materia circa quam the eating and drinking are materia quae this is the very thing that is commanded for they are the Human actions which are immediately under Precept the Body and Blood of Christ are the Matter about which these actions are verst for to fulfil this command it is not sufficient to eate and drink any thing but it is necessary to eate the Body and drink the Blood of Christ it is not in the power of the Seculars to procure or Consecrate the Body and Blood of Christ but when it is exhibited to them it is in their free election to eate the Flesh and drink the Blood which by this Precept they are obliged to As by the Fourth Command of the Decalogue we are injoyn'd to keep holy the Sabbath day that is to abstain from servile labor and to exercise acts of devotion but the Precept doth not determine what acts of devotion we shall in particular exercise for this is left to our free election either to hear Divine Service or hear the Word of God explained or to imploy our time in Spiritual Reading or in Prayer and Meditation c. here the alteration of the Circumstances hinders not the fulfilling of the Precept and therefore in this case the Argument proceeds rightly But our Case is far different wherein the Legislator determines us to particular actions and leaves it not in our election to change them or to omit either of them So he that takes the Body and Blood of Christ and doth not eate the one and drink the other fulfils not the Precept And this answers the Second Reason The Third Objection He that receives under the Species of Bread receives all Christ and may be truly said to eate the Flesh and drink the Blood of Christ and so satisfies the Precept according to that of Cyprian Sermone de Coena Domini Potus esus ad eandem pertinent rationem I Answer That he who receives only under the Species of Bread though he receive the Blood as well as the Body yet cannot be said to drink the Blood under that Kind for that which is eaten is commonly solid and consistent but nothing can be taken by way of drinking except it be a sluid and a liquid matter wherefore to receive under the Species of Bread is not to drink the Blood of Christ except you grant that one may drink dry bread To the Authority of Cyprian I Answer That in the same Sermon he endeavours to prove the Evangelical Precept of eating the Flesh and drinking the Blood of Christ by the same Text Except you eat the Flesh and drink the Blood c. where he hath these words Lex esum sanguinis prohibet Ibid. Evangelium praecipit ut bibatur whereby he expresly declares his sentiments to be coherent with ours In the words above cited he rather confirms then impugnes this Doctrine for he declares that eating and drinking belong both to this Sacrament which is the Spiritual refreshment of the Soul in the nature of one compleat Banquet which without Drinking would be imperfect and incompleat The Fourth Objection Admit the Hypothesis of a Precept to receive in both kinds yet to avoid the inconveniences before-mentioned the Superiors of the Church according to the prudential dictates of a right Government may and ought to frame an Epikeia by a grounded interpretation of the Will of the Law-giver that if he were present to be consulted herein he would declare his intention not to have his Law executed on such hard circumstances which excuses the Governours in denying the promiscuous use of the Chalice and exempts the Subjects from being transgressors First I Answer That upon the same ground they may also prohibit Communion under the species of Bread for the same difficulties are militant for this as well as for that as hath been proved Secondly I Answer That Divine Laws admit of no Epikeia nor interpretation of the Divine Will but when God commands Man must obey The reason is because we cannot suppose any defect in the Omniscience of the Divine understanding who perfectly penetrates all future events and circumstantial emergencies before they come to pass with as much infallible certainty as if they were then present so that here is no ground at all for the prudential dictates of humane Reason But humane Laws upon extraordinary accidents may admit of an Epikeia because the wisest Legislator among Men is supposed to be ignorant of future contingencies and yet such may happen wherein a rational Judgment not byassed by sinister Motives may deem it imprudence hic nunc to have the Law put in execution and therefore may rationally interpret the Will of the Law-giver to suspend the execution of the Law under such arduity But however such casualties may occur yet humane Laws suffer no detriment thereby for upon removal of such hard circumstances the Law revives and obliges to its observance as much as before How then can it be consonant to Reason that meer Men should not only suspend the execution of a Divine Law upon an incident occasion but prohibit the observance of it to all but Priests constantly and for perpetuity so that all but Priests are debarr'd from the observance of this Law for ever This is an attempt of a higher nature for hereby they endeavour to abrogate and repeal this Law as much as in them lies for ever which argues a bold and daring presumption very injurious to the Divine Conditor Legis The Fifth Objection is grounded in those sayings of Christ where he only mentions the Bread and promiseth Eternal Life to them that eat it John 6. as the Third Reason proposeth I Answer That in the same Chapter our Lord having distinctly explained his meaning more then once of eating his Flesh and drinking his Blood thought it needless to repeat all the particulars as often as he mentioned this Sacrament so that the meaning of those Texts is he that eateth this Bread worthily and in the manner as I shall prescribe or as I have prescribed shall live eternally otherwise if the meer eating of that Bread were sufficient to Salvation then an unworthy Receiver might be sure of Eternal Life which illation all must reject And this answers the Third Reason The Sixth Objection is drawn from the practise of the Churh in its primitive and purest times which was to administer this Sacrament to those that were to fight a battle and to such as were in danger of death by infirmity in one kind only whence it ensues that both kinds are not necessary nor under precept which is the Fourth Reason I Answer That the precept which we insist upon being positive it doth not oblige to receive under both kinds toties quoties neither doth it determine how often we are to receive under both kinds but leaves this to the determination of the Church and the Piety and Devotion of the Receiver so that by Receiving some times in our Life or
Because by the words of Christ our Redeemer Eternal Life is annexed to the Receiving of his Body under the Species of Bread only If any Man eate of this Bread he shall live for ever John 6. v. 51. and again He that eateth of this Bread shall live for ever Vers 58. Where no mention is made of Receiving under the Species of Wine and yet Eternal life is promised to him that eateth of this Bread therefore to Receive Christ under the Species of Wine is not necessary to Salvation not necessitate medii because the Bread alone is sufficient as appears by the words of Christ Nor Necessitate praecepti because no such Precept is extant and if there were then the eating of the Bread alone would not be sufficient to Salvation which Christ himself affirms to be sufficient The Fourth Reason Because it hath ever been the practice of the Church since the Apostles time to Administer the Communion under the Species of Bread only to those that were infirm and reduced to imminent danger of death for to these the Sacrament was usually carryed under one Species only so likewise in Armies before a Battel was to be fought the Sacrament was commonly Administred to them only in one kind neither is it to be presumed that the Church in its greatest purity would not only countenance men to transgress against Christ's Precept but be Instrumental also themselves to the violating of his Commands whence it follows That Christ laid no such Precept upon his Church nor the Members thereof The Fifth Reason Because in the Apostles time one Species was in use according to the opinion of diverse of the Fathers who hold that Christ gave the Communion in one kind to the two Disciples that were with him at Emaus So Augustin Hierom Chrysostom and Theophylact. Others say That the meaning of that place And they continued stedfastly in the Apostles Doctrine and Fellowship and in breaking of Bread and in Prayers is of this Sacrament Acts 2. v. 42. As also that And upon the first day of the week when the Disciples came together to break Bread c. Acts 20. v. 7. Where by breaking of Bread they understand the Receiving of the Sacrament These Texts and the Reasons above mentioned we shall examine when we come to the Solution of their Objections SECT II. The Decision of this Controversie IN order to the Resolution of this Question a threefold Precept is here to be distinguish'd There is a Positive a Negative and a Mixt Precept The first is a Command of Practice for some positive action is to be exercised for the fulfilling of a Positive Precept As by the Fifth Precept of the Decalogue we are obliged to render that honor and respect which is due to our Parents which we cannot fulfil meerly by abstaining from actions of disrespect and contempt but by Positive actions of Honor and Duty though there is no obligation incumbent upon us to be always in exercise of these actions but only when occasion requires A Negative Precept commands us to abstain from doing some positive thing which is prohibited and if the action forbidden be intrinsecally ill then the doing of it is prohibitum quia malum if the action of it self be indifferent then to do it is malum quia prohibitum This Negative Precept layes a never interrupted obligation upon us to observe it as in the Sixth Commandment by which we are obliged to do no Murther the meaning is that an act of Murther is not to be permitted neither this time nor that time nor any other time whatsoever neither upon this person nor that person nor any other person whatsoever which is to be understood universally and by a compleat distribution And herein a Negative Precept differs from a Positive A Mixt Precept includes both the former of two different objects as the first Precept obligeth us to acknowledg God and not to acknowledge any thing else for God And in this is grounded that division of sins into sins of Omission and Commission This being supposed The First Assertion is That the Ordinance of the Church of Rome never to Administer the Communion to the Laity in both Kinds is manifestly against Christ's Precept For Proof hereof I shall insist upon that saying of our Saviour Amen Amen I say unto you except you eate the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood you shall have no life in you John 6. v. 53. where those words Amen Amen express the greatest asseveration that our Great Redeemer ever used and this adds more force and energie to the subsequent Precept The words cited contain a severe Commination of depriving us of eternal Salvation except we eate his Flesh and drink his Blood which by the confession of our Opponents includes a Precept though they deny that it extends to Communion under both Kinds Let us now examine what falls immediately under this Precept None but a Creature indued with liberty and reason is capable of a Precept for iâ— it be positive it injoyns the exercise of some free action regulated by Reason since necessaries cannot fall under any Precept If it be Negative it commands the avoiding of some positive action which is in the power of Free-will to exercise or not to exercise we have here a positive Precept which injoyns all Christians to eate the Flesh and drink the Blood of the Son of Man which affects immediately the free actions of Man of eating and drinking and in obliquo it determines the matter about which these free actions are to be exercised namely the Flesh and the Blood of the Son of Man This matter is not in the power of the Laity to procure at their pleasure but is to be tendred to them by the Priest which done then it is in their free election to eate and drink or not to eate and drink wherefore these actions are that exercise which the Precept immediately obligeth them to Neither is it left to their choice how they are to receive this matter for as the Legislator determines the matter so likewise doth he determine the manner of receiving it he doth not say indesinitely or indeterminately except you take or receive this matter but explicitely plainly and distinctly Except you Eate the Flesh and Drink the Blood c. So that by this Precept they are ty'd up and determin'd to the very particular manner of doing it neither doth the Law-giver say Except you eate the flesh or drink the blood c. but Except you eate the Flesh and drink the Blood c. by a Copulative not a Disjunctive So that he who eateth the Flesh under the Species of Bread only though he fulfil the first part of the Precept yet he complyes not with the second part for though by eating the Flesh under the Species of Bread he receives the Blood also and all Christ yet he doth not drink the Blood which notwithstanding is as rigorously commanded as the first and in
c. What other thing is superficially looked upon but the substance of Wine VVhere he affirms the substance of Bread and VVine to remain in the Sacrament after Consesecration To this he subjoyns For notwithstanding that after the Mystical Consecration Bread is not called Bread nor the Wine Wine but the Body and Blood of Christ yet after that which is seen neither is any kind of Flesh known in the Bread nor in the Wine any drop of Blood Before he told us that the Bread and VVine remained in the Sacrament after Consecration as they were before now he tells us That after Consecration there is not any kind of Flesh nor one drop of Blood though the Bread be not called Bread nor the Wine Wine but the Body and Blood of Christ where he granteth the denomination of the Body and Blood of Christ but denyeth the verity and substance thereof for he acknowledgeth nothing but the Bread and VVine though they be not called so This in substance he often repeateth for after the verity saith he the kind of creature which was before is known still to remain VVhat more conspicuous Then addressing his Discourse to his Adversaries he tells them That under the veile of Corporeal Bread and Wine is the Spiritual Body and Blood of Christ. So that the Bread and VVine remain Corporeally but the Body and Blood of Christ Spiritually by their vertue of Sanctification And then presently compares this Sacrament to Holy Baptisme wherein the natural Element of VVater which of it self hath only power to wash and cleanse the Body yet by Christ's Institution is impowered to cleanse and sanctifie the Soul and yet still remains the Natural Element of VVater subject to corruption and then applyes the VVater in Baptisme to the Bread and VVine in the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist Hence he proceeds to another similitude telling them That the Fathers of the Old Testament were Baptised in the Cloud and in the Sea which produced a Spiritual effect and yet suffered no Mutation This again he parallelleth to the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper Then he tells them Likewise Manna given to the People from Heaven and the Water flowing out of the Rock were Corporeal and Corporeally they fed the People and gave them drink yet the Apostle nameth that Manna and that Water Spiritual Meat and Spiritual Drink and then he applyeth it to the Bread and Wine as before which takes off all ambiguity of his meaning for he drives at this that the Bread and VVine which remain in the Sacrament though Natural and Corporeal things yet by the powerful operation of Christ they are enabled to produce in the Souls of the worthy Receivers the same Spiritual Grace and Sanctification as if the Body and Blood of Christ were there really present and therefore the Bread and Wine are called the Body and Blood of Christ. He proceeds farther saying Here also we ought to consider what is meant by these words except you shall eate the Flesh of the Son of Man and Drink his Blood you shall have no life in you He said not That his Flesh which hanged on the Cross should be eaten in pieces and eaten of the Apostles nor that his Blood which he shed for the Redemption of the World should be given his Disciples to drink for it were a wicked thing if his Flesh should be eaten and his Blood drunk as the Infidels took it And to confirm this he cites St. Augustine upon the same Text of Scripture Aug. de Dodr. Christ L. 3. of Christ's commands in these words He seemeth to command a wicked thing therefore it is a Figure c. Thus St. Augustine affirmeth the Mystery of the Body and Blood of Christ to be celebrated of the Faithful under a Figure for he saith It is no point of Religion but rather of Iniquity to take his Flesh and his Blood as they did which understood not Christ 's words Spiritually but Carnally and went back Then he gives many examples in other like cases to shew Why the Bread and Wine are called the Body and Blood of Christ because of the Similitude they have with the things Signified and so concludeth Wherefore the Mysteries be named the Body and Blood of Christ because they take the appellation of things whereof they be Sacraments Then he cites several passages out of St. Isidore to confirm the same Opinion of whom he saith Afterwards he declareth what Sacraments are to be Celebrated among the Faithful that is the Sacrament of Baptisme and of the Body and Blood of Christ And here I desire the Reader to take notice by the way that for above Eight hundred years after Christ there were but these Two Sacraments acknowledged in the Church of Christ and consequently no more were Instituted by Christ himself Yet the Church of Rome hath introduced Five more which Antiquity never heard of under the notion of Sacraments Is it credible that Christ should Institute for his Church Seven Sacraments and yet communicate to the first Professors of Christianity and their Successors for Eight Centuries the knowledge only of Two of them This cannot be The other Five were therefore Instituted by the Church of Rome for the Council of Trent names Seven and makes it an Article of Faith to believe them all Sacraments and layes its Curse upon the Disbelievers Si quis dixerit Sacramenta novae legis Trident. Sess 7. Can. 1. non fuisse omnia à Jesu Christo Domino Nostro Instituta aut esse plura vel paucior a quam septem videlicet Baptismum Consirmationem Eucharistiam Poenitentiam extremam Vnctionem Ordinem Matrimonium aut etiam aliquod horum septem non esse vere propriè Sacramentum Anathema sit Which was formerly defin'd by the Council of Florence Florent Decr. Eugenii a Arm. under the same circumstances What judgment can we here frame Examine Antiquity for Eight or Nine hundred years after Christ that can give us no Intelligence of any more then Two Sacraments and yet the Church of Rome strictly commands the belief of Seven Certainly the Subjects of that Church must have recourse to their blind obedience to submit to such Canons and Decrees as these For if Christ did not Institute those Five pretended Sacraments as it is plain he did not then the Church of Rome must have attempted to institute them not by appointing the matter but by giving them the vertue of Sacraments which is highly presumptive and a manifest violation of Divine Right for none but Christ can ordain the means and the vehicles whereby he intended to convey his Spiritual Graces which were the fruits of his Passion to the Souls of the Faithful this is his peculiar Prerogative But this being a digression from the matter in hand I desist and leave it to the consideration of the Judicious Reader Bertram now draws to the close of his First Question Whether the Body and Blood of Christ
Nothing but that which Christ Instituted is the Essential Matter and Forme of the Order of Priesthood But Christ never Instituted the Touching of the Vessels and the words annexed to it ergo the Touching of the Vessels and the Words annexed to it are not the Essential Matter and Forme of the Order of Priesthood the Premises have been here clearly proved and the Conclusion is legally inferr'd For a farther Proof of this Assertion we must drive it a little higher and consider the fatal consequences that would ensue from their Doctrine were it true For if the Matter and Forme specifyed in the Title of this Section be the Essentials of the Order of Priesthood then it inevitably follows that the Greeks and all the Christians disperst over all the East yea and the Latin Church also for a Thousand years after Christ had never any Valid Ordination because they all wanted the Essentials of Priesthood for al these never made use of the Vessels nor the Forme annexed to them as appears by their Rituals And to this day none but the Latines ever applyed this Matter and Forme to him that was to be Ordained Priest and therefore could have no True Patriarchs not Bishops nor Priests among them A very sad Illation and of vast consequence for no Priest no Church What then Must the Church of Rome to keep up and Maintain their Innovation which is a Meer Humane Invention Un-Church all the Professors of Christianity in the World for a Thousand years together and a considerable part of them to this day and leave them destitute of either Bishop or Priest Where was all this while the provident care that our great Master and Redeemer ever had of his Church which he had Established by the Price of his Precious Blood Where was that tender love that he ever testified to his Endear'd Spouse Could heabandon his whole Church so soon after he had Instituted and so firmly Founded it that the Gates of Hell should never prevail against it What Christian can without a Sacred Horror entertain a thought of such a general devastation and deplorable desolation But this being so obvious could not but work the Church of Rome into an anxiety and sedulous industry to find a remedy wherefore to salve this Sore they would never Reordain their Proselites that had deserted the Communion of the Greek Church and imbraced theirs but on the contrary in all occasions declared the Ordinations of the Greek Church to be valid and consequently granted to those Greeks that were now Incorporated into their Church the free use of all their Priestly Functions though they had been created Priests according to the Rites of the Greek Church and never attempted to Re-ordain them By this they endeavor to evade this last imputation which otherwise would lye heavy upon them But in plain terms this evaasion is no better then a meer contradiction for How is it possible that the Ordination of the Greeks could be valid without the Essentials of Ordination which the Roman Church placeth in the Touching of the Holy Vessels with this Forme Accipe potestatem c. Receive a power to offer Sacrifice c. for these the Greeks never used You were as good tell me That one may be truly and properly a Man without either Body or Reasonable Soul which are the Essentials of Man If you should Reply That there may be Two Essences of Ordination so that each taken apart from the other makes the Ordination valid So when the Greeks Ordain they use for Matter the Imposition of Hands and for Forme these words Divina gratia c. The Divine Grace which always heals that which is infirm and supplies that which is defective promotes this most holy Deacon to be a Priest By this Matter and Forme the Greeks do validly confer the Order of Priesthood And when the Romanists Ordain they do the like by their peculiar Matter and Forme So that neither is rigorously necessary but either may suffice This Doctrine is very Paradoxical for in substance it asserts that one and the same thing may have two compleat and adequate Essences specifically and generically different from each other which is impossible for a thing and his adequate Essence is the same and nothing can be specifically or generically different from its self But you 'l say These are not two Essences of the same thing but two different causes of the same effect To solve this I must distinguish between the Order it self and the Ordination the Order is that Spiritual Power which is given to the Ordained by vertue of his Ordination from whence results the Order together with its concomitant Supernatural effects which are the Character and Sacramental Graces that are inseparable from it The Ordination is made up of those Actions and Words which the Ordainer exerciseth and applyeth to the Ordained so that the Ordination participates more of the nature of a causality then of a cause And the whole Essence of this Ordination is the Matter and Forme instituted by Christ for whatsoever was assum'd by the Original Instituter and by him elevated and impower'd to produce such admirable supernatural and Sacramental effects is the Essence of Ordination So that Order is the Effect and Ordination the Cause wherefore if you appoint new Essentials of Ordination you not only grant two Causes of the same effect but two Essences of the same thing whereby you render Ordination specifically and Essentially distinct from its self And because none but an Omnipotent Power can raise Natural Causes to such vigor and energy as to produce such extraordinary effects therefore that Matter and Forme which Christ hath Instituted to this end is the total Essence of Ordination And herein the Greeks have the advantage for they ever used the Imposition of Hands with the Forme above mentioned which the Primitive Church received from the Apostles and they from Christ so the Greeks are sure that their Ordination hath a legal and valid Institution But where shall we find another adequate Essence of Ordination by Divine Institution That of the Church of Rome hath no such Prerogative for we know its Origine and have scan'd its Pedigree whereby we find that there is nothing but Human Autority to authorise it which hath no proportion to such wonderful effects which are out of the reach of Nature and none but an Omnipotent Power can produce Hence we groundedly conclude that there is but one valid Ordination which hath but one certain and determinate Nature and Essence neither is there any power upon Earth that can add to it or take from it So that in vain you assign the Touching of the Vessels with its Forme for a second total and adequate Essence of Ordination For all Antiquity was a stranger to this the Apostles never heard of it Christ never mentioned it neither by word nor action Who then dares obtrude this as belonging to the Essence of Ordination which is of Divine Right as all
act of Divine Faith whose material Object is the Incarnation of the Divine Word The formal Object is Gods asserting of it Whence it ensues that though Faith have a greater certainty then Science yet it is destitute of Evidence as well in attestato as in attestante that is can neither demonstrate by Human Reason the Revelation it self nor the Mystery revealed We all agree that those words Hoc est corpus menm were spoken by Christ himself But we differ in giving the true sense and meaning of them The surest Rule that may guide us herein is to consult the Belief of the Primitive Church they certainly received from the Apostles the true Interpretation of them For it would derogate from Christ's goodness and providence to imprint an erroneous belief upon the first Professors of Christianity What then remains but that we consult Antiquity and inquire what their beliefe was of this Mystery And when this appears it would be a vain attempt of any one after a long continued series of Centuries to start a new Interpretation of those words for that must needs be an Erroneous Innovation and Adulterated Doctrine as repugnant to the general belief of all Christians from Christ's time I should swerve from my intended brevity should I here cite the several Texts of the antient Fathers and Doctors of the Church in opposition to the Real Presence for speaking of the Eucharist they frequently call it the Sacrement of the Body and Blood of Christ and St. Augustine tells us Aug. de Civit Dei L. 10. C. 5. That a Sacrament signifies a Sacred Sign which cannot be the thing signified They also call it the Resemblance the Similitude the Type the Antitype the Symbole the Sign the Image the Figure of the Body and Blood of Christ and consequently not the Body it self Consonant to these expressions of the Fathers was the Universal Belief of the Church none positively affirming for above 800 years after Christ that the Body of our Saviour was really contained in the Sacrament Though in the year 637 A Monk of Mount Sinai one Anastasius among other Contemplations which he had in his Cell would needs disapprove of the former way of speaking which had been ever used till his time and so rejected the expression of Figure and Antitype but used no attempt to settle any point of Doctrine repugnant to the belief of Antiquity Yet what Anastasius began by way of altering the Tearms another Monk of Corbie in France one Paschasius Ratbert compleating by his Doctrine Taught That the Body and Blood of Christ were truly and really present in the Sacrament of the Eucharist which he declares in his Treatise of the Body and Blood of our Saviour which he Composed in the Ninth Century after Christ in the year 818. And for this we have Bellarmines own Testimony Bellarm. de Script Eccles who acknowledgeth that Paschasius was the first Author that ever Wrote a serious Treatise of the Truth of the Body and Blood of our Saviour in the Eucharist This Doctrine being then new never any before attempting to assert it by any set Treatise it found great opposition so that most of the Learnedest Men in those times employed their endeavors severally to oppose it and cry it down which Paschasius himself acknowledgeth for being moved by his intimate Friend Frudegard Paschasias Epist ad Frudegard Pag. 623. about this Doctrine he Answers him You question me about a difficulty whereof many People do doubt to wit of the Real Presence so in his Letter to Frudegard And in his Commentary upon the 26th of St. Mark Idem in 26 Matth. L. 12. pag. 1094. he says I have Treated of these Mysteries more amply and expresly because I have been informed that I have been Censured by many as if in the Book which I Wrote of the Sacrament and Published I had attributed to the words of Christ more then the truth of the words would permit This being a thing so well known in History I shall not here inlarge upon it but only reflect upon the Doctrine of one of our own Nation which is venerable Bede Bede in Luc. C. 22. Idem in Ps 3. Idem hom de Sanc. in Epiph. Idem in Ps 133. To. 8. Idem de Tahern L. 2. C. 2. asibi who in several places of his Works declares his Opinion against the Real Presence for he tells us That our Saviour hath given us the Sacrament of his Body and Blood in the Figure of Bread and Wine And that our Saviour gave to his Disciples in the Last Supper the Figure of his Body and Blood That the Creatures of Bread and Wine pass into the Sacrament of his Body and Blood by the ineffable Sactification of the Holy Ghost That our Saviour changed the Sacrifices of the Legalia into the Sacrifice of Bread and Wine And that in lieu of celebrating the Passion of our Saviour in the Flesh and the Blood of Victims as the Antients did we celebrate it in the Oblation of Bread and Wine These and the like expressions which are frequent in the Works of this Author do manifestly declare that in those times none held the Real Presence but all believed the Eucharist to be a Figure or a Sacrament that is a Sign of the Body and Blood of Christ Hence there arose in the Church a high debate about this new Doctrine Paschasius got some Abetters of his Opinion but the greatest number and the most considerable vehemently opposed it as a Novelty others stood indifferent expecting the issue others again held a third Opinion which in substance was Consubstantiation for they Asserted The Body of Christ in the Eucharist to be united to the substance of Bread The contest about these several Opinions grew fervent some adhering to the one part others to the other and this mutual Contest lasted all the Ninth Century Whereupon that Great Emperor Charles Surnamed the Balde who was then Emperor of Germany and King of France finding his Subjects dissected into opposite Parties and contending against each other with so much rancor and animosity resolved to Consult the Learnedst Men he had in his Dominions upon the Question which was the ground of the debate Pursuant to this Resolution he calls to him one John Scot whose right Name was Erigene by Nation an Irish-man or a Scotchman I am not certain which This was a person of profound Learning and eminent Vertue and therefore highly esteemed by the Emperor and was vulgarly called The Holy Philosopher Another which the Emperor designed for his intended purpose was one Bertram but by the Writers of his time was called Retram which was his true Name He was a Monk and Priest of the Church of Rome of the Monastery of Corbie and afterwards for his Fame and rare Parts was created Abbot of Orbais who Wrote several Books and among others one of Predestination against Paschasius whom he Learnedly impugnes and censures him of
be contained in the Holy Sacrament in Verity or in Figure and concludes with these words Hitherto have we declared that the Body and Blood of Christ which are received in the Church by the mouths of the Faithful be Figures And so terminates this First Question SECT VIII An Account of the Doctrine of Retram in reference to the Second Question THe Second Question that was to be resolved by Retram or Bertram was this as he himself declares Whether the same Body that was Born of Mary that Suffered Dyed was Buried and sitteth on the Right hand of the Father be that Body which is daily received in the Church by the mouths of the Faithful in the Mystery of the Sacrament or no Ambr. L. 1 de Sacram. And first he discourseth out of St. Ambrose That the substance of the Creatures suffer no Mutation in these words For after the substance of the Creatures they be even the same things after the Consecration that they were before For before the Consecration they were Bread and Wine and after they appear to remain in the same kind still Where his Position is That the substance of the Creatures are the same after Consecration that they were before which he proves thus Before Consecration they were Bread and Wine and after Consecration they not only appear to remain but really do remain in the same kind still of Bread and Wine this must be the drift of his Argument for else it would not prove his intent Then having said That the Body and Blood of Christ are not present in forme but in vertue he applauds a distinction of St. Ambrose How diligently and how wisely hath he made a distinction where be saith touching the flesh which was Crucisied and Buried this is the true Flesh of Christ but touching that which is received in the Sacrament he saith This is the Sacrament of the true Flesh so dividing the Sacrament of the Flesh from the very Flesh c. But he affirmeth the Mystery which is done in the Church to be the Sacrament of the very Flesh in which Christ Suffered instructing the Faithful that the Flesh in which Christ Suffered and was Crucified and Buried is not a Mystery but the very Natural Flesh but this Flesh which now containeth the Similitude of the very Flesh in Mystery is not Flesh in Kind nor in Forme but in Sacrament For in Kind it is Bread c. Hence he proceeds to the Autority of St. Hierome Hieron in Epistolam Pauli ad Eph. The Flesh and the Blood of Christ saith he St. Hierom are understood two manner of ways which he explicates the one Corporeally and the other Spiritually Therefore saith Bertram the Spiritual Flesh and the Spiritual Blood which are daily received of the Faithful do differ undoubtedly from the Flesh Crucified and the Blood shed as the Autority of this Doctor doth witness Much to this purpose he discourseth upon the Autority of St. Augustine Aug. in Evangelium Sancti Joan. distinguishing between the Spiritual Food and the Corporeal Food of the Fathers of the Old Law comparing them with us Where he affirms out of St. Augustine that their Spiritual Food was the same with ours the Body of Christ but the Corporeal Food was very different as much as the Manna the Cloud and the Sea differ from Bread and Wine Which he confirms by the Autority of St. Paul speaking of the Antient Fathers that were Baptised in Moses in the Cloud and in the Sea and they all did eate the same Spiritual Meate and drank the same Spiritual Drink which he concludes to be Christ in a Figure as it is with us in the Sacrament where he saith Christ is in a certain manner and this manner is in Figure and Image Hence he draws this Illation Wherefore the Body and Blood that we now celebrate in the Church do differ from the Body and the Blood which are now known to be glorified by the Resurrection This Body is the Pledge and the Figure the other is the very Natural Body And presently he adds And as the Figure differeth from the verity thus it is plain that the Mystery of the Body and Blood of Christ which is received of the Faithful in the Church differeth from the said Body that was Born of Mary the Virgin c. Then he cites St. Austin's words Preaching to the People of the Body and Blood of Christ. The thing which you see in the Altar of God saith St. Austin was seen of you the last night Aug. Serm. ad Populum but what it is or what it meaneth or of how great a thing it containeth the Sacrament ye have not yet heard The thing which you see is Bread and Wine He then tells them That by Faith they ought to believe the Bread to be the Body and the Wine to be the Blood of Christ And then he makes them object that the Body of Christ that was Born of the Virgin c. with his Blood Ascended entirely into Heaven where he now is How then can this Bread be his Body and this Wine his Blood St. Austin Answers These good Brethren be called Sacraments because that one thing is seen in them and another thing understood that which is seen hath a Corporeal form and that which is not seen hath a Spiritual Fruit. Whereupon Bertram adds In these words this worshipful Author instructing us what we ought to think of the proper Body of the Lord that was Born of Mary c. Also what we ought to think of the Body set on the Altar whereof the People be partakers The very Body is whole and not divided with any Section neither cover'd with any Figures but this Body set on the Table of the Lord is a Figure because it is a Sacrament And again Therefore St. Austin hath Taught us that as the Body of Christ is signified in the Bread which is on the Altar so is the Body of the People that receive it Then Addressing his Discoure to the Emperor he saith Your Wisdom most excellent Prince may perceive that I have proved by the Testimonies of Holy Scripture and of the Holy Fathers that the Bread which is called the Body of Christ and the Cup called his Blood is a Figure because it is a Mystery And that there is no small difference between the Mystical Body and the Body that Suffered was Buried and Rose again for this which suffered is the proper Body of our Saviour neither in it is any Figure or Signification but the manifest action of the thing it self c. And thus he concludes his Answer to the Emperor insisting all along upon this Truth That in this Holy Sacrament is contained the same Bread and Wine that was before which are called the Body and Blood of Christ because they Mystically and Figuratively signifie the same and are Received by the Faithful by way of Commemoration of Christ's Passion and by vertue of Christ's Institution they