achery, l. 2. ch. 30. say, The outside of Monastry of Cluny. the Challice is carefully rub'd, lest there should the least drop of the Tom. 4. in Spec. p. 146. Wine and Water remain; and being consecrated, it should fall to the ground, and perish; by which it appears they believed the Wine and [Page 63] water still remain'd after Consecration, for the true Body of Jesus Christ cannot perish. Again, The Priest divides the Host, and puts part of it into the Blood; of one moiety he communicates himself, and with the other, he communicates the Deacon. It cannot be so spoke of Customs of the Monastry of Cluny. the Body of Jesus Christ; then after the Priest has broke the Host, he puts part of it into the Cup, after the usual manner, two parts on the Patten, and covers both the one and the other with a clean Cloath; but first of all, he very carefully rubs the Challice, and shakes it with the same hand with which he touched it, fearing, lest that breaking the Bread, there should rest some part of the Body of our Lord (which cannot be said of the true Body of Jesus Christ;) and elsewhere is prescrib'd what should be done, If there chance to remain ever so little of the Body of our Saviour, which is expounded to be a very little Crum, as 'twere indivisible, and like an Atome. To conclude, treating of the Communion of sick Folks, it is observ'd that the Body of our Lord is brought from the Church, that it is broke, and that the Priest holds on the Challice the part Lib. 3. Ch. 28. p. 217. that he is to bring. It must needs be, that by the sence of these customs, there must be Bread and Wine in the Sacrament, that it may be broken, and improperly called Body.

Ratherius Bishop of Verona saith, As to the Corporal substance which the Communicant doth receive, seeing that 'tis I that do Ratherius. now ask the Question, I must also answer my self, and I thereto De Contempt. Canon. port. Spicileg. Tom. 2. yield; for seeing that to him that receives worthily, it is the true Body, altho one sees that the Bread is the same it was before; and true Blood, altho the Wine is seen to be the same it was: I confess I cannot say nor think, what it is to him that doth receive unwor­thily, that is to say, that doth not abide in God. Now the Com­municant, can he receive a corporal Substance? Can one say, that one sees that the Bread is what 'twas before, if the Communicant receives no substance? It is known on the contrary, that what is seen, is not Bread nor Wine.

Moreover, Ratherius condemning Drunkenness and Excess in some of his Priests, saith, that some of them spew'd before the Al­tar of our Lord upon the Body and Blood of the Lamb; this can be understood only of the Sacrament, which borrows the Name of the thing signified, the abuse whereof reflects on him that instituted it.

That the Authers of the ELEVENTH CENTURY did not believe Transubstantiation.

THE Author of the Life of St. Genulphius, who in all probabi­lity The Author of the Life of St. Genulphius. lived in the beginning of the Eleventh Century, and was published by John a Bosco a Celestin Frier, relates of this Saint, That from the very Day of his Ordination, he spent the rest of his Life without tasting any Wine, except it was that he receiv'd in the Ce­lebration of the holy Sacrament. One would not speak in this man­ner, and believe that there was not Wine remaining in the Cup af­ter Lib. 1. Ch. 6. Consecration.

Leutherick Arch-bishop of Sens, who died in the year of our Lord Leuthericus. 1032. did not believe Transubstantiation, because we read of him in the Life of Pope John the XVII. or according to others the Ele­venth, that in this Popes Life, Leutherick Arch-bishop of Sens, laid the Foundation and Elements of the Heresy of Berenger. Whence it is, that Helgald wrote in the Life of King Robert, that his Doctrine grew and increased in the World; Cresebat, saith he, in Saeculo, notwith­standing In Epistola Roberti Regis. the threatnings which this Prince made to depose him from his Dignity, if he continued to teach it.

Fulbert, Anno Dom. 1007. Bishop of Chartres, and ordain'd by Leutherick, did not believe Transubstantiation, when he said in his Fulbertus. 1 st Epistle to Adeodatus, That Jesus Christ intending to take up his Body to Heaven, left us the Sacrament for to be a pledg of his Body and Blood. That under the visible form of the Creature, there is a secret Bib. pat. tom. Virtue that Operates in the holy Solemnities. That the Divine Maje­sty is diffus'd and spread abroad in that, which before was but a common thing, but being sanctifi'd by the heavenly Word, it inwardly becomes the Body of Jesus Christ. That this is effected by the holy Spirit that joyns, unites and binds the Sacrament to the Body of Jesus Christ, (compaginante Spiritu sancto) that the terrestrial mat­ter surpassing the Merits of its Nature and Kind, is changed into the substance of the Body of Jesus Christ; That this change is not impossi­ble, no more than that is, which arrives to us by Baptism, being changed into the Body of the Church; not by any priviledge of Na­ture, but by the purchase of Faith; Non Naturae privilegio, sed fidei precio, being the same outwardly, and changed inwardly: Of [Page 65] Servants being become Children, being vile and abject, and all of a sudden acquiring a new Dignity. What wonder is it, that he that produced these Natures out of nothing, should convert them into the dignity of a more excellent nature, and make them pass into the sub­stance Fulbertus. of his Body? Now the terms of pledges of the Body and Blood of the Lord, do sufficiently shew that he made a difference be­twixt the Sacrament and his Body; therefore we see before, that Ratramne drew the same consequence in saying, that which is a Pledg and Image, is distinct from that whereof it is an Image and Pledg. These terms of a secret virtue by which it operates, of the Sacred Majesty which it spreads abroad, of the Holy Spirit that joins and unites, of the matter which is advanced to a greater dignity; and in that he confirms the change of the Bread, by that which hap­pens to Believers in Baptism; and by that which besel the Manna in the wilderness; as also what he farther says to Frudegard in his 2d Epistle of the Communion, as of a thing whereof the Priest newly ordained, during 40 days, received a little Portion, par­vam particulam, which might be taken by morsels, or by bits, minutatim sumere, in that he calls the sanctified Bread, Eucharist, and that he saith, That the sanctified Bread is called the true Body of Jesus Christ; in that he saith elsewhere with St. Austin, That he that abides not in Jesus Christ, and in whom Jesus Christ abideth not, doth not eat his Flesh, nor drink his Blood, though he eats and drinks to his condemnation, the Sacrament of so great a thing. All this sheweth, that Berenger had all reason to alledg in his defence the Authority of Fulbert, as appears by Berenger's Letter to Richard, which Let­ter is printed by Dom Luke D' Achery in the 2d Tome of his Spicileg. If things be so, saith Berenger to Richard, how is it that this Do­ctrine of the Eucharist, contained in the Writings of Bishop Ful­bert of glorious Memory, should come to my knowledg, which some indeed imagine to be of this Bishop, but was indeed taught by St. Austin?

Bernon Abbot of Auge, who about the Year 1030. wrote a Bernon. Bible of the Fath. Tom. 10. Treatise of things concerning the Mass, saith in the 1 st Chapter, That Pope Sergius commanded to sing the Agnus Dei at the Break­ing of the Body of the Lord; now this being not to be understood of the proper Body of Jesus Christ, it must be understood of the Sacrament, which is the figure of his Body: They do not speak so now, they say the Sign is broken, but they do not say the body of Jesus Christ is broken: And in the 5th Chapter he saith, that we are [Page 66] refreshed with the Wine which is in the Cup, in Type of the Blood of Je­sus Christ.

Bruno Bishop of Argers, was of Berengers opinion, as appears by the 3d Tome of the Bibliotheca Patrum, p. 319, in a Letter the Bishop of Bruno. Liege writ to K. Henry against Bruno and Berenger, his Arch-Deacon. Sigebert in his Chronicle of Miroeus his Edition at Antwerp, 1608, saith, That many did dispute for and against Berenger, by word of mouth, and by Writing. The Manuscript of this Chronicle, which is seen in Monsieur d'Thous's Library saith the same: As also Conrart de Brunwill, apud Surium vita Wolphelmi ad ap. Matthew of West­minster on the year 1080, saith, That Berenger had almost corrup­ted all France, Italy, and England, with his Doctrine. Matthew Paris, and William of Malmsbury do affirm, That all France was In Willel. 2. full of his Doctrine. Thomas Waldensis relates the Acts of the In willel. l. 6. 3. Council held under Gregory the 7th, wherein there was a more mo­derate Confession of Faith touching the Sacrament prepared, than that under Alexander the 2d, predecessor to Gregory; Berenger was forced to sign it, after which Greg. 7th. gave him Letters of Recom­mendation, Tom. 2. Spi­cileg. p. 508. which Dom Luke D' Achery, has caused to be printed in one of the Tomes of his Collection. Nevertheless it appears by the Acts, and by Hugh de Flavigny, in the Chronicle of Verdun in the 1st Tome of Father L' Abbes Bibliotheque, in An. 1078, that there were several in that Assembly that maintained Berengers Doctrine against Paschasius, that this Arch-Deacons Adversaries knew not how to answer his Reasons, as the Chronicle of Mount Cassin test sies, l. 3. c. 33. And Sigonius de Regno Itali, relates lib. 9. on the year 1059. That they were forc'd to send to the Monastry of Mount Cassin, for a learned Frier called Albert, whom Pope Stephen, saith Sigonius, made Cardinal Deacon, who being come, and not able to answer Berengers Arguments, desi­red P Gregory 7. a weeks time to consider of them; neither was Pope Gregory the 7th himself well satisfied with what was urged against Berenger, seeing that Cardinal Bernon, in the life of Hildebrand, and the Abbot of Ursberg in the year 1080, do write, That Gregory the 7th, wavering in the Faith, caus'd a Fast to be kept by his Car­dinals, that it might be discover'd whether the Church of Rome, or Berenger were in the best opinion touching the Bidy of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament. One argument that Gregory the 7th, was not very contrary to Berenger, is, that the Abbot of Ursberg, and Aventin, that has it from Otto Fraxinensis, relate on the year [Page 67] 1080, that thirty Bishops and Lords being assembled apud Brixiam Nomicam, did depose Gregory the 7th, amongst other things, for being a Disciple of Berengers. Before I end my Discourse of Be­renger, it is necessary to observe, that the Confession that was Bruno. extorted from him, is not maintainable, seeing that, as is related by Lanfranc and Alger, it is therein said, that Jesus Christ not only in Sacrament, but also in reality, is touched and broken by the 1. 1. c. 19. Teeth.

Theophylact Arch-Bishop of Bulgary said in his time, That God, condescending to our infirmity, doth preserve the Species of Bread Theophylact. In Marcum. c. 14. and Wine, and changes them into the Virtue of the Body and Blood of Christ. Also in his time the Greeks did not believe Transubstantia­tion.

In all probability Nicetas Pectoratus did not believe it, seeing Nicetas Pe­ctoratus. Cardinal Humbert whom Pope Leo the 9th sent to them, upbraids him, Perfidious Stercoranist, says he to him, you think that the Partici­pation Humber. Tom. 4. Bibl. of the Patr. Edit. ult. 245. of the Body and Blood of our Lord breaks the Fasts of Lent, and other holy Fasts, believing that the Heavenly, as well as the Terrestrial Food, is cast out into the draft, by the sordid and stinking way of the Belly.

Alger de Sacram. l. 2. c. 1. Tom. 6. of the Fathers, lib. and the Je­suit Cellot, in Append. Miscel. Opusc. 7. p. 564. do frequently impute this Error to the Greeks.

The Author of the Chronicle Malleacensis, on the year 1083, observes in the Monastry (Cormoriacensi), That there was a Fryar called Literius, of such great Abstinence, that for Ten years time, he drank neither Wine nor Water, but what he received in the Sacrament; of necessity then, what one drinks in the Eucharist, must be true Wine, and true Water.

That the Authors of the TWELFTH CENTURY did not believe Transubstantiation.

HOnorius Priest and Theologal of the Church of Rutan, did not believe Transubstantiation, seeing Thomas Waldensis, Tom. 2. c. 90. saith, That this Theologal was of the Sect of the Bread-eaters of Rabanus, de Secta Panitarum Rabani; and Honorius saith with Honorius. Raban, that the Sacrament which is received with the Mouth, is An. 1120. In Gemma Anim. l. 1. c. 111. [Page 68] converted into bodily food, but the Virtue of the Sacrament is that whereby the inward Man is fed and satisfied. He saith also, That the Host is broken, because the Bread of Angels was broken for us upon the Cross Ib. c. 63.. Honorius.

Ib. c. 64. That the Bishop bites one piece, that he divides it in parts, that it is not received whole, but broke in three parts, Ibid. c. 65. that when 'tis put in the Wine, it is shewed that the Soul of our Lord return'd to his Body, and he calls that which is broke, the Body of the Lord; then he observes, that the Sub-Deacon receives from the Deacon the Body of our Saviour, and that he carries it to the Priests to di­vide it to the People; all this can only be understood of the Bread, which is improperly called the Body.

Rupert Abbot of Duits, near Cologne, upon Exodus, l. 2. c. 10. Rupertus. saith, That the Holy Ghost doth not destroy the Substance of Bread, A. 1111. as he did not destroy the human Nature, when he joined it to the Word; and in his 6th Book on St. John, of the Paris Edition, in the year 1638, he saith, That as the Word was made Flesh, not be­ing changed into Flesh, but in assuming Flesh, so also the Word made Flesh, is made visible Bread, not being changed into Bread, but taking and transferring the Bread into the Unity of his Person. We will say no more of this Author, because Bellarmin and several others, do freely confess that Rupert did not believe Transubstantia­tion; De Scriptor. Eccles. l. 3. c. 11. & 15. also Honorius of Auter gives him extraordinary Commenda­tions, saying, That Rupert illuminated with a Vision of the Holy Ghost, explained almost all the Holy Scriptures in an Admirable De Script. Ec­cles. stile.

Zonaras in the East did not believe Transubstantiation, seeing he Zonaras. saith of the Eucharist, That it is a Shew-bread which is subject to Cor­ruption, Tom. 6. Cyr. Alex. in Notis vulcani ad lib. advers. An­thropom. Zo­nar. Ep. 2. and which is eat and ground with the Teeth. Panis Propositio­nis corruptioni est obnoxius, ut pote caro existens vere Christi, & secatur dentibus nostris, & molitur. So that he was of the Opinion of Damas­cen and Rupert.

The Abbot Francus, in all likelihood, Abbot of Lobes, did not ap­prove Francus. the Opinion of Transubstantiation, seeing the Centuriators of Magdebourgh observe, that he had no right Judgment of the Lords Supper, asserting that the true Body of Christ was not in the Holy Sacrament.

Amalaricus Bishop of Chartres in they ear 1207. a man of great Amalaricus. Reputation for his Knowledg and Wisdom, saith Gaugwi [...] in his 6th Book of the History of France, in the Reign of Philip the August, [Page 69] amongst other things, denied Transubstantiation. Bernard of Lux­emburg, In Catal. in Almar. contra Haeres. Verb. Euch. 4. Prateolus and Alphonsus alastro, report the same of Amaury, as also Genebrard in his Chronicle, Lib. 4. Anno 1215.

Opinions of Authors of the THIRTEENTH CENTURY, and afterwards, touching Transubstantiation.

IT's true, Pope Innocent the 3d, did condemn this Amaury at the Council of Lateran, after his Death, in the year 1215. but 'tis not said wherefore; and what was transacted in this Council, deserves not to be much regarded, if it be consider'd after what manner things were there transacted. The Pope, who then pre­sided, was a man full of vain Glory and Ambition; Mathew Paris and Mathew of Westminster intimate so much of him, and that the liberty of voting and speaking was denied to the Prelates of the As­sembly, for they were not seen to propose, nor deliberate, nor ad­vise, nor prepare any of the Constitutions which were there in great numbers; but they were presented to the Council ready drawn up, it not appearing that the advice of the Assembly was taken on each of them, as is usually practis'd in all free and lawful Councils. Mathew Paris, on the year 1215. speaks in these terms, Every one being Assembled in the place abovesaid, and each having ac­cording to the custom of the General Councils, taken their place, the Pope having first made an Exhortatory Sermon, there was read in full Council Sixty Articles; which were liked by some, and dis­liked by others.

Godfry a Fryer of St. Pantalion at Cologne, saith, There was no­thing worth the remembrance done at this Council, only that the Ad Ann. 1215. Eastern Church submitted to the Western, which before was never known. Naucerlus and Platina, in the Life of Innocent the 3d. affirm the same, for they mark, that several things were there propos'd, but that nothing was clearly determin'd. And Kings and Princes have no Reason to allow of this Council, because in the 3d Chap. of the said Council, Power is given to the Pope to deprive Princes and Lords of their Lands, and to give them to o­thers.

Guy leGros Archbishop of Narbonne, in the year 1268. did not believe Transubstantiation; for being at Rome, and discovering his [Page 70] mind to a certain Doctor, being return'd to Narbonne, Pope Cle­ment the IV. wrote him a Letter, telling him that a certain Doctor inform'd him, that discoursing with him, he held that the Body of Christ was not essentially in the Sacrament, and no otherwise than as the thing signified is in the Sign; and that he said also this Opi­nion was common at Paris. This appears by the Register'd Ma­nuscript of the Letters of Clement the IV. And to shew that the Arch Bishop of Narbonne said this Doctrine was very frequent at Paris; we find that two years after, that is to say, in the year 1270. which was in the year St. Lewis died; Stephen Bishop of Paris, by advice of some Doctors in Divinity, condemned those which held, that God cannot make an Accident to be without a Subject, because it is of its Essence to be actually in its Subject. 2ly, That the Accident without a Subject, is not evident, unless it be equivocal. 3ly, That to make the Accident subsist without its Subject, as we think it does in the Eucharist, is a thing impossible, and implies a Contradiction. 4ly, That God cannot make the Ac­cident be without its Subject, neither that it should have several Dimensions. Which Maxims being inconsistent with Transubstantia­tion, doth plainly shew, that even at that time, Men were divid­ed on the Subject of Transubstantiation. One William, saith the Fryer Walsingham, in the Life of Richard the 2d, King of England, on the year 1381. Preached at Leicester on Palm-Sunday, That the Sacrament of the Altar is real Bread after Consecration; and that the Bishop of Lincoln going to punish him for it, the People appearing concern'd for him, made the Bishop not dare do any thing against him, which doth plainly shew, that in that time the Doctrine of Transubstantiation had not taken any deep root in the minds of the People.

Reginal Peacock Bishop of Chichester in England, in the year 1457, In Richard. 2. Anno 1282. Tom. 2. Ch. 19. did not hold Transubstantiation, seeing Baleus reports on the Credit of Thomas Gasconius and Leland, that he had no sound thoughts touching the Eucharist, and that he asserted the Doctrine of Wick­liff.

Now the Doctrine of Wickliff, as is related by this Frier Walsingham and Thomas Waldensis, was, That after Consecration by the Priest in Tho. Waldens. in Epist. ad Mart. 5. the Mass, there remains true Bread and Wine, such as they were be­fore; nevertheless, saith Walsingham, the Lords and Nobles of the Land favour'd Wickliff; which shews plainly, that the belief of Transubstantiation was not generally received. In Rich. 2.

[Page 71] Guy of Cluvigny, Doctor in Divinity, of the Order of Carmelites, and Reader of the Sacred Palace, did not hold Transubstantiation, but held the Opinion of Rupert de Duits, to wit, the Impanation; and said, That this Opinion was so agreeable to him, that if he were Pope, he would establish it. Thomas Waldensis reports the same thing, having receiv'd it from John of Paris. It's certain that Tom. 2. Ch 64. John of Paris teacheth so in his Manuscript Treatise in the Library of St. Victor, having for its Title, Determinatio fratris Joannis de Parisiis Praedicatoris de modo existendi Corpus Christi in Sacramento Altaris alio quam sit ille quem tenet Ecclesia.

The same John de Paris wrote the Treatise above mention'd, about the year 1300. he was a Jacobin, and Doctor of the Sorbon; he held that the Eucharist is the Body of Christ, as Rupert de Duits, and Guy of Cluvigny did, to wit, by Assumption, Jesus Christ ha­ving taken the Bread into the Unity of his Suppositum, as he took the human Nature into the Unity of his Person. And towards the end of the Manuscript it is said, That the faculty thought fit, that the manner of explaining the Eucharist, by Assumption of the Bread, or by Conversion, was a probable Opinion; but that neither the one nor the other was decided as a matter of Faith; and that whoever said otherwise, did not say well, and run the risque of Excommuni­cation. In praesentia Collegii Magistrorum in Theologia dictum est; (says the end of the Manuscript) utrumque modum ponendi Corpus Christi esse in Altare tenet pro Opinioni probabili, & approbat utrumque per.—Et per dicta Sanctorum. Dicit tamen quod nullus est determinatus per Ecclesiam, & idcirco nullus cadit sub fide, & si aliter dixisset, minus bene dixisset, & qui aliter dicunt minus bene dicunt, & qui determi­nate assereret alterum praecise cadere sub fide incurreret sententiam, Ca­nonis vel Anathematis. Thomas Waldensis attributes this Opinion to John de Paris.

There is commonly found in the Library of the Franciscan Fri­ers, a Book called the Poor's Reckoning, writ by one, called De Goris, a Doctor of Tholouse, and Native of Arragon; he Dedicated his Book to Alphonsus of Arragon Arch-Bishop of Sarragossa. He charg­eth John de Paris with the Opinion of the Impanation, and doth not condemn it. It is on the 4th Book of Sentences, Dist. 11. q. 3. The Continuator of William de Nangis, his Manuscript Chronicle in the Library of St. German de Pres, that John de Paris is stiled, Doctor of great Knowledg and Learning. De Scrip. Ecclesiast. Trythemius and Au­ctuar. Auctuar. le Mire, give him also the same Epithets.

[Page 72] I observe, That in this Manuscript, John de Paris to confirm his Opinion, makes use of the Authority of the Master of the Sen­tences, in 4th Sent. Dist. 21. (I take it to be Dist. 12.) as if the Master of the Sentences should there say, That the Impanation is a probable Opinion. He also cites to the same purpose, Dominus Hosti­ensem, &c. Super Corpus juris extra de summa Trinit. & fide Ca­thol. C. firmiter Oredimus, & de Celebratione Missarum, cap. cum Marta.

Albertus Magnus expounds the Eucharist by Transubstantiation, but he saith, salvo Meliori judicio, which shews that he did not believe it as of Faith.

Durandus of St. Porcien taught, that the substance of Bread Re­main'd, but that the form was chang'd.

Durand in the 4. Sent. dist. 10. q. 13. saith, That in his time there In 4. dist. 11. Q. 3. were Catholick Doctors which taught, the Bread remain'd in the Eucharist, and did prove it by the Confession which Berenger was forc'd to make, affirming this opinion was not condemn'd.

Cornelius Bishop of Bitonte, declared against Transubstantiation in the Council of Trent; Canus Locor. Theol. l. 12. c. 13.

Dominicus Bannes taught, that the Existence of Bread doth re­main, Disp. 49. Sect. 4. Disp. 9. Sect. 8. that so the Accidents of Bread and VVine may remain by this Existence. At least Suarez and Mairat attribute this opinion to him.

To all which, if we add the Doctors that we have mention'd in our first Part, that could not speak of Transubstantiation but as of a New Doctrine, and which could not be proved by the Scriptures, without intimating that they were not all satisfied with it; we shall see it plainly appears, that we cannot apply to the Doctrine of Tran­substantiation, the Rule of Vinc [...]tius Lirrinensis, which is offer'd to us by the Bishops of France.