more drink the Fruit of the Vine until I drink it with you in a new manner whereof you shall bear testimony for you shall see me after my Resurrection But wherefore continues S. Chrysostom did he drink Wine after his Resurrection and not Water it is because he would thereby destroy a pernicious Heresy For because there would be Hereticks that would only make use of water in the Mysteries be would represent the Mysteries he gave Wine 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 new in my Fathers Kingdom This shews that Jesus Christ drank true Wine in the Institution of the Eucharist for what is to be done again must needs be done before Secondly St. Chrysostom doth not only say that Jesus Christ drank Wine but he saith further That he distributed Wine amongst his Disciples and the Fruit of the Vine which doth not produce Water but Wine So that these words of St. Chrysostom import clearly That the Wine remains in the Eucharist The same Father on these words of the First to the Corinthians 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 Iucharist 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 Consecraeted Bread and Wine are called Flesh and that the Word Flesh in this place is taken for something else besides Body and that he puts the Term Flesh given to the Consecrated Bread and Wine which are the Mysteries in the rank of other Terms of Flesh given to evil Desires and to the Church which are mystical and figurative Terms So St. Chrysostom believed the Bread and Wine remained and are so called the Body of Jesus Christ mystically as the Church is called the Body of Jesus Christ. The same St. Chrysostom wrote a Letter to Caesarius which indeed is not inserted in his Works but is sound in Manuscript in the Library at Florence and it was also found in England in Archbishop Cranmer's Library it is mention'd in the Bibliotheca Patrum Printed at Collen 1618. in this Bibliotheque Tom. 4. there is found the Collections of an ancient nameless Author who wrote against the Severian and Acephalian Hereticks wherein is recited a Passage taken out of this Letter So also Monsieur de Marca Arch-Bishop of Paris acknowledges the truth of this Letter in his Posthume and French Treatise of the Eucharist witness the Abbot Fagget in his Letter to Monsieur de Marca President of the Parliament at Pan who saith also this Letter was found by Monsieur Bigot in a Library at Florence St. Chrysostom in this Letter writeth against Apollinarius and saith Jesus Christ is both God and Man God because of his Impassibility Man by his Passion one Son one Lord both Natures united making but one the same Power the same Dominion although they be two different Natures each conserves its own Nature because they are two and yet without confusion for as the Bread before it is sanctified is called Bread when by the intercession of the Priest Divine Grace has sanctified it it loses the name of Bread and becomes worthy to be called the Body of Jesus Christ although the Nature of Bread abides in it so that they are not two Bodies but one sole Body of the Son so the Divine Nature being united to the Humane Nature of Jesus Christ it did not make two Persons but one only Person and one Son. St. Chrysostom saith plainly That the Nature of Bread abideth after Consecration and this Father's Argument would be of no validity if this nature of the Bread was nothing but in shew for Apollinarius might have made another opposite Argument and say That indeed it might be said there were two Natures in Jesus Christ but that the Humane Nature was only in appearance as the Bread in the Eucharist is but in shew and hath only outward and visible qualities remaining in it whereby it is term'd to be Bread. The Author of the imperfect Work upon St. Matthew written in the time of the Emperour Theodosius did not believe Transubstantiation when he spake in these Terms in Homily Eleventh If it be dangerous to employ the holy Vessels about common uses wherein the true Body of Jesus Christ is not contain'd but the Mysteries of his Body how much rather the Vessels of our Bodies which God has prepared to dwell in That the Fathers of the FIFTH CENTURY did not believe Transubstantiation S. Jerom in his Epistle to Eustochium speaking of Virgins saith That when they were reproved for Drunkenness they excus'd themselves by adding Sacriledge to Drunkenness saying God forbid that I should abstain from the Blood of the Lord. In the Second Book against Jovinian
Doctrine But to shew evidently that 't was but in the last Ages that this opinion was made an Article of Faith we need only consult the Doctors of the Primitive Church and see if they have effectively explain'd the Eucharist by the Systeme of Transubstantiation That the Fathers of the SECOND CENTURY did not believe Transubstantiation S. Iustin Martyr saith That after the common Prayers were ended there was presented to the chief of the Brethren which was God's Minister the Bread and the Wine mixt with Water which he receiv'd into his hands and giving thanks and glory to the Father of Heaven and Earth through Iesus Christ his Son and the Holy Ghost c. and the said President or Minister having ended his thanksgiving the People having all said Amen those whom we call Deacons and Ministers attending on this Holy Service give to every one present at the Holy Communion part of this Holy Bread so blessed and glorify'd and also of the Holy liquor mixt of Wine and Water upon which Prayers had been made And a little lower Behold Lord we do not receive this Bread nor this Wine as common Bread and Wine but as Iesus Christ is become Flesh and Blood by the Word so also the nourishment which by the Word is become a Sacrament and of which by conversion and change our flesh and Blood are nourish'd is as we have learned the Flesh and Blood of Iesus Christ incarnate If St. Iustin had believed that the substance of the Bread Wine and Water had been changed after Consecration so that they had been destroy'd how could he have said that after Consecration the Deacons did distribute to the People the Bread the Wine and the Water Secondly When he saith we do not take this Bread and Wine as common Bread and Wine this language amongst the antient Doctors intimates that both the one and the other do still subsist but that by Consecration they have acquir'd a new use and quality As when Cyril of Ierusalem Catech. 3. Ad Illum saith Approach not to Baptism as to common Water Or as Gregory Nyssen saith of Baptism Do not despise the Holy Font and look not upon it as common Water To conclude this blessed Martyr saith Our Body and Blood are nourish'd by the change of the Eucharistical food which converts and turns it self into our Flesh and Blood. These words plainly shew that 't is the Bread and Wine which are turn'd into our Substance into our Flesh and into our Blood seeing that 't is certain that the real Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ is not converted into our Flesh and Blood. So when Iustin saith That the Sacramental Food is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ that imports that 't is not common Bread and Wine but a Bread and Wine which is to be consider'd as the Flesh and Blood of the Word incarnate S. Irenaeus proves against Valentine and his followers that our Bodies shall not be destroy'd and by consequence that they shall be raised incorruptible by receiving the Sacrament as the Bread of the Eucharist becomes supernatural by the invocation of the Holy Ghost We establish in the Eucharist saith S. Irenaeus the Communion and unity of the Flesh and of the Spirit for as the Bread which is of the Earth receiving the invocation of God is no longer common Bread but is the Sacrament compos'd of two things one Terrestrial and the other Celestial So also our Bodies which receive the Eucharist are no longer corruptible but have the Hope of a future Resurrection This passage doth suppose that the Bread remains in the Eucharist in the first place because if Consecration did destroy the substance of the Bread and Wine it must be confess'd the Holy Doctor had taken wrong measures to shew that the Flesh is not destroy'd by the grace of the Holy Spirit by the Bread of the Eucharist which it self should be destroy'd by the grace of the Spirit which comes upon it Secondly Because a little before Irenaeus saith How is it they say the Flesh shall be destroy'd and turn to corruption seeing it is nourish'd with the body and blood of Christ Now the Flesh is fed by the conversion of nourishment into the body which not being to be said of Iesus Christ is only to be apply'd to the Bread. Moreover these words That the Eucharist is compos'd of two things sufficiently shew that the Bread remains for to say Irenaeus means by a Terrestrial thing the accidents of Bread Wine besides that S. Austin saith in the second Book of Soliloquies Chap. 12. that 't is a thing monstrous to say that accidents subfist without a subject Irenaeus also himself saith Book 2. cap. 14. that Water cannot be without moisture Fire without heat a Stone without hardness For these things are so united that the one cannot be separated from the other but the one must subsist in the other So in like manner by this Terrestrial thing must be understood the Bread as S. Gregory Naz. saith in his fourth Oration according to Bilius his version Baptism also is compos'd of two things Water and the Spirit the one is visible and is meant in a corporal manner but the other is invisible and operates after a spiritual manner the one is Typical the other cleanseth that which is inward and most hidden Clement of Alexandria saith the same in different terms The Blood of Christ is twofold the one is carnal whereby we are deliver'd from corruption the other is spiritual whereby we are anointed and that is to drink the Blood of Iesus Christ to be partakers of the incorruption of the Lord. Now the virtue of the Word is the Holy Spirit as the Blood is the vertue of the Flesh. By Analogy then the Wine mixt with Water as the Spirit with Man and this mixture makes the Wine the pleasanter to drink but the Spirit leadeth to incorruption Now this mixture of the one with the other to wit of the Wine and the Word is called Eucharist which is highly esteem'd whereby those who worthily partake of it by Faith are sanctify'd both in their Body and Soul. When Clement of Alexandria said that the Eucharist is a mixture of Wine and the Word it is a composition a mixture which could not be if there was but the Word only in the Eucharist For a mixture is at least of two things So the Fathers have called Jesus Christ a mixture of God and Man. The Body of Man saith S. Austin is a mixture of Body and Soul the Person of Christ is a mixture of God and Man. The Epitome of Theodotus saith The Bread and Oyl are sanctified by the virtue of the name and they remain not what they were before though to look on them they seem to be the same but by virtue they are are changed into a Spiritual force So water sanctified is become Baptism it not only retains what 's less but also
acquires a sanctification The author saith The Bread is changed but when he adds that 't is into a Spiritual virtue he quite excludes the change of its substance for by virtue and Spiritual cannot be understood any other change but that of virtue and quality seeing this Author speaks of this change as being common to the Water of Baptism to the Oyl of Unction and to the Bread of the Eucharist That the Fathers of the THIRD CENTURY did not believe Transubstantiation TErtullian in his first Book against Marcion shewing that Jesus Christ is not contrary to the Creator as this Heretick affirm'd saith in his 14th Chap. Hitherto Jesus Christ has not condemn'd the Water wherewith he cleanseth his Children nor the Oyl wherewith he anoints them nor the Hony nor the Milk whereby he makes them his Children nor the Bread by which he represents his body By this passage the Bread represents the Body of Jesus Christ therefore the Bread remains in the Sacrament and this Bread is not really Jesus Christ because what doth represent is another thing than what is represented Two things have been said on this place of Tertullian first that the Bread signifies the accidents of Bread the second that the Word represent does signify in this place to make present As when in a Court of Justice a Prisoner is made appear as often as he is demanded Against the former there 's no reason to believe that Tertullian speaking of Water of Oyl of Hony and Milk should intend to speak of their accidents but of their very substance and that speaking of Bread he should speak only of its accidents Against the second it 's most certain that in matter of Sacraments the term to signify is taken literally to signify S. Austin saith Ep. 5. the signs when applyed to Holy things are called Sacraments Tertullian explains himself clearly Lib. 3. against Marcion so that there 's no cause of doubting when he saith That Jesus Christ has given to the Bread the priviledge of being the figure of his Body The same Tertullian lib. 4. contra Marcion cap. 40. doth prove that Jesus Christ had a real Body and not one in shew only as Marcion dream'd and he proves it by this argument That which hath a figure ought to be real and true now Jesus Christ hath in the Eucharist a figure of his Body therefore the Body of Jesus Christ is real and true and not a Phantome Jesus Christ saith Tertullian having taken the Bread which he distributed amongst his Disciples he made it his Body saying This is the figure of my Body now it had been no figure if Jesus Christ had not had a real and true Body for an empty thing as a Phantasm is is not capable of having any figure From hence 't is concluded that the Bread being the figure of the Body of Jesus Christ and that which is a figure being distinguished from the thing signified the Bread of the Eucharist is not properly and truely the Body of Jesus Christ and so the Bread is not destroy'd but remains to be the figure of the Body of Jesus Christ. If it be said the Bread is destroy'd and that the accidents of Bread are the figure of the Body of Jesus Christ this gives up the victory to Marcion to prove that Jesus Christ had a true Body and not one in shew only because Jesus Christ hath in the Eucharist the figure of Bread which is Bread only in appearance Marcion might have retorted the argument and said according to you Tertullian the Sacrament is the figure of the Body of Jesus Christ now as this figure is Bread in appearance and is called Bread only because of the outward accidents and qualities which it retains so also the Body of Jesus Christ was only a Body in appearance and was called a Body because it had the outward accidents and qualities Again as Tertullian saith That Jesus Christ distributed to his Disciples the Bread which he had taken to make it the figure of his Body it is most certain he took true Bread and by consequence that he distributed true Bread. The same Tertullian in his Treatise of the Soul disputing against the Accademitians that questioned the truth of the testimony of the Senses saith to them that we must not at all doubt of the testimony of the Senses lest occasion might farther be taken to doubt the actions of the humanity of Jesus Christ that it might not be said That it was untrue that he saw Satan fall from Heaven That it was not true that he heard the Father's voice from heaven bearing witness to his Son That he was deceived when he touched Peter's Wifes Mother That he was deceived when he smelt the sweet odour which he was pleas'd to accept for the preparation to his Death or That he tasted the Wine that he consecrated in remembrance of his Blood. It is evident that to consecrate Wine in remembrance of Blood cannot be understood of a substance which is destroy'd all saving the accidents This manner of expression in the language of the Ancients signifying no more but that a substance remains always in its first state only attains to a higher degree which is to be the Sacrament of a Heavenly and supernatural thing To conclude if Tertullian had believed that the Wine had been destroy'd and that nothing but the appearance was left against the testimony of all the Senses had it not been an unpardonable fault in Tertullian to prove that the Senses could not be deceived by the Example of the Eucharist where the Senses are quite deceived Origen did not believe Transubstantiation when he said in his Commentary on the 13th Chap. of S. Matth. expounding these words of the Gospel what enters into the Mouth defiles not the Man c. as there 's nothing that 's impure of it self to him that 's polluted and incredulous but a thing is impure by reason of his impurity and incredulity so also that which is sanctifyed by the word of God and Prayer doth not sanctify by its proper nature him that uses it If it were so it would also sanctify him that cats unworthily of the Lord and none should have been weak nor sick nor should have fallen asleep by reason of so eating If all that enters into the Mouth goes into the Belly and there is cast out into the draught this food which is sanctifyed by the word of God and by Prayer goes also into the Belly and is cast out into the draught according to its material substance But according to the Prayer which has been thereunto added it becomes profitable according to the measure of Faith by causing the mind to become inlightned having regard to what is profitable And 't is not the matter of Bread but the words which have been pronounc'd upon it that avails him which eateth in such a manner as is not unworthy of the Lord and this may be said of the
Jesus Christ as they are the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ. To conclude St. Austin saith The Faith of the New-baptized was to be strengthened it was therefore here the proper place for him to have said That the Bread was no more Bread that the Wine was no longer Wine but that there remained only the Accidents of the one and the other The same Holy Father answering Bishop Boniface who desired to know how it might be said of an Infant newly Baptis'd he hath Faith he Believes who is incapable of believing and of whom no assurance can be given what he will be afterwards he saith That as every Sunday and Easter Day is called Easter and the Resurrection although the Lords Easter and Resurrection are things happened several Ages past so it may be said An Infant hath Faith because he hath the Sacrament of Faith. For saith he if the Sacraments had not some resemblance with the things whereof they are Sacraments they would be no Sacraments as therefore in some sort the Sacrament of the Body of Jesus Christ is the Body of Jesus Christ and the Sacrament of his Blood is the Blood of Christ so also the Sacrament of Faith is Faith now to believe is nothing else but to have Faith. He saith The Eucharist is called Flesh and Blood because it is both the one and the other in some sort now according to St. Gregory Nyssen What is not truly that by the name by which it is called is but figuratively or improperly that by the name whereof it is called Now that the Bread and Wine which are the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are his Body and Blood in some sort secundum quendam modum it follows The Bread and Wine are not properly the Flesh and Blood and by consequence are not Transubstantiated Moreover St. Austin doth explain the Manner according to which the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ and he shews it by reason that generally the signs are called by the name of the things they signifie not that they are the things they signifie but because they are the signs and that they have some resemblance to them The same Father upon the third Psalm admires the Patience of Jesus Christ that bore the Treachery of Judas to the end although he was not ignorant of his Thoughts and admitted him to the Banquet at which saith St. Austin Jesus Christ recommended and gave to his Disciples the Figure or Type of his Flesh and Blood Cum adhibuit ad convivium in quo Corporis Sanguinis sui Figuram Discipulis commendavit tradidit Now the Figure is not the Truth but the Imitation of the Verity saith Gaudentius in Exod. Tractatu 2. Moreover St. Austin cannot find in the Scriptures that Jesus Christ in instituting the Sacrament gave to his Disciples the Figure of his Body and Blood but in these words Take Eat This is my Body This is my Blood he must then understand these words of the Institution in a figurative sense And according to the same Doctor a Sign is that which shews it self to the Senses and besides that shews something else to the Mind It must then follow That the Sign is a thing which remains to shew it self The same Father disputing against Adimantus the Manichean Chap. 12. and against the Adversary of the Law and the Prophets in the Second Book Cap. 6. who said The Blood is the Soul as is said Deuteronom 12. and by consequence that Men killed the Soul when they shed Blood. S. Austin replies That this Precept in Deuteronomy That Blood must not be eat because 't is the Soul is a Precept that must he understood as many other things contained in the Scriptures which are to be taken in Types and Figures Illud praeceptum posicum esse dicimus sicut alia multa pene omnia Scripturarum illarum Sacramenta signis figuris plena sunt And concludes towards the end of that Chapter That the Blood is the Soul as the Rock was Christ Sanguis est Anima quomodo petra erat Christus And upon Leviticus Quest. 54. The thing which signisies is wont to be called by the name of the thing signified as 't is written the Rock was Christ For 't is not said The Rock signifi'd Christ but as if it were that which indeed it was not in substance but only in signification And as in the beginning of the Chapter he saith That it must be understood in the Sign Jesus Christ making no difficulty to say This is my Body when he gave the Sign of his Body Sanguis est Anima praeceptum illud est in signo positum non enim Dominus dubitavit dicere Hoc est Corpus meum cum daret signum Corporis sui Seeing then St. Austin doth say That the Blood is the Soul as the Rock was Christ and as the Eucharist is the Sign of Jesus Christ he must of necessity have understood the Words of Institution of the Sacrament in a figurative sense and that so much the rather because this manner of speech Jesus Christ made no difficulty plainly shews that Jesus Christ did not speak in a proper but in a figurative sense as Fulgentius saith Although the Apostle saith That Jesus Christ is the Head of the Body of the Church nevertheless he makes no Scruple to call Jesus Christ the Church which is his Body This manner of speech is never used in proper expressions no Body will say Jesus Christ made no difficulty to give Gold or Water if it were true Gold or Water which he gave The same holy Doctor saith in several places after the Apostle That the Bread in the Sacrament after Consecration is broken and distributed and he doth very well recommend this breaking the Bread as being a great mystery In his Epistle to Paulinus he saith In that Jesus Christ was known by the two Disciples in breaking the Bread no body ought to question but this breaking was the Sacrament whereby Jesus Christ brings us all to the knowledge of his Person A little before he saith By the Prayers we mean those which are said before one begins to bless what is upon the Lords Table The Prayers are said when that which is on the Lords Table is blessed sanctifyed and distributed In his Epistle to Casulanus he saith of S. Paul that in the night time he went to break Bread as it is broken in the Sacrament of his Body In his Commentary upon the first Epistle of S. John It was very reasonable that Jesus Christ recommending his Flesh broke Bread and it was very just that the Disciples knew him in breaking of Bread. In the 140. Sermon de temp and in the Hom. Of the consent of Evangelists lib. 3. c. 25. and de diversis Serm. 87. he saith Where would Jesus Christ be known In the breaking of Bread. We are then secure we break Bread
and we know the Lord. If then after consecration we break Bread to distribute then of necessity the Bread must remain for to say that 't is the accidents which are broken and distributed S. Austin doth say the contrary when he affirms that one breaks and distributes what is on the Table being blessed and sanctify'd Now to bless and sanctify one shall never find to have signifi'd to destroy and change the substance The same Doctor in several places does always call the Eucharist the Sacrament of Bread and Wine he saith S. Paul doth teach the unity of the Church in the Sacrament of Bread when he saith We are all one Bread and one Body In the questions upon the Evangelists he saith Jesus Christ by the Sacrament of Wine recommends his Blood. In his Books against Faustus we are very far from doing what the Heathens did for their Gods Ceres and Bacchus although we have a ceremony of celebrating the Sacrament of Bread and Wine Now to what end were it to call the Eucharist a Sacrament of Bread and Wine if there did not remain Bread and Wine after Consecration for what means this manner of speech the Sacrament of Bread and Wine but the Bread and Wine which is the Sacrament As when the Apostle saith Rom. 4. v. 11. the sign of Circumcision What else doth this import but the Circumcision which is the sign When Tertullian de Baptismo calls Baptism Sacramentum aquae nostrae What else can that mean but our Water which is a Sacrament When S. Austin upon S. John Tract 11. saith The figure of the Sea figura Maris What more can this signify but the Sea which is the figure When it is frequently said the Sacrament of the Eucharist what else can that import but the Eucharist which is a Sacrament The same Father in his 52 Sermon de verbis Domini saith almost all do call the Sacrament the Body of Jesus Christ. Now if the Bread were the real Body of Jesus Christ wherefore should S. Anstin observe that all called it the Body of Jesus Christ For one cannot make such a remark but when one saith of a thing that 't is that which properly it is not It would be ridiculous to say almost all call Lewis 14 King the reason is because 't is not strange that persons should be called by their names but on the contrary it is very strange to call one by a name that doth not at all belong to him The same Father in his 26. Treatise upon S. John going to shew upon these words of the Apostle They did all eat the same Spiritual meat and drink the same Spiritual drink The relation and difference there is betwixt the Sacraments of the old and new Testament saith The Fathers did eat the same spiritual food as we do not the same corporal food as we do because they did eat Manna and as for us we eat something else They drank the same spiritual drink we do the same as to the signification but different as to visible and outward kind And upon S. John Treatise 45. If you consider the visible species it was another drink if you consider what was signify'd by their drink and ours it was one and the same thing Si speciem visibilem intendas aliud est si intelligibilem significationem cundem potum spiritualem biberunt And upon the 77. Psalm Their food was the very same with ours the same as to what it signify'd but different in kind Idem in mysterio cibus illorum qui noster Sed significatione idem non specie This reasoning does intimate That the Fathers under the old Testament did and we now do eat a corporal food and that we drink a corporal liquor Now by this corporal meat and drink we must understand either the accidents of Bread and Wine or the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ or the Bread and Wine it self It cannot be spoken of the first because the accidents of Bread and Wine are only qualities or dimensions now qualities and dimensions are not corporal The quality is something which is incorporeal saith Nemesius of the Soul as concerning dimensions S. Austin de genesi ad literam saith We call that a Body which taketh up some space by its length by its breadth and by its depth Nemesius gives the reason of it because saith he nothing that is immaterial is a Body for all Bodies are material There being nothing material then in the Eucharist as is suppos'd there being nothing that takes up place that is large or long or deep There is nothing corporeal in the Sacrament and by consequence nothing that can be termed corporal meat or drink Moreover when Jesus Christ speaks of corporal nourishment and drink in the Eucharist as the Fathers under the old Testament had done he speaks of bodily meat and drink S. Austin did not understand the corporal meat and drink spoke of by the Fathers of the old Testament to be only the accidents of one and the other so that S. Austin speaking in the same terms of bodily meat and drink in relation to that of the Antients he did not mean meer accidents or qualities The Body of Jesus Christ nor his Hood cannot be this corporal nourishment which S. Austin compares to that of the Fathers under the Law for by bodily meat and drink which he saith we receive in the Eucharist he means a visible subject aliud illi aliud nos sed specie visibili si speciem visibilem intendas aliud est It remains then that in S. Austin's sense we understand by the corporal nature of the Eucharist the visible Bread the visible Wine and not their qualities and accidents The same Father in the third Book of the Trin. cap. 10. speaking of things that are taken to signify saith a thing is taken to signify either after such a manner as that the thing should subsist and remain some time as did the Brazen Serpent lift up in 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
Commentary upon the 10th Chapter of the 1st to the Corinth saith As the Bread which we break is the Participation of the body of Christ so also the Bread of Idols is the Participation of Devils Now as the Participation of the Bread of Idols is no Transubstantiation or real change into Devils so also the Participation of the Bread of the Lord is not a real and substantial change of Bread into the Body of the Lord. The same Doctor on the words of the 11th Chap. of the same Epistle where 't is said That the Lord took Bread the night in which he was betrayed relates That Jesus Christ thereby gave to us the commemoration of his Body And on the following words The Lord saith he hath given us an Example to the end that as often as we do this we should think in our minds that Christ died for us It is for this end that 't is said to us the Body of Christ that so thinking of it we should not be ungrateful and unthankful for his Grace As if any one at his Death should leave to his Friend a pledg of his Love could he when he saw it refrain from Tears if he really loved his Friend There must therefore needs be in the Sacrament Bread and Wine to be Pledges of Jesus Christ for he cannot be a pledg of himself That the Fathers of the SEVENTH and EIGHTH CENTURY 's did not believe Transubstantiation ISidore Bishop of Sevil Anno 600. saith That by the command of Jesus Christ himself we do call Body and Blood that which being the Fruits of the Earth is sanctified and made a Sacrament by the invisible Operation of the Holy Ghost In the 1st Book of Ecclesiastical Offices he saith That the Bread is called the Body of Jesus Christ because it strengthens the Body and that the Wine is called his Blood because it increaseth Blood in the Body and that the Bread and Wine are two visible things which being sanctified by the Holy Ghost do go on to be the Sacrament of the Divine Body Now a Sacrament signifies a holy Sign It would therefore be a strange kind of way of Isidore if he had believ'd the Bread and Wine were transubstantiated to say the Bread and Wine are two things visible which being sanctified by the Holy Ghost do become the Sacraments of the Divine Body By this Language it might as well be said That the Fathers believed that the Water of Baptism was transubstantiated after their Consecration The same Bishop saith Melchisedeck that offer'd of the Fruits of the Earth a Sacrifice to God thereby represented the Priesthood or Reign of Jesus Christ which is the true King of Peace of whose Body and Blood that is to say the Oblation of Bread and Wine is offer'd throughout the VVorld And in the Treatise De Vocat Gentium cap. 26. These are not any longer Jewish Sacrifices such as were offer'd by Aaron the Priest which are now offer'd by Believers but they are such Sacrifices as were presented by Melchisedeck King of Salem that is to say it is Bread and Wine the true Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. He saith The Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ is Bread and Wine That both the one and the other are such Sacrifices as those offer'd by Melchisedeck there is therefore no question but St. Isidore did not believe that the Bread was destroy'd in the Sacrament because he establishes the Sacrament in the Bread and Wine such as Melchisedeck had offer'd Beda an English Priest saith That Jesus Christ having ended the Ceremony of the Ancient Passover which was celebrated in Commemoration of the Bondage in Egypt out of which the Jews had been deliver'd proceeded to the new Passover which the Church celebrates in remembrance of His Redemption the Figure of his Body to the end that instead of the Flesh and Blood of the Lamb substituting the Sacrament of his Flesh and Blood in the Figure of Bread and Wine he might shew that it was him to whom God had sworn and repented not saying Thou art a Priest for ever after the Order of Melchisedeck Now continues Beda Jesus Christ broke the Bread which he distributed to his Disciples to shew That the breaking of his Body did not come to pass without his good will. It appears from these words substituting the Sacrament of his Flesh and Blood in the Figure of Bread and Wine that the Bread and Wine remain after Consecration to be the Figure of the Body and Blood of Christ. As when the Apostle saith the sign of Circumcision signum Circumcisionis That is to say Circumcision which is a sign and a figure So Beda maketh the Sacrament consist in the Bread and Wine Therefore in the Homily De Sanct is in Epiphania he saith That Jesus Christ the Heavenly Lamb having been offer'd up transfer'd into the Creatures of Bread and Wine the Mystery of his Passion and thereby became a Priest for ever after the Order of Melchisedeck And elsewhere he saith Melchisedeck Priest of the most High God did long before the time of the legal Priesthood offer up Bread and Wine Therefore our Saviour is called Priest after the Order of Melchisedeck because he abrogated the Sacrifices of the Law and instituted a Sacrifice of the same kind to be under the New Testament the Mystery of his Body and Blood. Certainly As our Mystery is no Mystery till after Consecration and that 't is of the same Nature as was that of Melchisedeck it must be concluded that the Bread and Wine do remain in the Sacrament of the Eucharist Sedulius a Scotchman Author of the Commentaries upon St. Paul and who flourished about the year 735. in his Commentary upon the first to the Corinthians Chap. 11. saith Jesus Christ in the Eucharist hath left us the remembrance of himself as if one going a far journey should leave with his Friend the pledg of his love to remember their ancient Amity There must then needs be something that is not Jesus Christ himself for no one is a pledg of himself Damascen a Fryer who lived about the year 750 saith in his fourth Book of Orthodox Law Chap. 14. The Shew-bread did typifie this Bread and 't is this pure and unbloody Sacrifice which our Saviour foretold by the Prophet should be offered to him from the rising of the Sun to the setting of the same to wit the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ which passeth into the substance of our Body and Soul without being consumed without being corrupted without going into the draft God forbid but passing into our substance for our Preservation Now every Body agrees this cannot be said of the proper Body of Jesus Christ. It must then be concluded Damascen supposed that the Bread remained In the same place he adds That as in Baptism because men are wont to wash with Water and anoint them
the Chalice or on the Plate By these words the Roman Order gives us to understand that it speaks of such a Body and Blood that a part of it may be separated from the whole Now this is what can only be said of the Bread and VVine improperly called the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. The now Roman Order at present used in the Church of Rome doth also furnish us with the like reflections It expresly marketh That Jesus Christ gave in the Oblation Bread and Wine to celebrate the Mysteries of his Body and Blood. Therein is desired That this Blessed Oblation may be accepted of God in such a manner as that it might be made to us the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ after all which is recited the History of the Institution and the Sacramental words The Eucharist is called the Sacred Bread of Eternal Life and the Cup the Cup of everlasting Salvation To conclude They pray God to behold those Gifts and that he will accept them as he did the offering of Abel and the Sacrifice of Melchisedeck which it's very well known was Bread and Wine All which doth plainly shew That the Roman Order at this time observed cannot reasonably be interpreted but in supposing that the Bread and Wine remain in the Eucharist after Consecration That the Fathers of the NINTH CENTURY did not believe Transubstantiation THeodorus Studita as is related by Michael Studita in Baronius in the year 816. N. 15. seeing himself reduced to the extremity of being starv'd said to his Disciple If men are so cruel as to make me perish with hunger the participation of the Body and Blood of the Lord which is the ordinary food of my Body and Soul shall be my only nourishment Now the real Body of Jesus Christ cannot be the nourishment of the Body therefore of necessity this Author must be understood to speak of Bread which is his Body figuratively and improperly It is what is also confirm'd by this Michael Studita who saith in the same place that Theodore had always about him some parcels of the quickning Body of the Lord which cannot be meant of the true Body of Jesus Christ which is not now subject to be broken nor divided Ahyto Bishop of Basil sent Ambassador by Charlemaine in the 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. now amongst many other Instructions he gives his Priests in his Capitularies this is one In the fifth place the Priest should know what the Sacrament of Baptism and Confirmation is and also what the Mystery of the body and blood of our Lord doth mean. How a visible creature is seen in the same Mysteries and is nevertheless the invisible Salvation is communicated for the Souls eternal happiness which is contained in faith only By visible creature he can only mean a creature not in appearance but effective for otherwise according to this Author it must be said that in Baptism and Confirmation there should be only an apparent creature and not the substance of water and chrism Besides Ahyto attributed the same effect to these three Sacraments to wit the communication of eternal and invisible Salvation to them that with faith do receive these holy Sacraments Theodulphus in the year 810 Bishop of Orleans saith in his Treatise of the Order of Baptism There is one saving Sacrifice which Melchisedeck also offer'd under the Old Testament in Type of the body and blood of our Saviour the which the Mediator of God and Man accomplished under the New before he was crucify'd when taking the bread and wine he blessed and gave them to his Disciples commanding them to do those things in remembrance of him It is this Mystery which the Church doth celebrate having put an end to the ancient sacrifices offering bread because of the bread which came down from Heaven and wine because of him which said I am the true Vine to the end that by the visible Oblation of Priests and by the invisible consecration of the Holy Ghost the bread and wine should have the dignity of the body and blood of our Lord with which blood there is mingled some water either because there came out of the side of our Saviour water with the blood or because according to the Interpretation of our Ancestors as Jesus Christ is signify'd by the wine so also the people is signify'd by the water Now this Bishop saying that Jesus Christ gave bread to his Disciples in commemoration that this Mystery is an Oblation of visible bread which is consecrated by the Holy Spirit and which receiveth the dignity of the body that he indifferently calls the blood wine and the wine blood that with the blood water is mingled and that Jesus Christ is signify'd by the wine that '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 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 Ratberto And Father Sirmond saith he is the first that hath explain'd the sense of the Church touching this Mystery so that saith he he hath opened the way to others In vitae Ratberti praefixa ejus operibus Therefore it is nothing strange that Paschasius had enemies and that he was accused for departing from the common Faith and to have spread abroad Visions of a young Man. For he saith to Frudegard You have saith he at the end of this Work the Authorities of Catholick Fathers succinctly marked by which you may perceive that '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 stiled by Baronius in the year 843. N. 31. the bright Star of Germany Fulgens Germaniae Sidus saith in his institution of Clerks Lib. 1. cap. 31. Our Saviour liked better that believers should receive with their mouth the Sacarments of his Body and Blood and that they should be turned into their nourishment to the end that by the visible work the invisible effect should be shewn For as the material food doth materially nourish the Body and support it so also the Word of God doth nourish the Soul inwardly and doth strengthen it And in the same place The Sacrament is one thing and the virtue of the Sacrament is another The Sacrament is turned into the nourishment of the Body but by the virtue of the Sacrament one acquires everlasting life As the Sacrament therefore is turn'd into our selves when we do eat and drink it so also we are converted into the Body of Jesus Christ when we live with Piety and Obedience The same Doctor on St. Matthew Chap. 26. saith with Venerable Beda that Jesus Christ hath substituted instead of the Flesh and Blood of the Paschal Lamb the Sacrament of his Body and Blood. That the Creator of the World and the Redeemer of Mankind making of the very fruits of the Earth that is to say of Bread and Wine a fit Mystery turn'd it into the Sacrament of his Body and Blood that unleavened Bread and Wine mixt with water must be sanctified to be the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. Afterwards he gives the reason wherefore our Saviour chose Bread and Wine to make them Sacraments of his Flesh and Blood and saith that 't is because Melchisedeck offer'd Bread and Wine and that Jesus Christ being a Priest after the Order of Melchisedeck he was to imitate his Oblation And shewing the Reason why the Sacrament takes the name of the Body and Blood of the Lord he saith with Isidore Archbishop of Sevil '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 sanctifi'd by the Holy Ghost they pass into the Sacrament of the Divine Body A Sacrament which in the 33. Chap. he calls the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ in opposition to his Natural Body from which he distinguishes it and draws a resemblance from the Mystical Body to the proper Body of Jesus Christ. The holy Vessels saith he are set on the Altar viz. the Cup and Patten which in some sort are the figure of the Grave of Jesus Christ for as at that time the Body of Jesus Christ was laid in the Sepulcher having been embalm'd by godly People so also at present the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ as it were imbalm'd with holy Prayers is kept in the holy Vessels to be administred to Believers by the hands of the Ministers 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 Belly and is cast into the draft As for the Sacrament of the Body and Blood it is made of corporeal and visible things but it produceth an invisible sanctification as well to the Body as to the Soul. What reason is there that that which is digested in the Stomack and is cast out into the draft should return to its former state there being never any that affirmed that such a thing was done For of late some persons not having a right Judgment of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ have said that the same Body and the same Blood of the Lord which was Born of the Virgin Mary and in which the Lord suffered on the Cross and rose again from the Dead is the same which is taken at the Altar against which Error we have as much as was necessary written to the Abbot Egilon explaining what ought truly to be believed of the Body of Christ in the Eucharist Amalarius esteemed a very Learned man in the Manuscripts cited by Dom Luke D'achery a Learned Benedictin in his Preface to the Seventh Tome of his Spicilegium was sent by the Emperor Charles le Debonnair to Pope Gregory to find out Antiphonaries Amalar. in Prolog Antiphon and who by express command of the same Emperor was chosen in a Council held at Aix la Chappel Auno 816. to make Rules for Prebends as is testified by Ademar a Monk of Angoulism in his Chronicle on the year 816 saith in his Treatise of Church-Offices Lib. 3. cap. 25. That the Sacrament is to us instead of Jesus Christ. The Priest saith he bows and recommends to God the Father that which was offered in the room of Jesus Christ. In the 26th chap. he saith The Oblation and the Cup do signifie the Body of the Lord when Jesus Christ said This is the Cup of my Blood he sanctified his Blood which Blood was in the Body as the Wine is in the Chalice In the third Book chap. 25. he calls 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 how he understood those words of Institution of the Eucharist
had created from the beginning of the World which he creates every year by Propagation and Reparation which he sanctifies which he sills with Grace and Heavenly Benediction the which himself expounds to be Bread and Wine See here Nine or Ten Authors Contemporaries with Paschasius which are formally contrary to his Doctrine besides those which Paschasius himself speaks of in general in his own Writings To conclude the Ninth Century there might be added the manner that Charles the Bald and the Count of Barcelona signed the Peace which was done with the Blood of the Eucharist as is reported by Monsieur Baluze in his Notes on Agabard out of Odo Aribert in the year 844. It was in the same manner that Pope Theodore in the Seventh Century signed the Condemnation of Pirrbus the Monotholite as appears by Baronius on the year 648. § 15. That the Fathers of the TENTH CENTURY did not believe Transubstantiation ALferick Archbishop of Canterbury about the year 940. in one of his Sermons to be seen in the Fourth Book of Bedes Ecclesiastical History cap. 24. which we have Copied in the Library of St. Victor saith The Eucharist is not the Body of Jesus Christ corporally but spiritually not the Body in which he suffered but the Body of which he spake when consecrating the Bread and Wine he said This is my Body this is my Blood he adds the Bread is his Body just as the Manna and the Wine his Blood as the Water in the Desart was There is another Sermon cited by some under the name of Wolfin Bishop of Salisbury others say 't is of Alfric wherein the Author uses near the same Language This Sacrifice saith he 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 Homily betwixt the Body wherein Jesus Christ suffered and the Body which is consecrated for the Eucharist for the Body wherein Jesus Christ suffered was born of the Virgin Mary and was provided with Blood Bones Nerves and Skin with bodily Members and a reasonable Soul but his spiritual Body which we call Eucharist is compos'd of several Grains of Wheat without Blood without Bones Nerves and without a Soul. The Body of Christ which suffer'd Death and rose again shall never dye more it is Eternal and Immortal but the Eucharist is temporal and not eternal it is corruptible and divided into sundry parcels ground by the Teeth and goes along with the other Excrements This Sacrament is a pledg and figure the Body of Jesus Christ is the Truth it self we have this pledg Sacramentally until we attain to the Truth and then the pledg shall be fulfill'd And a little lower If we consider the Eucharist after a corporal manner we see '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 in the County of Liege 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 faith The Bread made for that use is consumed in receiving the Sacrament That which is set on the Table is consum'd the holy Celebration being ended Herriger Successor to Fulcuin and whom he that continued the History of the Abbots of Lobes mentions as a man whose Virtue and Knowledg was known even to Strangers He collected saith this Author several Passages of Catholick Fathers against Paschasius Ratbertus touching the Body and Blood of our Lord. The Ancient Customs of the Monastry of Cluny Reprinted by the care of Dom Luke D' Achery l. 2. ch 30. say The outside of the Challice is carefully rub'd 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 Consecration for the true Body of Jesus Christ cannot perish Again The Priest divides the Host and puts part of it into the Blood of one moiety he communicates himself and with the other he communicates the Deacon It cannot be so spoke of the Body of Jesus Christ then after the Priest has broke the Host he puts part of it into the Cup after the usual manner two parts on the Patten and covers both the one and the other with a clean Cloath but first of all he very carefully rubs the Challice and shakes it with the same hand with which he touched it fearing lest that breaking the Bread there should rest some part of the Body of our Lord which cannot be said of the true Body of Jesus Christ and elsewhere is prescrib'd what should be done If there chance to remain ever so little of the Body of our Saviour which is expounded to be a very little Crum as 't were indivisible and like an Atome To conclude treating of the Communion of sick Folks it is observ'd that the Body of our Lord is brought from the Church that it is broke and that the Priest holds on the Challice the part that he is to bring It must needs be that by the sence of these customs there must be Bread and Wine in the Sacrament that it may be broken and improperly called Body Ratherius Bishop of Verona saith As to the Corporal substance which the Communicant doth receive seeing that 't is I that do now ask the Question I must also answer my self and I thereto yield for seeing that to him that receives worthily it is the true Body altho one sees