nistes." But what if Eranistes should reply; "If you say all of bread is changed excepting the accidents, then my argument holds for I only contend that the substance of the humanity is changed, as you say the substance of bread is." To this nothing can be said, unless Theodoret may have leave to answer as other wise men must. But now Theodoret answered, that the substance of bread is not changed, but remains still, and by substance he did mean substance, and not the accidents; for if he had, he had not spoken sense. Either therefore the testimony of Theodoret remaineth unsatisfied by our adversaries, or the argument of the Eutychians is unanswered by Theodoret. 3. Theodoret in these places opposes nature to grace, and says, all remains without any change but of grace. 4. He also explicates nature by substance, so that it is a substantial nature he must mean. 5. He distinguishes substance from form and figure, and therefore by substance cannot mean form and figure, as Bellarmine dreams. 6. He affirms concerning the body of Christ, that in the resurrection it is changed in accidents, being made incorruptible and immortal, but affirms that the substance remains; therefore by substance he must mean as he speaks, without any prodigious sense affixed to the word. 7. Let me observe this by the way, that the doctrine of the substantial change of bread into the body of Christ was the persuasion of the heretic, the Eutychian Eranistes, but denied by the catholic Theodoret; so that if they will pretend to antiquity in this doctrine, their plea is made ready and framed by the Eutychian, from whom they may, if they please, derive the original of their doctrine, or if they please, from the elder Marcosites; but it will be but vain to think the Eutychian did argue from thence, as if it had been a catholic ground; reason we might have had to suppose it, if the catholic had not denied it. But the case is plain; as the Sadducees disputed with Christ about the article of no spirits, no resurrection, though in the church of the Jews the contrary was the more prevailing opinion; so did the Eutychians upon a pretence of a substantial conversion in the sacrament, which was then their fancy, and devised to illustrate their other opinion; but it was disavowed by the catholics.

31. Gelasius was engaged against the same persons in the same cause, and therefore it will be needful to say nothing but

to describe his words 8. For they must have the same efficacy with the former, and prevail equally: Certe sacramenta, &c.; "Truly the sacraments of the body and blood of Christ which we receive are a Divine thing, for that by them we are made partakers of the Divine nature, and yet it ceases not to be the substance or nature of bread and wine. And truly an image and similitude of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the action of the mysteries." These are his words; con

cerning which this only is to be considered, beyond what I suggested concerning Theodoret; that although the word ovoía in the Greek, which we render substantia, might be apt to receive divers interpretations, though in his discourse he confined it to his proper meaning, as appears above; yet in Gelasius, who was a Latin author, the word substantia is not capable of it and I think there is no example where substantia is taken for an accidental nature. It all other words can, sufmay, as fer alterations by tropes and figures, but never signify grammatically any thing but itself, and his usual significations: and if there be among us any use of lexicons or vocabularies, if there be any notices conveyed to men by forms of speech, then we are sure in these things: and there is no reason we should suffer ourselves to be outfaced out of the use of our senses, and our reason, and our language. It is usually here replied, that Gelasius was an obscurer person, bishop of Cæsarea and not pope of Rome, as is supposed. I answer, that he was bishop of Rome that writ the book out of which these words are taken, is affirmed in the Bibliotheca PP., approved by the theological faculty in Paris 1576: and Massonius de Episcopis Urbis Romæ, in the Life of pope Gelasius, saith, that pope John cited the book de Duabus Naturis, and by Fulgentius it is so too. 2. But suppose he was not pope, that he was a catholic bishop is not denied; and that he lived above a thousand years ago; which is all I require in this business. For any other bishop may speak truth as well as the bishop of Rome; and his truth shall be of equal interest and persuasion. But so strange a resolution men have taken to defend their own opinions, that they will, in despite of all sense and reason, say something to every thing, and that shall be an answer whether it can or no.

g Gelasius de Duabus Naturis, cont. Eutychetem et Nestorium.

32. After all this, it is needless to cite authorities from the later ages; it were indeed easy to heap up many, and those not obscure either in their name or in their testimony: such as Facundus, bishop of Hermian in Africa, in the year 552, in his ninth book and last chapter, written in defence of Theod. Mopsuest., &c. hath these words: "The sacrament of his body and blood, we call his body and blood: not that bread is properly his body, or the cup his blood, but that they contain in them the mystery of his body and blood." Isidore, bishop of Sevil, says h, Panis quem frangimus, &c.; "The bread which we break is the body of Christ, who saith, I am the living bread. But the wine is his blood, and that is it which is written, I am the true vine. But bread, because it strengthens our body, therefore it is called the body of Christ; but wine, because it makes blood in our flesh, therefore it is reduced or ⚫ referred to the blood of Christ. But these visible things sanctified by the Holy Ghost pass into the sacrament of the Divine body.” Suidas in the word Εκκλησία: Σῶμα ἑαυτοῦ τὴν ἐκκλησίαν καλεῖ ὁ Χριστὸς καὶ διὰ ταύτης ἱερατεύει ὡς ἄνθρωπος, δέχεται δὲ τὰ προσφερόμενα ως Θεός. Προσφέρει δὲ ἡ ἐκκλησία τὰ τοῦ σώματος αὐτοῦ καὶ τοῦ αἵματος σύμβολα, πᾶν τὸ φύραμα διὰ tîs àñapxîs åyiášovora. Christ calls the church his body; and by her as a man he ministers: but as he is God he receives what is offered. But the church offers the symbols of his body and blood, sanctifying the whole mass by the first fruits. Symbola, i. e. signa, says the Latin version. The bread and wine are the signs of his body and his blood. Σύμβολα σημεία : so Suidas. Hesychius, speaking of this mystery, affirms i, Quod simul panis et caro est; "it is both bread and flesh too." Fulgentius saith, Hic calix est novum testamentum, i. e. Hic calix quem vobis trado, novum testamentum significat. "This cup is the new testament, that is, it signifies it." Пlapéδωκε γὰρ εἰκόνα τοῦ ἰδίου σώματος τοῖς μαθηταῖς, said Procopius of Gaza k; "He gave to his disciples the image of his own body ;” σύμβολα ταῦτα καὶ οὐκ ἀλήθεια, said the scholiast upon Dionysius the Areopagite1; "these things are symbols, and not the truth or verity;" and he said it upon occasion of the same doctrine which his author (whom he explicates) taught in that

h Isidorus Hisp. 1. 1. de Offic. c. 18. i L. 20. in Levit. c. 8.

k In Gen. xlix.

1 In Eccles. Hier. c. 3.

66

chapter m; Επιτεθέντων τῷ θείῳ θυσιαστηρίῳ τῶν σεβασμίων
συμβόλων δι ̓ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς σημαίνεται καὶ μετέχεται, &c.; “ The
Divine symbols being placed upon the altar by which Christ
is signified and participated." But this only I shall remark,
That transubstantiation is so far from having been the primi
tive doctrine, that it was among catholics fiercely disputed in
the time of Charles the Bald, about the year 880. Paschasius
wrote for the substantial conversion; Rabanus maintained the
contrary in his answer to Heribaldus, and in his writing to
abbot Egilo. There lived in the same time in the court of
Charles the emperor, a countryman of ours, Jo. Scot, called
by some Jo. Erigena, who wrote a book against the substantial
change in the sacrament; he lived also sometime in England
with king Alfred, and was surnamed the Wise "; " and was a
martyr," saith Possevinus," and was in the Roman calendar;"
his day was the fourth of the ides of November, as is to be
seen in the Martyrology published at Antwerp 1586. But
when the controversy grew public and noted, Charles the Bald
commanded Bertram, or Ratran, to write upon the question,
being of the monastery of Corbey: he did so, and defended
our doctrine against Paschasius: the book is extant, and may
be read by him that desires it; but it is so entire and dog-
matical against the substantial change, which was the new doc-
trine of Paschasius, that Turrian gives this account of it: "To
cite Bertram, what is it else, but to say that Calvin's heresy is
not new? and the Belgic Expurgatory Index professeth to
use it with the same equity which it useth to other catholic
writers, in whom they tolerate many errors and extenuate or
excuse them; and sometimes by inventing some device they do
deny it, and put some fit sense to them when they are opposed
in disputation; and this they do, lest the heretics should talk
that they forbid and burn books that make against them." You
see the honesty of the men, and the justness of their proceed-
ings; but the Spanish Expurgatory Index forbids the book
wholly, with a penitus auferatur.

I shall only add this, that in the church of England Ber-
tram's doctrine prevailed longer; and till Lanfranck's time it

m Dionys. Eccles. Hier. c. 3.

n Apparat. tit. Johannes cognomento Sapiens.

o 1599. A. D. 1571. Antwerp.

And when

was permitted to follow Bertram or Paschasius. Osbern wrote the lives of Odo, archbishop of Canterbury, Dunstan, and Elphege, by the command of Lanfranck, he says, that in Odo's time some clergymen affirmed in the sacrament bread and wine to remain in substance, and to be Christ's body only in figure; and tells how the archbishop prayed, and blood dropped out of the host over the chalice; and so his clerks which then assisted at mass, and were of another opinion, were convinced. This though he writes to please Lanfranck, (who first gave authority to this opinion in England,) and according to the opinion which then prevailed, yet it is an irrefragable testimony that it was but a disputed article in Odo's time; no catholic doctrine, no article of faith, nor of a good while after: for however these clerks were fabulously reported to be changed at Odo's miracle, who could not convince them by the Law and the Prophets, by the Gospels and Epistles; yet his successor, he that was the fourth after him, I mean Elfrick, abbot of S. Alban's 9, and afterwards archbishop of Canterbury, in his Saxon Homily, written above six hundred years since, disputes the question, and determines in the words of Bertram only for a spiritual presence, not natural or substantial. The book was printed at London by John Day, and with it a letter of Elfrick to Wulfin, bishop of Schirburn, to the same purpose. His words are these: "That housel (that is, the blessed sacrament) is Christ's body, not bodily but spiritually, not the body which he suffered in, but the body of which he spake, when he blessed bread and wine to housel the night before his suffering, and said by the blessed bread, This is my body." And in a writing to the archbishop of York he said, The Lord "halloweth daily by the hand of the priest, bread to his body, and wine to his blood in spiritual mystery as we read in books. And yet notwithstanding that lively bread is not bodily so, nor the selfsame body that Christ suffered in." I end this with the words of the Gloss upon the canon law: Caleste sacramentum quod vere repræsentat Christi carnem dicitur corpus Christi, sed improprie, unde dicitur suo modo scil. non rei veritate, sed significati mysterio,

p Osbernus, Vita Odonis.

q Capgrave calls him abbot of S. Alban's. Malmesb. saith, he was of

Malmesbury, A. D. 996.

r De Consecrat. d. 2. Hoc est. Lugduni, 1518.