sensible things are called by the name of those spiritual things which they seal and signifie But he speaks more plainly in his Epistle to Caesarius where he teacheth that in this Mystery there is not in the bread a substantial but a Sacramental change according to the which the outward Elements take the name of what they represent and are changed in such a sort that they still retain their former natural substance The bread saith he is made worthy to be honoured with the name of the Flesh of Christ by the consecration of the Priest yet the Flesh retains the proprieties of its incorruptible nature as the bread doth its natural substance Before the bread be sanctified we call it bread but when it is consecrated by the divine grace it deserves to be called the Lords Body though the substance of the bread still remains When Bellarmine could not answer this testimony of that Great Doctor he thought it enough to deny that this Epistle is St. Chrysostoms but both he and Possevin do vainly contend that it is not extant among the works of Chrysostom For besides that at Florence and else where it was to be found among them it is cited in the Collections against the Severians which are in the version of Turrianus the Jesuit in the fourth Tome of Antiq. lectionum of Henry Canisius and in the end of the book of Joh. Damascenus against the Acephali I bring another Testimony out of the imperfect work on St. Matthew written either by St. Chrysostome or some other ancient Author a Book in this at least very Orthodox and not corrupted by the Arrians In these sanctified vessels saith he the true body of Christ is not contained but the Mystery of his Body 19. Which also hath been said by St. Austin above a thousand times but out of so many almost numberless places I shall chuse only three which are as the sum of all the rest You are not to eat this Body which you see nor drink this Bloud which my Crucifiers shall shed I have left you a Sacrament which spiritually understood will vivisie you Thus St. Austin rehearsing the words of Christ again If Sacraments had not some resemblance with those things whereof they are Sacraments they could not be Sacraments at all From this resemblance they often take the names of what they represent Therefore as the Sacrament of Christs body is in some sort his body so the Sacrament of Faith is faith also To the same sense is what he writes against Maximinus the Arrian We mind in the Sacraments not what they are but what they shew for they are signs which are one thing and signifie another And in another place speaking of the Bread and Wine Let no man look to what they are but to what they signifie for our Lord was pleased to say this is my Body when he gave the sign of his body This passage of St. Austin is so clear that it admits of no evasion nor no denial For if the Sacraments are one thing and signifie another then they are not so changed into what they signifie as that after that change they should be no more what they were The water is changed in baptism as the Bread and Wine in the Lords Supper but all that is changed is not presently abolished or Transubstantiated For as the water remains entire in Baptism so do the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist 20. St. Prosper Orthodox in all things who lived almost in the time of Austin teacheth That the Eucharist consisteth of two things the visible appearance of the Elements and the invisible Flesh and Bloud of our Saviour Christ that is the Sacrament and the grace of the Sacrament as the person of Christ is both God and Man Who but the infamous Heretick Eutyches would say that Christ as God was substantially changed into man or as man into God 21. Upon this subject nothing can be more clear than this of Theodor. whence we learn what the Primitive Church believes in this matter Our Saviour in the Institution of the Eucharist changed the names of things giving to his body the name of its Sacrament and to the Sacrament the name of his Body Now this was done for this reason as he saith that they that are partakers of the Divine Mysteries might not mind the nature of what they see but by the change of names might believe that change which is wrought by Grace For he that called what by nature is his body Wheat and Bread he also honoured the Elements and Signs with the names of his Body and Bloud not changing what is natural but adding Grace to it He therefore teacheth that such an alteration is wrought in the Elements that still their nature and substance continues as he explains more plainly afterwards For when the Heretick that stands for Eutichius had said As the Sacrament of the Lords Body and Bloud are one thing before the Prayer of the Priest and afterwards being changed become another so also the Body of our Lord after his ascention is changed into the divine substance and nature according to the Tenet of the Transubstantiator this Eutychian Argument is irrefragable but Catholick Antiquity answers it thus Thou are entangled in the nets of thine own knitting for the Elements or Mystick signs depart not from their nature after Consecration but remain in their former substance form and kind and can be seen and toucht as much as before and yet withal we understand also what they become now they are changed Compare therefore the Copy with the Original and thou shalt see their likeness For a figure must answer to the truth That body hath the same form and fills the same space as before and in a word is the same substance but after its resurrection it is become immortal c. All this and much more is taught by Theodoret who assisted at the universal Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon It is an idle exception which is made by some in the Church of Rome as though by the nature and substance of the Elements which are said to remain Theodoret had understood the nature and substance of the accidents as Cardinal Bellarmine is pleased to speak most absurdly but the whole context doth strongly refute this gloss for Theodoret joyns together nature substance form and figure and indeed what Answer could they have given to the Eutychian Argument if the substance of the bread being annihilated after the Consecration the accidents only remain Or did Christ say concerning the accidents of the Bread and Wine these accidents are or this accident is my body But though we have not that liberty yet the Inventors of Transubstantiation may when they please make a Creator of a Creature substances of accidents accidents of substances and any thing out of any thing But sure they are too immodest and uncharitable who to elude the authority of so
so called But this he declares yet more clearly Lib. 6. Etymol cap. 19. For as the visible substance of Bread and Wine nourish the outward man so the Word of Christ who is the bread of Life refresheth the souls of the faithful being received by Faith These words were recorded and preserved by Bertram the Priest when as in the Editions of Isidore they are now left out 27. And the same kind of expressions as those of Isidorus were also used by Venerable Bede our Country-man who lived in the Eighth Century In his Sermon upon the Epiphany of whom we also take these two testimonies following In the room of the flesh and bloud of the Lamb Christ substituted the Sacrament of his Body and Bloud in the figure of Bread and Wine Also At Supper he gave to his Disciples the figure of his holy Body and Bloud These utterly destroy Transubstantiation 28. In the same Century Charles the Great wrote an Epistle to our Alcuinus wherein we find these words Christ at Supper broke the bread to his Disciples and likewise gave them the Cup in figure of his Body and Bloud and so left to us this great Sacrament for our benefit If it was the figure of his body it could not be the Body it self Indeed the Body of Christ is given in the Eucharist but to the faithful only and that by means of the Sacrament of the Consecrated bread 29. But now about the beginning of the Ninth Century started up Paschafius a Monk of Corbie who first as some say whose Judgment I follow not among the Latines taught that Christ was Consubstantiated or rather inclosed in the Bread corporally united to it in the Sacrament for as yet there was no thoughts of the Transubstantiation of Bread But these new sorts of expressions not agreeing with the Catholick Doctrine and the Writings of the ancient Fathers had few or no Abettors before the Eleventh Century And in the Ninth whereof we now treat there were not wanting learned men as Amalarius Archdeacon of Triars Rabanus at first Abbot of Fulda and afterwards Archbishop of Ments John Erigena an English Divine Walafridus Strabo a German Abbot Ratramus or Bertramus first Priest of Corbie afterwards Abbot of Orbec in France and many more who by their Writings opposed this new Opinion of Pascasius or of some others rather and delivered to Posterity the Doctrine of the Ancient Church Yet we have something more to say concerning Paschasius whom Bellarmine and Sirmondus esteemed so highly that they were not ashamed to say that he was the first that had writ to the purpose concerning the Eucharist and that he had so explained the meaning of the Church that he had shewn and opened the way to all them who treated of that subject after him Yet in that whole Book of Paschasius there is nothing that favours the Transubstantiation of the Bread or its destruction or removal Indeed he asserts the truth of the Body and Bloud of Christs being in the Eucharist which Protestants deny not he denies that the Consecrated Bread is a bare figure a representation void of truth which Protestants assert not But he hath many things repugnant to Transubstantiation which as I have said the Church of Rome it self had not yet quite found out I shall mention a few of them Christ saith he left us this Sacrament a visible figure and character of his Body and Bloud that by them our Spirit might the better embrace spiritual and invisible things and be more fully fed by Faith Again We must receive our spiritual Sacraments with the mouth of the Soul and the taste of Faith Item Whilst therein we savour nothing carnal but we being spiritual and understanding the whole spiritually we remain in Christ And a little after The flesh and bloud of Christ are received spiritually And again To savour according to the flesh is death and yet to receive spiritually the true Flesh of Christ is life eternal Lastly The Flesh and bloud of Christ are not received carnally but spiritually In these he teacheth that the Mystery of the Lords Supper is not and ought not to be understood carnally but spiritually and that this dream of corporal and oral Transubstantiation was unknown to the Ancient Church As for what hath been added to this Book by the craft without doubt of some superstitious forgerer as Erasmus complains that it too frequently happens to the Writing of the Ancients it is Fabulous as the visible appearing of the Body of Christ in the form of an Infant with fingers of raw flesh such stuff is unworthy to be Fathered on Paschasius who profest that he delivered no other Doctrin concerning the Sacrament than that which he had learned out of the Ancient Fathers and not from idle and uncertain stories of Miracles 30. Now it may be requisite to produce the testimony of those Writers before mentioned to have written in this Century In all that I write saith Amalarius I am swayed by the Judgment of holy men and pious Fathers yet I say what I think my self Those things that are done in the Celebration of Divine Service are done in the Sacrament of the Passion of our Lord as he himself commanded Therefore the Priest offering the Bread with the Wine and Water in the Sacrament doth it in the stead of Christ and the Bread Wine and Water in the Sacrament represent the Flesh and Bloud of Christ For Sacraments are somewhat to resemble those things whereof they are Sacraments Therefore let the Priest be like unto Christ as the Bread and Liquors are like the Body and Bloud of Christ Such is in some manner the immolation of the Priest on the Altar as was that of Christ on the Cross Again The Sacrament of the Body of Christ is in some manner the Body of Christ For Sacraments should not be Sacraments if in some things they had not the likeness of that whereof they are Sacraments Now by reason of this mutual likeness they oftentimes are called by what they represent Lastly Sacraments have the vertue to bring us to those things whereof they are Sacraments These things writ Amalarius according to the Expressions of St. Austin and the Doctrine of the purest Church 31. Rabanus Maurus a great Doctor of this Age who could hardly be matcht either in Italy or in Germany publisht this his open Confession Our blessed Saviour would have the Sacrament of his Body and Bloud to be received by the mouth of the Faithful and to become their nourishment that by the visible body the effects of the invisible might be known For as the material Food feeds the body outwardly and makes it to grow so the Word of God doth inwardly nourish and strengthen the soul Also He would have the Sacramental Elements to be made of the fruits of the earth that as he who is God invisible appeared visible in our Flesh and
of no evasion For saith he he that changed once the Water into Wine is he not worthy to be believed that he changed the Wine into Bloud Therefore let us with all certainty receive the Body and Bloud of Christ for his Body under the appearance of the Bread and his Bloud under the appearance of the Wine are given to thee Indeed Protestants do freely grant and firmly believe that the Wine as hath often been said is changed into the Bloud of Christ but every change is not a Transubstantiation neither doth Cyril say that this change is like that of the water for then it would also appear to our senses but that he who changed the Water sensibly can also change the Wine Sacramentally will not be doubted by any As for what he calls the Appearances of Bread and Wine he doth not thereby exclude but rather include their substance and mean the Bread and Wine it self For so he intimates by what there follows Do not look on them as bare Bread and Wine as much as to say it is bread indeed but yet not bare bread but something besides But that this conversion of the Water into Wine makes nothing for Transubstantiation may be thus made to appear That Gods Omnipotency can change one substance into another none will deny and we see it done by Christ in the Town of Cana of Galilee when he changed the Water into Wine and it was a true and proper Transubstantiation But the Papists in the Lords Supper tell us of quite another change which if well considered cannot so much as be understood For the substance of the Bread is not changed into another that had no being but as they say the bread is changed into that body of Christ which really existed and had a being these many hundred years ever since the Incarnation Whereas that very Wine which Christ made of the Water was not in being before the change which he wrought Now it is easie for any to understand that he who created all things out of nothing can well make a new Wine of Water or any other thing but it is more than absurd that the body of Christ or any other substance already in being perfect and complete should be made afresh of another substance when it really subsisted before Which they well understood who devised an adduction or bringing of the Body of Christ into the place of the Bread and that is as much as to deny Transubstantiation except it can be said that a man is Transubstantiated into another as often as he comes into his place which no man in his right wits can fancy 15. St. Ambrose said also that the nature is changed and indeed it is so for other is the nature of the Element and other that of the Sacrament neither do Protestants deny that the Element is changed by the blessing so that the bread being made sacred is no more that which nature formed but that which the Blessing consecrated and by consecrating changed Mean while St. Ambrose in that place doth not make the words or Blessing of Christ to have any other operation than to make that which was still to be and yet to be changed therefore the bread is not made the body of Christ by Transubstantiation but by a Sacramental change He adds That Sacrament which thou receivest is made by the word of Christ and if the word of Elias had so much power as to bring down fire from heaven shall not the words of Christ be efficacious enough to change the properties of the Elements Thou hast read of the Creation of all things that he said the word and it was done and shall not that word of Christ which made all out of nothing change that which is already into that which it was not Thou thy self wert but wert the old man but being baptized thou art now become a new Creature Now it is as much to give a new nature as to change the nature of a thing By these words he plainly declares his opinion that by vertue of this change the Elements of Bread and Wine cease not to be what they are by essence and yet by the Consecration are made what before they were not But where did our Transubstantiators learn out of St. Ambrose or any of the Fathers that to make the Sacrament is the same as to bring the natural body of Christ and put it under the accidents of the bread or in the place of its substance which is vanisht away They say That the comparison betwixt the things changed by Christ and the Prophet would be silly if there be no more than a Sacramental change in the Eucharist as though the Sacramental change were a thing of nought For saith Cardinal Bellarmine what power is there required to do nothing But Protestants answer that the Greatness Majesty Excellency and Dignity of the Sacrament is such that they admire no less the Omnipotency of God in sanctifying the Creatures to so high an office and so holy an use than in creating the world out of nothing or changing the nature of things by the Ministry of his Prophets For it is not by mans power but by the divine vertue that things earthly and mean of themselves are made to us assured Pledges of the Body and Bloud of Christ And if they urge the Letter of those words of St. Ambrose By the word of Christ the species of the Elements are changed as Bellarmine and others do why then they must confess that not only the substance but also the species or accidents as they call them of the Bread and Wine are changed into the Body and Bloud of Christ And so being St. Ambrose and all the Ancients said indifferently as well that the species of the Bread and Wine as that the Bread and Wine themselves are changed who will not from hence understand that the groundless Fabrick of Transubstantiation whereby they would have the substance of the Elements so abolished in the Sacrament that their meer accidents or appearances remain without any subject is strongly battered and utterly ruined 16. All other Testimonies of the Fathers if they say that the Bread is made the Body of Christ are willingly owned by Protestants For they hold that the Element cannot become a Sacrament nor the Sacrament have a being without the thing which it represents For the Cardinal himself will not affirm that the Body of Christ is produced out of the Pread This is therefore what we say with St. Austin and endeavour to prove by all means That the Sacrifice of the Eucharist is made of two things the visible Element and the invisible Flesh and Bloud of Christ as the Person of Christ consisteth of the Godhead and Manhood he being true God and true Man for every compound retains the nature of that whereof it is made Now the Sacrament is composed of two things the Sign and the thing signified that is the Body of
Transubstantiators It was not bread but meerly the accidents of bread which seemed to be bread 2. The Body of Christ is proved to be true by the figure of it which is said to be bread For the bread is fit to represent that divine Body because of its nourishing vertue which in the bread is earthly but in the body is heavenly Lastly The realty of the Body is proved by that of its figure and so if you deny the substance of the bread as the Papists do you thereby destroy the truth and realty of the Body of Christ in the Sacrament 10. Origen also about the same time with Tertullian speaks much after the same manner If Christ saith he as these men the Marcionites falsly hold had neither Flesh nor Bloud of what manner of Flesh of what Body of what Bloud did he give the Signs and Images when he gave the Bread and Wine If they be the signs and representations of the Body and Bloud of Christ though they prove the truth of his Body and Bloud yet they being signs cannot be what they signifie and they not being what they represent the groundless contrivance of Transubstantiation is overthrown Also upon Leviticus he doth expresly oppose it thus Acknowledge ye that they are figures and therefore spiritual not carnal examine and understand what is said otherwise if you receive as things carnal they will hurt but not nourish you For in the Gospel there is the Letter which kills him that understands not spiritually what is said for if you understand this saying according to the Letter Except you eat my Flesh and drink my Bloud the Letter will kill you Therefore as much as these words belong to the eating and drinking of Christs Body and Bloud they are to be understood mystically and spiritually Again writing on St. Matthew he doth manifestly put a difference betwixt the true and immortal and the Typick and Mystical Body of Christ For the Sacrament consisteth of both That food saith he which is sanctified by the Word of God and Prayer as far as it is material descends into the belly and is cast out into the draught this he saith of the Typick which is the figure of the true Body God forbid we should have any such thoughts of the true and heavenly Body of Christ as they must that understand his natural body by what Origen calls his material and Sacramental body which no man in his wits can understand of meer accidents 11. St. Cyprian Bishop of Carthage a glorious Martyr of Christ wrote a famous Epistle to Coecilius concerning the sacred Chalice in the Lords Supper whereof this is the sum Let that Cup which is offered to the people in commemoration of Christ be mixt with Wine against the opinion of the Aquarii who were for water only for it cannot represent the Bloud of Christ when there is no Wine in the Cup because the Bloud of Christ is exprest by the Wine as the Faithful are understood by the water But the Patrons of Transubstantiation have neither Wine nor Water in the Chalice they offer and yet without them especially the Wine appointed by our blessed Saviour and whereof Cyprian chiefly speaks the Bloud of Christ is not so much as Sacramentally present So far was the Primitive Church from any thing of believing a corporal presence of the Bloud the Wine being reduced to nothing that is to a meer accident without a substance for then they must have said that the Water was changed into the People as well as the Wine into the Bloud But there is no need that I should bring many testimonies of that Father when all his Writings do plainly declare that the true substance of the Bread and Wine is given in the Eucharist that that spiritual and quickning food which the Faithful get from the Body and Bloud of Christ and the mutual Union of the whole People joyned into one body may answer their Type the Sacrament which represents them 12. Those words of the Council of Nice are well known whereby the Faithful are called from the consideration of the outward visible Elements of Bread and Wine to attend the inward and spiritual act of the mind whereby Christ is seen and apprehended Let not our thoughts dwell low on that Bread and that Cup which are set before us but lifting up our minds by faith let us consider that on this sacred Table is laid the Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world And receiving truly his precious Body and Bloud let us believe these things to be the Pledges and Emblems of our Resurrection for we do not take much but only a little of the Elements that we may be mindful we do it not for Satiety but for Sanctification Now who is there even among the Maintainers of Transubstantiation that will understand this not much but a little of the Body of Christ Or who can believe that the Nicene Fathers would call his Body and Bloud Symbols in a proper sense When nothing can be an Image or a sign of it self And therefore though we are not to rest in the Elements minding nothing else for we should consider what is chiefest in the Sacrament that we have our hearts lifted up unto the Lord who is given together with the signs yet Elements they are and the earthly part of the Sacrament both the Bread and the Wine which destroys Transubstantiation 13. St. Athanasius famous in the time and present in the Assembly of the Nicene Council a stout Champion of the Catholick Faith acknowledgeth none other but a spiritual Manducation of the Body of Christ in the Sacrament Our Lord saith he made a difference betwixt the Flesh and the Spirit that we might understand that what he said was not carnal but spiritual For how many men could his body have fed that the whole world should be nourished by it But therefore he mentioned his ascension into heaven that they might not take what he said in a corporal sense but might understand that his Flesh whereof he spake is a spiritual and heavenly food given by himself from on high for the words that I spake unto you they are spirit and they are life as if he should say My Body which is shown and given for the world shall be given in food that it may be distributed spiritually to every one and preserve them all to the Resurrection to eternal life Cardinal Perron having nothing to answer to these words of this holy Father in a kind of despair rejects the whole Tractate and denies it to be Athanasius's which no body ever did before him there being no reason for it 14. Cyril Bishop of Jerusalam of the same Age with St. Athanasius treating of the Chrisme wherewith they then anointed those that were Baptized speaks thus Take heed thou dost not think that this is a meer Oyntment only For as the Broad of the