spake when consecrating the Bread and Wine he said This is my Body this is my Blood he adds the Bread is his Body just as the Manna and the Wine his Blood as the water in the Desart was There is another Sermon cited by some under the name of Wolfin Bishop of Salisbury others say 't is of Alfric Wolphinus wherein the Author uses near the same Language This Sacrifice saith he Apud Vsserium de Christianae Ecclesi Success Stat. c. 2. p. 54. is not the Body of Jesus Christ wherein he suffered for us nor his Blood which he shed but it is spiritually made his Body and blood as the Manna that fell from Heaven and the Water that sprang out of the Rock Besides these two testimonies which shew what was believed of the Sacrament in England there is a Sermon seen which was read every year to the People at Easter to keep in their minds the Idea of the Ancient Faith It is almost wholly taken out of Ratramne There is great difference saith this Homilly betwixt the Body wherein Jesus Christ suffered and the Body which is consecrated for the Eucharist for the Body wherein Jesus Christ suffered was born of the Virgin Mary and was provided with Blood Bones Nerves and Skin with bodily members and a reasonable Soul but his Spiritual Body which we call Eucharist is compos'd of several grains of Wheat without Blood without Bones Nerves and without a Soul. The Body of Christ which suffer'd death Saxon Homily and rose again shall never dye more it is eternal and immortal but the Eucharist is temporal and not eternal it is corruptible and divided into sundry parcels ground by the Teeth and goes along with the other excrements This Sacrament is a pledge and figure the Body of Jesus Christ is the Truth it self we have this pledge Sacramentally until we attain to the Truth and then the pledg shall be fulfill'd And a little lower If we consider the Eucharist after a corporal manner we see 't is a changeable and corruptible Creature but if we consider the spiritual virtue that is in it we easily see that life abides in it and that it gives immortality to those that receive it with Faith. There is great difference betwixt the invisible virtue of this Holy Sacrament and the visible form of its proper Nature By Nature it is corruptible Bread and corruptible Wine but by the virtue of the Word of God it is truly his Body and Blood yet not corporally but spiritually A little below he explains this change in saying Jesus Christ by an invisible virtue did change the Bread and Wine into his Body and Blood but 't was after the same manner as he heretofore changed Manna and the Water that came out of the Rock into the same Body and Blood. Fulcuin Abbot of the Monastry of Lobes Fulcuinus in the Country of Liege Tom. 6. Spicil de gestis Abb. Lob. p. 573. who departed this Life in the year 990. speaking of the Eucharistical Table saith That 't is the Table on which is consumed the sacred Body of our Lord which not being to be said of the proper Body cannot be understood but of the Bread which is called Body an expression which in all likelihood this Abbot had learn'd of St. Austin who saith The Bread made for that use is consumed in receiving the Sacrament That which is set on the Table is consum'd the holy celebration being ended Herriger Herriger Successor to Fulcuin and whom he that continued the History of the Abbots of Lobes Idem tom 6. p. 591. mentions as a man whose virtue and knowledg was known even to strangers he collected saith this Author several passages of Catholick Fathers against Paschasius Ratbertus touching the Body and Blood of our Lord. The Ancient Customs of the Monastry of Cluny Reprinted by the care of Dom Luke D'Achery Monastry of Cluny l. 2. ch 30. say The outside of the Challice is carefully rub'd Tom. 4. in Spec. p. 146. lest there should the least drop of the Wine and Water remain and being consecrated it should fall to the ground and perish by which it appears they believed the wine and water still remain'd after Conscration for the true Body of Jesus Christ cannot perish Again The Priest divides the Host and puts part of it into the Blood of one moiety he communicates himself Customs of the Monastry of Cluny and with the other he communicates the Deacon It cannot be so spoke of the Body of Jesus Christ then after the Priest has broke the Hest he puts part of it into the Cup after the usual manner two parts on the Patten and covers both the one and the other with a clean Cloath but first of all he very carefully rubs the Challice and shakes it with the same hand with which he touched it fearing lest that breaking the Bread there should rest some part of the Body of our Lord which cannot be said of the true Body of Jesus Christ and elsewhere is prescrib'd what should be done If there chance to remain ever so little of the Body of our Saviour which is expounded to be a very little Crum as 't were indivisible and like an Atome To conclude treating of the Communion of sick Folks Lib. 3. Ch. 28. p. 217. it is observ'd that the Body of our Lord is brought from the Church that it is broke and that the Priest holds on the Challice the part that he is to bring It must needs be that by the sense of these customs there must be Bread and Wine in the Sacrament that it may be broken and improperly called Body Ratherius Bishop of Verona saith Ratherius As to the Corporal substance which the Communicant doth receive seeing that 't is I that do now ask the Question I must also answer my self De Contemp. Canon port Spirileg Tom. 2. and I thereto yield for seeing that to him that receives worthily it is the true Body altho one sees that the Bread is the same it was before and true Blood altho the Wine is seen to be the same it was I confess I cannot say nor think what it is to him that doth receive unworthily that is to say that doth not abide in God. Now the Communicant can he receive a corporal Substance Can one say that one sees that the Bread is what 't was before if the Communicant receives no Substance It is known on the contrary that what is seen is not Bread nor Wine Moreover Ratherius condemning Drunkenness and Excess in some of his Priests saith that some of them spew'd before the Altar of our Lord upon the Body and Blood of the Lamb this can be understood only of the Sacrament which borrows the Name of the thing signifi'd the abuse whereof reflects on him that instituted it That the Authors of the ELEVENTH CENTURY did not believe Transubstantiation AGE xi THE Author of the Life
Blood of Jesus 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 virtue 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 Graecè 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies mixture 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. S. Austin Ep. 3. ad Volusen Austin is a mixture of Body and Soul the Person of Christ is a mixture of God and Man. The Epitome of Theodotus saith Theodotus 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 changed into a Spiritual force So water sanctified is become Baptism it not only retains what 's less but also acquires a sanctification The author saith The Bread is changed but when he adds that '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 AGE iii. TErtullian in his first Book against Marcion Tertullian 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 Tertulliar saith Tertullian having taken the Bread which he aristributed 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 truly 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 Academitians that question'd 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 sinelt 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
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 Ambrose 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 Gaudentius With great reason we receive with the Bread the figure of the Body of Christ Gaud. Bishop of Bress Tract â— 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 Chrysostome figura nonest veritas sed imitatio veritatis S. Chrysostom expounding these words S. Chrys Hom. 83. on S. Matth. 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 more drink the Fruit of the Vine until I drink it with you in a new manner whereof you shall bear testimony for you shall see me after my Resurrection But wherefore continues S. Chrysostom did he drink Wine after his Resurrection and not Water it is because he would thereby destroy a pernitious Heresy For because there would be Hereticks that would only make use of water in the Mysteries he would represent the Mysteries he gave Wine and when after the Resurrection he eat his common Repast he drank Wine the Fruit of the Vine now the Vine doth produce Wine and not Water This Passage marketh in the first place That Jesus Christ drinking the Fruit of the Vine after his Resurrection and not Water he accomplish'd what he said in celebrating the Eucharist I will no more drink of this Fruit of the Vine until I drink it now in my Fathers Kingdom This shews that Jesus Christ drank true Wine in the Institution of the Eucharist for what is to be done again must needs be done before Secondly St. Chrysostom doth not only say that Jesus Christ drank Wine but he saith further That he distributed Wine amongst his Disciples and the Fruit of the Vine which doth not produce Water but Wine So that these words of St. Chrysostom import clearly That the Wine remains in the Eucharist The same Father on these words of the First to the Corinthians Idem in Hom. 24. The Bread which we break is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ speaks thus What is the Bread it is the Body of Jesus Christ What becomes of them which receive it they become the Body of Jesus Christ Now this Proposition The Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ cannot be in a Literal Sense for saith Vasquez The Bread without a Figure cannot be called the Body of Jesus Christ nor the Body of Jesus Christ be called Bread. The same Father in his Commentary upon the Epistle to the Galatians Chap. 5. explaining these words of the Apostle The Flesh lusteth against the Spirit and the Spirit against the Flesh The Manicheans understood by the Flesh the substance of the Body and by the Spirit they understood the Soul and they said That the Apostle cut Man into two and intimated that Man was compos'd of two contrary Substances one bad which was the Flesh and the other good which was the Spirit which proceeded from the good God and the Body from the bad God. S. Chrysostom answers That the Apostle in this place doth not call the Flesh the Body Apostolum non hic carnem appellare Corpus as the Manicheans supposed and saith That the Apostle do's not always mean by the Flesh the nature of the Body Naturam Corporis but that very often by the Flesh he means something else as evil Desires and having proved this by sundry passages of the Apostle and other holy Writers he proves it at last by the example of the â—ucharist and of the Church which he saith is called Body in the Holy Scriptures he saith farther That the Scripture is wont to call by the name of Flesh as well the Church as the Mysteries saving It is his Body Rursum Carnis vocabulo Scriptura solet appellare tum Mysteria tum totam Ecclesiam dicens eam Christi Corpus esse It appears by these words of St. Chrysostom's That he did not believe that the Consecrated Bread and Wine were the same with the Body of Christ seeing he proves by the Eucharist that the Consecrated Bread and Wine are called Flesh and that the Word Flesh in this place is taken for something else besides Body and that he puts the Term Flesh given to the Consecrated Bread and Wine which are the Mysteries in the rank of other Terms of Flesh given to evil Desires and to the Church which are mystical and figurative Terms So St. Chrysostom believed the Bread and Wine remained and are so called the Body of Jesus Christ mystically as the Church is called the Body of Jesus Christ The same St. Chrysostom wrote a Letter to Casarius which indeed is not inserted in his Works but is found in Manuscript in the Library at Florence and it was also found in England in Archbishop Cranmer's Library it is mention'd in the Bibliotheca Patrum Printed at Collen 1618. in this Bibliotheque Tom. 4. there is found the Collections of an ancient nameless Author who wrote against the Severian and Acephalian Hereticks wherein is recited a Passage taken out of this Letter So also Monsieur de Marca Arch-Bishop of Paris acknowledges the truth of this Letter in his
under the old Testament did and we now do eat a corporal food and that we drink a corporal liquor Now by this corporal meat and drink we must understand either the accidents of Bread and Wine or the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ or the Bread and Wine it self It cannot be spoken of the first because the accidents of Bread and Wine are only qualities or dimensions now qualities and dimensions are not corporal The quality is something which is incorporeal saith Nemesius of the Soul as concerning dimensions S. Austin de genesi ad literam saith We call that a Body which taketh up some space by its length by its breadth and by its depth Nemesius gives the reason of it because saith he nothing that is immaterial is a Body for all Bodies are material There being nothing material then in the Eucharist as is suppos'd there being nothing that takes up place that is large or long or deep There is nothing corporeal in the Sacrament and by consequence nothing that can be termed corporal meat or drink Moreover when Jesus Christ speaks of corporal nourishment and drink in the Eucharist as the Fathers under the old Testament had done he speaks of bodily meat and drink S. Austin did not understand the corporal meat and drink spoke of by the Fathers of the old Testament to be only the accidents of one and the other so that S. Austin speaking in the same terms of bodily meat and drink in relation to that of the Antients he did not mean meer accidents or qualities The Body of Jesus Christ nor his Blood cannot be this corporal nourishment which S. Austin compares to that of the Fathers under the Law for by bodily meat and drink which he saith we receive in the Eucharist he means a visible subject aliud illi aliud nos sed specie visibili sispeciem visibilem intendas aliud est It remains then that in S. Austin's sense we understand by the corporal nature of the Eucharist the visible Bread the visible Wine and not their qualities and accidents The same Father in the third Book of the Trin. cap. 10. speaking of things that are taken to signify saith a thing is taken to signify either after such a manner as that the thing should subsist and remain some time as did the Brazen Serpent lift up in the Wilderness or as do the letters of the Alphabet or in such a manner as the thing taken to signify is not to subsist any long time but is to pass away and be destroy'd when the thing 't is to represent is passed away as the Bread of the Sacrament which being taken to signify passeth away and is consumed in receiving the Sacrament S. Austin there saith That the Bread of the Sacrament which is taken to signify passeth and is consumed in receiving the Sacrament Now if the Bread be destroyed and Transubstantiated by these words This is my Body then it passeth not away and is not consumed in the act of receiving The same Doctor in the seventeenth Of the City of God saith To eat Bread is in the New Testament the sacrifice of Christians and against the Enemy of the Law. l. 7. c. 20. Those saith he which read know what Melchisedeck offered where he blessed Abraham and those which are partakers see that the like sacrifice is now offer'd through all the World. How is it that the Sacrifice of Christians is to eat Bread if the Bread do not remain How is it that communicating one is partaker of what Melchisedeck offer'd if in communicating one do not receive neither Bread nor Wine The same Father in the third Book against Parmenian reproving the Donatists for forsaking the Church tells them S. Cyprian and the other Bishops did not separate themselves because they would not communicate with covetous persons and Usurers but that on the contrary they did eat with them the Bread of the Lord and drank his Cup. This passage sheweth that when S. Austin said to the new Baptised as hath been shewn that the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ it could not be understood but figuratively for here the Bread is said to be of the Lord now saith S. Athanasius that which is another's is not that other himself to whom it belongs Id quod alicujus est non idipsum est cujus est And S. Austin elsewhere distinguisheth betwixt the Bread which belongs to the Lord and the Bread which is the Lord. In Joan. Tract 59. Speaking of Judas and the other Apostles he saith of the Apostles they ate the Bread which was the Lord and of Judas He did eat the Bread of the Lord against the Lord they ate life he Death for 't is said by S. Paul That he which eateth unworthily eateth his own judgment and condemnation Seeing then that the Eucharist is distinguish'd from the Lord it necessarily follows That Bread remains in the Sacrament after Consecration The same Father in his 33 Sermon of the Words of our Lord saith The Lord gave to his Disciples the Blessed Sacrament with his own hands but we were not at the Banquet nevertheless by faith we daily eat the same Supper and do not think that it had been any great advantage to have been present at that Supper that he gave with his own hands to his Disciples without Faith Faith afterwards was of greater advantage than treachery was then St. Paul who believed was not there present and Judas who betray'd his Master was present How many be there now that come to the Communien that although they did not see that Table and though they never saw with their Eyes nor tasted with their Palate the Bread which the Lord held in his hands nevertheless because the same Supper is still prepared do there eat and drink their own damnation It plainly appears That the Bread which St. Austin saith our Saviour had in his hands during the Sacrament was true Bread because St. Austin saith that those who at present participate of the Sacrament do not Tast nor Eat the Bread which our Saviour held in his hands and which he distributed and of which the Disciples did formerly eat The same Father teaching that the Good might participate of the Divine Sacraments with the Wicked saith Lib. Con. Donat c. 6. de ipso quippe Pane de ipsa Dominica Manu c. Judas and Peter had each of them a part of the same Bread which they received at the same hand of the Lord and nevertheless what society or likeness was there betwixt Peter and Judas In the 7th chap. the wicked and the good hear the same Word of God do partake of the same Sacraments and eat the same holy nourishment Now what is this holy Food What is this Bread whereof one receives one Portion and another another Part Are they Accidents But Accidents are neither Bread nor Food It is not the real Body of Jesus Christ for it cannot be received by Parcels it must then
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 AGE viii 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 Beda out of which the Jews had been deliver'd proceeded to the new Passover which the Church celebrates in remembrance of His Redemption In Lucae 22. in Marc. 14. in Hom quadrages Feria 3◠palmarum the figure of his Body to the end that instead of the Flesh and Blood of the Lamb substituting the Sacrament stead 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 Rom. 4.11 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 Sanctis in Epiphania he saith That Jesus Christ the Heavenly Lamb having been offer'd up and transfer'd into the creatures of Bread and VVine the Mystery of his Passion and thereby became a Priest for ever after the Order of Melchisedeck And elsewhere he saith Hom. aest c. 55 in Virg. St. Joan. Bapt. Melchisedeck Priest of the most high God did long before the time of the legal Priesthood offer up Bread and VVine 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 VVine do remain in the Sacrament of the Eucharist Sedulius 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 Frier Jo. Damascen 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 Damascen 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 Hely 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 Concil Constant Act. 6. 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 Conc. Const 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 beleieved 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 Alcuinus saith that the Sanctification of this Mystery doth foreshew to us the effect of our Salvation Ep. 69. 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 In Joan. c. 13. v. 15. 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 Carol. M. De Offic. Septuag ad Aluin 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 Ambrosian Office. there was this Clause which is still to be seen in the 4th Book of St. Ambrose his Sacraments Nobis hanc oblationem adscriptam rationabilem acceptabilem quod est figura Corporis Sanguinis Domâ—ni nostri Jesu Christi The Ancient Roman Order doth frequently call the Bread and VVine the Body and Blood of the Lord Ordo Romen 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 Bedy of Jesus Christ and that one breaks off part of it 4thly It adds he is to take great heed that no part of the Body and Blood of the Lord doth remain in the Chalice or on the Plate By these words the Roman Order gives us to understand that it speaks of such a Body and Blood that a part of it may be separated from the whole Now this is what can only be said of the Bread and Wine improperly called the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ The now Roman Order at present used in the Church of Rome doth also furnish us with the like reflections It expresly marketh That Jesus Christ gave in the Oblation Ordo Romanus Bread and VVine to celebrate the Mysteries of his Body and Blood. Therein is desired That this Blessed Oblation may be accepted of God in such a manner as that it might be made to us the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ after all which is recited the History of the Institution and the Sacramental words The Eucharist is called the Sacred Bread of Eternal Life ond the Cup the Cup of everlastiug Salvation To conclude They pray God to behold those Gifts and that he will accept them as he did the offering of Abel and the Sacrifice of Melchisedeck which it's very well known was Bread and Wine All which doth plainly shew That the Roman Order at this time observed cannot reasonably be interpreted but in supposing that the Bread and Wine remain in the Eucharist after Consecration That the Fathers of the NINTH CENTURY did not believe Transubstantiation THeodorus Studita AGE ix as is related by Michael Studita in Baronius in the year 816. N. 15. seeing himself reduced to the extremity of being starv'd said to his Disciple If men are so crvel as to make me perrish with hunger Thecdorus Studita the participation of the Body and Blood of the Lord which is the ordinary food of my Body and Soul shall be my only nourishment Now the real Body of Jesus Christ cannot be the nourishment of the Body therefore of necessity this Author must be understood to speak of Bread which is his Body figuratively and improperly It is what is also confirm'd by this Michael Studita who saith in the same place that Theodore had always about him some parcels of the quickning Body of the Lord which cannot be meant of the true Body of Jesus Christ which is not now subject to be broken nor divided Ahyto Bishop of Basil Ahyto sent Ambassador by Charlemaine in the year 814 to Constantinople to Treat a Peace with the Emperor of the East as is declared by the Annals of France by Eginhart Author of the Life of
Charlemaine the Annals of Fulda Herman Contract and others This Ahyto died in the year 836 and left a Capitulary for instruction of the Priests of his Diocess publisht by Dom Luke D'achery in the Sixth Tome of his Spicilegium pag. 692. AGE viii now amongst many other Instructions he gives his Priests in his Capitularies this is one In the fifth place the Priest should know what the Sacrament of Baptism and Confirmation is Ahyto and also what the Mystery of the body and blood of our Lord doth mean. How a visible creature is seen in the same Mysteries and is nevertheless the invisible Salvation is communicated for the Souls eternal happiness which is contained in faith only By visible creature he can only mean a creature not in appearance but effective for otherwise according to this Author it must be said that in Baptism and Confirmation there should be only an apparent creature and not the substance of water and chrism Besides Ahyto attributed the same effect to these three Sacraments to wit the communication of eternal and invisible salvation to them that with faith do receive these holy Sacraments Theodulphus in the year 810. Bishop of Orleans Theodulphus saith in his Treatise of the Order of Baptism There is one saving sacrifice which Melchisedeck also offer'd under the Old Testament in Type of the body and blood of our Saviour the which the Mediator of God and Man accemplished under the New before he was crucify'd when taking the bread and wine he blessed and gave them to his Disciples commanding them to do those things in remembrance of him It is this Mystery which the Church doth celebrate having put an end to the ancient sacrifices offering bread because of the bread which came down from Heaven and wine because of him which said I am the true Vine to the end that by the visible Oblation of Priests and by the invisible consecration of the Holy Ghost the bread and wine should have the dignity of the body and blood of our Lord with which blood there is mingled some water either because there came out of the side of our Saviour water with the blood Or because according to the Interpretation of our Ancestors as Jesus Christ is signify'd by the wine so also the people is signify'd by the water Now this Bishop saying that Jesus Christ gave bread to his Disciples in commemoration that this Mystery is an Oblation of visible bread which is consecrated by the Holy Spirit and which receiveth the dignity of the body that he indifferently calls the blood wine and the wine blood that with the blood water is mingled and that Jesus Christ is signify'd by the wine that 't is said the wine signifies Jesus Christ as the water doth the people these words cannot suppose any Transubstantiation The Opposers of Paschasius Radbertus Frier of the Monastry of Corby who wrote a Book of the body and blood of Jesus Christ did not believe Transubstantiation Opposers of Paschasius Radbertus That the said Paschasius had several adversaries appears by his own Writings for towards the end of his Commentary upon St. Matthew he saith himself I have inlarged upon the Lords Supper a little more than the brevity of a Commentary would permit because there be several others that are of a different judgment touching these holy Mysteries and that several are blind and do not perceive that this bread and cup is nothing else but what is seen with the eyes and tasted with the palate And in his Epistle to Frudegard as well as in his Commentary on St. Matthew ch 12. it appears he had Opposers because in his Epist to Frudegard he saith You advise with me touching a thing that many do make doubt of And in his Commentary I am told that many saith he do censure me as if I had attributed to the words of our Lord either more or something quite contrary to what the genuine sense permits So that Paschasius had adversaries and they did not believe Transubstantiation because they held that in the Eucharist there was only the virtue of the flesh and not the very flesh the virtue of the blood and not the very blood of Christ That the Eucharist was figure and not verity shadow of the body and not the body it self They would saith Paschasius extenuate the word body and perswade Quod non sit vera caro Christi sed quaedam virtus figura corporis Christi Now Paschasius Rathbertus was the first Author that wrote fully and seriously of the truth of the body and blood of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist as Bellarmin saith de Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis in Paschasio Ratherto And Father Sirmond saith he is the first that hath explain'd the sense of the Church touching this Mystery so that saith he he hath opened the way to others In vitae Ratherti praefixa ejus operibus Therefore it is nothing strange that Paschasius had enemies and that he was accused for departing from the common Faith and to have spread abroad Visions of a young Man. For he saith to Frudegard You have saith he at the end of this Work the Authorities of Catholick Fathers succinctly marked by which you may perceive that 't was not through rashness that formerly when I was young I believed these things but by Divine authority He also endeavours to clear himself from this charge in alledging passages as of Saint Austins the which nevertheless are not to be found in him as these words Receive in the Bread what hung on the Cross receive in the Cup what issued out of the side of Jesus Christ. Which is not to be found in St. Austin Rabanus Archbishop of Mayance in the year 847 AGE ix stiled by Baronius in the year 843 No. 31. the bright Star of Germany Fulgens Germaniae Sidus saith in his Institution of Clerks Lib. 1. cap. 31. Rabanus Our Saviour liked better that believers should receive with their mouth the Sacraments of his Body and Blood and that they should be turned into their nourishment to the end that by the visible work the invisible effect should be shewn For as the material food doth materially nourish the Body and support it so also the VVord of God doth nourish the Soul inwardly and doth strengthen it And in the same place The Sacrament is one thing and the virtue of the Sacrament is another The Sacrament is turned into the nourishment of the Body but by the virtue of the Sacrament one acquires everlasting life As the Sacrament therefore is turn'd into our selves when we do cat and drink it so also we are converted into the Body of Jesus Christ when we live with piety and obedience The same Doctor on St. Matthew Chap. 26. saith with Venerable Beda that Jesus Christ hath substituted instead of the flesh and blood of the Pascal Lamb the Sacrament of his Body and Blood. That the Creator of the World and the Redeemer of Mankind
making of the very fruits of the Earth that is to say of Bread and VVine a fit Mystery turn'd it into the Sacrament of his Body and Blood that unleavensd Bread and VVine mixt with water must be sanctified to be the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Afterwards he gives the reason wherefore our Saviour chose Bread and Wine to make them Sacraments of his Flesh and Blood and saith that 't is because Melchisedeck offer'd Bread and VVine and that Jesus Christ being a Priest after the Order of Melchisedeck he was to imitate his Oblation And shewing the reason why the Sacrament takes the name of the body and blood of the Lord he saith with Isidore Archbishop of Sevil 'T is because bread strengthens the body it is conveniently called the body of Jesus Christ and because wine augments blood in the flesh and veins for this reason it is compar'd to the blood Now both these things are visible nevertheless being sanctify'd by the Holy Ghost they pass into the Sacrament of the Divine body A Sacrament which in the 33 chap. he calls the Mystical body of Jesus Christ in opposition to his Natural body from which he distinguishes it and draws a resemblance from the Mystical body to the proper body of Jesus Christ The holy Vessels saith he are set on the Altar viz. the Cup and Patten which in some sort are the figure of the Grave of Jesus Christ for as at that time the Body of Jesus Christ was laid in the Sepulcher having been embalm'd by godly people so also at present the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ as it were imbalm'd with holy Prayers Rabanus is kept in the holy Vessels to be administred to Believers by the hands of the Ministers The same Doctor in his Penitential or Letter to Herribald Bishop of Auxerre which Monsieur Baluze got Printed at the end of his Regino at Paris in 1671 saith Chap. 33. As to what you demand of me whether the Sacrament after it is eat and consum'd and cast into the draft after the manner of all other meats does return to the former nature it had before 't was consecrated at the Altar to such a needless question may be reply'd The Lord himself said in the Gospel that what enters into the body goes into the helly and is cast into the draft As for the Sacrament of the Body and blood it is made of corporeal and visible things but it produceth an invisible sanctification as well to the body as to the soul What reason is there that that which is digested in the stomack and is cast out into the draft should return to its former state there being never any that affirmed that such a thing was done For of late some persons not having a right judgment of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ have said that the same Body and the same Blood of the Lord which was born of the Virgin Mary and in which the Lord suffered on the Cross and rose again from the Dead is the same which is taken at the Altar against which Error we have as much as was necessary written to the Abbot Egilon Explaining what ought truly to be believed of the Body of Christ in the Eucharist Amalarius Amalarius esteemed a very Learned man in the Manuscripts cited by Dom Luke D'achery a Learned Benedictin in his Preface to the Seventh Tome of his Spicilegium was sent by the Emperor Charles le Debonnair to Pope Gregory to find out Antiphonaries Amalar. in Prolog Antiphon and who by express command of the same Emperor was chosen in a Council held at Aix la Chappel Anno 816 to make Rules for Prebends as is testified by Ademar a Monk of Angoulism in his Chronicle on the year 816 saith in his Treatise of Church-Offices Lib. 3. cap. 25. That the Sacrament is to us instead of Jesus Christ The Friest saith he bows and recommends to God the Father that which was offered in the room of Jesus Christ In the 26th chap. he saith The Oblation and the Cup do signifie the Body of the Lord when Jesus Christ said This is the Cup of my Blood he sanctified his Blood which Blood was in the Body as the Wine is in the Chalice In the third Book chap. 25. he calls the Eucharist the Sacrament of Bread and Wine and saith that Jesus Christ hath in this bread recommended his Body and in the Cup his Blood. The same Amalarius having been consulted by Rangart Bishop of Noyon Amal. ad Rangart Tom. 7. Spicilegii pag. 166. how he understood those words of Institution of the Eucharist This is the Cup in my Blood of the New and Eternal Testament with this addition which is in the Cannon of the Mass the Mystery of Faith answers him by a Letter wherein after having spoken of the Cup of the Passover he proceeds to that of the Eucharist and having alledged what is mention'd by St. Luke he adds The Cup is in type of my Body wherein is the Blood that shall run out of my side to accomplish the ancient Law and after it is shed it shall be the New Testament And a little lower he saith The Mystery is Faith as St. Austin saith in his Letter to the Bishop Boniface as the Sacrament of the Body of Jesus Christ is in some manner the Body of Jesus Christ and the Sacrament of his Blood his Blood so the Sacrament of Faith is Faith. So also we may say This is the Cup of my Blood of the New and Eternal Testament As if he should say This is my Blood which is given for you The same Doctor in a Letter which he wrote to one Gontard whom he calls his Son saith That it is our Saviours good pleasure to shed his Blood by the Members and Veins for our Eternal Salvation That 't is a body of Jesus Christ that may be cast out in spitting after having receiv'd it and of which a part may be flung out of the mouth To all which he adds having so received the body of the Lord with a good intention I don't pretend to dispute whether he be invisibly lifted up to Heaven or whether he remains in our Body till the day of our Death or whether he evaporates into Air or whether he issues out of the Body with the Blood or whether he goes out at the pores our Saviour saying All that enters in at the Mouth goes down into the Belly and from thence into the draft c. Now when this great Man saith That the Sacrament is to us in the stead of Jesus Christ that what is offered in the Eucharist is sacrific'd instead of Jesus Christ that the Cup is in Type of the Body that the Blood is in the Body as the Wine is in the Cup that Jesus Christ represents his Body by the Bread and his Blood in the Wine that the Sacrament of the Body is in some sort his Body and that 't
is so that the Cup of the Blood is his Blood that the Body is poured forth upon our Members for our Salvation that there is a Body of Jesus Christ that may be cast out by spitting and whereof some part may be flung out of the Mouth That he will not dispute whether this Body evaporates in the Air or whether it departs out of the body with the blood or whether it goes out at the pores or into the Draft all this doth sufficiently shew That this Doctor distinguished the Bread and Wine as a Typical body from the real Body of Jesus Christ and that by consequence he believed the bread and wine remained after Consecration to be called the body and blood of Jesus Christ but improperly Valafridus Strabo Valafridus Strabo Abbas Augiensis stiled a very Learned Man by Herman Contracted in the year 849. Jesus Christ said he gave to his Disciples the Sacrament of his Body and Blood in the substance of bread and wine Lib. de Reb. Eccles c. 16. Bill p. 7. to 10. teaching them to celebrate it in remembrance of his most holy Passion because there could nothing be found fitter than these things to signify the unity of the Head and Members for as Bread is made of sundry Grains and brought into one body by means of Water and as the Wine is squeez'd from several Grapes so also the body of Jesus Christ is made of the anion of a multitude of Saints And a little after he declares That Jesus Christ hath chose for us a very fit Sacrifice for the Mystery of his body and blood in that Melchisedeck having offer'd bread and wine he gave to his Children the same kinds of Sacraments And afterwards cap. 18. That for that great Number of Legal Ordinances Jesus Christ gave us the word of his Gospel so also instead of the great diversity of Sacrifices Believers are to rest satisfied with the sole Oblation of bread and wine It is evident Strabo makes the Holy Sacrament to consist in the substance of bread and wine which according to him is differenced from the body because it is but the memorial of it That 't is the figure that it consists in being made of sundry Grains and the Wine of sundry Grapes That the Sacrifice of the New Testament is of the same kind as that of Melchisedeck and that the Eucharist is an Oblation of bread and wine All these things intimate that the bread and wine remain in the Eucharist after Consecration Herribald was Bishop of Auxerre Herribald in the time that Vallafridus Strabo wrote Tom. 2. ch 19.52 and 61. Now he was of the same Opinion with Rabanus Thomas Waldensis assures us so Herribald of Auxerre saith he and Rabanus of Mayence say That the Sacrament of the Eucharist goes into the Draft The Anonimous Author contemporary with Herribald which was published by Father Cellot the Jesuit saith also the same Nevertheless Lupus Abbot of Ferriers Ep. 19. speaking of him calls him a most excellent Prelate excellentissimum Praesulem In the 37th Ep. he stiles him a Man of a lofty and Divine understanding Altissimi Divini ingenii And Hinemarus Archbishop of Reims calls him the Bishop of Venerable Qualities De Praed ch 6. So that the very Chronicle of Auxerre intimates that there was ingrav'd on his Monument this Inscription Here lies the body of St. Herribald Therefore the Author of the 1st Treatise of the Perpetuity of the Eucharist saith in page 843 That Herribald and Rhabanus were Adversaries to Pascasius Tho in the 2d Treatise of the Perpetuity in page 842. he saith speaking of the Minister Claude who told him that Amalarius and Herribald were in any wise Adversaries to Paschas It appears by the Letter Paschasius wrote to Frudegard Frndegardus that he was not of the same Judgment Paschasius was of seeing he opposes to him St. Austin's 23d Letter to Boniface Sic VVidefort contra VVickliff ad art 1. * Trithem de Script Eccles Ratramne Priest and Frier of Corby experienc'd in the Scriptures Ratramnus equally esteem'd for his Learning and Manners whom †De Praedest Hinemar ‖ Ep. 79. Lupus Abbot of Ferriers his Contemporaries ₠De Script Eccles Sigebert who liv'd in the xi Century and Father ‡ De Euchr. ch 1. Cellot the Jesuits Anonimus do all make mention of under his true name of Ratramne wrote a Book under the Reign of Charles the Bald as is reported by the same Trythemius which he intitul'd Of the Body and Blood of the Lord From a Monk of Corby he was made Abbot of Ovais The President ₠Maug dissert Hist Chron. c. 17. tom 2. pag. 133 135. Mauguin speaking of him saith he was a Learned Doctor of the Church eminent in Probity and in Doctrine an undaunted defender and protector of the Catholick Truth against Innovators He dedicated his Book to the Emperor Charles the Bald. Now this Author did not believe Transubstantiation because he saith For as to the substance of those Creatures they are after Consecration what they were before they were before bread and wine and it is plainly seen that after Consecration these created substances do remain in the very same species And a little after he saith Ratramnus in the Apology of the Fathers is stiled a learn'd Benedictin Defender of Grace a Man of great Wisdom and Reputation and in the 1st treatise of the Perpetuity p. 3. c. 5. he is stiled an obscure kind of a person that evaporated himself in obscure Reasonings which he added to those of the Church and explained as he pleased himself as some are pleased to say This spiritual flesh which spiritually feeds Believers is made of grains of Wheat by the hands of the Baker such as it appears to our sight but it hath neither bones nor sinews nor no distinction of parts nor is it enliven'd with a Soul or reasonable substance To conclude it is unable to move of it self and if it gives life it is the effect of a spiritual virtue of an invisible and a Divine Virtue and Efficacy A little after he saith again As the Water represents the People in the Sacrament if it were true that the Bread consecrated by Ministers was corporally changed into the Body of Jesus Christ it must also necessarily follow that the water which is mingled with it were changed into the blood of the faithful people for where there is but one sanctification there ought to be but one operation and the Mystery should be equal where the Reason of the Mystery is the same It is evident there is no corporal change in the water and by consequence there is no corporal change to be expected in the wine All that is said of the Body of the people represented by water is understood spiritually it is then a necessary consequence that what is said of the blood of Jesus Christ represented by