Doctrine But to shew evidently that 't was but in the last Ages that this opinion was made an Article of Faith we need only consult the Doctors of the Primitive Church and see if they have effectively explain'd the Eucharist by the Systeme of Transubstantiation That the Fathers of the SECOND CENTURY 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 and turns it self into our Flesh and Blood. These words plainly shew that 't is the Bread and Wine which are turn'd into our Substance into our Flesh and into our Blood seeing that 't is certain that the real Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ is not converted into our Flesh and Blood. So when Iustin saith That the Sacramental Food is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ that imports that 't is 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 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 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 't is 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 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 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 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 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 Christ is a mixture of God and Man. The Epitome of Theodotus saith The Bread and Oyl are sanctified by the virtue of the name and they remain not what they were before though to look on them they seem to be the same but by virtue they are are changed into a Spiritual force So water sanctified is become Baptism it not only retains what 's less but also
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 't is 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 't is 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 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 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 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 as being writ by Gelasius and though he doth not give him the Title of Pope 't is 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 Wine throughtout all the World. For in the fleshly Sacrifices of the Old 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 made Bishop of Antioch in the Year 526. wrote Books which he intituled 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 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 Books which he wrote in Defence of the Three chapters of the Council of Chalcedon are justly praised by Victor of Tunes in his Chronology and by St. Isidore of Sevil and which Father Sirmond the 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 saith Baptism which is the Sacrament of Adoption may be call'd Adoption 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 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 't is 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 't is 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 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 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 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 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 of His Redemption the Figure of his Body to the end that instead 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 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 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 't is 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 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 this Bread and 't is 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 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 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 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 say they the Body of Jesus Christ which is according to Nature is Holy as having been Deified so also 't is 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 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 ground into Meal to make Bread is meant the Union of the Universal Church which is made one Body by the Fire of the Holy Ghost which unites the Members to the Head and that by the Wine is shewed the Blood of the Passion of the Lord. Doubtless Alcuin did not believe Transubstantiation seeing he places in the Bread and Wine the signification of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and that he saith by the Wine is shewed the Blood of Jesus Christ for that which is a Figure and that which is figured that which sheweth and that which is shewed are two different things the one of which is not the other Therefore the same Alcuin doth formally distinguish the Eucharist from the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ when he saith after St. Austin Whosoever abideth not in Jesus Christ and he in whom Christ abideth not doubtless doth not spiritually eat his Flesh altho he visibly and carnally eats with his teeth the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. Charles the great his Disciple writing to the same Alcuin calls the Eucharist the Figure of the Body and Blood of the Lord. The Lord saith he being at Supper with his Disciples broke Bread and gave likewise the Cup in figure of his Body and Blood and by this means offered us a very profitable Sacrament Now whatever he said of the figure it contain'd or that it contain'd not the truth the figure was never the same as the thing is that 's figured In the Ambrosian Office which was abolish'd in the year 796 there was this Clause which is still to be seen in the fourth Book of 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 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
was forced to sign it after which Greg. 7th gave him Letters of Recommendation 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 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 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 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 Teeth Theophylact Arch-Bishop of Bulgary said in his time That God condescending to our infirmity doth preserve the Species of Bread 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 Cardinal Humbert whom Pope Leo the 9th sent to them upbraids him Perfidious Stercoranist says he to him you think that the Participation 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 Raban that the Sacrament which is received with the Mouth is 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 That the Bishop bites one piece that he divides it in parts that it is not received whole but broke in three parts that when 't is 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. saith That the Holy Ghost doth not destroy the Substance of Bread 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 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 stile Zonaras in the East did not believe Transubstantiation seeing he saith of the Eucharist That it is a Shew-bread which is subject to Corruption 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 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 Reputation for his Knowledg and Wisdom saith Gaugwiâ— in his 6th Book of the History of France in the Reign of Philip the August amongst other things denied Transubstantiation Bernard of Luxemburg 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 't is 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
AN HISTORICAL TREATISE WRITTEN By an AUTHOR of the Communion of the CHURCH of ROME TOUCHING Transubstantiation WHEREIN Is made appear That according to the PRINCIPLES of That CHURCH This DOCTRINE cannot be an ARTICLE of FAITH The Second Edition LONDON Printed for Richard Chiswell at the Rose and Crown in S. Paul's Church-Yard MDCLXXXVII THE PREFACE IT is well known that there are in the Communion of the Church of Rome a great many Learned Persons that do not approve of all which it teacheth and that do earnestly long for a Reformation although they remain within its bosome But it is no less true that there 's but very few that have the courage to make their thoughts known and 't is no hard matter to guess at the Reasons of it In the last Age one Picherel and some others of great note wrote solid Treatises on certain matters of Controversie and explain'd themselves just as Protestants do now And in the present Monsieur de Marca did the same on the Doctine of the Eucharist and Barnes an Eminent Benedictine on most of the principal Questions wherein Protestants differ from the Church of Rome But as if every one feared such usage as Father Paolo and poor Barnes found for the Liberty they had taken the works of these sincere and learned Men have almost always been supprest during their Life-time and not suffer'd to come abroad till after their Decease It is therefore something more than ordinary to behold the Work of a Person now living and of the Communion of the Church of Rome that dares shew the like affection for the Reformation of his Church in the Doctrine of the Eucharist and that heartily wishes the Bishops and Clergy of France would take it into their serious consideration This Person is considerable for his Quality but much more for his great Learning He was an intimate friend of the late Monsieur de Launoy's a noted Divine of the Faculty of Paris who mightily desired to see a free Council wherein Men might speak their thoughts touching the Reforming of the Romish Church and it plainly appears he was of the same judgment with this Eminent Person touching the Doctrine of Transubstantiation The Reader may rest assured that the Author's Manuscript Copy has been exactly follow'd in the Edition of this Work which not only his Letters now in our Hands will justifie but also the Original of these Papers which he sent to a Friend to be Printed It is to be hoped the World will not take it ill if the Author of this Work be not more particularly described which could not be done without exposing him to the malice of those who use all manner of ways to destroy such of their party as do own the Truth It nearly behoves the Bishops and Clergy of France to make some serious Reflections upon what the Author thought fit to represent to them concerning Transubstantiation The same might have been said to the other Articles of the Romish belief which are rejected by Protestants as so many additions to the ancient Faith of the Primitive Christians which are impos'd upon Mens consciences by the Clergy by such unheard-of ways and that are so contrary to the nature of Religion If such Remonstrances as these are not of sufficient force to make them change their proceedings against Protestants they will at least serve to shew their Injustice before Men and will one day aggravate their condemnation before the Tribunal of God. THE CONTENTS INTRODUCTION THE Method proposed by the Assembly of the Clergy of France to judge of Articles of Faith. Pag. 1 This Method admitted by Protestants 2 Transubstantiation to be Examined by it ib. PART I. THAT several of the Doctors of the Church of Rome have confess'd that Transubstantiation is no ancient Doctrine 3 So Suarez 3 Scotus ib. D'Alliaeo ib. Card. Cusa ib. Erasmus ib. Alphonsus à Castro 4 Tonstal Bishop of Durham ib. Cassander ib. Ch. du Moulin ib. J. Yribarne ib. Mons. de Marca ib. PART II. THAT the Ancients did not believe Transubstantiation Proved In GENERAL First The Papists themselves confess that Transubstantiation is not expresly mentioned not taught in Scripture 5 So Scotus ib. Ockham ib. Alphonsus de Castro ib. Gabriel Biel. ib. Card. Cajetane ib. Secondly That Transubstantiation comprehending infinite difficulties we do not yet find that either the Jews or Gentiles have objected any thing to the Christians in their disputes against it ib. Not Trypho ib. Not Celsus ib. Not Julian ib. Who yet have traduced most of the Mysteries of our Religion 7 Which plainly shews that Transubstantiation was not then known ib. In PARTICULAR Transubstantiation was not believed by any of the Fathers of the Church This shewn in those of the several Ages CENT II. Justine Martyr 8 Irenaeus 9 Clemens Alexandr 10 Theodotus ib. CENT III. Tertullian 11 Origen 13 Cyprian 15 CENT IV. Eustathius 16 Eusebius Caesariensis ib. Cyrillus Hierosol 17 Macharius ib. S. Basil. 18 Ephrem Edessenus ib. Epiphanius 19 Gregorius Naz. ib. Gregorius Nyssen 20 S. Ambrose 21 Gaudentius 22 S. Chrysostom ib. CENT V. S. Jerome 26 S. Austine 27 Theodoret. 37 Arnobius Jun. 38 Prosper ib. Hesychius 39 Procopius Gazeus ib. P. Gelasius 40 CENT VI. Fulgentius 41 Ephrem Antioch ib. Facundus ib. Primasius 42 CENT VII VIII Isidorus Hispalensis 43 Beda 44 Sedulius ib. Jo. Damascenus ib. Concil Constantinop 45 Alcuinus 46 Carolus M. 47 Officium Ambrosianum ib. Ordo Romanus ib. CENT IX Theodorus Studita 48 Ahyto ib. Theodulphus 49 Rabanus 51 Amalarius 52 Walafridus Strabo 54 Herribald ib. Trudegard 55 Ratramne ib. Jo. Erigena 56 Prudentius 58 Christian Drutmar ib. Florus Diacon 60 CENT X. Alferic A. B. Cant. 61 Wolphinus ib. Saxon Homil. ib. Fulcuinus 62 Herriger ib. Monast. Cluny ib. Ratherius 63 CENT XI Auth. Life of S. Genulphe 64 Leuthericus ib. Fulbertus ib. Berno 65 Bruno 66 Gregory VII P. ib. Theophylact. 67 Nicetas Pectoratus ib. Chronicon Malleac ib. CENT XII Honorius 67 Rupertus 68 Zonaras ib. Amalaricus ib. CENT XIII c. Of the Council of Lateran 69 That several after it did not believe Transubstantiation Guido le Gros. 69 Reginald Peacock 70 Guido Cluv. 71 Jo. of Paris ib. Albert. M. 72. Durand ib. Cornelius Bp. of Bitonte ib. Dominicus Bannes ib. CONCLUS To the Clergy of France that they ought not to press upon the Protestants the belief of Transubstantiation 72 AN HISTORICAL TREATISE OF Transubstantiation Written by one of the CHURCH of ROME THE Bishops of France in their last Assembly held at Paris in the year 1682. compos'd a Pastoral Letter addressed to the Protestants to invite them to return to the Communion of the Church of Rome And because in order to put an end to their differences in Matters of Religion some Rule must be agreed on to be received by the different Parties they laid down several Principles which they called Methods as fit to be made use of whereby to judge what should be received as
an Article of Faith. In the Fourth Method they laid down as a Maxim that the true means to discern what relates to matter of Faith or not is to see if the Article which is to be admitted was always believed as Matter of Faith that is to say that the French Bishops admitted in their pastoral Letter the Maxim which Vincentius Lyrinensis left us above 1100. years ago That great Care must be taken to retain in the Catholick Church what hath been believed every where by all and at all times as being the true Means whereby to discern what is Matter of Faith and what is not This same is the Rule given by Pope Pius the Fourth who obliges them to swear in the profession of Faith added to the Council of Trent That the Holy Scriptures should not be Interpreted But by the unanimous consent of the Ancient Fathers The Protestants have thought this Maxim so reasonable that Monsieur Larroque a French Minister saith in his Preface to the History of the Eucharist that he believes there is no Man of Sense but ought to admit of it And it was received as a Rule of Faith by the Reform'd Church of England by Philip Melancthon by Peter Martyr Gallasius Scultetus Casaubon Grotius Vessius Beza and by Gesselius who recites their Authorities in the Preface of his History of Memorable things from the Creation of the World to the year of Christ 1125. Seeing therefore that the Bishops of France have propos'd to us so just a Method let us examine if the Doctrine of Transubstantiation be a Doctrine of Faith and prove it not because the Council of Trent has defin'd it so Or that the Council of Lateran in the year 1215. suppos'd it to be so non quia ipsam quam tenemus fidem commendaverit Milevitanus Optatus vel Mediolanensis Ambrosius aut quia Collegarum Nostrorum Conciliis ipsa praedicta est saith S. Austin against the Donatists De unit Eccles. cap. 16. But because 't is contain'd in the Holy Scriptures and understood in that Sense by the unanimous consent of the Doctors and Councils that have gone before us This is what we now undertake to perform by the assistance of God's holy Spirit and with a disposition of Mind free from all Malice and Prejudice according to what Caesar saith in Salust in the beginning of the Book of Cataline Omnes homines qui de Rebus dubiis consultant ab ira odio vacuos esse debere haud facile animum pervidere verum ubi illa officiunt And St. Austin upon the Book against the Letter of the Manichean by them called the Letter of Foundation Ut autem facilius mitescatis c. nemo nostrum se jam quaeramus quasi ab utrisque nesciatur ita enim diligenter concorditer quaeri poterit si nulla temeraria prasumptions inventa cognita esse credatur But not to over-burthen this small Treatise with too great a number of Arguments or Citations we will chiefly examine two things First Who those Catholick Doctors are that believed the Doctrine of Transubstantiation not to be ancient Secondly If what those Doctors have writ be true And whether we can indeed produce sufficient Authorities to believe that the ancient Church did not hold nor believe it PART I. IN the first place That there have been Catholick Doctors which have taught that Transubstantiation is no ancient Doctrine Suarez formally asserteth it although indeed he saith their Opinion ought to be corrected The truth is Peter Lombard Master of the Sentences saith expresly Si quaeras qualis sit illa conversio an formalis an substantialis an alterius generis definire non audeo Secondly Scotus saith That there were formerly three Opinions touching the changing the Bread into the Body of Christ the first of which held that the Bread remain'd in the Eucharist In the Paragraph quantum ergo ad istum articulum c. he saith that at present the Church of Rome holds Transubstantiation Nunc autem ipsa tenet Sancta Rom. Ecclesia panem transubstantiari And a little under he saith ad tertium ubi stat vis dicendum quod Ecclesia declaravit istum intellectum esse de veritate fidei in illo Symbolo edito sub Innocentio tertio in Concilio Lateraenensi And since this Declaration made by this Council held in the year 1215. it is an Article of Faith. Tenendum est esse de substantia fidei hoc post istam declarationem solemnem Bellarmine doth own that Scotus did believe Transubstantiation was no Article of Faith before the Council of Lateram under Innocent the Third but he adds that 't was because Scotus did not know of the Council held under Gregory the Seventh and that he had not read the Authorities of the Fathers which saith Bellarmine I have now recited Thirdly Peter Dayly Cardinal and Bishop of Cambray saith It doth not clearly follow from the Determination of the Church that the substance of Bread ceaseth therefore he doth not believe this to be the ancient Doctrine Fourthly Cardinal Cusa Excit l. 6. Serm. 40. Super una Oblatione consummavit c. saith That there were some ancient Divines which did not believe Transubstantiation Fifthly Erasmus in his Notes on the First to the Corinthians saith That it was late ere the Church established Transubstantiation Sixthly Alphonsus à Castro saith That the ancient Writers very seldom spake of Transubstantiation Seventhly Tonstall Bishop of Durham about the middle of the last Century speaking of the Breads being changed into the Body of Christ saith It were much better to leave it to the Liberty of Christians to believe as they pleas'd of the manner in which this change is made as it was practis'd in the Church before the Council of Lateran Eighthly Cassander in his Consultation with the Emperour Maximilian the Second touching the differences of Religion confesseth that Transubstantiation is a Novelty and that 't were much better to keep to the terms of the Ancients that the Abuses therein approach near to Idolatry Ninthly Charles du Moulin the Oracle of the French Civilians upon the Edicts and Ordinances of France against the Injuries of Popes Num. 406. speaks in these Terms Innocent the Third forged or at least established it as a general Article of Faith and as necessary to be believed by all as that of the holy Trinity the Transubstantiation of the Bread and Wine into the true Body and true Blood of Jesus Christ. Tenthly John Yribarne a Spanish Divine in the 4th Sent. Dist. 11. q. 3. Disp. 42. S. 1. saith That in the Primitive Church is was matter of Faith that the Body of Jesus Christ was contain'd under the Species of Bread and Wine but that 't was not any matter of Faith to hold that the substance of Bread was changed into the Flesh of Jesus Christ and that it subsisted
acquires a sanctification The author saith The Bread is changed but when he adds that 't is into a Spiritual virtue he quite excludes the change of its substance for by virtue and Spiritual cannot be understood any other change but that of virtue and quality seeing this Author speaks of this change as being common to the Water of Baptism to the Oyl of Unction and to the Bread of the Eucharist That the Fathers of the THIRD CENTURY did not believe Transubstantiation TErtullian in his first Book against Marcion shewing that Jesus Christ is not contrary to the Creator as this Heretick affirm'd saith in his 14th Chap. Hitherto Jesus Christ has not condemn'd the Water wherewith he cleanseth his Children nor the Oyl wherewith he anoints them nor the Hony nor the Milk whereby he makes them his Children nor the Bread by which he represents his body By this passage the Bread represents the Body of Jesus Christ therefore the Bread remains in the Sacrament and this Bread is not really Jesus Christ because what doth represent is another thing than what is represented Two things have been said on this place of Tertullian first that the Bread signifies the accidents of Bread the second that the Word represent does signify in this place to make present As when in a Court of Justice a Prisoner is made appear as often as he is demanded Against the former there 's no reason to believe that Tertullian speaking of Water of Oyl of Hony and Milk should intend to speak of their accidents but of their very substance and that speaking of Bread he should speak only of its accidents Against the second it 's most certain that in matter of Sacraments the term to signify is taken literally to signify S. Austin saith Ep. 5. the signs when applyed to Holy things are called Sacraments Tertullian explains himself clearly Lib. 3. against Marcion so that there 's no cause of doubting when he saith That Jesus Christ has given to the Bread the priviledge of being the figure of his Body The same Tertullian lib. 4. contra Marcion cap. 40. doth prove that Jesus Christ had a real Body and not one in shew only as Marcion dream'd and he proves it by this argument That which hath a figure ought to be real and true now Jesus Christ hath in the Eucharist a figure of his Body therefore the Body of Jesus Christ is real and true and not a Phantome Jesus Christ saith Tertullian having taken the Bread which 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 't is concluded that the Bread being the figure of the Body of Jesus Christ and that which is a figure being distinguished from the thing signified the Bread of the Eucharist is not properly and 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 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 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 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 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 't is 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
to you this Sacrament I say which lifts us up to Heaven 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 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 being Water ought not to be despised but that after Consecration it hath a marvellous Virtue he proves it by the Example 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 Kingdom of my Father saith because Jesus Christ had spoke 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