of the counterpoise had inclined them to say many things of the Sacrament that require a fair and can did interpretation Yet after all this they say no more but that in the Sacrament they did truly and really communicate on the Body and Blood of Christ which we also receive and believe And in many other Treatises when they are in colder blood examining things they use such expressions and expositions of this as no way favour the belief of Transubstantiation of which we have given some account in a former Paper But though that were not so formally done and their Writings were full of passages that needed great allowances it were no more than what the Fathers that wrote against the Arrians confess the Fathers before the Council of Nice were guilty of who writing against Sabellius with too much veliemence did run to the opposite extream So many of S. Ciril's passages against Nestorius were thought to favour Eutychianism So also Theodoret and two others writing against the Entychians did run to such excesses as drew upon them the condemnation of the Fifth General Council The first time we find any Contestor canvassing about the Sacrament was in the Controversie about Images in the eighth Century That the Council of Constantinople in the condenming of Images declared there was no other Image of Christ to be received but the Blessed Sacrament in which the substance of Bread and Wine was the Image of the Body and Blood of Christ making a difference between that which is Christs Body by nature and the Sacrament which is his Body by Institution Now it is to be considered that whatever may be pretended of the violence of the Greek Emperors over-ruling that Council in the matter of condemning Images yet there having been no Contest at all about the Sacrament we cannot in reason think they would have brought it into the dispute if they had not known these two things were the received Doctrine of the Church The one that in the Sacrament the substance of Bread and Wine did remain the other that the Sacrament was the Image or Figure of Christ and from thence they acknowledged all Images were not to be rejected but denied any other Images besides that in the Sacrament Now the second Council of Nice being resolved to quarrel with them as much as was possible do not at all condemn them for that which is the chief testimony for us to wit That the Sacrament was still the substance of Bread and Wine and Damascene the zealous Defender of Images clearly insinuates his believing the substance of Bread and Wine remained and did nourish our Bodies Let it be therefore considered that when that Council of Nice was in all the bitterness imaginable canvassing every word of the Council of Constantinople they never once blame them for saying The substance of Bread and Wine was in the Sacrament It is true they condemned them for saying the Sacrament was the Image of Christ denying that any of the Fathers had called it so alledging that the Symboles were called Antit pes by the Fathers only before the consecration and not after in which they followed Damascene De Fid. orth lib. 4. cap. 14. who had fallen in the same Errour before them But this is so manifest a mistake in matter of fact that it gives a just reason for rejecting the authority of that Council were there no more to be said against it For this was either very gross ignorance or effronted impudence since in above twenty Fathers that were before them the Sacrament is called the Figure and Antitype of Christ's Body and at the same time that Damascene who was then looked on as the great Light of the East did condemn the calling the Sacrament the Figure of Christ's Body The venerable Bede Bed in Psal. 3. Mark 14. that was looked on as the great Light of the West did according to the stile of the Primitive Church and in S. Austin's words call it The Figure of Christ's Body I shall not trace the other forgeries and follies of that pretended General Council because I know a full account of them is expected from a better Pen only in this particular I must desire the Reader to take notice that the Council of Constantinople did not innovate any thing in the Doctrine about the Sacrament and did use it as an Argument in the other Controversie concerning Images without any design at all about the Eucharist But on the other hand the second Council of Nice did innovate and reject a form of speech which had been universally received in the Church before their time and being engaged with all possible spight against the Council of Constantinople resolved to contradict every thing they had said as much as could be So that in this we ought to look on the Council of Constantinople as delivering what was truly the Tradition of the Church and on the second Council of Nice as corrupting it About thirty years after that Council Paschase Radbert Abbot of Corbie wrote about the Sacrament and did formally assert the Corporal Presence in the Ninth Century The greatest Patrons of this Doctrine such as Bellarmin and Sirmondus both Jesuites confess he was the first that did fully and to purpose explain the verity of Christ's Body and Blood in the Eucharist And Paschase himself in his Letter to his Friend Frudegard regrates that He was so flow in believing and assenting to his Doctrine and does also acknowledge that by his Book he had moved many to the understanding of that Mystery and it is apparent by that Letter that not only Frudegard but others were scandalized at his Book for he writes I have spoken of these things more fully and more expresly because I understand that some challenge me that in the Book I have published of the Sacraments of Christ I have ascribed either more or some other thing than is consonant to Truth to the words of our Lord. Of all the Writers of that Age or near it only one and his Name we know not the Book being anonymous was of Paschase's opinion But we find all the great men of that Age were of another mind and did clearly assert that in the Sacrament the Substance of Bread and Wine remained and did nourish our Bodies as other meats do These were Rabanus Maurus Archbishop of Mentz Amalarius Archbishop of Treves or as others say Metz Heribald Bishop of Auxerre Bertram Iohn Scot Erigena Walafridus Strabo Florus and Christian Druthmar And three of these set themselves on purpose to refute Paschase The anonymous Writer that defends him says That Raban did dispute at length against him in an Epistle to Abbot Egilon for saying it was that Body that was born of the Virgin and was crucified and raised again that was daily offered for the life of the World That is also condemned by Raban in his Penitential cap. 33. who refers his Reader to that Epistle to Abbor Egilon And for Bertram he was commanded
the Sons of God have eternal Life or that by Faith only we are the Sons of God M. W. said He would admit of no consequences how clear soever they seemed unless he brought him the express words of Scripture and asked if his consequences were infallible D. S. said If the Consequence was certain it was sufficient and he desired all would take notice that they would not yield to clear Consequences drawn from Scripture which he thought and he believed all impartial People would be of his Mind was as great an advantage to any cause as could be desired So we laid aside that Argument being satisfied that the Article of our Church which they had called in question was clearly proved from Scripture Then N. N. insisted to speak of the corporal presence and desired to know upon what grounds we rejected it M. B. said If we have no better reason to believe Christ was corporally present in the Sacrament than the Jews had to believe that every time they did eat their Pascha the Angel was passing by their Houses and smiting the first born of the AEgyptians then we have no reason at all but so it is that we have no more reason N. N. denied this and said we had more reason M. B. said All the reason we had to believe it was because Christ said This is my body but Moses said of the Paschal festivity This is the Lords Passover which was always repeated by the Jews in that Anniversary Now the Lords Passover was the Lords passing by the Israelites when he slew the first born of AEgypt If then we will understand Christs words in the strictly literal sense we must in the same sense understand the words of Moses But if we understand the words of Moses in any other sense as the commemoration of the Lords Passover then we ought to understand Christs words in the same sense The reason is clear for Christ being to substitute this Holy Sacrament in room of the Jewish Pascha and he using in every thing as much as could agree with his blessed designs forms as near the Jewish Customs as could be there is no reason to think he did use the words this is my body in any other sense than the Jews did this is the Lords Passover N. N. said The disparity was great First Christ had promised before-hand he would give them his body Secondly It was impossible the Lamb could be the Lords Passover in the literal sense because an action that had been past some hundreds of years before could not be performed every time they did eat the Lamb but this is not so Thirdly The Jewish Church never understood these words literally but the Christian Church hath ever understood these words of Christ literally Nor is it to be imagined that a change in such a thing was possible for how could any such Opinion have crept in in any Age if it had not been the Doctrine of the former Age M. B. said Nothing he had alledged was of any force For the first Christ's promise imported no more than what he performed in the Sacramental institution If then it be proved that by saying This is my body he only meant a Commemoration his promise must only relate to his Death commemorated in the Sacrament To the second the literal meaning of Christ's words is as impossible as the literal meaning of Moses's words for besides all the other impossibilities that accompany this corporal Presence it is certain Christ gives us his body in the Sacrament as it was given for us and his Blood as it was shed for us which being done only on the Cross above 1600 years ago it is as impossible that should be literally given at every Consecration as it was that the Angel should be smiting the AEgyptians every Paschal Festivity And here was a great mistake they went on securely in that the body of Christ we receive in the Sacrament is the Body of Christ as he is now glorified in Heaven for by the words of the Institution it is clear that we receive his Body as it was given for us when his Blood was shed on the Cross which being impossible to be reproduced now we only can receive Christ by Faith For his third difference that the Christian Church ever understood Christ's words so we would willingly submit to the decision of the Church in the first six Ages Could any thing be more express than Theodoret who arguing against the Eutychians that the Humanity and Divinity of Christ were not confounded nor did depart from their own substance illustrates it from the Eucharist in which the Elements of Bread and Wine do not depart from their own Substance M. W. said We must examine the Doctrine of the Fathers not from some occasional mention they make of the Sacrament but when they treat of it on Design and with Deliberation But to Theodoret he would oppose S. Cyril of Ierusalem who in his fourth Mist. Catechism says expresly Though thou see it to be bread yet believe it is the Flesh and the Blood of the Lord Jesus doubt it not since he had said This is my Body And for a proof instances Christ's changing the Water into Wine D. S. said He had proposed a most excellent Rule for examining the Doctrine of the Fathers in this matter not to canvase what they said in eloquent and pious Treaties or Homilies to work on Peoples Devotion in which case it is natural for all Persons to use high Expressions but we are to seek the real sense of this Mystery when they are dogmatically treating of it and the other Mysteries of Religion where Reason and not Eloquence takes place If then it should appear that at the same time both a Bishop of Rome and Constantinople and one of the greatest Bishops in Africk did in asserting the Mysteries of Religion go downright against Transubstantiation and assert that the substance of the Bread and Wine did remain he hoped all would be satisfied the Fathers did not believe as they did M. W. desired we would then answer the Words of Cyril M. B. said It were a very unreasonable thing to enter into a verbal Dispute about the Passages of the Fathers especially the Books not being before us therefore he promised an Answer in Writing to the Testimony of S. Cyril But now the matter was driven to a point and we willingly undertook to prove that for eight or nine Centuries after Christ the Fathers did not believe Transubstantiation but taught plainly the contrary the Fathers generally call the Elements Bread and Wine after the Consecration they call them Mysteries Types Figures Symbols Commemorations and Signs of the body and blood of Christ They generally deliver that the wicked do not receive Christ in the Sacrament which shews they do not believe Transubstantiation All this we undertook to prove by undeniable Evidences within a very few days or weeks M. W. said He should be glad to see it D. S. said Now
and if we see a difference between these we are sure there has been a change though we are not able to shew by what steps it was made nay though we could not so much as make it appear probable that such a change could be made To instance this in a plain case of the change of the English Language since the days of William the Conqueror that there has no such swarm of Foreigners broke in upon this Island as might change our Language One may then argue thus Every one speaks the Language he heard his Parents his Nurses and others about him speak when he was a Child and this he continues to speak all his life and his Children speak as they heard him speak Upon which a man of wit and phancy might say a great many things to shew it impossible any such change should ever have been made as that we now should speak so as not to understand what was said five or six hundred years ago Yet if I find Chaucer or any much ancienter Book so written that I can hardly make a shift to understand it from thence without any further reasoning how this could be brought about I naturally must conclude our Language is altered And if any man should be so impertinent as to argue that could not be for Children speak as their Nurses and Parents taught them I could hardly answer him in patience but must tell him it is altered without more ado If a Child were amused with such pretended Impossibilities I would tell him that Strangers coming among us and our travelling to parts beyond the Seas made us acquainted with other Languages and Englishmen finding in other Tongues some words and phrases which they judged more proper than any they had being also fond of new words there was an insensible change made in every Age which after five or six Ages is more discernible Just so if I find most of all the Fathers either delivering their Opinions clearly in this matter against the Doctrine of the Roman Church or saying things utterly inconsistent with it I am sure there has been a change made though I could not shew either the whole progress of it or so much as a probable account how it could be done If men were as Machines or necessary Agents a certain account might be given of all the events in all Ages but there are such strange Labyrinths in the minds of men that none can trace them by any rational computation of what is likely There is also such a diversity between Men and Men between Ages and Ages that he should make very false accounts that from the tempers and dispositions of men in this Age should conclude what were possible or impossible many years ago In this Age in which Printing gives notice of all things so easily and speedily and by the laying of Stages for the quick and cheap conveying Pacquers and the publishing Mercuries Gazets and Iournals and the education of almost all persons to read and write Letters and the curiosity by which all people are whetted to enquire into every thing the state of Mankind is quite altered from what it was before when few could read or write but Clergy-men so that they must be the Notaries of all Courts who continue from that to be called Clerks to this day and that some Crimes otherwise capital were not punished with death if the guilty person could but read When people were so ignorant of what was doing about them when neither Printing nor Stages for Pacquets were in being at least in Europe and when men were fast asleep in their Business without amusing themselves what was doing about them in the world it is the most unjust and unreasonable thing in nature to imagine that such things as are now next to impossible were not then not only possible but easie So that all such calculations of Impossibilities from the state and temper of this Age when applied to the Ages before ours is the most fallacious way of reckoning that can be For instance How improbable or next to impossible is this following story That the Bishops of the Imperial City of the Roman Empire whose first true worth together with the greatness of that City which was the Head and Metropolis of the Roman Empire got them much esteem and credit in the world should from small and low beginnings have crept up to such a height of power that they were looked on as the Head of all Power both Civil and Spiritual and that as they overthrew all other Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction the Bishops of that See engrossing it to themselves so they were Masters of almost all the Crowns of Europe and could change Governments raise up and assist new pretenders call up by the preachings of some poor beggarly Friars vast Armies without pay and send them whither they pleased That they could draw in all the Treasure and Riches of Europe to themselves that they brought Princes to lie thus at their feet to suffer all the Clergy who had a great interest in their Dominions by the vast endowments of Churches and Abbeys beside the power they had in all Families and Consciences to be the sworn Subjects of these Bishops and to be exempted from appearing in Secular Courts how criminal soever they were That all this should be thus brought about without the expence of any vast Treasure or the prevailing force of a conquering Army meerly by a few tricks that were artificially managed of the belief of Purgatory the power of Absolving and granting Indulgences and the opinion of their being St. Peter's Successors and Christ's Vicars on earth And that all this while when on these false colours of Impostures in Religion those designs were carried on the Popes were men of the most lewd and flagitious lives possible and those who served them in their designs were become the scandal and scorn of Christendom and yet in all these Attempts they prevailed for above seven or eight Ages Now if any man will go about to prove this impossible and that Princes were always jealous of their Authority and their Lives People always loved their Money and Quiet Bishops always loved their Jurisdiction and all Men when they see Designs carried on with colours of Religion by men who in the most publick and notorious instances shew they have none at all do suspect a Cheat and are not to be wheedled Therefore all this must be but a Fable and a Forgery to make the Popes and their Clergy odious Will not all men laugh at such a person that against the faith of all History and the authority of all Records will deny a thing that was set up over all Europe for many Ages If then all this change in a matter that was Temporal against which the Secular Interests of all men did oppose themselves was yet successful and prevailed how can any man think it unreasonable that a speculative opinion might have been brought into the Church by such arts and
by Charles the Bald then Emperor to write upon that matter which in the beginning of his Book he promises to do not trusting to his own wit but following the steps of the Holy Fathers It is also apparent by his Book that there were at that time different Perswasions about the Body of Christ in the Sacrament some believing it was there without any Figure others saying it was there in a Figure and Mystery Upon which he apprehended there must needs follow a great Schism And let any read Paschase's Book and after that Bertram's and if he have either honesty or at least shame remaining in him he must see it was in all points the very same Controversie that was canvassed then between them and is now debated between the Church of Rome and Us. Now that Raban and Bertram were two of the greatest and most learned men of that Age cannot be denied Raban passes without contest amongst the first men of the Age and for Bertram we need neither cite what Trithemius says of him nor what the Disciples of S. Austin in the Port-Royal have said to magnifie him when they make use of him to establish the Doctrine of the efficacy of Grace It is a sufficient evidence of the esteem he was in that he was made choice of by the Bishop of France to defend the Latin Church against the Greeks and upon two very important Controversies that were moved in that Age the one being about Predestination and Grace the other that which we have now before us He though a private Monk raised to no dignity was commanded by the Emperor to write of both these which no man can imagine had been done if he had not been a man much 〈◊〉 and esteemed and way in which he writes is solid and worthy of the reputation he ha 〈…〉 quired He proves both from the words of Institution and from St. Paul that the Sacrameâ—â— was still Bread and Wine He proves from S. Austin that these were Mysteries and Figures of Christ's Body and Blood And indeed considering that Age he was an extraordinary writer The third that did write against Paschase was Iohn Scot otherwise called Erigena who was likewise commanded to write about the Sacrament by that same Emperor He was undoubtedly the most learned and ingenious man of that Age as all our English Historians tell us chiefly William of Malmsbury He was in great esteem both with the Emperor and our great King Alfred Lib. 2. de Gest. Reg. He was accounted a Saint and a Martyr his memory was celebrated by an Anniversary on the tenth of November He was also very learned in the Greek and other Oriental Tongues which was a rare thing in that Age. This Erigena did formally refute Paschase's Opinion and assert ours It is true his Book is now lost being 200 years after burned by the C. of Vercel but though the Church of Lyons does treat him very severely in their Book against him and fastens many strange opinions upon him in which there are good grounds to think they did him wrong yet they no where challenge him for what he wrote about the Sacrament which shews they did not condemn him for that though they speak of him with great animosity because he had written against Predestination and Grace efficacious of it self which they defended It seems most probable that it was from his Writings that the Homily read at Easter by the Saxons here in England does so formally contradict the Doctrine of Transubstantiation And now let the Reader judge if it be not clear that Paschase did innovate the the Doctrine of the Church in this point but was vigorously opposed by all the great men of that Age. For the following Age all Historians agree it was an Age of most prodigious Ignorance and Debauchery and that amongst all sorts of people none being more signally vicious than the Clergy and of all the Clergy none so much as the Popes who were such a succession of Monsters that Baronius cannot forbear making the saddest exclamations possible concerning their cruelties debaucheries and other vices So that then if at any time we may conclude all were asleep and no wonder if the tares Paschase had sown did grow up and yet of the very few Writings of the Age that remain the far greater number seem to favour the Doctrine of Bertram But till Berengarius his time we hear nothing of any contest about the Eucharist So here were 200 years spent in an absolute ignorance and forgetfulness of all divine things About the middle of the 11th Cent. Bruno Bishop of Angiers and Berengarius who was born in Tours but was Arch-Deacon and Treasurer of the Church of Angiers did openly teach that Christ was in the Sacrament only in a Figure We hear little more of Bruno but Berengarius is spoken of by many Historians Sigebert Platma Antonin Sabellicus Chron. Mont. Cassin Sigonius Vignier Guitmond and chiefly William of Malmsbury as a man of great Learning and Piety and that when he was cited to the Council at Rome before Nicolaus the Second none could resist him that he had an excellent faculty of speaking and was a man of great Gravity that he was held a Saint by many He did abound in Charity Humility and Good Works and was so chaste that he would not look at a beutiful woman And Hildebert Bishop of Mans whom S. Bernard commends highly made such an Epitaph on him that notwithstanding all the abatements we must make for Poetry yet no man could write so of an ordinary person This Berengarius wrote against the Corporal Presence calling it a stupidity of Paschase's and Lanfrank's who denied that the substance of Bread and Wine remained after Consecration He had many followers as Sigebert tells us Edit Antwerp 1608. And William of Malmsbury and Matthew Paris tell us his Doctrine had overspred all France It were too long to shew with what impudent corrupting of Antiquity those who wrote against him did stuff up their Books Divers Councils were held against him and he through fear did frequently waver for when other Arguments proved too weak to convince him then the Faggot which is the sure and beloved Argument of that Church prevailed on his fears so that he burnt his own Book and signed the condemnation of his own Opinion at Rome this he did as Lanfrank upbraids him not for love of the Truth but for fear of Death which shews he had not that love of the truth and constancy of mind he ought to have had But it is no prejudice against the Doctrine he taught that he was a man not only subject to but overcome by so great a temptation for the fear of death is natural to all men And thus we see that in the 9th Century our Doctrine was taught by the greatest writers of that time so that it was then generally received and not at all condemned either by Pope or Council But in the 11th Century upon its being defended