P. 144. Edit. ftance of any force against the Eutychians, who held that the body of Chrift upon his afcenfion ceas'd and was chang'd into the substance of his Divinity, it was neceffary to deny that there was any fubftantial change in the Sacrament of the bread and wine into the body and bloud of Chrift. So that here is an infallible authority, one of their own Popes exprefly against Tranfubftantiation. The last Testimony I fhall produce is of Facundus an African Bishop, who liv'd in the 6th. Century. Upon occafion of juftifying an expreffion of one who had faid that Chrift alfo received the adoption of Sons, he *Facund. reafons thus. * Chrift vouchsafed to receive the SacraParif. 1676. ment of adoption both when he was circumcifed and baptized: And the Sacrament of Adoption may be called adoption, as the Sacrament of his body and bloud; which is in the confecrated bread and cup, is by us called his body and bloud: not that the bread, (fays he) is properly his body and the cup his bloud, but because they contain in them the mysteries of his body and bloud; hence also our Lord himfeif called the bleffed bread and cup which he gave to his Difciples his body and bloud. Can any man after this believe, that it was then, and had ever been, the univerfal and received Doctrine of the Christian Church, that the bread and wine in the Sacrament are substantially changed into the proper and natural body and bloud of Chrift? By these plain Testimonies which I have produced, and I might have brought a great many more to the fame purpose, it is I think evident beyond all denial that Tranfubftantiation hath not been the perpetual belief of the Chriftian Church. And this likewife is acknowledged by many great and learned men of the (a) In Sent. Roman Church. (a) Scotus acknowledgeth, that this 1.4. Dift. 11. Doctrine was not always thought neceffary to be be lieved, 2.3. (b) In Sent. q. I. n. 15. I. p. 146. lieved, but that the neceffity of believing it was confequent to that Declaration of the Church made in the Council of Lateran under Pope Innocent the III. And (b) Durandus freely discovers his inclination to have believed the contrary, if the Church had not by that determination obliged men to believe it. (c) Tonftal Bi fhop of Durham alfo yields, that before the Lateran Council men were at liberty as to the manner of Christ's prefence in the Sacrament. And (d) Erafmus, who lived (d) In 1. Eand died in the communion of the Roman Church, pift. ad Coand than whom no man was better read in the ancient citante etiam Fathers, doth confefs that it was late before the Church Salmerone, defined Tranfubftantiation, unknown to the Ancients both 16. p. 108. name and thing. And (e) Alphonfus a Caftro fays plain- (e) de Haref ly, that concerning the Tranfubftantiation of the bread 18. into the body of Chrift, there is feldom any mention in the ancient Writers. And who can imagine that these learned men would have granted the ancient Church and Fathers to have been fo much Strangers to this Doctrine, had they thought it to have been the perpetual belief of the Church? I fhall now in the Second place, give an account of the particular time and occafion of the coming in of this Doctrine, and by what steps and degrees it grew up and was advanced into an Article of Faith in the Romish Church. The Doctrine of the corporal prefence of Christ was first started upon occafion of the Difpute about the Worship of Images, in oppofition whereto the Synod of Conftantinople about the year DCCL did argue thus, That our Lord having left us no other image of himself but the Sacrament, in which the fubftance of bread is the image of his body, we ought to make no other image of our Lord. In answer to this Argument the fecond Council of Nice in the year DCCLXXXVII did declare, that the Sacrament after Confecration is not the image and antitype * de Euchaxift.l. I. c. I. † Ibid. antitype of Chrift's body and bloud, but is properly his body and bloud. So that the corporal prefence of Chrift in the Sacrament was first brought in to support the Stupid worship of Images: And indeed it could never have come in upon a more proper occafion, nor have been applied to a fitter purpose. And here I cannot but take notice how well this with * Bellarmine's Obfervation, that none of the agrees Ancients who wrote of Herefies, hath put this errour (viz. of denying Tranfubftantiation) in his Catalogue; nor did any of the Ancients difpute against this errour for the first 600 years. Which is very true, because there could be no occafion then to difpute against thofe who denied Tranfubftantiation; fince, as I have fhewn, this Doctrine was not in being, unless amongst the Eutychian Heretiques, for the firft 600 years and more. But † Bellarmine goes on and tells us, that the first who call'd in question the truth of the body of the Lord in the Eucharift were the ICONOMACHI (the oppofers of Images) after the year DCC in the Council of Conftantinople; for thefe faid there was one image of Christ instituted by Christ himself, viz. the bread and wine in the Eucharift, which reprefents the body and bloud of Chrift: Wherefore from that time the Greek Writers often admonifh us that the Eucharift is not the figure or image of the body of the Lord, but his true body, as appears from the VIIth. Synod; which agrees moft exactly with the account which I have given of the first rise of this Doctrine, which began with the corporal prefence of Christ in the Sacrament, and afterwards proceeded to Tranfubftantiation. And as this was the firft occafion of introducing this Doctrine among the Greeks, fo in the Latin or Roman Church Pafchafius Radbertus, first a Monk, and afterwards Abbat of Corbey, was the firft broacher of it in the year DCCCXVIII. And chafii. And for this, befides the Evidence of History, we have the acknowledgment of two very eminent Perfons in the Church of Rome, Bellarmine and Sirmondus, who do in effect confefs that this Pafchafius was the first who wrote to purpose upon this Argument. * Bellar- de Scriptor. mine in these words, This Authour was the first who Ecclef. bath feriously and copiously written concerning the truth of Chrift's body and bloud in the Eucharist: And † Sir- † in vita Palmondus in thefe, he fo first explained the genuine fenfe of the Catholique Church, that he opened the way to the reft who afterwards in great numbers wrote upon the fame Argument: But though Sirmondus is pleafed to fay that he onely first explain'd the fenfe of the Catholique Church in this Point, yet it is very plain from the Records of that Age which are left to us, that this was the first time that this Doctrine was broached in the Latin Church; and it met with great oppofition in that Age, as I fhall have occafion hereafter to fhew. For Rabanus Maurus Arch-Bishop of Mentz about the year DCCCXLVII reciting the very words of Pafchafius wherein he had deliver'd this Doctrine, hath this remarkable passage concerning the novelty of it; | Some, || Epift. ad fays he, of late, not having a right opinion concerning the Sacrament of the body and bloud of our Lord, have Said that this is the body and bloud of our Lord which was born of the Virgin Mary, and in which our Lord fuffered upon the Cross and rofe from the dead: which errour, fays he, we have oppos'd with all our might. From whence it is plain, by the Teftimony of one of the greatest and most learned Bishops of that Age, and of eminent reputation for Piety, that what is now the very Doctrine of the Church of Rome concerning the Sacrament, was then efteem'd an Errour broach'd by fome Particular Perfons, but was far from being the generally receiv'd Doctrine of that Age. Can any D one Heribaldum.' C. 33. confecrat. di Domini. c. 5. one think it poffible, that fo eminent a Perfon in the Church both for piety and learning, could have condemn'd this Doctrine as an Errour and a Novelty, had it been the general Doctrine of the Christian Church, not onely in that but in all former Ages; and no cenfure pass'd upon him for that which is now the great burning Article in the Church of Rome, and esteemed by them one of the greatest and most pernicious Herefies? Afterwards in the year MLIX, when Berengarius in France and Germany had rais'd a fresh oppofition against this Doctrine, he was compell'd to recant it by Pope Nicholas and the Council at Rome, in these words, * Gratian.de* that the bread and wine which are set upon the Altar, Atinct. 2. after the confecration are not onely the Sacrament, but Lanfranc. de the true body and bloud of our Lord Jefus Chrift; and Corp. fang. are fenfibly, not onely in the Sacrament but in truth, Guitmund.de handled and broken by the hands of the Priest, and Sacram. 1. 1. ground or bruifed by the teeth of the faithfull. But it cram.l.1.c.19. feems the Pope and his Council were not then skilfull enough to exprefs themselves rightly in this matter; + Glofs. De- for the Glofs upon the Canon Law fays exprefly, † that cret. de confe- unless we understand thefe words of BERENGARIUS in cap.Ego Be (that is in truth of the Pope and his Council) in a found rengarius. fenfe, we shall fall into a greater Herefie than that of Alger. de Sa crat. dift. 2. BERENGARIUS; for we do not make parts of the body of Chrift. The meaning of which Glofs I cannot imagine, unless it be this, that the Body of Chrift, though it be in truth broken, yet it is not broken into parts (for we do not make parts of the body of Christ,) but into wholes: Now this new way of breaking a Body, not into parts but into wholes (which in good earneft is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome) though to them that are able to believe Tranfubftantiation it may for any thing I know appear to be sound sense, yet to us that cannot believe fo it appears to be folid non-fenfe. About |