66

"of the priest, but, after the invocation, are changed, ❝and become another thing; fo the body of our Lord, "after his afcenfion, is changed into the divine fub"ftance." But what fays the Catholick Orthodoxus to this? Why, he talks juft like one of Cardinal Perron's hereticks. "Thou art (fays he) caught in thy own net; because the myftical fymbols after confe"cration do not pafs out of their own nature; for they "remain in their former fubftance, figure and appear66 ance, and may be feen and handled even as before." He does not only deny the outward figure and appearance of the fymbols to be changed, but the nature and fubftance of them, even in the proper and ftricteft fenfe of the word fubftance. And it was neceffary fo to do, otherwife he had not given a pertinent anfwer to the fimilitude urged against him.

The next is one of their own Popes, Gelafius, who brings the fame inftance against the Eutychians, (biblioth. patr. tom. 4.). "Surely, (fays he), the facraments "which we receive of the body and blood of our Lord 66 are a divine thing, fo that by them we are made par"takers of a divine nature; and yet it ceaseth not to.

be the fubftance or nature of bread and wine: and 66 certainly the image and refemblance of Chrift's body ❝and blood are celebrated in the action of the mysteries;" that is, in the facrament. To make this inftance of any force against the Eutychians, who held, that the body of Chrift upon his afcenfion ceased, and was changed into the fubftance of his divinity, it was neceffary to deny, that there was any substantial change in the faerament of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. So that here is an infallible authority, one of their own Popes, exprefsly against tranfubftantiation.

The laft teftimony I fhall produce, is of Facundus, an African Bishop, who lived in the fixth century. Upon occafion of juftifying an expreffion of one who had faid, that Christ also received the adoption of fons, he reasons thus, (Facund. p. 144. edit. Par. 1676.). "Chrift "vouchfafed to receive the facrament of adoption both "when he was circumcifed and baptized: and the facra""ment of adoption may be called adoption, as the sa"crament of his body and blood, which is in the con"fecrated

K 2

"fecrated bread and cup, is by us called his body and "blood: not that the bread (fays he) is properly his "body, and the cup his blood, but becaufe they con"tain in them the mysteries of his body and blood. "Hence alfo our Lord himself called the bleffed bread and 46 cup which he gave to his difciples his body and blood." Can any man after this believe, that it was then, and had ever after been the univerfal and received doctrine of the Christian church, that the bread and wine in the facrament are fubftantially changed into the proper and natural body and blood of Chrift ?

By these plain teftimonies 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 Roman church. Scotus acknowledgeth, (in fent. 1.4. dift. 11. 9. 3.), that this doctrine was not always thought neceffary to be believed; but that the neceffity of believing it was confequent to that declaration of the church made in the council of Lateran, under Pope Innocent III. And Durandus (in fent. 1.4. dift. 11. q. 1. n. 15.) freely difcovers his inclination to have believed the 66 contrary, if the church had not by that determina❝tion obliged men to believe it." Tonftal Bishop of Durham alfo yields, (de euchar. 1. 1. p. 146.), "that "before the Lateran council men were at liberty as to "the manner of Chrift's prefence in the facrament." And Erafmus, who lived and died in the communion of the Roman church, and than whom no man was better read in the ancient fathers, doth confefs, (in 1 epift. ad Corinth. c. 7. citante etiam Salmerone, tom.9. iract. 16. p. 108.), that it was "late before the church de"fined tranfubftantiation, unknown to the ancients, "both name and thing." And Alphonfus a Caftro (de hæref. 1.8.) fays plainly, that concerning the tranfubftantiation of the bread into the body of Christ, "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

2. 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 corporeal prefence of Christ was first ftarted upon occafion of the difpute about the worship of images. In oppofition whereto, the fynod of Conftantinople, about the year 750, did argue thus: That our Lord having left us no other image of himself but the facrament, in which the substance of bread is the image of his body, we ought to make no other image of our Lord. In anfwer to this argument, the fecond council of Nice, in the year 787, did declare, that the facrament after confecration is not the image and antitype of Christ's body and blood, but is properly his body and blood. So that the corporeal prefence of the body of Christ in the facrament was firft brought in to fupport 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 agrees with Bellarmine's observation, (de eucharift. l. 1. . 1.), that " none of the ancients who wrote of he"refies hath put this error (viz. of denying tranfub · "ftantiation) in his catalogue; nor did any of the an"cients difpute against this error for the first 600 years." Which is very true, because there could be no occafion then to difpute against those who denied tranfubftantiation; fince, as I have fhewn, this doctrine was not in being, unless among the Eutychian hereticks, for the first 600 years and more. But Bellarmine goes on and tells us, that the "firft who called in queftion the truth "of the body of the Lord in the eucharift, were the "Iconomachi, (the oppofers of images), after the year

66

700, in the council of Conftantinople: for thefe faid, "there was one image of Chrift inftituted by Chrift "himself, viz. the bread and wine in the eucharift, "which reprefents the body and blood of Christ. "Wherefore, from that time, the Greek writers often "admonish us, that the eucharift is not the figure or image

K 3

66

"image of the body of the Lord, but his true body; as appears from the feventh fynod." Which agrees most exactly with the account which I have given of the first rife of this doctrine, which began with the corporeal prefence of Chrift in the facrament, and afterwards proceeded to tranfubftantiation.

And as this was the first occafion of introducing this doctrine among the Greeks, fo in the Latin or Roman church, Pafchafius Radbertus, first a Monk, and afterwards Abbot of Corbey, was the first broacher of it, in the year 818.

But

And for this, befides the evidence of hiftory, 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: Bellarmine (De fcriptor ecclef.) in thefe words, "This author was the first "who hath feriously and copiously written concerning "the truth of Chrift's body and blood in the eucharift: " and Sirmondus (in vita Pafchafii) in these, "He fo "firttexplained the genuine fenfe of the Catholick church, "that he opened the way to the reft, who afterwards in great numbers wrote upon the fame argument.' though Sirmondus is pleafed to fay, that he only first explained the fenfe of the Catholick 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, Archbishop of Mentz, about the year 847, reciting the very words of Pafchafius wherein he had delivered this doctrine, hath this remarkable paffage concerning the novelty of it: "Some, (fays he, Epift. ad Heribaldum, c. 33.), of late, not "" having a right opinion concerning the facrament of "the body and blood of our Lord, have faid, that this "is the body and blood 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 error (fays he) we have oppofed 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 e

minent reputation for piety, that what is now the very doctrine of the church of Rome concerning the facrament, was then esteemed an error broached by fome particular perfons, but was far from being the generally received doctrine of that age. Can any one think it poffible, that fo eminent a person in the church, both for piety and learning, could have condemned this doctrine as an error and a novelty, had it been the general do&trine of the Chriftian church, not only in that but in all former ages; and no cenfure paffed 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 moft pernicious herefies?

Afterwards in the 1059, when Berengarius in France and Germany had raised a fresh oppofition against this doctrine, he was compelled to recant it by Pope Nicholas and the council at Rome, in these words, (Gratian. de confecrat. diftinét. 2.; Lanfranc. de corp. & fang. Domini, c. 5.; Guitmun. de facramen.; Alger. de facramen. l. 1. c. 19.) That the bread and wine which are set upon "the altar, after the confecration, are not only the fa"crament, but the true body and blood of our Lord Je"fus Chrift; and are fenfibly, not only in the facra

ment, but in truth, handled and broken by the hands "of the priest, and ground or bruised by the teeth of "the faithful." But it feems the Pope and his council were not then skilful enough to exprefs themselves rightly in this matter; for the glofs upon the Canon law fays exprefsly, "That unless we understand these words of "Berengarius (that is, in truth, of the Pope and his "council) in a found fenfe, we fhall fall into a greater 66 herefy than that of Berengarius: for we do not make "parts of the body of Chrift," (Gloff. decret. de confecrat. dift. 2. in cap. Ego Berengarius.). 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 Chrift), but into wholes. Now, this new way of breaking a body, not into parts but into wholes, (which in good earnest 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

found