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
Account we have hitherto had of that Council is very imperfect but the Learned and inquisitive Du Plessis saw some Manuscript Acts of this Council which though they struck immediately at Amalarius for some Errours he held about the Sacrament De missa lib. 4. cap. 8. pag. 743. yet are they so Opposite to Paschasius's Fancy and Destructive of it as if the Council had intended to wound Paschasius through Amalarius his side Thus it was Amalarius Archbishop of Lyons was a considerable men in that Age but in some points he held very absurd and monstrous Opinions for which reason the Church of Lyons afterwards took it ill that Amalarius Multum molestè dolenter accepimus ut Ecclesiastici prudentes viri tantam injuriam sibimetipfis fecerint ut Amalarium de Fedei ratione consulerent qui verbit Libris suis mendaciis erroribus fantasticis atque hereticis disputationibus plenis omnes pene apud Frauciam Ecclesias nonnullas etiam aliarum regiontum quantum in se fult infecit atque corrupit c. Eccles Lug. dunens de tribut Epistolis Bibliothec. P 9. had been consulted in the cause against Gotteschalchus because he had done his endeavour to infect and corrupt all the hurches in France With Lyes and Errours and with fantastical and He retical disputations that his Writings ought to have been burnt The Errours thus objected against him seem plainly to have been those concerning the Sacrament For this was one of his Fantastical and Heretical Notions that Christ hath a Tripartite Body one that he took of the Virgin another that is in us who live upon the Earth and a Third that is in those who are dead This monstrous Opinion we find in the 35th Chapter of his Third Book de Officiis Ecclesiasticis and it was laid to his charge by the Carisiac Synod as Du Plessis shews And this seems to be that foolery about the Tripartite Redy of Ad ultimum quoeso ne sequaris ineptias de Tripartito Christi Corpore Paschas ad Frudegard in fine Christ which Paschasius himself caution'd Frudegard against For this was a different thing from Paschasius his Imagination of the threefold Body of Christ Though Amalarius favour'd Paschasius his Opinion as to the main of it yet in some things they were divided that Innovation being as yet Raw and Undigested But besides this Amalarius had another New conceit agreeable to that of Paschasius that the simple Nature of Amalar. de Offic Ecclesiast c. 24. Bread and Wine is turn'd into a reasonable Nature that is the Nature of Christ's Body and Blood though he could not tell what becomes of this Body when 't is received whether it goes up to Heaven or flies out into the Air or remains in the Communicants Body till death or goes out at the opening of the Vein Such phantastical and heretical conceits had this Man Answer to the Jesuites Challenge pag. 79. about this matter for Bishop Usher saw in Bennet's Colledge Library one of his Epistles in Manuscript to Guitard wherein he exprest himself to this purpose and the same Errours were charged upon him by the Carisiac Synod also Now the Councils definition upon this strikes at all in short to the ruin of Amalarius and Paschasius his cause too viz. That the Bread and Wine is Spiritually made the Body of Christ that is the Mystery of our Life and Salvation wherein one thing is seen by the Eye of the Body and another by the Eye of Faith that it is the Food of the mind not of the Belly that in that visible Bread and Drink a Man receives the virtue of invisible Grace and that the Body of Christ is not in the visible thing but in the Spiritual Virtue c. The Acts of this Council were written by Florus and dedicated to several Bishops and other Great Men at that time Which is a clear Argument that the sense of the Carisiac Synod was very agreeable to the received Doctrine of the Church then Which I note the rather because for the space of about 200. years no Council but this took any notice that I know of the Doctrine of the Sacrament and yet a great many Synods were held on several occasions in that long tract of time and a Controversie upon such a weighty point could not have escaped them all and this being the first that ruin'd the pretence of a Corporal Presence it is easie to believe that till now there had been no occasion for a publick difinition in this point and that when this occasion was offer'd they were resolved to stifle this Innovation upon its first appearance To go on now with matter of Fact Of those that singly engaged in the quarrel with Paschasius Bertram was the next You find by the Nameless Author above mentioned that not only Rabanus wrote against him but also Ratranus who is now usually called Bertram for he is indifferently called Bertramus Ratramnus Ratrannus Whatever his right Name was he was a Monk of Corbey and a very Eminent Person about Anno 840. for the Controversie now growing hot especially in France where it had been kindled and Carolus Calvus being very desirous to quench it in time directed Bertram so I will now call him to give his sense of it Bertram in obedience to the King's Command wrote an Excellent book upon the Subject in the beginning whereof he takes notice of no small Schism that then was in the Church about the Mystery of Christ's Body and Blood and then he states the Two Great Questions which Carolus Calvus had proposed to him I. Whether the Sacrament be a Figure of some secret thing which is exhibited with it and which is the Object not of Sense but of Faith. II. Whether that thing so exhibited be the very Natural Body of Christ which was Born of the Virgin Mary which Suffer'd which was Dead and Buried which Rose again which Ascended into Heaven and Sitteth at the Right Hand of the Father which was the Opinion and the very words of Paschasius I. As to the First though at the close of his Book he denies the Sacrament to be a meer Figure a bare Shadow an empty Sign without Christ's real Presence yet he owns it to be a Figure and solidly proves from Scripture Reason and the Authority of several Ancient Fathers that it is a Figure and that under the visible and corruptible Elements as under a Cover is contained a Divine and Spiritual Thing which is believed to be there upon Consecration through the Operation of the Spirit without any Corporal change of the things we see but the Elements Neque ista commutatio corporaliter sed spiritualiter facta Quoniam sub velamento Corporei panis Corporeique vini spirituale Corpus Christi spiritualisque sanguis existit Nam secundum Creaturarum Substantiam quod fuerunt ante Consecrationem hoc posten consistunt remaining still
Corporeal Bread and Corporeal Wine For as to that he is positive that in respect of the Substance of those Creatures they continue the very same thing which they were before Consecration II. And as to the Second Question he distinguishes with St. Ambrose and St. Jerome between the Natural and the Spiritual Body of Christ and peremptorily determines against Paschasius and that over and over that it is not the true proper and Natural Body which was born of the Virgin which Suffer'd and was Dead c. which is receiv'd in the Sacracrament but his Spiritual Body that 't is Christ's Body though not his Corporal but Spiritual Body that 't is the Blood of Christ though not his Corporal but Spiritual Blood Which he explains thus not that Christ hath two Bodies severally existent and utterly different from each other in Nature as Body and Spirit are but because a Spiritual power and efficacy goes along with the bodily Bread and Wine because by and with these Creatures there is Ministred to the Faithful a Vital Virtue the vigour of a Spiritual Life that word of God which is the living Bread a Divine Virtue which secretly dispenseth Salvation to all Faithful Receivers an invisible Power which spiritually ministreth the Substance of Eternal Life a Substance of Spiritual Operation of invisible efficacy and of Divine Virtue as Bertram often expresseth himself all which is supposed to be derived from Christ's Glorified Humanity and therefore not improperly call'd his Spiritual Body according to that Old Notion which St. Cyril of A'exandria and the Ephesine Council had of the vivisick power of Christ's Body as being replenisht with the Deity But I will not give you a large account of this Book because it is common and because every one knows how strongly it confutes the Opinion not only of Transubstantiation but also of a Corporal presence which was the New phancy of Paschasius I shall only observe this to you by the way that the blessed Masters of the Inquisition whose business it was to search into Books and to let Men know what Authors they were not to use for the pretended Catholick Faith cannot well endure Examination that they might be lustily reveng'd upon poor Bertram for his plain dealing ordered this invaluable Piece of his to be supprest and accordingly 'tis ranked among the Prohibited Books in the Tridentine Roman and Spanish Indices Expargatorii Only the Men of Doway mistrusting that this course would turn to the shame and prejudice of their Cause the Book being abroad in all Mens hands thought it better to Tolerate it with some Blottings Alterations and Constructions of their own making Whereas say they there are very many Errours in other Old Catholick Writers which we bear with extenuate excuse many times deny by some Artificial device or other and fix a commodious sense upon them we see not but Bertram sudex Belgic a Catholick Presbyter may deserve the same Equity and diligent Rivisal But with what Equity they have used him or rather how basely and barbarously they have wronged him any man may see that will but look into the Belgick Index Expurgatorius for here they have quite rased him there they have wrested him there again they have made him speak flat Contradictions throughout they have used so many Charms and Spells over him as if they had perfectely designed by hook or by crook even to Transubstantiate Old Bertram out of himself But these Great Men stood not alone in this quarrel Bertram's contemporary the famous Joannes Scotus Erigena was deeply concern'd in it too I give him that Character because the Historians which speak of him mention him with Honour Carolus Calvus of France had such a value for him that he made Hovedan Annal him his Companion at Bed and Board Pope Nicolas himself gave him the Character of a Man renowned for his great knowledge Nor was it any thing but his Eminent worth that made King Alfred that Lover of Learning invite him back into England and fix him in the Monastery at Malmesbury for the advancement of good Literature Briefly those disputations of his which while he was yet in France he wrote against Gotteschalchus and which did so trouble the whole Church of Lyons how to Answer are a sufficient Argument of his Abilities Now all agree that this Joannes Scotus Erigena went hand in hand with Bertram as to the Doctrine of the Sacrament insomuch that some would make us believe that the Book commonly ascribed to Bertram was composed by this Scotus And though I see no good Reasons to think so yet certain it is that he wrote a Tract upon the same Subject and to the same effect and very probably at the Command of Carolus Calvus also About two hundred years after when Berengarius his business grew hot and the Opinion of a Corporal Presence by the interest of a Faction had gotten ground Scotus his Book was urged and Vindicated by Berengarius and his adversary Lancfranck own'd that 't was written in Opposition to Paschasius for which Reason it was condemn'd by that partial Synod at Vercellis Anno 1050. By the account we have of it now it appears that Scotus fairly went as Bertram did upon the sense of St. Ambrose Jerome Austin and other of the Ancients And this is very observable that in the Controversie with Gotteschalchus about Predestination which was ardent at that time these two Learned Men were divided for Bertram was on Gotteschalchus his side and Scotus was against him But however they differ'd in that Point in this concerning the Sacrament they were both agreed which shews that it was not Friendship or Prejudice or the love of a party which Govern'd them in their perswasions but the entire love they had for those things which seem'd to be True and that it appear'd to them both as an unquestionable Truth from Scripture Reason and the Catholick Doctrine of the Ancient Church which they both insisted on that Christ's Presence in the Sacrament is only Spiritual I end this with an Observation of a moderate Writer yet living in the Gallican Church concerning this Scotus that if he had advanced any New Doctrine he would certainly have been reproved for it Treatise of Transubstantiation turn'd into English and Printed at London 1687. pag. 58. by the Church of Eyons by Prudentius by Florus by the Colineils of Valence and Langres which condemned and censur'd his opinions on the Doctrine of Predestination As for his Death though he wsa barbarously Murder'd by his own Scholars at Malmesbury it is so far from being a Blot upon his Memory or a disparagement to his Cause that it is an Honour to Both For every one knows he was reckon'd a Martyr Indeed it is not certain what the true occasion of that horrid wickedness was Very probably he had been too liberal of his Wit against the dull and wanton Monks Though Genebrard insinuates that it was for his Doctrine of the
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
Allegiance and to give away their Territories By this it appears what little Reason our Romanists have to pretend the Authority of this Lateran Council for their beloved Transubstantiation and how little they gain by it upon a strict Examination of the matter After all the Arts and Toyl of so many years to bring this strange conceit into some shape and to Cure those Flaws which all discerning and upright Men found in the formation of it After such various Methods used to get a Decree for it and to obtrude it upon an easie World in times of Ignorance After so many Hostile and Barbarous Courses practiced in several Parts of Christendome upon those who saw the falsehood of it and would not submit to the Innovation After so much Blood shed and so many Lives taken away in that unjust Cause The Patrons of it having got at length a promising opportunity of settling it in this Great Council at Rome and under the awe of a most Heady and Insolent Pope they providentially mist of their designs at last In Rome it self many opposed it with Rage probably divers of the Council did not at all like it to be sure they rose without confirming it by a Synodical Decree so that it had no Authority but the Pope's own and that Pope's too who warranted Rebellion and Treason in Subjects and made it the great business and Delight of his own Life during his Papacy But Threats would not do the work yet For Matthew Math. Par. in Hen. 2. ad An. 1223. Paris tells us that Anno 1223 the Albigenses chose one Bartholomaeus their Anti-Pope in Bulgary Croatia Dalmatia and those parts about Hungary where their Opinion prevailed so that many Bishops and others agreed with them Moreover that Anno 1234. they had Bishops of their perswasion in Spain and that an infinite Number of them was kill'd in Alemannia in Germany the same year Besides the Writings of Lucus Iudensis about Anno 1240. and of Petrus Pilichdorfius about Anno 1450. both against the Albigenses do plainly shew that notwithstanding the Decree of Innocent the Third the Doctrine of Transubstantiation was still vigorously resisted in very many places of the World and even where the Church of Rome carried great Authority But I must not forget a memorable Story of Guido Grossus Archbishop of Narbonne Anno 1268. because it shews how little He and the Divines at Paris then hearkned to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation notwithstanding all that had been done by Pope Nicolas the Second Gregory the Seventh and Innocent the Third and when you have consider'd it well I leave you to judge too by the way whether the judgment of the Popes tho' in Council was in those days thought Infallible Guido Grossus going to see Pope Clement the Fourth his Old familiar acquaintance and discoursing in his Court with a certain Learned person could not forbear declaring his sense about the Eucharist which was directly repugnant to Transubstantiation For his Opinion was that the Body of our Lord is not essentially in the Eucharist but only as the thing signified is under the sign To which it seems he added that this was the Celebrated Opinion at Paris After Guido's return home Clemens heard of this and wrote him a chiding Letter wherein he insinuated also that if he persitted in that Opinion he would be in danger of losing his Dignity De Euchar. lib. 3. P. 973. and Office This Letter the Learned Albertinus hath given us a Copy of out of a Manuscript in Pope Clement's Register and the thing is further attested by Monsieur I Arroque in his History of the Eucharist lately rendred into English and just fallen into my hands where you may see it at large though the principal part of it is what I have already related I add out of both that though the Archbishop answer'd the Popes Letter with some Caution and Fear yet in his Answer he said enough to clear and justifie his own Opinion against Transubstantiation For saith he the Body of Christ is so called Four ways 1. In respect of Similitude as the Species of Bread and Wine and that improperly 2. It is taken for the Material Flesh of Jesus Christ which was taken of the Blessed Virgin And this signification is proper 3. For the Church in regard of its Mystical Union with Christ 4. For the Spiritual Flesh of Jesus Christ which is Meat indeed And it is said of those who Eat this Flesh Spiritually that they do receive the Truth of the Flesh and Blood of our Saviour which as it overthrows the Dream of Transubstantiation so it is the very Language of the Ancients Clemens Alexandrinus S. Jerome S. Ambrose S. Austin and others who did distinguish Christ's Natural Body which was of the Virgin from that Spiritual Body which is receiv'd at the Eucharist as you may see plainly in that excellent little Book called the DIALLACTICON which God be thanked is now reprinted at London A Book written as Bishop Cosins tells us by Dr. Poinet Bishop of Winchester a little before Bishop Jewels Apology came out Cassander and other Divines abroad Extolled it deservedly The late Sa. Oxon if I may rank him among such Company takes notice of it but P. 61. says withal I have not the Book by me And I verily believe it for had he ever seen or read that Book I am apt to think he would hardly have wrote his own at least not that part of it the force whereof is quite destroy'd by the Diallacticon But not to digress further especially when I am near the End of my business Though in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries Transubstantiation was the common Tenent yet I cannot find that it past in those times for a certain Article of Faith determined by the Publick Authority of the Church but as a probable Opinion only as they thought then Those many difficult Consequences about Eating Digesting Voiding the Sacrament whether by Men or Beasts and the like which the subtle Schoolmen met with in managing that Opinion do plainly shew that the thing was not yet cleared beyond all Reason of doubting nor setled by any Authority which might be presumed sufficient to require their submission It is well known that the Famous Doctor of Sorbon Johannes Parisicnsis near the Vide determinat Joan. edit Londin 1686. year 1300. though he profest to hold Transubstantiation yet he held it only as a current Opinion he was so far from urging it as an Article of Faith that he proposed another way of explaining the real presence viz. that Mystical Union of the Sacred Symbols with Christ's person which Rupertus and others had spoke of long In praesentia Collegii Magistrorum in Theologia dictum est utrumque modum poneudi Corpus Christi esse in altari tenet pro Opinione probabili approbat utrumque per dicta Sanctorum Dicit tamen quod nullus est determinatus per Ecclesiam ideo nullum