put forth in Print without any adding or withdrawing any thing for the more faithful reporting of the same In Witness whereof they have subscribed their Names I will not go about to imitate their several different hands least I prove a Bungler at it but I observe the Bishop of Durham's Title is very differently Written from all the rest for it is in Greek Characters 1 Matthue Archbishop of Canterburye 2 Tho. Ebor. Archiepiscopus 3 Edm. London 4 Ja. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 5 Rob. Winton 6 William Bushoppe of Chicester 7 Jo. Bushop of Heref. 8 Richarde Bishope of Ely. 9 Ed. Wigorn. 10 N. Lincoln 11 R. Meneven 12 Thomas Covent and Lich. 13 John Norwic. 14 Joannes Carleolen 15 Will. Cestren 16 Thomas Assaphen 17 Nicolaus Bangor Hii Patres precedentes subscripserunt manibus suis propriis in hoc Libello Now out of the whole four things are observable 1. That even before the time of Elfrick the Doctrine of Christs Spiritual presence only was the Doctrine commonly and currently received in all the Western Churches whatever fantastical Notions some private men might entertain to the contrary For those Eighty Sermons which Elfrick spake of as of his Preface to the Book now mention'd own Writing whereof that upon Easter-Day was one were not of his own composure but Tranflations which he made out of Latin Writers which Ib. shews that the Latins whom he followed and Translated had been positive against the new conceit of a Corporal presence 2. That in Elfrck's time the same Doctrine was constantly held throughout the whole Church of England as the True Doctrine For how can we imagine that Elfricks Translations could be read publickly in the Churches in England if the English Bishops did not believe them to contain Doctrines that were found and agreeable to the Catholick Faith Or how can we conceive that Elfrick's Epistles should be put among the publick Writings of our Church had not the Doctrines in them been publickly own'd and profest here And yet it is evident that among other Canons which our Bishops collected out of Gildas Ib. Theodorus Egbert Alcuine and out of the Fathers of the Primitive Ages they did sort those Epistles of Elfrick for the better ordering of the English Church 3. That those Writings of Elfrick's did so directly strike at the Errours of Paschasius as if he had purposely designed to prevent those Errours from creeping into this Kingdom and throughly to season the whole Nation against them For in some places he takes the Opinion nay the very words of Paschasius and contradicts him so flatly in the words of Bertram and others of the former Century that you would think he had some of those Authors before him as perhaps he had 4. That upon the Conquest when divers of the Foreign Clergy came hither with and after Lancfrank an Italian Patron of Paschasius's gross Opinion and now sent for by the Conqueror to be Archbishop of Canterbury they found the Doctrine of the Spiritual presence only taught and profest in the Church of England For this reason they fell soul upon the Records of our Church and especially upon those Latin Authors which Elfrick had made use of and upon what they could understand of Elfrick's own Writings So that those Eighty Latin Sermons which Elfrick had Translated are long ago lost nor did the Latin Epistle to Wulfstane which they found in the Library Ibid. at Worcester and probably was given to that Library Ibid. by Wulfstane himself escape them neither For in part of that Epistle where the tender point lay a perfect Rasure was committed I have Noted the words above in a Parenthesis viz. that this Sacrifice is not made that Non fit tamen hoc Sacrificium Corpus ejus in quo passus est pro nobis neque Sanguis ejus quem pro nobis effudit sed spiritualiter Corpus ejus efficitur Sanguis sicut Manna quod de Coelo pluit aqua quoe de Petra fluxit Body of Christ in which he suffer'd for us nor that Blood of Christ which he shed for us but it becomes Spiritually his Body and Blood as the Manna that descended from Heaven and the Water which flowed out of the Rock These words were flatly and expresly against the Opinion of Paschasius and therefore they were quite rased out tho' afterwards they were restored to us out of another Latin Copy of the same Epistle in the Church of Exeter which by good luck had escaped their Tallons Had these Men understood the Saxon Language perhaps we should have had very little or nothing of Elfricks Writings left us But such foul play is an evident Argument of a very bad Cause And so I shall leave it to your consideration what little Reason the Romanists have to call us Hereticks and Innovators in this point when 't is so plain that the Innovation lieth at their own door and that when it first began to peep into the World the Church of England would not endure it but even in the days of the Saxons when the Controversie about it was so hot abroad especially in France She still maintain'd the Doctrine of the spiritual presence so that it held on constantly here to the time of the Conquest and might have held on still in an uninterrupted course from Age to Age had it not been for some Workers of Iniquity Let us now cross the Sea again and go on with out Relation of this matter how it stood abroad whence I have a little diverted you though I hope with no unuseful or unpleasant Digression In the Tenth Century this Controversie seem'd to lie pretty Quiet some following the phancy of Paschasius that Christ's Natural Body is in the Sacrament his Body properly so called that which he took of the Holy Virgin that which suffer'd upon the Cross c. Others following the Catholick Faith of the Ancient Church that it is Christ's Spiritual Body meaning not his Flesh properly but the Virtue of his Flesh Qui dicunt esse virtutem Carnis non Carnem virtutem Sanguinis non Sanguinem Paschas in Math. 26. not his Blood but the Virtue of his Blood as Paschasius himself represents their meaning in his time The Truth is this Tenth Century abounded with Men from whom the World could not expect any thing that was good some very illiterate some very Dull and Unactive some very Lewd some very Ambitious and self ended and some quite discouraged by the tempestuousness of the times By the account all Learned Men have given us it was a most Infamous Age the worst that ever was or hath been hitherto since the beginning of Christianity Probable it is that at this time Paschasius his Opinion did spread and even to the Court of Rome when nothing in comparison was in the way to stop it And when it was once gotten thither 't is easie to believe that indigent Men or flatterers would be found to
cadere sub fide si aliter dixisset minus benè dixisset qui alitur dieunt minus bene dicunt qui determinate assereret alterutrum proecisè cadere sub fide incur reret sententiam Canonis vel Anathematis Censura Facultatis Theologioe Paris before And when the Doctors of Divinity at Paris had Examined his determination they gave this Censure of him at the End of it that he had done well in delivering both as probable Opinions not so determin'd by the Church as to be thought either of them an Article of Faith and say they if he had said otherwise he would not have said so well and they who do speak otherwise speak amiss and whosoever shall peremptorily assert either Opinion to be precisely of Faith ought to incur the Sentence of the Canon or Excommunication I shall not need to trouble you with more Observations how the opposite Doctrine to Transubstantiation passed on still through a crowd of Adversaries down to the times of the Reformation which began presently after Anno 1500. You find ready at hand in the Treatise of Transubstantiation I mentioned before in Bishop Cosins Albertine and l'Arroque not to speak of any more not only the Names of some particular persons but an account too of Great Numbers of people in Bohemia France England c. Who notwithstanding all Threats and Oppressions persisted still in the True Faith and transmitted it down to Posterity I shall only add what the Learned Monsieur Alixius now in England hath particularly proved in his Preface to the Determination of Joannes Parisiensis that though the Doctrine of Transubstantiation prevailed among the fantastical School-men from time to time yet they found so many perplexities in it as did put all the Wits they had upon the Tenters the most sedate and intelligent Men among them own'd it only as an Opinion they had receiv'd by Tradition not as an Article of Faith declared by any Authentick and Obligatory Decrees of the Church And being a common Opinion they would not contradict it though some of them affirm'd that the Permanency of the Substance of the Bread and Wine is not impossible nor contrary to Reason or to the Authority of the Bible nay that it was the most Rational Opinion so that had they been Popes they would have defined it As for the definitions of Nicolas the Second and Gregory the Seventh they could not see how those did inforce the belief of the Annihilation of the Substances of the Elements but of a Substantial Presence only which they thought might easily be admitted though Permanency of the Substance in the Symbols should be believed too As for the Decree of Innocent the Third they laid no great weight upon it because it was not the deliberate and Synodical determination of the whole Council and I would sain know whether our present Romanists will insist upon the Authority of it seeing it asserts with a Witness the Deposing Power which the Gallican Clergy did Anno 1682. Condemn as Erroneous and Injurious to Princes As for the Council of Constance which Condemned Wicleffe for denying the Corporal presence and Transubstantiation An. 1415. it was ever thought by many Romanists themselves to be of questionable Authority because it Condemned and Deposed the Pope too And as touching the Council of Florence Anno 1439. However the Doctrine of the Sacrament was offer'd to their consideration yet nothing of Transubstantiation was in the least Defined then This is the Truth of the Case as far as I can find upon the strictest Enquiry By which it appears not only what an Innovation the Mysterious Notion of Transubstantiation is but also how this Innovation increas'd and swe ' d about 120 years a go at the Thirteenth Session of the Council of Trent when that which before had been the private Opinion of some fancyful Men was adopted into the Church as a necessary Article of Faith that by the Consecration of the Bread and Wine ther is a Conversion of their whole Substance into the Substance of Christs Body and Blood and thereupon they Define that whosoever should deny either of these Two Things 1. That the whole Christ his Body and Blood together with his Soul and Divinity is truly really and Substantially contain'd in the Eucharist Or Secondly that shall deny this wonderful Conversion of the whole Substance of Bread into Christ's Body and of the whole Substance of Wine into his Blood the Species only of Bread and Wine remaining should be Anathematiz'd Here were two New Opinions made Articles of Faith by a strange Synodical Definition The Corporal Presence and Transubstantiation The First as I have shew'd you was started by Paschasius Ratbertus in the 9th Century the other was introduced in the Eleventh Both very Late and Modern Imaginations in Comparison of the True Faith of the Church which was by all that I can discover held without interruption for about the space of the first 800 years and is still prosest by us of the Church of England and by other Protestant Churches The Two Opinions I speak of were no sooner vended but they were vigorously Oppos'd as New Errours And though by Arts and Violence with the help of Time they did spread in some Parts yet still they were but private Mens Opinions And though afterwards they came to be Countenanced by some that were in Authority yet they were not Definitions agreed upon after a Synodical manner by any Council of unquestionable Authority Nay though they were espoused by some fierce Popes and for that sole Reason were maintain'd by divers Doctors of the Church of Rome contrary to what others believed yet at the same time those Doctors reckoned them not especially that of Transubstantiation among the necessary Articles of the Christian Faith. They were made so by the late pack't Council of Trent who by so doing necessarily caused irreparable breaches in the Churches of Christ and brought a visible Scandal upon Christianity it self by establishing such nauseous Opinions as are enough to turn any Mens Stomachs that will but hearken to their Senses and Reason I know the Council of Trent did deliver this Doctrine as the Catholick Faith which had always been believed by the Church as they were pleased to say and because they said it the Romanists generally think themselves obliged to believe it But the Novelty is Evident and 't were no impossible matter to shew that even since the Council of Trent several Great Men in the Church of Rome have not been pleased with it Mr. Alixius mentions Two besides the now living Author of the late Learned Treatise of Transubstantiation viz. Petrus de Marca and Barnes a Benedictine who held that Transubstantiation is not now an Article of Faith. Alix ubisupr pag. 80. Nay to be free with you the present Romanists are so troubled with such intricate and inseparable difficulties throughout the whole point that I am tempted to believe many of them secretly wish it
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
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