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
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
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