The history of Popish transubstantiation to which is premised and opposed, the Catholick doctrin of Holy Scripture, the ancient fathers and the Reformed churches, about the sacred elements, and presence of Christ in the blessed sacrament of the eucharist / written nineteen years ago in Latine, by the Right Reverend Father in God, John, late Lord Bishop of Durham, and allowed by him to be published a little before his death, at the earnest request of his friends.

CHAP. V. (Book 5)

That neither the word nor name of Tran∣substantiation, nor the Doctrine or the thing it self is taught or contained in holy Scripture, or in the Writings of the ancient Doctors of the Church, but rather is contrary to them; and there∣fore not of Faith.

1. THe word Transubstantiation is so far from being found either in the sacred Records, or in the Monuments of the ancient Fathers, that the maintainers of it do themselves acknowledge that it was not so much as heard of before the twelfth Century. For though one Ste∣phanus, Bishop of Autun, be said to have once used it, yet it is without proof that some Modern Writers make him one of the tenth Century; nor yet doth he say, that the bread is Transubstantiated, but as it were Transubstantiated, which * 1.1 well understood might be admitted.

2. Nay, that the thing it self without the word, that the Doctrine without the

expression cannot be found in Scripture, is ingeniously acknowledged by the most learned Schoolmen Scotus, Durandus, Biel, Cameracensis, Cajetan, and many more, who finding it not, brought in by the Popes Authority, and received in the Ro∣man Church, till 1200 years after Christ, yet endeavoured to defend it by other Arguments.

3. Scotus Confest, That there is not any * 1.2 place in Scripture so express as to compel a man to admit of Transubstantiation, were it not that the Church hath declared for it, (that is, Pope Innocent III, in his Lateran Council.) Durandus said, That the word is found, but * 1.3 that by it, the manner they contend for cannot be proved. Biel affirms, That it is no where * 1.4 found in Canonical Scriptures. Occam declared, That it is easier, more reasonable, less incon∣venient, and better agreeing with Scripture, to hold that the substance of the Bread remains. After him Cardinal Cameracensis doth also confess, That Transubstantiation cannot be proved out of the Scriptures. Nay, the Bishop of Rochester saith himself, That there is no expression in Scripture whereby that conversion of substance in the Mass can be made good. Cardinal Cajetan likewise, There is not any * 1.5 thing of force enough in the Gospel to make us understand in a proper sense these words, This

is my body: Nay, that presence which the Church (of Rome) believes in the Sacrament * 1.6 cannot be proved by the words of Christ without the declaration of the (Roman) Church. Lastly, Bellarmine himself doth say, That * 1.7 though he might bring Scripture clear enough, to his thinking, to prove Transubstantiation by, to an easie man, yet still it would be doubtful whe∣ther he had done it to purpose, because some very acute and learned men, as Scotus, hold that it cannot be proved by Scripture. Now in this, Protestants desire no more but to be of the opinion of those learned and acute men.

4. And indeed, the words of instituti∣on would plainly make it appear to any man that would prefer truth to wrangling, that it is with the Bread, that the Lords Body is given, (as his Bloud with the Wine) for Christ; having taken, blessed, and broken the bread, said, This is my body; and St. Paul, than whom none could better understand the meaning of Christ, explains it thus, The bread which we break is the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Communion or communication of the body of Christ, that whereby his body is given, and the Faithful are made par∣takers of it. That it was bread which he reacht to them, there was no need of any proof, the receiver's senses sufficient∣ly convinc'd them of it; but that there∣with

his body was given, none could have known, had it not been declared by him who is the truth it self. And though, by the divine institution and the explica∣tion of the Apostle every faithful Com∣municant may be as certainly assured that he receives the Lords Body, as if he knew that the Bread is substantially turned into it, yet it doth not therefore follow, that the Bread is so changed, that its sub∣stance is quite done away, so that there remains nothing present, but the very natural Body of Christ, made of bread: For certain it is, that the bread is not the Body of Christ any otherwise than as the Cup is the New Testament, and two dif∣ferent consequences cannot be drawn from those two not different expressions. Therefore as the Cup cannot be the New Testament but by a Sacramental figure, no more can the Bread be the Body of Christ, but in the same sense.

5. As to what Bellarmine and others say, That it is not possible the words of Christ can be true, but by that conversion, which the Church of Rome calls Transubstantia∣tion, that is so far from being so, that if it were admitted, it would first deny the Divine Omnipotency, as though God were not able to make the Body of Christ

present, and truly to give it in the Sacra∣ment, whilst the substance of the Bread remains. 2. It would be inconsistent with the Divine Benediction which preserves things in their proper being. 3. It would be contrary to the true nature of a Sacra∣ment, which always consisteth of two parts. And lastly, It would in some man∣ner destroy the true substance of the Bo∣dy and Bloud of Christ, which cannot be said to be made of Bread and Wine by a Priest, without a most high presumption. But the truth of the words of Christ re∣mains constant, and can be defended, without overthrowing so many other great truths. Suppose a Testator puts Deeds and Titles in the hand of his Heir, with these words, Take the House which I bequeath thee; There is no man will think that those Writings and Parch∣ments are that very House which is made of Wood or Stones, and yet no man will say that the Testator spake falsly or obscurely. Likewise our blessed Saviour, having sanctified the Elements by his words and prayers, gave them to his Di∣sciples as Seals of the New Testament, whereby they were as certainly secured of those rich and precious Legacies which he left to them, as Children are of their

Fathers Lands and Inheritance, by Deeds and Instruments signed and delivered for that purpose.

6. To the Sacred Records we may add the judgment of the Primitive Church. For those Orthodox and holy Doctors of our holier Religion, those great Lights of the Catholick Church, do all clearly, con∣stantly, and unanimously conspire in this, That the presence of the Body of Christ in the Sacrament is only mystick and spi∣ritual. As for the entire annihilation of the substance of the Bread and the Wine, or that new and strange Tenet of Transub∣stantiation, they did not so much as hear or speak any thing of it: Nay, the con∣stant stream of their Doctrine doth clear∣ly run against it, how great soever are the brags and pretences of the Papists to the contrary. And if you will hear them one by one, I shall bring some of their most noted passages only, that our labour may not be endless by rehearsing all that they have said to our purpose on this subject.

7. I shall begin with that holy and an∣cient Doctor, Justin Martyr, who is one * 1.8 of the first after the Apostles times; whose undoubted Writings are come to us. What was believed at Rome and elsewhere in his time, concerning this holy mystery,

may well be understood out of these his words: After that the Bishop hath prayed, and blessed, and the people said Amen, those whom we call Deacons or Ministers give to every one of them that are present a portion of the * 1.9 Bread and Wine; and that food we call the Eu∣charist, for we do not receive it as ordinary Bread and Wine. They received it as bread, yet not as common bread. And a little after, By this food digested, our flesh and bloud are fed, and we are taught that it is the Body and Bloud of Jesus Christ. Therefore the substance of the Bread remains, and re∣mains corruptible food, even after the Consecration, which can in no wise be said of the immortal Body of Christ: For the flesh of Christ is not turned into our flesh, neither doth it nourish it, as doth that food which is Sacramentally called the Flesh of Christ. But the Flesh of Christ feeds our souls unto eternal life.

8. After the same manner, it is writ∣ten by that holy Martyr Irenaeus Bishop much about the same time. The bread * 1.10 which is from the earth is no more common bread, after the invocation of God upon it, but is become the Eucharist consisting of two parts, * 1.11 the one earthly, and the other heavenly. There would be nothing earthly if the substance of the bread were removed. Again,

As the grain of wheat falling in the ground, and dying, riseth again much increased, and then receiving the word of God becomes the * 1.12 Eucharist (which is the Body and Bloud of Christ;) So likewise our bodies nourished by it, laid in the ground and dissolved, shall rise again in their time. Again, We are fed by the Creature, * 1.13 but it is he himself that gives it, he hath ordain∣ed and appointed that Cup which is a Creature, and his Bloud also, and that Bread which is a Creature, and also his Body. And so when the Bread and the Cup are blessed by Gods Word, they become the Eucharist of the Body and Bloud of Christ, and from them our bodies receive nourishment and increase. Now that our flesh is fed and encreased by the natural body of Christ cannot be said without great impiety by themselves that hold Transubstantiation. For naturally no∣thing nourisheth our bodies but what is made flesh and bloud by the last digestion, which it would be blasphemous to say of the incorruptible body of Christ. Yet the sacred Elements which in some manner are, and are said to be the body and bloud of Christ, yield nourishment and encrease to our bodies by their earthly nature, in such sort, that by vertue also of the heavenly and spiritual food which the faithful receive by means of the material,

our bodies are fitted for a blessed Resur∣rection to immortal glory.

9. Tertullian, who flourished about the two hundredth year after Christ, when * 1.14 as yet he was Catholick, and acted by a pious zeal, wrote against Marcion the He∣retick, who amongst his other impious opinions taught that Christ had not ta∣ken of the Virgin Mary the very nature and substance of a humane body, but on∣ly the outward forms and appearances; out of which Fountain the Romish Tran∣substantiators seem to have drawn their Doctrine of accidents abstracted from their subject hanging in the air, that is, sub∣sisting on nothing. Tertullian, disputing against this wicked Heresie, draws an Ar∣gument * 1.15 from the Sacrament of the Eu∣charist to prove that Christ had not a Phantastick and imaginary, but a true and natural body, thus. The figure of the Body of Christ proves it to be natu∣ral, for there can be no figure of a Ghost or a Phantasm. But (saith he) Christ having taken the Bread, and given it to his Disciples made it his Body by saying, This is my Body, that is, the figure of my Body. Now, it could not have been a figure except the body were real, for a meer appearance, an imaginary Phantasm is not capable of a figure. Each part of this

Argument is true, and contains a neces∣sary Conclusion. For 1. The bread must remain bread, otherwise Marcion would have returned the Argument against Ter∣tullian, saying as the Transubstantiators; It was not bread, but meerly the acci∣dents 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 nou∣rishing 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 Sa∣crament.

10. Origen also, about the same time * 1.16 with Tertullian, speaks much after the same manner, If Christ (saith he) as these men (the Marcionites) falsly hold, had nei∣ther 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 represen∣tations 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 con∣trivance of Transubstantiation is over∣thrown. Also upon Leviticus he doth ex∣presly oppose it thus: Acknowledge ye that * 1.17 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 under∣stands 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 spiri∣tually. Again, writing on St. Matthew, * 1.18 he doth manifestly put a difference be∣twixt 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 * 1.19 Word of God and Prayer, as far as it is materi∣al, 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 * 1.20 glorious Martyr of Christ, wrote a fa∣mous Epistle to Coecilius concerning the sacred Chalice in the Lords Supper, whereof this is the sum: Let that Cup * 1.21 which is offered to the people in commemoration of Christ be mixt with Wine (against the opinion of the Aquarii who were for wa∣ter 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 (espe∣cially the Wine appointed by our bles∣sed 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 no∣thing (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 Faith∣ful * 1.22 are called from the consideration of the outward visible Elements of Bread and Wine, to attend the inward and spi∣ritual act of the mind, whereby Christ is seen and apprehended. Let not our thoughts dwell low, on that Bread and that Cup which are * 1.23 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 Resurrecti∣on: 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 be∣lieve 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, mind∣ing 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 Transub∣stantiation.

13. St. Athanasius, famous in the time, * 1.24 and present in the Assembly of the Nicene Council, a stout Champion of the Ca∣tholick Faith, acknowledgeth none other but a spiritual Manducation of the Body of Christ in the Sacrament. Our Lord (saith he) made a difference * 1.25 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 cor∣poral sense, but might understand that

his Flesh whereof he spake is a spiritual and * 1.26 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 * 1.27 to the Resurrection to eternal life. Cardinal Perron having nothing to answer to these * 1.28 words of this holy Father, in a kind of despair, rejects the whole Tractate, and denies it to be Athanasius's, which no bo∣dy ever did before him, there being no reason for it.

14. Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalam, of the * 1.29 same Age with St. Athanasius, treating of the Chrisme, wherewith they then anoin∣ted those that were Baptized, speaks thus: Take heed thou dost not think that this is a meer Oyntment only. For as the Broad of * 1.30 the Eucharist after the Invocation of the Holy Ghost is no longer ordinary Bread, but is the Body of Christ; so this holy Oyntment is no lon∣ger a bare common Oyntment after it is conse∣crated, but is the gift or grace of Christ, which, by his Divine Nature, and the coming of the Holy Ghost, is made ••fficacious; so that the Body is anointed with the Oyntment, but the soul is sanctified by the holy and vivifying Spirit. Can any thing more clear be said?

Either the Oyntment is transubstantiated by consecration into the spirit and grace of Christ, or the Bread and Wine are not transubstantiated by Consecration into the Body and Bloud of Christ. Therefore as the Oyntment retains still its substance, and yet is not called a meer or common ointment, but the Charisme or grace of Christ: So the Bread and Wine remain∣ing so, as to their substance, yet are not said to be only Bread and Wine common and ordinary, but also the Body and Bloud of Christ. Ʋnder the Type of Bread * 1.31 (saith he) the Body is given thee, and the Bloud under the type of the Wine. This Gro∣decius doth captiously and unfaithfully in∣terpret, under the appearances of Bread and Wine; for those meer appearances or accidents subsisting without a subject never so much as entred into the mind of any of the Ancients.

15. Much to the same purpose we have in the Anaphora or Liturgy attributed to St. Basil, We have set before you the Type of * 1.32 the Body and Bloud of Christ, which he calls the Bread of the Eucharist after the Con∣secration. * 1.33 If it be the Type of the Body, then certainly it cannot be the Body and nothing else: For (as we said before) nothing can be the figure of it self, no

more than a man can be his own Son or Father. There be also Prayers in that Li∣turgy, That the Bread may become the Body of Christ for the remission of sins, and life eternal to the receivers. Now true it is, that to the faithful the Element becomes a vivifying Body, because they are truly partakers of the heavenly bread, the Body of Christ: but to others, who either receive not, or are not believers, to them the Bread may be the Antitype, but is not, neither doth become the Body of Christ, for without Faith Christ is never eaten, as is gathered from the same Father. * 1.34

16. St. Gregory Nyssene, his Brother, doth clearly declare what change is wrought in the Bread and Wine by Consecration, saying, As the Altar naturally is but common stone, but being consecrated becomes an holy Ta∣ble, a spotless Altar; so the bread of the Eu∣charist is at first ordinary, but being mysterious∣ly * 1.35 sacrificed, it is, and is called the Body of Christ, and is efficacious to great purposes; and as the Priest (yesterday a Lay-man) by the Bles∣sing of Ordination, becomes a Doctor of Piety, and a Steward of Mysteries, and though not changed in body or shape, yet is transformed and made better as to his soul, by an invisible power and grace; so also by the same consequence, water, being nothing but water of it self, yet

blest by a heavenly grace, renews the man, working a spiritual regeneration in him. Now let the Assertors of Transubstantiation maintain that a Stone is substantially changed into an Altar, a man into a Priest, the water in Baptism into an invi∣sible grace, or else that the Bread is not so changed into the Body of Christ: For according to this Father there is the same consequence in them all.

17 Likewise St. Ambrose explaining * 1.36 what manner of alteration is in the bread, when in the Eucharist it becomes the Bo∣dy of Christ, saith: Thou hadst indeed a * 1.37 being, but wert an old creature, but being now Baptized or consecrated, thou art become a new creature. The same change that happens to man in Baptism, happens to the Bread in the Sacrament: If the nature of man is not substantially altered by the new Birth, no more is the bread by Consecra∣tion. Man becomes by Baptism, not what Nature made him, but what Grace new-makes him; and the Bread becomes by * 1.38 Consecration, not what it was by Nature, but what the Blessing consecrates it to be. For Na∣ture made only a meer man, and made on∣ly common bread; but Regeneration, of a meer man, makes a holy man, in whom Christ dwells spiritually: And likewise

the Consecration of common bread makes Mystick and Sacramental bread. Yet this change doth not destroy Nature, but to Nature adds Grace: As is yet more plainly exprest by that holy Father in the fore-cited place. Perhaps thou wilt say (saith he) this my bread is common bread; it is bread * 1.39 indeed before the blessing of the Sacrament, but when it is consecrated it becomes the Body of Christ. This we are therefore to declare, how can that which is bread be also the body of Christ? By Consecration. And Consecration is made by the words of our Lord, that the venerable Sa∣crament may be perfected. You see how efficaci∣ous is the word of Christ. If there be then so great a power in the word of Christ to make the Bread and Wine to be what they were not, how much greater is that power, which still preserves them to be what they were, and yet makes them to be what they were not? Therefore, that I may answer thee, it was not the Body of Christ before the Consecration, but now after the Con∣secration, it is the Body of Christ; he said the word and it was done; thou thy self wert be∣fere, but wert an old Creature; after thou hast been consecrated in Baptism thou art become a new creature. By these words St. Ambrose teacheth how we are to understand that the Bread is the Body of Christ, to wit, by such a change that the Bread and

Wine do not cease to be what they were as to their substance (for then they should not be what they were) and yet by the Blessing become what before they were not For so they are said to remain (as indeed they do 〈◊〉〈◊〉 what they were by na∣ture, that yet they are changed by grace, that is, they become assured Sacraments of the Body and Bloud of Christ, and by that means certain pledges of our Justi∣fication and Redemption. What is there, can refute more expresly the dream of Transubstantiation?

18. St. Chrysostome doth also clearly * 1.40 discard and reject this carnal Transub∣stantiation and eating of Christs Body, without eating the bread. Sacraments * 1.41 (saith he) ought not to be contemplated and considered carnally, but with the eyes of our souls, that is spiritually; for such is the nature of myste∣ries: where observe the opposition betwixt carnally and spiritually which admits of no plea or reply again. As in Baptism the spi∣ritual * 1.42 power of Regeneration is given to the material water; so also the immaterial gift of the Body and Bloud of Christ is not received by any sensible corporal action, but by the spiritual discernment of our faith, and of our hearts and minds. Which is no more than this, that 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 Sacramen∣tal 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 re∣tain their former natural substance. The bread (saith he) is made worthy to be honou∣red * 1.43 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 a 1.44 but both he and b 1.45 Possevin do vainly contend that it is not extant among the works of Chrysostom. For besides that at Florence c 1.46 and else where it was to be found among them, it is cited in the Col∣lections 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 imper∣fect work on St. Matthew, written either by St. Chrysostome, or some other ancient Author; a Book in this at least very Or∣thodox, and not corrupted by the Arri∣ans. In these sanctified vessels, (saith he) the true body of Christ is not contained, but the My∣stery of his Body.

19. Which also hath been said by St. Austin above a thousand times; but * 1.47 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 Bo∣dy * 1.48 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 * 1.49 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 Sa∣crament 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 Maxi∣minus * 1.50 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 * 1.51 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 Sacra∣ments 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 abo∣lished 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, * 1.52 who lived almost in the time of Austin, teacheth, That the Eucharist consisteth of two things, the visible appearance of the Ele∣ments, and the invisible Flesh and Bloud of our * 1.53 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 in∣famous 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 * 1.54

learn what the Primitive Church believes in this matter. Our Saviour, in the Institu∣tion * 1.55 of the Eucharist, changed the names of things, giving to his body the name of its Sa∣crament, 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 * 1.56 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 sub∣stance continues, as he explains more plainly afterwards. For when the Here∣tick that stands for Eutichius, had said, As the Sacrament of the Lords Body and Bloud are * 1.57 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 Transub∣stantiator this Eutychian Argument is irre∣fragable, but) Catholick Antiquity an∣swers it thus: Thou are entangled in the nets of thine own knitting; for the Elements or Mystick

signs depart not from their nature after Conse∣cration, 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 Theo∣doret, who assisted at the universal Coun∣cils 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 under∣stood the nature and substance of the ac∣cidents, * 1.58 (as Cardinal Bellarmine is plea∣sed to speak most absurdly:) but the whole context doth strongly refute this gloss, for Theodoret joyns together nature, sub∣stance, form, and figure, and indeed, what Answer could they have given to the Euty∣chian Argument, if the substance of the bread being annihilated after the Conse∣cration, 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, acci∣dents of substances, and any thing out of any thing. But sure they are too immo∣dest and uncharitable, who, to elude the authority of so famous and so worthy a Father as Theodoret, alledge that he was accused of some errours in the Council of Ephesus, though he repented afterwards, as they themselves are forced to confess. Fain would they if they could get out at this door, when they cannot deny that he affirmed, that the Elements remain in their natural substance, as he wrote in the Dialogues which he composed against the Eutychian Hereticks, with the applause and approbation of the Catholick Church. And indeed the evidence of this truth hath compelled some of our Adver∣saries to yield that Theodoret is of our side. For in the Epistle before the Dialogues of Theodoret in the Roman Edition, set forth by Stephan Nicolinus, the Popes Printer, in the year 1547, it is plainly set down. That * 1.59 in what concern'd Transubstantiation his opinion was not very sound, but that he was to be ex∣cused, because the Church (of Rome) had made no decree about it.

22. With Theodoret we may joyn Gelasius, * 1.60 who (whether he were Bishop of Rome or no as Bellarmine confesseth, was of the same age and opinion as he, and therefore a wit∣ness ancient and credible enough. He wrote against Eutyches and Nestorius, concerning the two natures in Christ, in this man∣ner. Doubtless, the Sacrament of the Body and * 1.61 Bloud of Christ which we receive, is a very di∣vine thing, whereby, we are made partakers of the divine nature; and yet it doth not cease to be Bread and Wine, by substance and nature. And indeed, the image and resemblance of the Body and Bloud of Christ is celebrated in this mysterious action. By this therefore we see ma∣nifestly enough, that we must believe that to be in Christ, which we believe to be in his Sacra∣ment, that, as by the perfecting vertue of the Holy Ghost, it becomes a divine substance, and yet remains in the propriety of its nature; so this great Mystery the Incarnation, of whose power and efficacy this is a lively image doth de∣monstrate that there is one intire and true Christ, consisting of two natures, which yet properly remain unchanged. It doth plainly appear out of these words, that the change wrought in the Sacrament is not substan∣tial, for first, the sanctified Elements are so made the Body and Bloud of Christ, that still they continue to be, by

nature, Bread and Wine. Secondly, The Bread and Wine retain their natural pro∣perties, as also the two natures in Christ. Lastly, The Elements are said to become a divine substance, because while we re∣ceive them, we are made partakers of the Divine Nature, by the Body and Bloud of Christ, which are given to us. These things being so, their blindness is to be deplored who see not that they bring again into the Church of Rome the same Error which Antiquity piously and lear∣nedly condemned in the Eutychians. And as for their thread-bare objection to this, That by the substance of * 1.62 Bread and wine, the true substance it self is not to be understood, but only the nature and essence of the acci∣dents, it is a very strange and very poor shift. There is a great deal more of com∣mendation due to the ingenuity of Car∣dinal * 1.63 Contarenus, who yielding to the evi∣dence of truth, answered nothing to this plain Testimony of Gelasius. * 1.64

23. Now I add Cyril of Alexandria, who said, That the Body and Bloud of Christ. in the Sacrament are received only by a pure faith, as we read in that Epistle against Nestorius, which six hundred Fathers approved and confirmed in the Council of Chalcedon. I

omit to mention the other Fathers of this Age, though many things in their Wri∣tings be as contrary to Transubstantiation and the independency of accidents as any I have hitherto cited.

24. I come now to the Sixth Century, * 1.65 about the middle whereof Ephrem, Pa∣triarch of Antioch, wrote a Book, which was read and commended by Photius, con∣cerning sacred Constitutions and Cere∣monies * 1.66 against the Eutychians; therein, that he might prove the Hypostatical Union, that in Christ there is no con∣fusion of natures, but that each retains its own substance and properties, he brings the comparison of the Sacramental Union, and denies that there should be any conversion of one substance into ano∣ther in the Sacrament. No man (saith he) that hath any reason will say that the nature of * 1.67 the palpable, and impalpable, and the nature of the visible and invisible is the same. For so the Body of Christ which is received by the faithful, remains in its own substance, and yet withal is united to a spiritual grace; and so Baptism, though it becomes wholly spiritual, yet it loseth not the sensible property of its substance (that's water) neither doth it cease to be what it was made by grace.

25. It is not very long since the works of Facundus, an African Bishop, were Prin∣ted * 1.68 at Paris, but he lived in the same Cen∣tury. Now what his Doctrine was against Transubstantiation, as also of the Church in his time, is plainly to be seen by those words of his, which I here transcribe. The Sacrament of Adoption may be called * 1.69 Adoption, as the Sacrament of the Body and Bloud of Christ, consecrated in the Bread and Wine is said to be his Body and Bloud; not that his Body be Bread, or his Bloud Wine, but because the Bread and Wine are the Sacrament of his Body and Bloud, and therefore so called by Christ, when he gave them to his Disciples. Sirmondus the Jesuit hath writ Annotations on Facundus; but when he came to this place he had nothing to say, but that the Bread is no Bread, but only the likeness and appearance of Bread: An opinion so unlike that of Facundus that it should not have been Fathered up∣on him, by a learned and ingenuous man, as Sirmondus would be thought to be. For he cannot so much as produce any one of the ancient Fathers that ever made men∣tion of accidents subsisting without a sub∣ject, (called by him the appearances of Bread.) And as for his thinking, That some would take the expressions of Facundus to

be somewhat uncouth and obscure, how un∣just and injurious it is to that learned Father may easily be observed by any.

26. Isidore, Bishop of Hispal, about the * 1.70 begining of the Seventh Century, wrote thus concerning the Sacrament, Because * 1.71 the bread strengthens our body, therefore it is called the Body of Christ, and because the Wine is made bloud, therefore the Bloud of Christ is expressed by it. Now these two are visible, but yet being sanctified by the Holy Spirit, they be∣come the Sacraments of the Lords Body. For the Bread which we break is the Body of Christ, who said, I am the Bread of life; and the Wine is his Bloud, as it is written, I am the true Vine. Behold, saith he, they become a Sacrament, not the substance of the Lords Body; for the Bread and Wine which feed our Flesh cannot be substantially, nor be said to be the Body and Bloud of Christ, but Sacramentally, they are so as certainly, as that they are 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 re∣ceived by Faith. These words were record∣ed 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 Venera∣ble * 1.72 Bede our Country-man, who lived in the Eighth Century, In his Sermon upon * 1.73 the Epiphany; of whom we also take these two testimonies following: In the room of * 1.74 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 * 1.75 gave to his Disciples the figure of his holy Body and Bloud. These utterly destroy Tran∣substantiation.

28. In the same Century, Charles the * 1.76 Great wrote an Epistle to our Alcuinus, wherein we find these words. Christ, at * 1.77 Supper broke the bread to his Disciples, and like∣wise 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 Conse∣crated bread.

29. But now, about the beginning of the Ninth Century, started up Paschafius, * 1.78 a Monk of Corbie, who first (as some say, whose Judgment I follow not) among the Latines, taught that Christ was Con∣substantiated, * 1.79 or rather inclosed in the

Bread & corporally united to it in the Sa∣crament; for as yet there was no thoughts of the Transubstantiation of Bread. But these new sorts of expressions not agree∣ing 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 learn∣ed men (as Amalarius, Archdeacon of Triars; Rabanus, at first Abbot of Fulda, and afterwards Archbishop of Ments; John Erigena, an English Divine; Walafri∣dus 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 con∣cerning Paschasius, whom Bellarmine and * 1.80 Sirmondus esteemed so highly, that they were not ashamed to say, that he was the first that had writ to the purpose concern∣ing 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 re∣presentation void of truth, which Pro∣testants 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 spiri∣tual 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 re∣main 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 car∣nally, but spiritually. In these he teacheth, that the Mystery of the Lords Supper is

not, and ought not to be understood car∣nally 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 un∣worthy 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 pro∣duce the testimony of those Writers be∣fore mentioned to have written in this Century. In all that I write (saith Amala∣rius) * 1.81 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 Cele∣bration of Divine Service, are done in the Sa∣crament * 1.82 of the Passion of our Lord as he himself commanded. Therefore the Priest offering the Bread, with the Wine and Water in the Sacra∣ment, doth it in the stead of Christ, and the

Bread, Wine, and Water in the Sacrament re∣present the Flesh and Bloud of Christ. For Sa∣craments are somewhat to resemble those things whereof they are Sacraments. Therefore let the Priest be like unto Christ, as the Bread and Li∣quors 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 cal∣led 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 Expressi∣ons of St. Austin, and the Doctrine of the purest Church.

31. Rabanus Maurus, a great Doctor of * 1.83 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, ap∣peared visible, in our Flesh, and mortal to save us mortals, so he might by a thing visible fitly represent to us a thing invisible. Some re∣ceive the Sacred Sign at the Lords Table to their Salvation, and some to their Ruine; but the thing signified is life to every man, and death to none, whoever receives it is united as a mem∣ber to Christ the head in the Kingdom of Hea∣ven; for the Sacrament is one thing, and the efficacy of it another: For the Sacrament is re∣ceived with the mouth, but the grace thereof feeds the inward man. And as the first is turned into our substance when we eat it and drink it, so are we made the Body of Christ when we live piously and obediently.—Therefore the Faithful do well and truly receive the body of Christ, if they neglect not to be his members, and they are made the Body of Christ if they will live of his Spirit. All these agree not in the least with the new Doctrine of Rome, and as little with that opinion they attribute to Paschasius, and therefore he is rejected as erroneous by some Romish Authors, who * 1.84 writ four and six hundred years after him: But they should have considered that they condemned not only Rabanus, but together

with him all the Doctors of the Primitive Church.

32. Johannes Erigena our Country-man, * 1.85 (whom King Alfred took to be his, and his Childrens Tutor, and to credit the new founded University of Oxford) while he lived in France, where he was in great esteem with Charles the Bald, wrote a 1.86 a Book concerning the Body and Bloud of our Lord, to the same purpose as Rabanus, and back'd it with clear Testimonies of Scripture and of the Holy Fa∣thers. But entring himself into the Monastery of Malmsbury, as he was interpreting the Book of Dyonisius about the heavenly Hierarchy, (which he tran∣slated into Latine) and withal censuring the newly-hatcht Doctrine of the Carnal Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, he was stabb'd b 1.87 with Pen knives by some unworthy Schollars of his, set on by cer∣tain Monks; though not long after, he was by some c 1.88 others numbred among Holy Martyrs.

33. Walasridus Strabo, about the same time wrote on this manner. Therefore in that Last Supper whereat Christ was with his Disciples before he was betrayed; after the so∣lemnities of the ancient Passeover, he gave to

his Disciples the Sacrament of his Body and Bloud in the substance of Bread and Wine,—and instructed us to pass from carnal to spiritual things, from earthly to heavenly things, and from shadows to the substance.

34. As for the opinion of Bertram, other∣wise called Ratramnus, or Ratramus, per∣haps * 1.89 not rightly, it is known enough by that Book which the Emperour Charles the Bald (who loved and honoured him, as all good men did, for his great learning and piety) commanded him to write concern∣ing the Body and Bloud of our Lord. For when men began to be disturbed at the Book of Paschasius, some saying one thing, and some another, the Emperour being moved by their disputes propound∣ed himself two questions to Bertram. 1. Whether, what the Faithful eat in the Church, be made the Body and Bloud of Christ in Figure and in Mystery? 2. Or whether that natural body which was born of the Virgin Mary, which suffered, died, and was buried, and now sitteth on the right hand of God the Father, be it self dayly received by the mouth of the Faithful in the Mystery of the Sacra∣ment? The first of these Bertram resolved Affirmatively, the second Negatively, and said, that there was as great a diffe∣rence

betwixt those two bodies, as betwixt the earnest and that whereof it is the ear∣nest. It is evident (saith he) that that Bread * 1.90 and Wine are figuratively the Body and Bloud of Christ.—According to the substance of the Elements, they are after the Consecration what they were before.—For the Bread is not Christ substantially.—If this mystery be not done in a figure, it cannot well be called a Mystery.—The Wine also which is made the Sacrament of the Bloud of Christ by the Consecration of the Priest, shews one thing by its outward ap∣pearance and contains another inwardly. For what is there visible in its outside but only the substance of the Wine? These things are changed, but not according to the material part, and by this change they are not what they truly appear to be, but are some thing else besides what is their proper being: For they are made spiritually the Body and Bloud of Christ; not that the Ele∣ments be two different things, but in one respect they are, as they appear, Bread and Wine, and in another the Body and Bloud of Christ.—Hence, according to the visible Creature they feed the body, but according to the vertue of a more excellent substance they nourish and sanctifie the souls of the Faithful. Then ha∣ving brought many Testimonies of holy Scripture and the ancient Fathers to con∣firm this, he at last prevents that Ca∣lumny

which the followers of Paschasius did then lay on the Orthodox, as though they had taught that bare signs, figures, and shadows, and not the Body and Bloud of Christ were given in the Sacra∣ment, Let it not be thought (saith he) be∣cause we say this, that therefore the Body and Bloud of Christ are not received in the Mystery of the Sacrament, where Faith apprehends what it believes, and not what the eyes see; for this meat and drink are spiritual, feed the soul spiritually, and entertain that life whose fulness is eternal. For the question is not simply about the real truth, or the thing signi∣fied being present, without which it could not be a Mystery, but about the false rea∣lity of things subsisting in imaginary appearances, and about the Carnal Pre∣sence.

35. All this the Fathers of Trent, and * 1.91 the Romish Inquisitors could not brook, and therefore they utterly condemn∣ed Bertram, and put his Book in the Catalogue of those that are forbidden. But the Professors of Doway judging this proceeding much too violent, and there∣fore more like to hurt than to advance the Roman Cause, went another and more cunning way to work, and had the appro∣bation of the Licencers of Books, and

the Authors of the Belgick Index expurga∣torius. * 1.92 That Book of Bertram (say they) ha∣ving been already Printed several times, read by many, and known to all by its being forbid∣den, may be suffered and used after it is corre∣cted; for Bertram was a Catholick Priest and a Monk in the Monastery of Corbie, esteemed and beloved by Charles the Bald. And being we bear with many errors in Ancient Catholick Authors, and lessen, and excuse them, and by some cunning device (behold the good mens fidelity!) often deny them, and give a more commodious sense, when they are objected to us in our disputes with our Adversaries; we do not see why Bertram should not also be amended and used with the same Equity, lest Hereticks cast us in the teeth, that we burn and suppress those Records of Antiquity that make for them: And, as we also fear, lest, not only Hereticks, but also stubborn Catholicks read the Book with the more greediness, and cite it with the more confidence because it is forbidden, and so it doth more harm by being prohibited than if it was left free. What patch then will they sow to amend this in Bertram? Those things that differ are not the same; that Body of Christ which died and rose again, and is become immortal, dies no more, being eternal and impassable: But that which is celebrated in the Church, is temporal, not eternal; is cor∣ruptible,

and not incorruptible. To this last mentioned passage, they give a very com∣modious sense, namely, that it should be understood of the corruptible species of the Sacra∣ment, or of the Sacrament it self, and the use of it, which will last no longer than this world. If this will not do, it may not be amiss to leave it all out; to blot out visibly, and write invisibly. And this, What the Crea∣tures were in substance before the Consecration, they are still the same after it, must be under∣stood, according to the outward appearance, that is, the accidents of the Bread and Wine. Though they confess that then Bertram knew nothing of those accidents subsisting without 〈◊〉〈◊〉 substance, and many other things which thi•• latter age hath added out of the Scriptures wit•• as great truth as subtilty. How much easier had it been at one stroke to blot out the whole Book? And so make short work with it, as the Spanish Inquisitors did i•• their Index expurgat. Let the whole Epi∣stle * 1.93 (say they) of Udalricus, Bishop of Ausburg be blotted out, cencerning the single life of the Clergy; and let the whole Book of Bertram the Priest, about the Body and Bloud of the Lord, be supprest. What is this, but, as Arnobius said against the Heathen, to in∣tercept publick Records, and fear the Testimoy * 1.94 of the Truth? For, as for that which

Sixtus Senensis, and Possevin affirm, That * 1.95 that Book of the Body and Bloud of the Lord was writ by Oecolampadius under the name of Bertram, it is so great an un∣truth, that a greater cannot be found.

36. We are now come to the tenth Century, wherein, besides those many Sentences of Catholick Fathers against Innovaters in what concerns the Body and Bloud of Christ, collected by Heri∣gerus * 1.96 Abbas Lobiensis, we have also an an∣cient Easter Homily in Saxon English, which * 1.97 then used to be read publickly in our Churches: out of which we may gather what was then the Doctrine received amongst us, touching this Point of Reli∣gion; but chiefly out of that part where∣in are shewn many differences betwixt the natural Body of Christ and the Consecra∣ted Host. For thus it teacheth the people, There is a great difference betwixt that body wherein Christ suffered and that wherein the Host is consecrated. That Body, wherein Christ suffered was born of the Virgin Mary, con∣sisting of bloud and bones, skin and nerves, humane members, and a rational soul: But his spiritual body which we call the Host, is made of many united grains of corn, and hath neither bloud nor bones, neither members nor soul. Afterwards, The Body of Christ, which once

died and rose again, shall die no more, but re∣mains eternal and impassible; but this Host is temporal and corruptible, divided into parts broken with the teeth, and swallowed down into the stomach. Lastly, this Mystery is a pledge and a figure: The body of Christ is that very truth. What is seen is bread, but what is spiri∣tually understood is life. There is also another Sermon of Bishop Wulfinus to the Clergy, bearing the title of a Synod of Priests wherein the same opinion and Doctrine is explained in this manner: That Host is the Body of Christ, not corporally, but spiritually; * 1.98 not that Body wherein he suffered, but that Body whereof he spake, when he consecrate•• the Bread and Wine into an Host. Which to this day, in the Church of England we hold to be a Catholick truth.

37. And so hitherto we have produced the agreeing Testimonies of Ancient Fa∣thers for a thousand years after Christ, and have transcribed them more at large, to make it appear to every one that is not blind, that the true Apostolick Doctrine of this Mystery, hath been universally main∣tained for so long by all men; some few excepted, who more than eight hundred years after Christ presumed to dispute against the ancient Orthodox Doctrine, of the manner of Christs Presence, and of

his being received in the Sacrament, though they durst not positively deter∣mine any thing against it. Now, what more concerns this Point we refer to the next Chapter, lest this should be too long.

Notes

• * 1.1

  See ch. 1. art. 6. c. 3 art. 4. c. 4. art. 5, and this ch. art. 5.
• * 1.2

  Scot. in 4. Sent d. 11. q. 3.
• * 1.3

  Durand. ut suprae.
• * 1.4

  Biel in Can. missae sect. 40. Occam. Cent l. ••. q. 6. & in 4. Sent d. 11. q. 6. Cam. in 4. d 11. q. 6. L contra Luth de Capt Ba∣bil. c. 1.
• * 1.5

  Cajetan in Tho. p 3. q. 75. art. 1
• * 1.6

  Ibid. q. 45. art. 14.
• * 1.7

  Bell. de Euch. l. 3. c. 23.
• * 1.8

  Just. Mart. An. Dom. 144.
• * 1.9

  Apol. 2. ad Anton. 〈…〉〈…〉 one 〈…〉〈…〉.
• * 1.10

  St. Iren. A. D. 160.
• * 1.11

  Lib. 4. Cont. Hae∣res. c. 34.
• * 1.12

  Lib 5. c. 12.
• * 1.13

  Ibid.
• * 1.14

  Tertul. A. D. 200.
• * 1.15

  Contra Marcion l 4. c. 40.
• * 1.16

  Origen. A D. 2••0. Dial. 3. de Hom. Chri∣sto contra Marcion.
• * 1.17

  Homil. 7. in Lev.
• * 1.18

  Mat. 15.
• * 1.19

  Origen is unjustly numbred by reason of these words among the Hereticks called Stercora∣nistae.
• * 1.20

  S. Cyprian A. D. 250.
• * 1.21

  L. 2. Ep. 3. sive 63. Edit. Pa∣mel.
• * 1.22

  Con. Nice. A. D. 325.
• * 1.23

  In actis ibid. a Gel. Cy∣ciz. con∣script.
• * 1.24

  St. Athan. A. D. 330.
• * 1.25

  In illud Evangelii 3 Quicun{que} dixerit ver∣bum, &c. & in c. 6. St. Joh. qui mandus cat caernem means, &c.
• * 1.26

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.27

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.28

  De Euch. 〈…〉〈…〉. ar. ••0.
• * 1.29

  St. Cyril of Hier. A D. 550.
• * 1.30

  Chatech. myst. 3.
• * 1.31

  Chatech. Myst. 4. Thy bodily Palate (saith he) tasteth one thing there, and thy faith another.
• * 1.32

  St. Basil. A. D. 360.
• * 1.33

  Lib. de Spir. Sanc.
• * 1.34

  Lib de Bapt. St Greg Nyss A. D. 370.
• * 1.35

  Orat. de S. Baptis.
• * 1.36

  St Ambr. A D. 380.
• * 1.37

  Lib de Sa∣cram. 4. cap. 4.
• * 1.38

  Ibid. de init. myst. cap. 9.
• * 1.39

  De Sacr. l. 4. c. 4.
• * 1.40

  St Chrys. A. D. 390.
• * 1.41

  Hom. 15. in St. Joh.
• * 1.42

  Ibid.
• * 1.43

  In Ep. ad Caesar▪ contra hae∣res. Apol.
• a 1.44

  L. de Euch. 2. c 22.
• b 1.45

  In ap∣par Chrys.
• c 1.46

  Steph. Gard. Ep. Wi••t cont Pet M••rt. lib. ••. de Euchar.
• * 1.47

  S. Austin. A. D. ••00.
• * 1.48

  In Psal. 93.
• * 1.49

  Epist. 23. ad Bonif.
• * 1.50

  Cont Max. l. 3. c. 22.
• * 1.51

  De Doctr. Christ. cap. 7.
• * 1.52

  St. Prosp. A. D. 430.
• * 1.53

  Sent. Pros. dist. 2. de cors: cap. hoc est.
• * 1.54

  B. Theo∣doret 7.
• * 1.55

  Dial. 1.
• * 1.56

  Ibid.
• * 1.57

  Dial. 2.
• * 1.58

  L 2. de Euch. c. 27
• * 1.59

  Praes. in Dial. The∣od.
• * 1.60

  St Gelas. A. 470, or 490. plus minus.
• * 1.61

  De duabus in Christo natur, in Biblioth. patrum. Tom. 4.
• * 1.62

  Bell loco Citat Baron. A. D. 96. nota Marg. ad verba Gelasii in B. B. Patrum.
• * 1.63

  In Colloq. Ratisb. A. 1541.
• * 1.64

  St Cyril of Alex. The Coun∣cil of Calc. Circa. An. ••50. Inter Ep. Cyr. in Con. Eph. Con. Chal. Art. 5.
• * 1.65

  Ephrem. Ant. 540.
• * 1.66

  Phot. in Bibl. n. 229.
• * 1.67

  Ibid.
• * 1.68

  Facund. Episc. A. D. 550.
• * 1.69

  Lib 9. c. 5.
• * 1.70

  Isid. Hisp. A. D 630.
• * 1.71

  Lib 1. de Off. Eccl. cap. 18.
• * 1.72

  Ven Bede A. D. 720.
• * 1.73

  Serm. de Epiph.
• * 1.74

  Com. in Luk. 22.
• * 1.75

  Com. in Psal. 3.
• * 1.76

  Car. Mag. A. D. 778.
• * 1.77

  Ep. ad Al∣cu. de ra∣tione Sept.
• * 1.78

  Pasch. A. D. 818.
• * 1.79

  Lib. de corp. & sang Chri∣sti.
• * 1.80

  Fell de Scrip Ec∣cles. verbo Pasch. Siem. in vita Paesc. Praef. Edi∣tione Pa risiensi.
• * 1.81

  Amal. An. 320.
• * 1.82

  Praef. in libr de Eccl. ••ffi••.
• * 1.83

  Raban. A. D. 825. Trithem. de Script. Eccl. Rabanus Maur. de Inst. Cler. l. 1. c. 31.
• * 1.84

  G. Malm. A. 200. and Tho. Wall. A. 1400.
• * 1.85

  Job. Erig. A. 860.
• a 1.86

  That Book was af∣terwards condemned under Leo IX. two hundred years after by the maintainers of Transubstantiati∣on.
• b 1.87

  Anton. tit c. 2. § 3. Vincent. l 24 c 4••. & aln.
• c 1.88

  Maims. de gestis Reg. angl. l 2. Wal Stra. ••••••▪ De rebus 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••. ••••.
• * 1.89

  Bertram Priest and Abbot, A. 860.
• * 1.90

  Lib. de corp. & Sang Dom part. 1. Ibid. Part. 2.
• * 1.91

  Index lib. prob. in si∣ne Concil Trid. Au∣thor. Pape editus in Lit. B.
• * 1.92

  Index ex∣pur. B••lg. jussu & author. Phil 2. Hisp. Reg. atque Al∣bani ducis concilio concinn. p. 54. v. Bert.
• * 1.93

  Index ex∣pur. Hisp. D. Gasp. Quirogae, Card & Inquis. ge∣ner. in fine.
• * 1.94

  Arnob. l 3.
• * 1.95

  Sixt. Sen. praef. in Bibl. Sanc. Possev. Prol. in Appa. Sac.
• * 1.96

  Herig. Ab. A. D. 9••0.
• * 1.97

  Hom. Pasc. Angl. Sax. A. D. 990. impressae Lond & MS. in publ. Cant. Acad. Bib.
• * 1.98

  Homil. Sa∣cerd Sy∣nod. impr. Lond. cum Homil. Paschali.