that lyfe is therein and that it giveth immortality to them that eat it with beliefe Muche is betwixt the invisible myght of the Holy Housell and the visible shape of its proper Nature It is naturally corruptible Bread and corruptible Wyne and is by myght of Gods worde truely Christes Body and his Bloude Much is betwixt the Body Christ suffered in and the Body that is Halowed to Housell The Body truely that Christ suffred in was born of the Flesh of Mary with bloude and with bone with Skinne and with Sinews in Humane Limmes with a reasonable Soule living And his Ghostly Body which we call the Housell is gathered of many cornes without Bloude and Bone without Limme without Soule and therefore nothing is to be understand therein bodelye but all is Ghostly to be understand Whatsoever is in that Housell which giveth Substance of Lyfe that is of the Ghostly myghte and invisible doing Therefore is the Holy Housell called a misterye because there is one thing in it seene and another thing understanded That which is there sene hath bodily shape and that we do there understand hath Ghostly might Certainly Christ's body which suffred Death and rose from Death never dyeth henceforth but is Eternal and unpassible That Housell is Temporal not Eternall corruptible and dealed into sondrye parts Chewed between Teeth and sent into the Belly Howbeit neverthelesse after Ghostly myghte it is all in every parte This misterye is a pledge and a Figure Christes Body is Truth it self This pledge we do keep mistically until that we become to the Truth it self and then is this Pledge ended Truely it is so as we before have sayd Christes Bodye and hys Bloude not bodilye but Ghostly The Saviour sayeth He that eateth my Flesh and Drinketh my Blood hath everlasting Life And he bad them not eat that Body which he was going about with nor that bloude to drink which he shed for us but he ment with those wordes that Holy Housell which Ghostley is hys Body and hys Bloude and he that tasteth it with beleaving hart hath that Eternal Lyfe Certainly this Housell which we do now halow at God's Altar is a remembrance of Christes body which he offred for us and of his Bloude which he shed for us The meaning of this Mystery being there thus unfolded the rest of that Sermon is touching the manner how people should receive it which I shall not transcribe because it is not so much to my present In Hen. 8. about the six Articles purpose and the whole is in Mr. Fox where you may peruse it at your leisure The next thing is an Epistle of Elfrick's to Wulfsine Bishop of Scyrburne by occasion of an ill custome the Priests had of keeping the Consecrated Elements by them an whole year It is a short one and you shall have it all Some Pristes keepe the Housell that is consecrate on Easter Day all the yere for Syke Men. But they do greatlye amysse because it waxeth horye and rotten And these will not understand how grevous penaunce the paenitential Booke teacheth by thys if the Housell become horye and rotten or yf that it be lost or be eaten of Beasts by neglygence Men shall reserve more carefullye that holy Housell and not reserve it to long but Consecrate other of newe for Syke men alwayes within a weke or a fortnight that it be not so much as horye For so holy is the Housell which to day is halowed as that which on Easter-day was hallowed That Holy Housell is Christes Body not bodily but Ghostly Not the bodye which he suffred in but the Body of which he spake when he blessed Bread and Wyne to Housell a night before his suffring and said by the Blessed Bread thys is my Body and agayne by the Holy Wyne this is my bloude which is shed for many in forgiveness of Sinnes Understand now that the Lord who could turn that Bread before his suffring to his Body and the Wyne to his Bloude Ghostlye that the selfe same Lorde blesseth dayly through the Priestes handes Bread and Wyne to hys Ghostlye bodye and to his Ghostlye bloude The other Epistle is to Wulfstane Archbishop of Yorke to the same purpose with the former only somewhat longer and about the middle of it he saith Christ Haloweth dayly by the handes of the Priest Bread to hys Body and Wyne to his bloud in Ghostly mistery as we read in bokes And yet that lively bread is not so notwithstanding not the selfe same Body that Christ suffered in Nor that Holy Wyne is the Saviours Bloud which was shed for us in bodely thing but in Ghostly understanding Both be truely that bread hys Body and that Wyne also hys bloud as was the Heavenly Bread which we call Manna that fed forty yeres God's people This Epistle to Wulfstane was first Written by Elfricke in Latin and then by Wulfstanes directions Translated by him into English though not Word for Word as Elfrick tells him And the Words observable in the Latin are these Intelligite modo sacerdotes quod ille Dominus qui ante passionem suam potuit convertere illum panem illud Vinum ad suum Corpus sanguinem ipse quotidie sanctificat per manus Sacerdotum suorum Panem ad suum Corpus spiritualiter Vinum ad suum Sanguinem non fit tamen hoc Sacrificium Corpus ejus in quo passus est pro nobis nec Sanguis ejus quem pro nobis effundit Sed spiritualiter Corpus ejus efficitur sanguis sicut Manna quod de Coelo pluit aqua quoe de Petra Fluxit Sir These Three Things of Elfrick's are a Noble Monument of the Faith of the Church of England even to the Tenth Century And though we find them in Mr. Fox and some other Authors yet I thought my self obliged to give you this short account of them out of a little Manual which a Reverend Friend of mine hath lent me because at the end of it there is an attestation in Manuscript signed by Seventeen Bishops of our Church under their own hands as it seems that the English Translation of this Sermon and the two Epistles is exactly agreeable to the Saxon Copies which upon the Reformation were found in the Libraries of the Cathedral Churches Worcester Hereford and Exeter from which places saith the Preface divers of these Books have been deliver'd into the hands of the most Reverend Father Matthew Archbishop of Canterbury I suppose Dr. Parker Least any doubt should arise about the Translation whether it were skillfully or faithfully done there is as I told you at the End this attestation in Manuscript Now that this foresaid Saxon Homily with the other Testimonies before alledged do fully agree to the Old Ancient Books whereof some be written in the Old Saxon and some in the Latine from whence they are taken These here under-written upon diligent perusing and comparing the same have found by conference that they are truly
touching the Antiquity of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation For it is not imaginable that the Ancients would have spoken so peremptorily and dogmatically in this point had they not had the Authority of the whole Church to have back't them And because they spake this so freely and that as a common Argument against those Learned Hereticks we may be sure that what they said was the common Faith of the Catholick Church in those times I mean in the Sixth Century And now Sir I shall proceed to Examine how the matter stood as to this point in the times following It is evident that the great Council of 338. Fathers who met at Constantinople Anno 754. were of this Faith That the Bread in the Eucharist is not Christ himself but the Image of him For this they urg'd as an Argument against the use of all other Images because the Symbols in the Eucharist are the only Image of himself which he left his Church Now this utterly overthrows the Doctrine of the Corporal presence and much rather the conceit of Transubstantiation For if the Bread be the Image of his Body it cannot be the Body it self as the Second Nicene Council argued when they oppos'd the Definitions of this Council at Constantinople And besides there is something very observable in the Discourse of this Council upon this point which I wonder so many Writers have not taken notice of and it is this that Christ Ordaining at his last Supper this Image of himself intended to shew the Mystery of his Incarnation And to this purpose they exprest themselves as any one may see by consulting the Acts of the Council As Conc. Nic. 2. Act. 6. when Christ took our Nature he took barely the matter of Humane Substance not his whole Person Divinity and all for to suppose that would be an Offence or Derogation to the Deity so when he appointed this Image of himself he chose barely the Substance of Bread not any shape of Man in it but only a Representation of his Natural Flesh for that would have been an Intreduction of Idolatry Moreover they say that as Christ's Natural Body was Holy by being filled with the Deity so this Image of him becomes Holy by being Sanctified by Grace and as that Flesh of ours which Christ took became Sanctified by being united to the Deity so is the Bread in the Eucharist the true Image of his Natural Flesh Sanctified by the Advent of the Holy Spirit c. Is this at all consistent with Transubstantiation or with the Doctrine of Christ's Corporal presence in the Sacrament And yet this was the sense of those 338. Fathers which they Dogmatically deliver'd as the sense of the Church whereof they lookt upon themselves as the Representatives Therefore Cardinal Bellarmine understanding their sense throughly and finding how strongly and invincibly it made against Transubstantiation had no other way left him but to rank this great Council among Hereticks nay he says they were the first that ever called in question the Truth of the Lords Body in the Eucharist Now this Bellarm. de Euchar. l. 1. c. 1. is easily said but by his favour they denied not the reality of Christ's Spiritual presence but of his Corporal presence only as we Protestants do Nay he himself rightly observes in the same place that the Protestant Faith in this point was not reckon'd among any of the Ancient Heresies nor so much as disputed against by any one of the Ancients for the first 600. Years For how should any Dispute against that which was the Common Faith of the Church and had been so all along to the time of this Constantinopolitan Council Those Fathers did no more but declare that publickly which they had received from former Ages and now made use of as a proper Argument against Images The Patrons of Images finding themselves pinch't with this Argument began to move a point which hitherto lay quiet and to strain those words This is my Body to a sense beyond what had been formerly taught though it was a great while before they could hammer out their New Notions into any Form for they spake very confusedly inconsistently and grosly as if Christ's Natural Body were in the Sacrament And though I do not find that any of them went so far as to own yet a Substantial change of the Nature of the Bread and Wine into the Substance of Flesh and Blood which is the conceit of the Church of Rome now yet 't is plain that what these Innovators said caused a New Great Controversie in Christendom and that just upon the neck of the former Quarrel about Images whereof I have already given you a particular and Faithful account II. And now I am come to the Second Thing I promised to shew you which was when and how the sense of the Ancient Church about the Sacrament came to be alter'd what progress that alteration made and what strong Opposition it met with for several Ages after it began It is generally agreed that Paschasius Rathbertus was one of the first Innovators in the Latin Church Vide Albertin de Sacram. p. 920. about Anno 818. He was first a Monk and afterwards Abbot of Corbey in France and a Man of some considerable Reputation especially for those times when Learning was most decayed which perhaps might transport him into an undue Opinion of his own abilities and that might make him affect singularity However it came about two very Learned Jesuites are agreed that Paschasius was a Leading Man in this business So says Bellarmine that Paschasius Bellarm. de Scriptor Eccles in Paschas Sirmond in vita Paschasii operibus ejus prefix was the first Author that wrote seriously and copiously of the Truth of the Lords Body and Blood in the Eucharist And so saith Sirmondus that Paschasius was the first that explained the Genuine sense of the Catholick he means the Roman Church so as that he opened the way to others who afterwards wrote upon the same Subject The Book which they chiefly mean is that of the Body and Blood of the Lord written to one Placidus a young man whom Paschasius dearly loved In reading of this Book one shall find so many dark Riddles unconquerable perplexities and plain inconsistences that it may be justly questioned whether they are possible to be reconciled to Truth or Sense nay whether the Man himself understood what he would be at One while he will have it to be nothing else but the Flesh and Blood of Christ and another while to be a Figure and the Flesh and Blood of Christ Mystically Now he says that Christ's Body is Created in the Sacrament than that it is made of the Substance of Bread and by and by that the Mystery is Celebrated in the Substance of Bread and Wine Sometime he tells us that 't is the very Body which Christ took of the Virgin and presently that it is wholly a Spiritual and Divine thing
which we Eat of and that 't is his Spiritual Flesh In one fit he says 't is the Flesh of Christ which repairs and nourishes our Flesh because the whole Man is redeemed and in another he says as positively that all must be spiritually understood that we must not think of any thing here that is Carnal and that if there were a real change of the Bread into Flesh it would be no more the Flesh of Christ than now it is because the whole Mystery is Spiritual Throughout the whole book there are so many loose uncouth and inconsistent Notions that there is hardly any thing plain in it but this that he owns a Real presence though the Man seems miserably confounded how to make you in any measure to understand it or how to understand himself his own meaning As I was reading the Book I was apt to believe that either he harped upon that Notion of Christ's Spiritual Body and Blood in the Sacrament which several of the Ancient Fathers insisted on and which is of such great use for the unfolding of this mystery or else that his conceits were meerly the raw issue of an unripened Judgment for he Wrote that piece while he was yet a Monk. But comparing it with his Epistle to Frudegard and his exposition upon St. Matthew 26. v. 26. both which he wrote when he was now Abbot and an Old Man I thought it more reasonable to conjecture that as at first he affected singularity so to the last he was resolved to persist in it For he stifly held it that the very Body of Christ wherein he Suffer'd and Rose again is of a Truth in the Sacrament materially and in the propriety of its Nature And yet to do him right I do not see that he believ'd the Nature of Bread to be Annihilated or Transubstantiated no his opinion seems quite different from that He comes nearer to the Doctrine of Consubstantiation that it is true Bread and true Flesh too or rather to the conceit of Impanation as they call it as if Christ assumed the Bread and united it Corporally to himself upon the Consecration as he assumed our Flesh and united it to the Divinity at his Incarnation But this is a Candid interpretation Whatever his fancy was it soon startled many Learned and Great Men in the Church For Paschasius himself doth confess that many doubted of of the Truth of his Doctrine that many questioned how the Sacrament could be the Body and Blood of Christ and yet Christ remain entire that he had provoked many to look narrowly into the thing because it is said the Flesh profiteth nothing Ep ad Frudegard expos in Matth. that others understood it to be not true Flesh and true Blood but only the Vertue of Christ's Body and Blood in the Sacrament that some reprehended him for what he had written in his Book of the Sacrament believing that it was not true and suspecting that his design was to be in the head of a Faction and then with some choler he calls them Prating and Unlearned Men that would not believe but that a Body must be palpable and visible But hard words were far from stifling this matter Paschasius his New Opinion had taken air and though it fell vastly short of Transubstantiation yet there was enough in it to stirr the the zeal of the Orthodox and so it was ventilated till by degrees it brake out into a flaming Controversie Paschasius his Contemporary Rabanus was one of the most Eminent Men of that time first a Monk at Fuld in Franconia where afterward he succeeded his Friend Egilo in the Abbacy Anno 822. and at last was Archbishop of Mentz The Glory of Germany and admirably skill'd in all sorts of Learning especially in the Hebrew Greek and Latin Languages as the Romanists themselves do confess As soon as Paschasius's Book came abroad and made a noise in the World this Rabanus undertook and confuted it in an Epistle directed to Egilo then Abbot of the Monastery at Fuld Indeed this Epistle is not now extant care enough has been taken by some who thought themselves concern'd to suppress it But that such an Epistle was Written by Rabanus against Paschasius undeniably appears from several Manuscripts of an Author of the same Age and a Friend to Paschasius his Opinion Three of these Manuscripts were seen by the Learned Albertinus in some Libraries in France and a Fourth is in the Cottonian Albert de Euchar lib. 3. pag. 921. Usher Answer to the Challenge p. 17. de succes stata p. 38 39. Library and a Fifth at Sidney Colledge in Cambridge both which were perused by the incomparable Bishop Usher This Author I say having laid down Paschasius his Opinion that the Flesh which is received at the Altar is no other than that which was born of the Virgin Mary suffer'd on the Cross Rose again from the Grave and as yet is daily offer'd for the Life of the World at last he says contra quem sc Paschasium satis argumentatur Rabanus c. against Paschasius both Rabanus in his Epistle to Abbot Egilo and one Ratrannus in a Book written to King Charles of France argue largely saying that it is another kind of Flesh And besides Rabanus himself tells us that he wrote against this Errour of Paschasius's in an Epistle to Abbot Egilo For in his Penitential set out at Inglostad by Peter Steuart he says repeating the very words of Paschasius some of late not having a Right opinion of the Sacrament of the Lords Body and Blood have affirmed Raban penitential c. 33. de Euchar. ad Heribald that 't is that very Body and Blood of the Lord which was born of the Virgin Mary and in which the Lord suffer'd on the Cross and rose again from the Grave Against which Errour saith he we have imployed our last endeavours writing to Abbot Egilo declaring what is truly to be believed concerning Christs Body It seems there was a little Dash or rasure in this passage of Rabanus supposed to have been made by the Monks at Heingart where the Manuscript was found and indeed 't is an Artifice which has been commonly used by many disingenuous Romanists and a very great Honour it is to their Cause to mutilate and corrupt writings which make against them but 't is sufficient for me to note how Rabanus calls the conceit of a Corporal presence a late Errour and yet then it was not so bulky as in later Ages when it swell'd into the most gross Opinion of Transubstantiation Anno 837. or thereabout a great Council was held at Carisiacum in France the same Council if I mistake Vide Usser Histor Gottes Chalch p. 87. not where the Opinions of Gotteschalchus touching Predestination were consider'd and condemn'd and Paschasius Ratbertus then Abbot of Corbey was one of that Council Whether they determin'd any thing against Paschasius himself is not certain for the Printed
Sacrament yet Monsieur Duval consesseth this was Genebrards private conjecture not founded on any Authority or Testimony I believe Genebrard in Liturg Dionys Duval annot in lib. Ecclesiae Lugd. adv Scot. the conceit of a Corporal Presence was hardly so much as known at that time in England and after it came to be vended here it was a long time e're it came to that value as to be made the price of Blood. There were many other men of note in this Ninth Century whom divers Writers on our side have proved to have declared their minds against the Innovation of Paschasius such as Hincmarus Walesridus Strabo Heribald Drusilmanus and several more whose names you meet with in many Latin Tracts and in that English Treatise I mention'd just now But I will not spend my time upon every little quotation least I should make this Letter swell beyond a due proportion and besides I think it not amiss to divert you a little with some account of the posture of this affair about that time here at home because I have just spoken of Scotus who was either our Country Man or a near Neighbour Somewhat after the 900th year from Christ Odo was ArchBishop of Canterbury and he would have brought into England the belief of a Corporal presence But it seems the Clergy were too Honest to be wrought upon In those days most doubted of the Truth meaning the Substantial Presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament saith William Malmesb. de gest pontif Angl p. 201. Osbern in vita Odon of Malmesbury Some Clergy Men asserted saith Osbern that the Bread and Wine after Consecration remain in their own former Substance He saith some but he should have said the Generality of Men believed so for it was then the common Opinion in the Church of England But this has been the custome of that sort of men when they are to tell Noses or go to the Poll to represent the adverse party as a little Handful though sometimes to their cost they find themselves sadly mistaken in their account For after the death of Odo this was the common Faith of the Church of England even in the days of Elfrick or Alfrick who was made Abbot of Malmesbury by King Edgar Anno 974. if Ingulphus be right in his computation Indeed about that time Men did search how bread that is gather'd of Corn and A Saxon Homily on Easter-Day through fires heat baked may be turned to Christ's Body c. But the Doctrine of our Church which was then profest and which upon that search was the more vigorously maintain'd was that 't is Christ's Body Mystically Spiritually and by signification The Reason why I say it is this Elfrick was of such great esteem in the Church that his Writings were sorted among the publick Acts of the Church and judged to contain the avowed and Authentick Doctrine of the Church of England then For some of them were put among the Ecclesiastical Canons and Constitutions for the instruction and good Government of the Clergy and some of his Writings were publickly read in Churches as Authoriz'd Homilies for the Information of all People This account I find in in the Preface to a very scarce Book under this Title A Testimony of Antiquity shewing the Ancient Faith of the Church of England touching the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of the Lord here publickly preached and also received in the Saxon time This Book was Printed in Archbishop Parkers days but there is no printed date of the year only in MSS. 1567. and Mr. Fox seems to have taken out of it all that account which he gives us of this matter in his Acts and Monuments It is a little Manual of some of Elfrick's Works First a Sermon Translated by Elfrick out of some Latin Author into the Saxon Language which was publickly read here on Easter-Day and then two of his Epistles to two Bishops Out of which saith the Prefacer it is not hard to know not only so much what Alfrickes judgment was in this Controversie but also that more is what was the common received Doctrine herein of the whole Church of England as well when Elfricke himself lived as before his time and also after his time even from him to the Conquest The piece I now speak of being a Rarity I will give you this account of it premising this only that by Housel is meant the Elements in the Sacrament the Sacramental Bread and Wine In the Sermon for Easter the Saxon Language on the one Page and the common English over against it on the other after a pretty long comparison made in the beginning between the Paschal Lamb in Egypt and our Blessed Saviour these words follow Now Men have often searched and do yet often search how Bread that is gathered of Corne and through fyers heate baked may be turned to Christes Body or how Wyne that is pressed out of many Grapes is turned through one blessing to the Lords Bloude Now say we to suche men that some thinges be spoken of Christ by signification some thyngs by thyng certain True thyng is and certain that Christ was born of a Maid and suffered Death of his own accorde and was buryed and on thys day rose from Death He is sayd Bread by a signification and a Lamb and a Lyon and a Mountayne He is called bread because he is our Life and Angels Life He is sayd to be a Lamb for his innocence a Lyon for strength wherewith he overcame the strong Devil But Christ is not so notwithstanding after true Nature neither Bread nor a Lamb nor a Lyon why is then that holy Housel called Christ's Body or his Blood if it be not truly that it is called Truly the Bread and the Wyne which by the Masse of the Priest is Halowed shew one thing without to humayne understanding and another thing they call within to beleving mindes Without they be sene Bread and Wine both in Figure and in tast and they be truely after their halowing Christes Body and hys bloude through Ghostly mistery An heathen Childe is Christened yet he altereth not hys shape without though he be chaunged within He is brought to the Font-Stone sinful through Adams disobedience Howbeit he is washed from all Sinne within though he hath not altered hys shape without Even so the Holy Font Water that is called the well spryng of Life is lyke in shape to other Waters and is subject to corruption but the Holy Ghostes myght commeth to the corruptible Water through the Priestes Blessing and it may after wash the Body and Soule from all Sinne through Ghostly myghte Beholde now we see two thyngs in this one Creature After true Nature that Water is corruptible Water and after Ghostly mistery hath halowing mighte So also if we beholde that Holy Housell after bodely understanding then see we that it is a Creature corruptible and mutable If we acknowledge therein ghostly myghte then understand we
the Doctrine being a Novelty they knew not as yet how to express it warily enough Caution comes by experience and 't is the meeting with objections that puts men upon a necessity of digesting their Notions better therefore it is no wonder that the conceits of these Men were crude because they were not yet throughly consider'd and disputed As time and debates shew'd them their Errour so they became sensible and asham'd of it For tho' Guitmund endeavour'd to desend those raw Expressions and with the coursest and boldest Explications that I ever read yet all he could do could not make the thing palateable the very men of those times that were concern'd for the New Opinion took distaste at the definition as appears by this For at the next Synod at Rome under Gregory the Seventh twenty years after when Berengarius was summon'd again and another Confession was prepared for him to subscribe this foul Notion of sensually handling breaking and grinding the true body of Christ was quite dropt nor was a word of it mention'd but the Doctrine they compell'd him to sign by frightning the poor Old Man with Death was this That the Bread and Wine which are set upon the Altar are substantially converted into the true and proper and quickning Flesh and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ and after Consecration are the true Body of Christ which was born of the Virgin and which was offer'd up upon the Cross for the Salvation of the World and which sits at the right hand of the Father c. Here was the Paschasian Opinion improved now at length into Transubstantiation and this they thought was a Correct Confession not liable to so many Objections as they found that was which had been contrived by Pope Nicolas But yet it is observable that before this New Cunfession was drawn up it is acknowledged by the Romanists themselves that there were very warm disputes in this Synod and that not so much about the wording of the Confession as about the Opinion it self many of them believing one thing and some another The greatest part of them affirmed the Bread and Wine after Concil Rom. sub Greg. 7. consecration to be Substantially changed into that Body of our Lord which was born of the Virgin but some endeav oured to maintain that it is a Figure only c. Indeed this party was over power'd by the other nevertheless it plainly appears that neither the Doctrine of Transubstantiation nor that of the Corporal presence prevailed so yet but that there were several in this Synod who believed neither Nay tho some late Romanists have had the confidence to deny it I see no reason we have to discredit those who have positively affirmed that Pope Gregory himself doubted much in this point Engelbert Archbishop of Treves as Severral of our Authors have observed consesseth that this Gregory questioned whether that which is received at the Lords Table be the True body and bloud of Christ Cardinal Benno who wrote the life of this Gregory tells us and the Romanists themselves own the Book to be genuine that he commanded all the Cardinals to keep a strict Fast to beg of God that he would shew by some Signe whether the Church of Rome or Berengarius were in the right opinion touching the body of our Lord in the Sacrament Nay Conradus the Abbot of Ursperg relates how that Synod which began at Mentz and was Vide Concil Brixien Anno 1080. apud Binium removed to Brescia Anno 1080 deposed this Gregory as for many other things so for this in particular because he called in question the Catholick and Apostolick faith concerning the body of our Lord and was an old disciple of the Heretick Berengarius as they were pleas'd to speak To all which the sticklers for Transubstantiation have nothing to say but this that these are lies and calumnies invented by Benno and Conradus which is a sensless shift and the same thing in effect as if they told us they are resolved to contradict matter of fact though it be related by their own party and disown every thing that hurts their cause or but touches the credit of any one of their Popes though he were a very wicked wretch as every one knows this Pope Gregory or Hildebrand was Mr. Allix hath lately given us a passage out of a Manuscript piece of this Hildebrands now in the Liberary at Lambeth which is enough to put the matter out of controversie and to justifie these allegations his Proefat ad determinat Joan. Paris pag. 7. Cum autem Panis Vinum dicantur a cunctis Sanctis a fidelibus creditur transire in Substantiam Corporis Sanguinis Christi quâ fit illa conversio an formalis an Substantialis quere solet Quod autem formalis non fit manifestum est quod forma Panis Vini remanet Utrum vero sit Substantialis perspicuum non est words are these That whereas says he the Bread and Wine are said to pass into the substance of Christs Body and Blood a question is wont to arise how this conversion is made whether it be a Formal or a Substantial change That it is not a formal one is manifest because the form of Bread and Wine remains But whether it be a Substantial one is not manifest I know some subtle notions and seeming inconsistences do follow there which may puzzle a Reader how to understand them But what can any man gather from these words whether it be a Substantial change is not manifest but this that there were in this Pope Gregory's time several questions about the change in the Sacrament and that he himself was not able to resolve them but was inclined to believe that the change is not Substantial That I cannot give you a more perfect and exact account of all the particulars relating to this Synod and this Pope is because some have been very careful to suppress them and have given us no other account of them than what they pleas'd themselves And indeed the Age wherein these things were transacted was so barbarous and the Books I have searched are of that sort that no man would willingly moyl in such a barren study but out of an earnest desire to pick out what matter of Fast he could and to digest it right which is the only business before me now in tracing the doctrine of Transubstantion And upon the whole you cannot but easily disern what shifts the Patrons of it were put to what Arts they were forced to use what perplexities they found in their way what Heats and distractions hapned among them before they could make it be belived in the Roman Church her self tho' in times that were not only scandalous for Ignorance and consequently very Receptive of the grossest Errours but Infamous also for all those many violences and oppressions which commonly attend a blind Zeal Many even of the Church of Rome verily thought that then the Divel was let
Copy of this Epistle is not yet come to light Very probably it is supprest by those who know how to suppress many things which hurt their Cause But a Latin Copy of it was found in Archbishop Cranmer's time in a Library at Florence by Peter Martyr who brought a Transcript of it with him into England and put it into the Archbishops Library And this passage in it is such a stabbing blow to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation that the Romanists have turn'd and twin'd themselves every way to evade the force of it were it possible First they denied this Epistle to be St. Chrysostome's But this pretence has been since thrown out of doors by some learned Doctors of the Roman Church her self Stephen Gardiner that dissembling and bloudy Bishop of Winchester being somewhat conscious to himself that this Epistle was Genuine pretended Secondly that by the Nature of Bread which St. Chrysostome saith remains he meant not the Substance but the Accidents and Properties of it wherein he was followed by Bellarmine and divers others and this is pretended still by some Popish Writers here in England now But this is flatly to contradict the plainest and most natural expressions in the world And besides it utterly overthrows the great design of St. Chrysostome for his purpose was to shew Cesarius that the Substance of Christs Humanity remained after its union to the Deity for this was the thing in dispute with the Apollinarians They owned the Accidents the Properties the Qualities of Humanity to remain in Christ but affirm'd the substance of his Humane Nature to be turned into the Deity So that had St. Chrysostome meant that the Accidents only of Bread remained in the Sacrament the example would not have been to the purpose nor would the Argument have had any force at all but St. Chrysostome would have proved himself the most weak and impertinent man at reasoning that could be I will give you the words of a learned and moderate person of the Roman A Treatise of Transubstant Communion now living whose Book I hope you have by you St. Chrysostome saith plainly that the Nature of Bread abideth after consecration and this Fathers Argument would be of no validity if this Nature of the Bread were nothing but in shew for Appollinarius might have made another opposite Argument and say that indeed it might be said there were two Natures in Jesus Christ but that the Humane Nature was only in appearance as the Bread in the Eucharist is but in shew and hath only outward and visible Qualities remaining in it whereby it is termed to be Bread. One thing more I will observe to you concerning this Epistle to shew how injuriously some have dealt with St. Chrysostome and how those men speak against their own Consciences when they tell us as they have often done that this great man is on their side A few years ago the learned Mounsieur Bigotius found this Epistle at Florence and Anno 1680. printed it in his Edition of Palladius with the best Apology he could make for this passage But when the Book was now ready to be published some of the Sorbon Doctors fraudulently cut out this Epistle and Bigotins his Preface to it What an Art is this first to cut out an Authors Tongue for speaking against them and yet to pretend that he spake on their behalf Yet it was not so cunningly done but that the abuse was complain'd of and by good Providence the Leaves which were thus shamefully cut out are lately fallen into the hands of a learned man of our Church who hath given us a full and particular account of this whole matter in his excellent Defence of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England to which I refer you for your more ample satisfaction both as to the Epistle it self and as to the strength of St. Chrysostome's Argument against the Apollinarians which utterly destroyes the Doctrine of Transubstantiation To go on now with our Historical Account Our next ancient Writer is Theodoret Bishop of Cyrus in Syria a great Man at the Council of Chalcedon Anno 451. and without controversie one of the most learned Men of that Age. The Heresie of Apollinarus had now been espoused by Eutyches of Constantinople Theodoret undertook the quarrel and wrote excellently against the Eutychians by way of Dialogue and among several other strong Arguments he drew an example from the Holy Eucharist as St. Chrysostome had done before him I think it is my best way to lay before you that part of the Dialogue which chiefly concerns us nakedly as it lies in Theodoret only you must remember that 't is between Orthodoxus and Eranistes now Orthodoxus personates the Catholick and Eranistes the Heretick the former held that Christ had two Natures in one Person the latter that his Humane Nature was absorpt and substantially changed into his Divinity Eran. It is necessary to turn every stone as the Proverb is that Truth may be found especially in Divine Matters Orthod Tell me then those mystical Symbols which are offered by the Priests at the Eucharist what are they representations of Eran. Of the Lords Body and Bloud Orthod Of a True or not of a True Body Eran. Of a True Body Orthod Right for there must be an Original of a Copy for even Painters imitate Nature and draw Pictures of things that are seen Eran. 'T is true Orthod If then the Divine Mysteries be the Similitudes or Figures of a True Body then is the Body of our Lord even now a True Body not changed into the Nature of the Divinity but filled with divine Glory Eran. You have spoken very seasonably of the Divine Mysteries or Sacrament For I will from thence shew the Conversion of our Lords Body into another Nature Answer my questions therefore Orthod I will Answer Eran. What do you call the Gift that is Offered before the Invocation of the Priest Orthod We are not to speak plainly least some should be here that are not sufficiently instructed Eran. Answer then Aenigmatically Orthod I say then it is Nourishment from certain Seeds Eran. But how do we call one of the Symbols Orthod Why it is a common Name that signifies a kind of Drink Eran. But what do you call those things after Consecration Orthod The Body of Christ and the Blood of Christ Eran And do you believe that you participate of Christ's Body and Blood Orthod Yes I believe so Eran. As then the Symbols of our Lords Body and Blood are other things before the Priests Invocation but after Invocation are changed and become other things even so was the Lords Body after its Assumption changed into the Divine Substance Orthod You are taken in the Nets which you your self have made for the Mystical Symbols do not in any wise pass out of their own Nature no not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theod. Dialogue 2. after Consecration for they remain in their own former Substance and