of the Body and Bloud of Christ in the Sacrament that stout Roman Champion applies to his Transubstantiation and then crows over his Adversaries supposing that he hath utterly overthrown the Protestants cause whereas there is such a wide difference as may be called a great Gulf fixed betwixt the true or real Presence of Christ in the Lords Supper and the Transubstantiation of the Bread and Wine into his Body and Bloud This last is such a Prodigie as is neither taught by Scripture nor possible to be apprehended by faith it is repugnant to right reason and contrary to sense and is no where to be found in Ancient Writers But the other is agreeable to Scripture and to the Analogy of faith it is not against Reason although being spiritual it cannot be perceived by our bodily senses and it is back'd by the constant and unanimous Doctrine of the holy Fathers For it makes nothing against it that sometimes the same Fathers do speak of the Bread and Wine of the holy Eucharist as of the very Body and Bloud of Christ it being a manner of speech very proper and usual in speaking of Sacraments to give to the sign the name of the thing signified And however they explain themselves in other places when they frequently enough call the Sacramental Bread and Wine Types Symbols Figures and Signs of the Body and Bloud of Christ thereby declaring openly for us against the Maintainers of Transubstantiation For we may safely without any prejudice to our Tenet use those Expressions of the Ancients which the Papists think to be most favourable to them taking them in a Sacramental sense as they ought to be whereas the last mentioned that are against them none can use but by so doing he necessarily destroys the whole contrivance of Transubstantiation it being altogether inconsistent to say the Bread is substantially changed into the Body of Christ and the Bread is a Figure a Sign and a Representation of the Body of Christ For what hath lost its being can in no wise signifie or represent any other thing Neither was ever any thing said to represent and be the Figure and Sign of it self But this is more at large treated of in the Book it self Now having given an account of the occasion of writing and publishing this Discourse perhaps the Reader will expect that I should say something of its excellent Author But should I now undertake to speak but of the most memorable things that concern this great Man my thoughts would be overwhelmed with their multitude and I must be injurious both to him and my Readers being confined within the narrow limits of a Preface But what cannot be done here may be done somewhere else God willing This only I would not have the Reader to be ignorant of That this Learned man and as appears by this constant Professor and Defendor of the Protestant Religion was one of those who was most vehemently accused of Popery by the Presbyterians before the late Wars and for that reason bitterly persecuted by them and forced to forsake his Country whereby he secured himself from the violence of their Hands but not of their Tongues for still the good men kept up the noise of their clamorous Accusation even while he was writing this most substantial Treatise against Transubstantiation John Durel CHAP. I. 1. The Real that is true and not imaginary Presence of Christ in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is proved by Scripture 2 and 3. Yet this favours not the Tenet of Transubstantiation being it is not to be understood grosly and carnally but spiritually and Sacramentally 4. The nature and use of the Sacraments 5. By means of the Elements of Bread and Wine Christ himself is spiritually eaten by the Faithful in the Sacrament 6. The eating and presence being spiritual are not destructive of the truth and substance of the thing 7. The manner of Presence is unsearchable and ought not to be presumptuously defined 1. THose words which our blessed Saviour used in the institution of the Blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist Mat. 26.26 Luk. 22.19 This is my body which is given for you This is my bloud which is shed for you for the remission of sins are held and acknowledged by the Universal Church to be most true and infallible And if any one dares oppose them or call in question Christs Veracity or the truth of his words or refuse to yield his sincere assent to them except he be allowed to make a meer figment or a bare figure of them * As G. Calixtus writes in some place of his learned Exercitations and before him M. Chemnitius in Exam. Con. Trid. atque in locis Theol. we cannot and ought not either excuse or suffer him in our Churches for we must embrace and hold for an undoubted truth whatever is taught by Divine Scripture And therefore we can as little doubt of what Christ saith Joh. 6.55 My flesh is meat indeed and my bloud is drink indeed which according to St. Paul are both given to us by the consecrated Elements For he calls the Bread the Communion of Christs Body 1 Cor. 10.16 and the Cup the Communion of his bloud 2. Hence it is most evident that the Bread and Wine which according to St. Paul are the Elements of the holy Eucharist are neither changed as to their substance nor vanisht nor reduc'd to nothing but are solemnly consecrated by the words of Christ that by them his blessed body and bloud may be communicated to us 3. And further it appears from the same words that the expression of Christ and the Apostle is to be understood in a Sacramental and mystick sense and that no gross and carnal presence of body and bloud can be maintained by them 4. And though the word Sacrament be no where used in Scripture to signifie the blessed Eucharist yet the Christian Church ever since its Primitive ages hath given it that name and always called the presence of Christs body and bloud therein Mystick and Sacramental Now a Sacramental expression doth without any inconvenience give to the sign the name of the thing signified Exod. 12.21 1 Cor. 10.3 4. And such is as well the usual way of speaking as the nature of Sacraments that not only the names but even the properties and effects of what they represent and exhibite are given to the outward Elements Hence as I said before the Bread is as clearly as positively called by the Apostle the Communion of the body of Christ 5. This also seems very plain that our Blessed Saviour's design was not so much to teach what the Elements of Bread and Wine are by nature and substance as what is their use and office and signification in this Mystery For the body and bloud of our Saviour are not only fitly represented by the Elements but also by vertue of his institution really offered to all by them and so eaten by the faithful Mystically and Sacramentally whence
as though by these words Spiritually and Sacramentally they did not acknowledge a true and well-understood real Presence and Communication of the Body and Bloud of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament whereas on the contrary they do professedly own it in terms as express as any can be used CHAP. III. 1. What the Papists do understand by Christ being spiritually present in the Sacrament 2. What St. Bernard understood by it 3. What the Protestants 4. Faith doth not cause but suppose the presence of Christ 5. The Union betwixt the Body of Christ and the Bread is Sacramental 1. HAving now by what I have said put it out of doubt that the Protestants believe a spiritual and true presence of Christ in the Sacrament which is the reason that according to the example of the Fathers they use so frequently the term spiritual in this subject it may not be amiss to consider in the next place how the Roman Church understands that same word Now they make it to signifie That Christ is not present in the Sacrament Bell. De Euch l. 1. c ◠§. 3. Reg. sequ either after that manner which is natural to corporal things or that wherein his own body subsists in heaven but according to the manner of Existence proper to Spirits whole and entire in each part of the Host And though by himself he be neither seen toucht nor moved yet in respect of the Species or accidents joyned with him he may be said to be seen toucht and moved And so the accidents being moved Ibid. Part. 1. the body of Christ is truly moved accidentally as the Soul truly changeth place with the Body so that we truly and properly say that the body of Christ is removed lifted up and set down put on the Patent or on the Altar and carried from hand to mouth and from the mouth to the stomach as Berengarius was forced to acknowledge in the Roman Council under Pope Nicholas Ibid. § 5. Reg. that the Body of Christ was sensually toucht by the hands and broken and chewed by the teeth of the Priest But all this and much more to the same effect was never delivered to us either by holy Scripture or the ancient Fathers And if Souls or Spirits could be present as here Bellarmine teacheth yet it would be absurd to say that bodies could be so likewise it being inconsistent with their nature 2. Indeed Bellarmine confesseth with St Bernard St. Bern. Serm de S. Martin That Christ in the Sacrament is not given to us carnally but spiritually and would to God he had rested here and not outgone the holy Scriptures and the Doctrine of the Fathers For endeavouring with Pope Innocent III. and the Council of Trent to determine the manner of the presence and Manducation of Christs body with more nicety than was fitting he thereby foolishly overthrew all that he had wisely said before denied what he had affirmed and opposed his own Opinion His fear was lest his Adversaries should apply that word spiritually not so much to express the manner of presence as to exclude the very substance of the Body and Bloud of Christ therefore saith he upon that account it is not safe to use too muck that of St. Bernard The body of Christ is not Corporally in the Sacrament without adding presently the above-mentioned explanation How much do we comply with humane pride and curiosity which would seem to understand all things Where is the danger And what doth he fear as long as all they that believe the Gospel own the true nature the real and substantial presence of the body of Christ in the Sacrament using that Explication of St. Bernard concerning the manner which he himself for the too great evidence of truth durst not but admit And why doth he own that the manner is spiritual not carnal and then require a carnal presence as to the manner it self As for us we all openly profess with St. Bernard that the presence of the body of Christ in the Sacrament is spiritual and therefore true and real and with the same Bernard and all the Ancients we deny that the Body of Christ is carnally either present or given The thing we willingly admit but humbly and religiously forbear to enquire into the manner 3. We believe a Presence and Union of Christ with our soul and body which we know not how to call better than Sacramental that is effected by eating that while we eat and drink the consecrated Bread and Wine we eat and drink therewithal the Body and Bloud of Christ not in a corporal manner but some other way incomprehensible known only to God which we call spiritual for if with St. Bernard the Fathers a man goes no further we do not find fault with a general explication of the manner but with the presumption and self-conceitedness of those who boldly and curiously inquire what is a spiritual presence as presuming that they can understand the manner of acting of Gods holy Spirit We contrariwise confess with the Fathers that this manner of presence is unaccountable and past finding out not to be searcht and pried into by Reason but believed by Faith And if it seems impossible that the flesh of Christ should descend and come to be our food through so great a distance we must remember how much the power of the holy Spirit exceeds our sense and our apprehensions and how absurd it would be to undertake to measure his Immensity by our weakness and narrow capacity and so make our Faith to conceive and believe what our Reason cannot comprehend 4. Yet our Faith doth not cause or make that Presence but apprehends it as most truly and really effected by the word of Christ And the Faith whereby we are said to eat the flesh of Christ is not that only whereby we believe that he died for our sins for this Faith is required and supposed to precede the Sacramental Manducation but more properly that whereby we believe those words of Christ This is my Body Aug. super Joh. Tract 25. which was St. Austins meaning when he said Why dost thou prepare thy stomach and thy teeth Believe and thou hast eaten For in this Mystical eating by the wonderful power of the Holy Ghost we do invisibly receive the substance of Christs Body and Bloud as much as if we should eat and drink both visibly 5. The result of all this is That the Body and Bloud of Christ are Sacramentally united to the Bread and Wine so that Christ is truly given to the Faithful and yet is not to be here considered with sense or worldly reason but by Faith resting on the words of the Gospel Now it is said that the Body and Bloud of Christ are joyned to the Bread and Wine because that in the celebration of the holy Eucharist the Flesh is given together with the Bread and the Bloud together with the Wine All that remains is That we should with faith
de Scrip Eccles verbo Pasch Sirm. in vita Pasc Praef. Editione Parisiensi whom Bellarmine and Sirmondus esteemed so highly that they were not ashamed to say that he was the first that had writ to the purpose concerning the Eucharist and that he had so explained the meaning of the Church that he had shewn and opened the way to all them who treated of that subject after him Yet in that whole Book of Paschasius there is nothing that favours the Transubstantiation of the Bread or its destruction or removal Indeed he asserts the truth of the Body and Bloud of Christs being in the Eucharist which Protestants deny not he denies that the Consecrated Bread is a bare figure a representation void of truth which Protestants assert not But he hath many things repugnant to Transubstantiation which as I have said the Church of Rome it self had not yet quite found out I shall mention a few of them Christ saith he left us this Sacrament a visible figure and character of his Body and Bloud that by them our Spirit might the better embrace spiritual and invisible things and be more fully fed by Faith Again We must receive our spiritual Sacraments with the mouth of the Soul and the taste of Faith Item Whilst therein we savour nothing carnal but we being spiritual and understanding the whole spiritually we remain in Christ And a little after The flesh and bloud of Christ are received spiritually And again To savour according to the flesh is death and yet to receive spiritually the true Flesh of Christ is life eternal Lastly The Flesh and bloud of Christ are not received carnally but spiritually In these he teacheth that the Mystery of the Lords Supper is not and ought not to be understood carnally but spiritually and that this dream of corporal and oral Transubstantiation was unknown to the Ancient Church As for what hath been added to this Book by the craft without doubt of some superstitious forgerer as Erasmus complains that it too frequently happens to the Writing of the Ancients it is Fabulous as the visible appearing of the Body of Christ in the form of an Infant with fingers of raw flesh such stuff is unworthy to be Fathered on Paschasius who profest that he delivered no other Doctrin concerning the Sacrament than that which he had learned out of the Ancient Fathers and not from idle and uncertain stories of Miracles 30. Now it may be requisite to produce the testimony of those Writers before mentioned to have written in this Century Amal. An. 810. In all that I write saith Amalarius I am swayed by the Judgment of holy men and pious Fathers yet I say what I think my self Praef. In libr de Eccl. â—ffic Those things that are done in the Celebration of Divine Service are done in the Sacrament of the Passion of our Lord as he himself commanded Therefore the Priest offering the Bread with the Wine and Water in the Sacrament doth it in the stead of Christ and the Bread Wine and Water in the Sacrament represent the Flesh and Bloud of Christ For Sacraments are somewhat to resemble those things whereof they are Sacraments Therefore let the Priest be like unto Christ as the Bread and Liquors are like the Body and Bloud of Christ Such is in some manner the immolation of the Priest on the Altar as was that of Christ on the Cross Again The Sacrament of the Body of Christ is in some manner the Body of Christ For Sacraments should not be Sacraments if in some things they had not the likeness of that whereof they are Sacraments Now by reason of this mutual likeness they oftentimes are called by what they represent Lastly Sacraments have the vertue to bring us to those things whereof they are Sacramenis These things writ Amalarius according to the Expressions of St. Austin and the Doctrine of the purest Church 31. Rabanus Maurus Raban A.D. 825. Trithem de Script Ecel Rabanus Maur. de Inst Cler. l. 1. c. 31. a great Doctor of this Age Who could hardly be matcht either in Italy or in Germany publisht this his open Confession Our blessed Saviour would have the Sacrament of his Body and Bloud to be received by the mouth of the Faithful and to become their nourishment that by the visible body the effects of the invisible might be known For as the material Food feeds the body outwardly and makes it to grow so the Word of God doth inwardly nourish and strengthen the soul Also He would have the Sacramental Elements to be made of the fruits of the earth that as he who is God invisible appeared visible in our Flesh and mortal to save us mortals so he might by a thing visible fitly represent to us a thing invisible Some receive the Sacred Sign at the Lords Table to their Salvation and some to their Ruine but the thing signified is life to every man and death to none whoever receives it is united as a member to Christ the head in the Kingdom of Heaven for the Sacrament is one thing and the efficacy of it another For the Sacrament is received with the mouth but the grace thereof feeds the inward man And as the first is turned into our substance when we eat it and drink it so are we made the Body of Christ when we live piously and obediently Therefore the Faithful do well and truly receive the body of Christ if they neglect not to be his members and they are made the Body of Christ if they will live of his Spirit All these agree not in the least with the new Doctrine of Rome and as little with that opinion they attribute to Paschasius G. Malm. A. â—00 and Tho. Wall A. 1400. and therefore he is rejected as erroneous by some Romish Authors who writ four and six hundred years after him But they should have considered that they condemned not only Rabanus but together with him all the Doctors of the Primitive Church 32. Johannes Erigena our Country-man Joh. Erig A. 860. whom King Alfred took to be his and his Childrens Tutor and to credit the new founded University of Oxford while he lived in France where he was in great esteem with Charles the Bald wrote a That Book was afterwards condemned under Leo IX two hundred years after by the maintainers of Transubstantiation a Book concerning the Body and Bloud of our Lord to the same purpose as Rabanus and back'd it with clear Testimonies of Scripture and of the Holy Fathers But entring himself into the Monastery of Malmsbury as he was interpreting the Book of Dyonisius about the heavenly Hierarchy which he translated into Latine and withal censuring the newly-hatcht Doctrine of the Carnal Presence of Christ in the Eucharist he was stabb'd b Anton. tit c. 2. §. 3. Vincent l 24 c 42. alit with Pen knives by some unworthy Schollars of his set on by certain Monks though not long
THE HISTORY OF POPISH Transubstantiation To which is Premised and opposed The CATHOLIC DOCTRIN OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURE The Antient Fathers and the Reformed Churches About the Sacred Elements and Presence of CHRIST in the Blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist Written in Latine By the Right Reverend Father in GOD JOHN Late Lord Bishop of DURHAM And allowed by him to be published a little before his Death at the earnest request of his Friends The Second Edition London Printed for Henry Brome at the Gun at the West end of St. Pauls 1679. Effigies D. Joannis Cosin Episcopâ— Dunelmensis c To the Right Honourable HENEAGE Lord FINCH Baron of Daventry Lord Keeper of the Great Seal of England My Lord THe Excellency of this Book answers the greatness of its Author and perhaps the badness of the Version is also proportioned to the meanness of the Translator But the English being for those that could not understand the Original that they also might be instructed by so instructive a Discourse I hope with them my good intent will excuse my fault only my fear is I shall want a good Plea wherewith to sue out my pardon for having intituled a person of the highest honour to so poor a labour as is this of mine My Lord these were the inducements which set me upon this attempt it being the subject of the Book to clear and assert an important truth which is as a Criterion whereby to know the Sons of the Church of England from her Adversaries on both hands those that adore and those that profane the blessed Sacrament these that destroy the visible Sign and those that deny the invisible Grace I thought I might justly offer it to so pious and so great a Son of this Church who own'd her in her most calamitous condition and defends her in her happy and most envied restauration I was also perswaded that the Translation bearing your illustrious name would be thereby much recommended to many and so become the more generally useful And I confided much in your goodness and affability who being by birth and merits raised to a high eminency yet doth willingly condescend to things and persons of low estate My Lord I have only this one thing more to alledge for my self That besides the attestation of publick fame which I hear of a long time speaking loud for you I have these many years lived in a Family where your Vertues being particularly known are particularly admired and honoured so that I could not but have an extraordinary respect and veneration for your Lordship and be glad to have any occasion to express it If these cannot clear me I must remain guilty of having taken this opportunity of declaring my self Your Lorships Most humble and most obedient Servant Luke de Beaulieu THE PUBLISHER TO THE READER IT is now nineteen years since this Historical Treatise was made by the Right Reverend Father in God John Cosin when in the time of the late accursed Rebellion he was an Exile in Paris for his Loyalty and Religion's sake for being then commanded to remain in that City by his gracious Majesty that now is who was departing into Germany by reason of a League newly made by the French King with our wicked Rebels he was also ordered by him as he had been before by his blessed Father Charles the First a Prince never enough to be commended to perform Divine Offices in the Royal Chappel and to endeavour to keep and confirm in the Protestant Religion professed by the Church of Englang his fellow-Exiles both of the Royal Family and others his Country-men who then lived in that place Now the occasion of his writing this Piece was this When his Gracious Majesty had chosen Colen for the place of his residence being solemnly invited he visited a neighbouring Potent Prince of the Empire of the Roman Perswasion where it fell out as it doth usually where Persons of different Religions do meet some Jesuits began to discourse of Controversies with those Noblemen and Worthies who never forsook their Prince in his greatest straights but were his constant Attendants and Imitators of his ever constant Profession of the Reformed Religion charging the Church of England with Heresie especially in what concerns the Blessed Sacrament of the Lords Supper They would have it that our Church holds no real but only a kind of imaginary presence of the Body and Bloud of Christ but that the Church of Rome retained still the very same faith concerning this sacred Mystery which the Catholick Church constantly maintained in all Ages to wit that the whole substance of the Bread and Wine is changed into the substance of the Body and Bloud of Christ and right-well called Transubstantiation by the Council of Trent This and much more to the same purpose was pronounced by the Jesuits in presence of His Majesty and the German Prince with as much positiveness and confidence as if it had been a clear and self-evident truth owned by all the Learned His Sacred Majesty and his Noble Attendants knew well enough that the Jesuits did shamelesly belie the Church of England and that their brags about Roman Transubstantiation were equally false and vain But the German Prince having recommended to the perusal of those Honourable Persons that followed the King a Manuscript wherein as he said was proved by Authentick Authors all that had been advanced by the Jesuits They thought it fit to acquaint the Reverend Dr. Cosin with the whole business and intreat him that he would vindicate the Church of England from the Calumny and plainly declare what is her avowed Doctrine and belief about the true and real Presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament Hereupon our worthy Doctor who was ever ready and zealous to do good especially when it might benefit the Church of God fell presently to work and writ this excellent Treatise as an Answer to the Prince's Manuscript that if those worthy Persons pleased they might repay his Highness kindness in kind Yet notwithstanding the solicitations of those that occasioned it and of others that had perused it he would not yield to have it made publick while a few months before he died because having composed it for particular Friends he thought it sufficient that it had been useful to them But the Controversie about the Presence of Christ in the Eucharist being of late years resumed with much vigour and even now famous by the learned and eloquent Disputes of Monsieur Claude Minister of the Reformed Church in Paris and Monsieur Arnold Doctor of Sorbon and others who moved by their example have entred the Lists The reiterated and more earnest importunities of his friends obtained at last his consent for the publication of this Work and the rather because he thought that the Error constantly maintained by the famous Doctor of Sorbon was by a lucky anticipation clearly and strongly confuted throughout this Book for whatever the Fathers have said about the true and real Presence
nature and substance of the body of our blessed Saviour and that those words nature and substance ought not to be rejected because the Fathers used them in speaking of that Mystery Secondly He inquires whether those expressions truth nature and substance were used in this Mystery by the Ancients in their common acceptation or in a sense more particular and proper to the Sacraments Because we must not only observe what words they used but also what they meant to signifie and to teach by them And though with the Fathers he acknowledged a difference betwixt the body of Christ in its natural form of a humane body and that Mystick body present in the Sacrament yet he chose rather to put that difference in the manner of presence and exhibition than in the subject it self that is the real body and bloud of our Saviour being it is most certain that no other body is given to the faithful in the Sacrament than that which was by Christ given to death for their Redemption Lastly he affirms according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers that this matter must be understood in a spiritual sense banishing all grosser and more carnal thoughts 5. To Bishop Poinet succeeded in the same See the right Reverend Doctors T. Bilson and L. Andrews Prelates both of them throughly learned and great defenders of the Primitive Faith who made it most evident by their Printed Writings that the Faith and Doctrine of the Church of England is in all things agreeable to the holy Scriptures and the Divinity of the Ancient Fathers And as to what regards this Mystery the a Bils resp ad Card. Alan l. 4. first treats of it in his Answer to the Apology of Cardinal Alan and the b Andr. resp ad Apol Bel. c. 11. p. 11 last in his Answer to the Apology of Cardinal Bellarmine where you may find things worthy to be read and noted as follows Christ said this is my body in this the object we are agreed with you the manner only is controverted We hold by a firm belief that it is the body of Christ of the manner how it comes to be so there is not a word in the Gospel and because the Scripture is silent in this we justly disown it to be a matter of Faith We may indeed rank it among Tenets of the School but by no means among the Articles of our Christian Belief We like well of what Durandus is reported to have said We hear the Word and feel the motion we know not the manner and yet believe the Presence For we believe a Real Presence no less than you do We dare not be so bold as presumptuously to define any thing concerning the manner of a true Presence or rather we do not so much as trouble our selves with being inquisitive about it no more than in Baptism how the bloud of Christ washeth us or in the Incarnation of our Redeemer how the Divine and Humane Nature were united together We put it in the number of sacred things or Sacrifices the Eucharist it self being a Sacred Mystery whereof the remnants ought to be consumed with fire that is as the Fathers elegantly have it ador'd by faith but not searcht by reason Caus Ep. to Card. Perron 6. To the same sense speaks Is Causabon in the Epistle he wrote by order from King James to Cardinal Perron so doth also Hooker in his Ecclesiastical Polity Ep. Roff. praef ad loct Montac in Antid Art 13. Book 5. § 67. John Bishop of Rochester in his Book of the Power of the Pope R. Mountague Bishop of Norwich against Bullinger James Primate of Armach in his Answer to the Irish Jesuit Francis Bishop of Eli and William Laud Archbishop of Canterbury in their Answer to Fisher c In a Manuscript shortly to be Printed John Overall Bishop of Norwich and many others in the Church of England who never departed from the Faith and Doctrine of the ancient Catholick Fathers which is by Law established and with great care and veneration received and preserved in our Church 7. To these also we may justly add that famous Prelate Antonius de Domino Archbishop of Spalato a man well versed in the Sacred Writings and the Records of Antiquity who having left Italy when he could no longer remain in it either with quiet or safety by the advice of his intimate Friend Paulus Venetus took Sanctuary under the protection of King James of blessed memory in the bosome of the Church of England which he did faithfully follow in all Points and Articles of Religion But being daily vex'd with many affronts and injuries and wearied by the unjust persecutions of some sour and over-rigid men who bitterly declaimed every where against his life and actions he at last resolved to return into Italy with a safe conduct Before he departed he was by order from the King questioned by some Commissionated Bishops what he thought of the Religion and Church of England which for so many years he had owned and obeyed and what he would say of it in the Roman Court to this Query he gave in writing this memorable answer I am resolved even with the danger of my life to profess before the Pope himself that the Church of England is a true and Orthodox Church of Christ This he not only promised but faithfully performed for though soon after his departure there came a Book out of the Low Countries falsly bearing his name by whose title many were deceived even among the English and thereby moved to tax him with Apostacy and of being another Eubolius yet when he came to Rome where he was most kindly entertained in the Palace of Pope Gregory the Fifteenth who formerly had been his Fellow-student he could never be perswaded by the Jesuits and others who daily thronged upon him neither to subscribe the new devised-Tenets of the Council of Trent or to retract those Orthodox Books which he had Printed in England and Germany or to renounce the Communion of the Church of England in whose defence he constantly persisted to the very last But presently after the decease of Pope Gregory he was imprisoned by the Jesuits and Inquisitors in Castle St. Angelo where by being barbarously used and almost starved he soon got a mortal sickness and died in a few days though not without suspicion of being poysoned The day following his Corps was by the sentence of the Inquisition tyed to an infamous stake and there burnt to ashes for no other reason but that he refused to make abjuration of the Religion of the Church of England and subscribe some of the lately-made-Decrees of Trent which were prest upon him as Canons of the Catholick Faith I have taken occasion to insert this narration perhaps not known to many to make it appear that this Reverend Prelate who did great service to the Church of God may justly as I said before be reckoned amongst the Writers of the Church of England Let
for so we find it published in his Decretal propounded to the Assembly at Lateran in 1215. and proclaimed afterwards by his Nephew Pope Gregory the Ninth Decret de sum Trin. fide Cathol Tit. 1. We firmly believe and simply acknowledge that there is one only true God c. and that in the Sacrament of the Altar the Body and Bloud of Christ are truly contained under the accidents of Bread and Wine which are transubstantiated the Bread into the Body and the Wine into the Bloud To these definitions of Popes I will add only the Tenets of three Jesuits which are highly approved by the late followers of the new Roman Faith First Of Alphonsun Salmeron We must of necessity saith he hold Transubstantiation Tom. 9. Tract 16. Tract that the substance of Bread and Wine which Luther and some others admit may be excluded that the words of Christ which yet are most true without that may be verified that how few of these many are pertinent to their purpose will be seen hereafter many Testimonies of the Fathers concerning Conversion Mutation Consecration Benediction Transformation Sanctification for by all these names almost they have called Transubstantiation may stand firm and not be vain and insignificant and lastly that we may maintain a solid presence of the Body and Bloud of Christ Item as David changed his Countenance before Abimelech Tom. 16. disp 3. in Ep. S. Petri and then received the Shew bread that was a certain Type of the Eucharist so Christ in the Sacrament feigns himself to be bread and yet is not bread though he seems so to be most visibly Secondly Of Cardinal Francis Tolet Instr Sacerd l. 2. c. 27. The words of Consecration are efficacious instruments whereby to Transubstantiate the substance of the Bread into the true Body of Christ so that after they are spoken there remains in the Host none of the substance of the Bread but only the accidents of it which are called the properties of the Bread under which the true Body of Christ is present Thirdly and lastly Of Cardinal Bellarmine Lib. 3. de Euchar. cap. 11. The Catholick Church ever taught that by the conversion of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Bloud of Christ which conversion hath been in after times called Transubstantiation it comes to pass that the Body and Bloud of our Lord are truly and really present in the Sacrament It would be to no purpose to bring the Testimonies of others of the Latine or Roman Church who give to the Pope an absolute power of defining what he pleaseth for they are but the same stuff as these but if any one hath a mind let him consult Gretserus his defence of Bellarmine Grets def Bellar. l. 3. c 9. Syl. Prier sub initio or his Dialogue who first writ against Luther who both reduce the whole matter to the judgment and decree of the Pope 8. Now we leave inquiring what God is able to do for we should first know his will in this matter before we examine his power Yet thus much we say that this Roman Transubstantiation is so strange and monstrous that it exceeds the nature of all Miracles And though God by his Almightiness be able to turn the substance of bread into some other substance yet none will believe that he doth it as long as it appears to our senses that the substance of the Bread doth still remain whole and entire Certain it is that hitherto we read of no such thing done in the Old or New Testament and therefore this Tenet being as unknown to the Ancients as it is ungrounded in Scripture appear as yet to be very incredible and there is no reason we should believe such an unauthorised figment newly invented by men and now imposed as an Article of Christian Religion For it is in vain that they bring Scripture to defend this their stupendious Doctrine and it is not true what they so often and so confidently affirm that the Universal Church hath always constantly owned it being it was not so much as heard of in the Church for many Ages and hath been but lately approved by the Popes Authority in the Councils of Lateran and Trent as I shall prove in the following Chapters CHAP. V. That neither the word nor name of Transubstantiation nor the Doctrine or the thing it self is taught or contained in holy Scripture or in the Writings of the ancient Doctors of the Church but rather is contrary to them and therefore not of Faith 1. THe word Transubstantiation is so far from being found either in the sacred Records or in the Monuments of the ancient Fathers that the maintainers of it do themselves acknowledge that it was not so much as heard of before the twelfth Century For though one Stephanus Bishop of Autun be said to have once used it yet it is without proof that some Modern Writers make him one of the tenth Century nor yet doth he say that the bread is Transubstantiated but as it were Transubstantiated which * See ch 1. art 6. c. 3 art 4. c. 4. art 5 and this ch art 5. well understood might be admitted 2. Nay that the thing it self without the word that the Doctrine without the expression cannot be found in Scripture is ingeniously acknowledged by the most learned Schoolmen Scotus Durandus Biel Cameracensis Cajetan and many more who finding it not brought in by the Popes Authority and received in the Roman Church till 1200 years after Christ yet endeavoured to defend it by other Arguments 3. Scotus confest That there is not any place in Scripture so express as to compel a man to admit of Transubstantiation Scot. in 4. Sent d. 11. q. 3. were it not that the Church hath declared for it that is Pope Innocent III in his Lateran Council Durandus said That the word it found Durand ut supra but that by it the manner they contend for cannot be proved Biel affirms Biel in Can. missa sect 40. Occam Cent l. 4. q. 6. in 4. Sent. d. 11. q. 6. Cam. in 4. d. 11. q. 6. L contra Luth de Capt Babil c. 1. That it is no where found in Canonical Scriptures Occam declared That it is easier more reasonable less inconvenient and better agreeing with Scripture to hold that the substance of the Bread remains After him Cardinal Cameracensis doth also confess That Transubstantiation cannot be proved out of the Scriptures Nay the Bishop of Rochester saith himself That there is no expression in Scripture whereby that conversion of substance in the Mass can be made good Cardinal Cajetan likewise Cajetan in Tho. p 3. q. 75. art 1 There is not any thing of force enough in the Gospel to make us understand in a proper sense these words This is my body Nay that presence which the Church of Rome believes in the Sacrament cannot be proved by the words of Christ without the declaration of
after he was by some b Malms de gestis Rig. Angl. l. 2. Wal. Stra. 86â— De rebus Eccl. c. 16. others numbred among Holy Martyrs 33. Walafridus Strabo about the same time wrote on this manner Therefore in that Last Supper whereat Christ was with his Disciples before he was betrayed after the solemnities of the ancient Passeover he gave to his Disciples the Sacrament of his Body and Bloud in the substance of Bread and Wine and instructed us to pass from carnal to spiritual things from earthly to heavenly things and from shadows to the substance 34. As for the opinion of Bertram Bertram Priest and Abbot A. 860. otherwise called Ratramnus or Ratramus perhaps not rightly it is known enough by that Book which the Emperour Charles the Bald who loved and honoured him as all good men did for his great learning and piety commanded him to write concerning the Body and Bloud of our Lord. For when men began to be disturbed at the Book of Paschasius some saying one thing and some another the Emperour being moved by their disputes propounded himself two questions to Bertram 1. Whether what the Faithful eat in the Church be made the Body and Bloud of Christ in Figure and in Mystery 2. Or whether that natural body which was born of the Virgin Mary which suffered died and was buried and now sitteth on the right hand of God the Father be it self dayly received by the mouth of the Faithful in the Mystery of the Sacrament The first of these Bertram resolved Affirmatively the second Negatively and said that there was as great a difference betwixt those two bodies as betwixt the earnest and that whereof it is the earnest It is evident saith he that that Bread and Wine are figuratively the Body and Bloud of Christ Lib. de corp Sang Dom part 1. Ibid. Part. 2. According to the substance of the Elements they are after the Consecration what they were before For the Bread is not Christ substantially If this mystery be not done in a figure it cannot well be called a Mystery The Wine also which is made the Sacrament of the Bloud of Christ by the Consecration of the Priest shews one thing by its outward appearance and contains another inwardly For what is there visible in its outside but only the substance of the Wine These things are changed but not according to the material part and by this change they are not what they truly appear to be but are some thing else besides what is their proper being For they are made spiritually the Body and Bloud of Christ not that the Elements be two different things but in one respect they are as they appear Bread and Wine and in another the Body and Bloud of Christ Hence according to the visible Creature they feed the body but according to the vertue of a more excellent substance they nourish and sanctifie the souls of the Faithful Then having brought many Testimonies of holy Scripture and the ancient Fathers to confirm this he at last prevents that Calumny which the followers of Paschasius did then lay on the Orthodox as though they had taught that bare signs figures and shadows and not the Body and Bloud of Christ were given in the Sacrament Let it not be thought saith he because we say this that therefore the Body and Bloud of Christ are not received in the Mystery of the Sacrament where Faith apprehends what it believes and not what the eyes see for this meat and drink are spiritual feed the soul spiritually and entertain that life whose fulness is eternal For the question is not simply about the real truth or the thing signified being present without which it could not be a Mystery but about the false reality of things subsisting in imaginary appearances and about the Carnal Presence Index lib. prob in fine Concil Trid. Author Papae editus in Lit. B. 35. All this the Fathers of Trent and the Romish Inquisitors could not brook therefore they utterly condemned Bertram and put his Book in the Catalogue of those that are forbidden But the Professors of Doway judging this proceeding much too violent and therefore more like to hurt than to advance the Roman Cause went another and more cunning way to work and had the approbation of the Licencers of Books and the Authors of the Belgick Index expurgatorius Index expur Belg. jussu author Phil 2. Hisp Reg. atque Albani ducis concilio concinn p. 54. v. Bert. That Book of Bertram say they having been already Printed several times read by many and known to all by its being forbidden may be suffered and used after it is corrected for Bertram was a Catholick Priest and a Monk in the Monastery of Corbie esteemed and beloved by Charles the Bald. And being we bear with many errors in Ancient Catholick Authors and lessen and excuse them and by some cunning device behold the good mens fidelity often deny them and give a more commodious sense when they are objected to us in our disputes with our Adversaries we do not see why Bertram should not also be amended and used with the same Equity lest Hereticks cast us in the teeth that we burn and suppress those Records of Antiquity that make for them And as we also fear lest not only Hereticks but also stubborn Catholicks read the Book with the more greediness and cite it with the more confidence because it is forbidden and so it doth more harm by being prohibited than if it was left free What patch then will they sow to amend this in Bertram Those things that differ are not the same that Body of Christ which died and rose again and is become immortal dies no more being eternal and impassable But that which is celebrated in the Church is temporal not eternal is corruptible and not incorruptible To this last mentioned passage they give a very commodious sense namely that it should be understood of the corruptible species of the Sacrament or of the Sacrament it self and the use of it which will last no longer than this world If this will not do it may not be amiss to leave it all out to blot out visibly and write invisibly And this What the Creatures were in substance before the Consecration they are still the same after it must be understood according to the outward appearances that is the accidents of the Bread and Wine Though they confess that then Bertram knew nothing of those accidents subsisting without a substance and many other things which this latter age hath added out of the Scriptures with as great truth as subtilty How much easier had it been at one stroke to blot out the whole Book And so make short work with it as the Spanish Inquisitors did in their Index expurgat Index expur Hisp D. Gasp Quirogae Card Inquis gener in fine Let the whole Epistle Ausburg be blotted out cencerning the single life of the Clergy
and let the whole Book of Bertram the Priest about the Body and Bloud of the Lord be supprest What is this but as Arnobius said against the Heathen Arnob. l 3 to intercept publick Records and fear the Testimony of the Truth For as for that which Sixtus Senensis and Possevin affirm Sixt. Sen. praef in Bibl. Sanc. Possev Prol. in Appa Saâ— That that Book of the Body and Bloud of the Lord was writ by Oecolampadius under the name of Bertram it is so great an untruth that a greater cannot be found 36. We are now come to the tenth Century wherein besides those many Sentences of Catholick Fathers against Innovaters in what concerns the Body and Bloud of Christ Herig Ab. A. D. 9â—0 collected by Herigerus Abbas Lobiensis we have also an ancient Easter Homily in Saxon English Hom. Pasc Angl. Sax. A. D. 990. impressa Lond MS. in publ Cant. Acad. Bib. which then used to be read publickly in our Churches out of which we may gather what was then the Doctrine received amongst us touching this Point of Religion but chiefly out of that part wherein are shewn many differences betwixt the natural Body of Christ and the Consecrated Host For thus it teacheth the people There is a great difference betwixt that body wherein Christ suffered and that wherein the Host is consecrated That Body wherein Christ suffered was born of the Virgin Mary consisting of bloud and bones skin and nerves humane members and a rational soul But his spiritual body which we call the Host is made of many united grains of corn and hath neither bloud nor bones neither members nor soul Afterwards The Body of Christ which once died and rose again shall die no more but remains eternal and impassible but this Host is temporal and corruptible divided into parts broken with the teeth and swallowed down into the stomach Lastly this Mystery is a pledge and a figure The body of Christ is that very truth What is seen is bread but what is spiritually understood is life There is also another Sermon of Bishop Wulfinus to the Clergy bearing the title of a Synod of Priests wherein the same opinion and Doctrine is explained in this manner Homil. Sacerd Synod impr Lond. cum Homil. Paschali That Host is the Body of Christ not corporally but spiritually not that Body wherein he suffered but that Body whereof he spake when he consecrated the Bread and Wine into an Host Which to this day in the Church of England we hold to be a Catholick truth 37. And so hitherto we have produced the agreeing Testimonies of Ancient Fathers for a thousand years after Christ and have transcribed them more at large to make it appear to every one that is not blind that the true Apostolick Doctrine of this Mystery hath been universally maintained for so long by all men some few excepted who more than eight hundred years after Christ presumed to dispute against the ancient Orthodox Doctrine of the manner of Christs Presence and of his being received in the Sacrament though they durst not positively determine any thing against it Now what more concerns this Point we refer to the next Chapter lest this should be too long CHAP. VI. Shews more at large that the Doctrine and Practice of the Primitive Church is inconsistent with Transubstantiation and Answers the Romish Objections vainly alleadged out of Antiquity Authors left out in the foregoing Chapter 1. MAny more Proofs out of Ancient Records might have been added to those we have hitherto brought for a thousand years but we desiring to be brief have omitted them in each Century As in the First After the holy Scriptures the Works of a Constit Ap. l. 6. c. 23. 29. Clemens 4Romanus commended by the Papists themselves and those of b Epist ad Philadel St. Ignatius Bishop of Antioch and Martyr are much against Transubstantiation In the Second likewise c Ad Aulol l. 2. St. Theophilus fourth Bishop of Antioch after Ignatius d Athenag legat pro Christ Athenagoras and e In Diatâ—es Tatianus Scholars to Justin Martyr In the Third f De Stro l. 1. de paedag l. 2. Clemens Alexandrinus Tutor to Origen and g In Octavio Minutius Felix a Christian Orator In the Fourth h De Dem. Evan. l. 1. c. 10. l. 8. c. 2. Eusebius Bishop of Cesarea i Juv. de Hist Evang l. 4. Juvencus a Spanish Priest k Mac. Hom. 37. Macarius Egyptius l In Mat. de Syn. St. Hilary Bishop of Poictiers m Contra Parm. l. 3. Optatus Bishop of Milevis n Hom. de Corp. Chr. Eusebius Emissenus o Orat. fun Gorg. Gregorius Nazianzenus p In Joh. l. 4. c. 14. Cyrillus Alexandrinus q In Ancorato Epiphanius Salaminensis r Contra Jovin in Jer. 31. in Mat. 26. St. Hierom Å¿ Epist Pasch 2. Theophilus Alexandrinus and t Gaud. in Exod 2. Gaudentius Bishop of Brixia In the Fifth u In Epist St Paul Sedulius a Scotch Priest x De Dogm Eccl. c. 25. Gennadius Massiliensis and y Homil. â— in Epiph. Faustus Bishop of Regium In the Sixth z De fide cap 16. Epist ad Ferrand Fulgentius Africanus a Com. in Mark 14. Victor Antiochenus b In Epist ad Cor. Primasius Bishop and c In Gen. â—9 Procopius Gazeus In the Seventh d In Levit. 1.6 Hesychius Priest in Jerusalem and e In Hierarch Dion Maximus Abbot of Constantinople In the Eighth f De fide Orthod Johannes Damascenus In the Ninth g De Cherub c. 6. Nicephorus the Patriarch and h In vita S. Remig. Hincmarus Archbishop of Rhemes Lastly in the Tenth i Epist ad Adeodat Fulbert Bishop of Chartres And to compleat all to these single Fathers we may add whole Councils of them as that of k An. 314. Can. 2. Ancyra of l A. codem Can. 13. Neocesarea and besides the first of m In Act. l. 2. Can. 30. Nice which I have mentioned that of n A. 364. Can. 25. Laodicea of o A. 397. Can. 24. Carthage of p A. 541. Can. 4. Orleans the fourth of q A. 633. Can. 17. Toledo that of r A. 675. Can. 2. Bracara the sixteenth of Å¿ A. 693. Can. 6. Toledo and that of t A. 691. Can. 32. Constantinople in Trullo Out of all these appears most certain that the infection of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation was not yet spread over the Christian world but that the sound Doctrine of the Body and Bloud of Christ and of their true yet spiritual not carnal Presence in the Eucharist with the Elements still the same in substance after Consecration was every where owned and maintained And though the Fathers used both ways of speaking that is that the Bread and Wine are the true
Religion For after Innocent the Third the Roman Faith was thus much o Ut supra Art 24. increased by the determination of Pope Gregory the Eleventh p A. 1371. that if it so happens the Body of Christ in the Consecrated Host may descend into a Rats belly or into a Privy or any such foul place The Council of Constance An. 1415. 28. In The fifteenth Century the Council of Constance which by a Sacrilegious attempt took away the Sacramental Cup from the People and from the Priests when they do not officiate did wrongfully condemn Wiclif who was already dead because amongst other things he had taught with the Ancients That the substance of the Bread and wine remains materially in the Sacrament of the Altar and that in the same Sacrament no accidents of Bread and Wine remain without a substance Which two Assertions are most true Card. Cameracensis An. 1420. 29. Cardinal Cameracencis who lived about the time of the Council of Constance doth not seem to own the Decree of Pope Innocent as the determination of the Church For that the Bread should still remain he confesseth a In 4. q. 6. a. 2. That it is possible That it is not against reason or the authority of the Bible But concerning the conversion of the Bread he says That clearly it cannot he inferred from Scripture nor yet from the determination of the Church as he judgeth Yet because the common opinion was otherwise he yielding to the times was fain to follow though with some reluctancy The Council of Florence An. 1439. 30. The Council of Florence which was not long after did not at all treat with the Greeks about Transubstantiation nor the Consecration of the Sacrament but left them undetermined with many other Controversies But that which is called the Armenians instruction and in this cause Instructio ad Armen and almost all Disputes is cited as the Decree of the General Council of Florence by b In 4. dist 11. q. 1. art 2. Soto c De Euch. l. 4. c. 13. Bellarmine and the Roman d Part. 2. c. 4. num 18. Catechism is no Decree of the Council as we have demonstrated e In the History of the Canon of Scripture p. 158. somewhere else but a false and forged Decree of Pope Eugenius the Fourth who doth indeed in that Instruction prescribe to the Armenians a form of Doctrine about the Sacrament saying That by vertue of the words of Christ the substance of the Bread is turned into his Body and the substance of the Wine into his Bloud But that he did it with the approbation of the Council as he often says in his Decree is proved to be altogether false as well by the Acts of the Council as by the unanswerable Arguments of f C de Cap. Font. de necess cor Schol. The. p. 51 53 56. C. de Capite Fontium Archbishop of Caesarea in his Book De necessaria Theologiae Scholasticae correctione dedicated to Pope Sixtus the Fifth for how could the Council of Florence approve that Decree which was made more than three months after it was ended It being certain that after the Council was g Ex Act. Conc. Flor. done the Armenians with Greeks having each of them signed Letters of Union which yet were not approved by all nor long in force after they were subscribed departed out of Florence July 22 whereas the Instruction was not given while November 22. Therefore by the mutual consent of both Parties was nothing here done or decreed about Transubstantiation or the rest of the Articles of the new Roman Faith But Eugenius or whoever was the Forger of the Decree put a cheat upon his Reader Perhaps he had seen the same done by Innocent the Third or Gregory the Ninth in the pretended Decrees of the Council of Lateran which were the Popes only but not the Council's And certainly it is more likely Eugenius did it rather to please himself than for any hopes he â—ould have that at his command the Armenians would receive and obey his Instruction sooner than the Greeks For to this day the h Job Lacsic de Relig Armeniorum Armenians believe that the Elements of Bread and Wine retain their nature in the Sacrament of the Eucharist 31. By these any considering person may easily see that Transubstantiation is a meer novelty not warranted either by Scripture or Antiquity invented about the middle of the Twelfth Century out of some misunderstood Sayings of some of the Fathers confirmed by no Ecclesiastick or Papal Decree before the year 1215. afterwards received only here and there in the Roman Church debated in the Schools by many disputes liable to many very bad consequences rejected for there was never those wanting that opposed it by many great and pious men until it was maintained in the Sacrilegious Council of Constance and at last in the year 1551. confirmed in the Council of i Concil Trident. Sess 13. Trent by a few Latine Bishops Slaves to the Roman See imposed upon all under pain of an Anathema to be feared by none and so spread too too far by the tyrannical and most unjust command of the k Bulla Pii 4. de profess fidei Pope So that we have no reason to embrace it untill it shall be demonstrated that except the substance of the Bread be changed into the very Body of Christ his words cannot possibly be true nor his Body present Which will never be done A Table of the places of Scripture cited in this Book EXod XII 11 21. Chap. I. Art 4 Eccl. VII 29. Chap. VII 24 St. Mat. XXVI 26. Chap. I. 1 St. Luk. XXII 19. Ibid.  St. Joh. III. 3. Chap. VI. 7 St. Joh. III. 29. Chap. VII 19 St. Joh. VI. 55. Chap. I. 5 Rom. XII 3. Chap. VI. 7 1 Cor. IV. 15. Ibid.  1 Cor. X. 16. Chap. I. 1 1 Cor. X. 3 4 Ibid.  Gal. VI. 5. Chap. VII 7 Eph. IV. 22. Ibid.  1 Pet. I. 3. Ibid.  Jude v. 3. In the Preface  A Table of the Ancient Fathers Century I. CLemens Romanns Chap. VI. Art 1 St. Ignatius Ibid. 10 Century II. Theoph. Antioch Chap. VI.  Justinus Martyr Chap. V.   VI. 1 Athenagoras Chap. VI.  Tatianus Chap. VI.  Irenaeus Chap. V.   VI. 5 Century III. Tertullian Chap. V.   VI.  Origenes Chap. V. 10  VI. 5 7 Cyprian Chap. V. 11  VI. 7 8 12 Clem. Alexand. Chap. VI. 1 7 Minutius Felix Ibid.  Arnobius Chap. V. 35 Century IV. Euseb Ceasar Chap. VI. 1 Athanasius Chap. V. 13 Cyril Hieros Ibid. 14  VI. 5 7 Juvencus Chap. VI.  Macarius Chap. VI.  Hilarius Chap. VI.  Optatus Chap. VI.  Euseb Emiss Chap. VI.  Greg. Naz. Chap. VI. 1 Cyril Alex. Chap. VI.  Epiphanius Chap. VI. 6 7 Hieronimus Chap. VI.  Theoph. Alex.