A FOURTH LETTER TO A PERSON of QUALITY BEING AN HISTORICAL ACCOUNT OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENT From the PRIMITIVE Times TO THE COUNCIL of TRENT SHEWING The NOVELTY of Transubstantiation LONDON Printed for Ben. Griffin and are to be Sold by Randal Taylor near Stationers-Hall 1688. IMPRIMATUR Liber cui Titulus A Fourth Letter to a Person of Quality May 17th 1688. H. Maurice R mo in Christo P. D. Wilhelmo Archiep. Cant. Ã Sacris A FOURTH LETTER TO A Person of Quality BEING AN HISTORICAL ACCOUNT OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENT SIR I HAVE been longer in your Debt than I intended when I last engaged my Credit to you I hope now to give you satisfaction in full but you must not expect Interest to make the payment swell because the thing I am accountable to you for is so Trite and worn that I think it a kindness to you to make as short payment as is possible because 't will save you the trouble of Examining a world of small quotations which is worse than the telling of odd and broken Mony. I promised you an account of the Doctrine of the Holy Sacrament which the Church of Rome hath turned at last into the Doctrine of Transubstantiation By which they mean that upon the Priests Consecration of the Bread and Wine the Substance of them is turn'd into Christ's Natural Flesh and Blood nothing remaining but the Species and Properties of the Elements that is the Smell the Taste c. This absurd Doctrine being so repugnant to Scripture to Reason and to the very Senses of Mankind their main business is to delude poor People into an Opinion that it was the sense of the Primitive Churches of Christ We are desirous to come to a fair Tryal of this matter and that I may do my part towards it I shall endeavour to bring it to a very short issue by this Method 1. I shall shew you the Faith of the Ancient Churches from a long Controversie they had with those Hereticks the Apollinarians and Eutychians Which being undeniable and publick matter of Fact will clear up the sense of the Ancients far better than single broken passages out of the Fathers which Men of parts know how to interpret to their own advantage 2. I shall shew you when and how the sense of the Ancient Church came to be alter'd what Progress that alteration made and what strong opposition it met with for several Ages after it began And by this plain Historical Account you will easily discern what an Innovation the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is 3. And then I shall give a Summary Answer to those things which the Modern Romanists do urge out of the Fathers by shewing you the Genuine meaning of them which they by wresting or by not understanding them rightly have used to deceive the world with false Notions I. As for the Faith of the Ancient Churches it will soon appear if you do but observe this One thing and bear it carefully in your mind About the year of Christ 370. or a little before Apollinarius Bishop of Laodicea had spread about this Heretical Opinion that the humanity of Christ was turned and swallowed up into the Deity so that tho his two Natures were distinct before the Union yet by and upon the Union they became one Nature his humane part being converted or Transubstantiated into the Divine the Properties only and appearance of Humane Body remaining This indeed was not all his Heresie for he asserted too that Christ took a Body without a Rational Soul the Deity supplying the place of it and several other strange Opinions he held to the great disturbance of the Church But it is too notorious to need any proof that this was part of Apollinarius his Heresie that upon the Union of Christs two Natures his Manhood was changed into his Divinity saving only the Properties of it so that he was forced to yield that the Deity was Circumcised and suffered upon the Cross in the appearance or if you will have it in the Language of the Romanists under the Species of Humane Flesh Within the compass of Twenty Years Apollinarius his Heresie was condemned by Three Councils at Alexandria at Rome and at Constantinople But about Sixty Seven years after I mean Anno 448. it was revived by Eutyches a Presbyter at Constantinople whose positive Opinion was that the two Natures of Christ being United the substance of the one utterly ceased his Humanity being quite converted into his Divinity so that nothing was left of his Humane Nature but the Qualities and Accidents This Heresie begun by Apollinarius and promoted by Eutyches lasted a long time and 't is very well worth your Observation how nearly it resembles the Romish Doctrine of Transubstantiation in the Sacrament For as our Adversaries hold that the Substance of Bread and Wine is upon Consecration turned into the very Substance of Christ's Flesh and Blood nothing of them remaining but the Accidents so the Apollinarians and Eutychians held that the Substance of Christ's Humane Nature was upon its Union turned into the Substance of his Divinity nothing of his Humanity remaining but the Qualities and Properties As these hold that the very Substance of Christ's Body and Blood is received under the Species of Bread and Wine so those Hereticks held that the very Deity Vide Histor Council Chalced in init Leonis ep 17. ad Maxim. part 3. istius Concilii of Christ was Born and did Grow Suffer Dye and Rise again under the Species of Humane Flesh Or briefly that Christ appeared not in the Truth or Substance of Humane Nature but only in the outward Form and Figure of a Man his Humanity being transubstantiated as they presumed into his Divinity all but the Idea of it Now among many Arguments which the Ancients used against those Hereticks some of the Greatest Men in the Church drew One Argument from the Doctrine of the Sacrament and made use of Our principle against Transubstantiation to expose the Heresie of the Apollinarians and Eutychians which plainly shews that Our Opinion as to the Holy Sacrament was in those times the received Opinion of the Catholick Church To prove this particularly St. Chrysostome Patriarch of Constantinople writing to his old Acquaintance Caesarius to reclaim him from the Apollinarian Heresie into which he had unluckily fallen among other Arguments he used to convince him he drew a parallel from the Eucharist to shew that Christ had two distinct Natures in one Person As saith he before Consecration we call it Bread but the Divine Grace having sanctified it by the Prayer of the Priest it is no longer called Bread but is thought worthy to be called the Lords Body altho the Nature of Bread remains in it and we do not say there be two Bodies but one Body of the Son so here the Divine Nature of Christ being joyned to the Humane they both make one Son and one Person You must know that the Greek
figure and kind and are to be Seen and Touched as they were before Nothing can be plainer than this to Men who are not obstinately addicted to an Opinion in spight of all Reason and Sense And what Theodoret saith here is very agreeable to what he told Eranistes in the First Dialogue viz. That our Saviour honoured the visible Symbols with the Appellation of his Body and Blood not changing the Nature of them but adding Grace to Nature To avoid all this our Adversaries pretend that by Substance and Nature Theodoret means the Accidents of Bread which is in effect to tell us that they are utterly resolved to believe or at least to befriend a Lie For who that really loves Truth would thus confound things so as to make Substance and Accident the same But if they will strain their parts to play tricks with words how can they make this their interpretation to come up to Theodoret's design or to reach the Argument he had in hand which was about the supposed substantial change of Christ's Humane Nature into his Divinity Theodorets purpose was to Confute this by Arguing from the Doctrine of the Sacrament and had the Church believed a Substantial change of the Bread this would have confirm'd the Eutychian in his Opinion but it could not have Confuted it For the Heretick desired no more to be granted him but this that the Nature or Substance of the Elements doth cease though the Accidents continue And this indeed would have favour'd his conceit that the Substance of Christ's Humanity did cease the Properties of it Remaining still But Theodoret could not be so weak as to yield this for then he would inevitably have lost himself in his Dispute But what think you of a Pope that disputed against the Eutychians too and that from the very same Doctrine of the Sacrament It was no less a Man than Gelasius who was Bishop of Rome Anno 492. and wrote a Celebrated Book of the two Natures in Christ Which though Bellarmine and some more about Bellarmine's time denied to be this Galasius his Book yet the Arguments against them are so strong that Cardinal Perron Petavius and other Learned and more Ingenuous Men since have yielded us that point And the moderate Writer I quoted before saith This Work is assuredly of Pope Gelasius c. In that piece of Gelasius his Book which we have extant Treatise of Transub p. 40. in the Bibliotheca Patrum he teacheth the same Doctrine which Theodoret did and for the confirmation of the same thing as Cardinal Bellarmine doth Bellarm. de Euch. lib. 2. cap. 27. confess And what can be plainer than these words of Gelasius Viz. That the Sacraments which we receive of the Body and Blood Certè Sacramenta quae sumimus Corporis Sanguinis Domini divina res est propter quod per eadem divinae efficimur consortes naturae tamen esse non desinit Substantia vel Natura Panis Vini c. of the Lord is a Divine thing because by them we are made partakers of the Divine Nature and yet the Substance or Nature of the Bread and Wine doth not cease to be And truly the Representation and Similitude of Christ's Body and Blood is Celebrated in the Ministration of these Mysteries and therefore it is plain that we must think that of Christ himself which we profess and Celebrate in this Representation of him His meaning evidently is that we must believe the Permanency of Christ's Humane Nature though united to the Divine because in the Holy Eucharist which is the Representation of Christ the Nature and Substance of Bread and Wine remaineth though Consecrated by the Minister And yet we have another eminent Writer on our side no less a Man than Ephram who was Patriarch of Antiâ—ch about Anno 540. He disputed too against the Eutychians and drew the very same Argument from the Sacrament which others had used before him shewing that the Humanity of Christ did not Cease in its Substance by being united to the word no more than the Bread ceaseth in its Substance by the Addition of Spiritual Grace That says he Phetii Bibliothee cod 229. which is received by the Faithful doth not depart out of its own sensible Substance and yet continues undivided from the intelligible Grace And least it should be replyed though 't is strange it should that by Substance he means the Species and Accidents of the Bread he says the same thing of the Sacrament of Baptism where no Romanist ever affirmed any Transubstantiation to be His words are these Baptism also which becomes entirely a Spiritual thing and is One doth conserve still the propriety of the sensible Substance I mean Water and loseth not what it was Whence 't is clear that Ephram lookt upon the case in both Sacraments to be the same an Addition of Spiritual Grace to be in both but a loss of Substance to be in neither nor any other change to be in the Eucharist than what is in Baptism Sir I have instanced in those four Writers particularly not only because they were all Great Men in their Times Three of them Patriarchs nay one of them Patriarch of Rome but because they all argued against the same Heresie after the same manner which to me seems very observable and providential For tho the Eutychian Heresie prevailed so long and did spread so far that it did vast mischief yet God directed the issues of it so that 't was an occasion of shewing us what the Catholick Faith was both in the Greek and Latin Churches in those most Learned and flourishing times of Christianity concerning that great point which in these latter Ages hath made so many distractions in Christendom For it is not to be imagined but that these Eminent Bishops spake the sense of the whole Catholick Church over which they presided For having to do with obstinate Hereticks they were obliged to encounter them upon principles which all Christians consented to and were agreed otherwise the Disputations would have been Endless had they argued from principles of their own and which they were still to prove It was necessary for them to proceed upon some common Foundation whereon both Hereticks and Catholicks did stand and such was this Doctrine of the Sacrament for which Reason the Learned Doctors of the Church chose to insist upon it nor do I find that the Hereticks did contradict it or endeavour to destroy it which they would most certainly have done considering how much it made against them had they not known it to have been a principle universally receiv'd that the Bread and Wine are not Transubstantiated but remain still in their own Nature and Substance even after Consecration For this Reason I have omitted an hundred other quotations out of the Ancients and have taken notice only of this their common Argument against the Eutychians because I think it a plain and concise way of confuting the Popish pretence
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
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
Copy of this Epistle is not yet come to light Very probably it is supprest by those who know how to suppress many things which hurt their Cause But a Latin Copy of it was found in Archbishop Cranmer's time in a Library at Florence by Peter Martyr who brought a Transcript of it with him into England and put it into the Archbishops Library And this passage in it is such a stabbing blow to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation that the Romanists have turn'd and twin'd themselves every way to evade the force of it were it possible First they denied this Epistle to be St. Chrysostome's But this pretence has been since thrown out of doors by some learned Doctors of the Roman Church her self Stephen Gardiner that dissembling and bloudy Bishop of Winchester being somewhat conscious to himself that this Epistle was Genuine pretended Secondly that by the Nature of Bread which St. Chrysostome saith remains he meant not the Substance but the Accidents and Properties of it wherein he was followed by Bellarmine and divers others and this is pretended still by some Popish Writers here in England now But this is flatly to contradict the plainest and most natural expressions in the world And besides it utterly overthrows the great design of St. Chrysostome for his purpose was to shew Cesarius that the Substance of Christs Humanity remained after its union to the Deity for this was the thing in dispute with the Apollinarians They owned the Accidents the Properties the Qualities of Humanity to remain in Christ but affirm'd the substance of his Humane Nature to be turned into the Deity So that had St. Chrysostome meant that the Accidents only of Bread remained in the Sacrament the example would not have been to the purpose nor would the Argument have had any force at all but St. Chrysostome would have proved himself the most weak and impertinent man at reasoning that could be I will give you the words of a learned and moderate person of the Roman A Treatise of Transubstant Communion now living whose Book I hope you have by you St. Chrysostome saith plainly that the Nature of Bread abideth after consecration and this Fathers Argument would be of no validity if this Nature of the Bread were nothing but in shew for Appollinarius might have made another opposite Argument and say that indeed it might be said there were two Natures in Jesus Christ but that the Humane Nature was only in appearance as the Bread in the Eucharist is but in shew and hath only outward and visible Qualities remaining in it whereby it is termed to be Bread. One thing more I will observe to you concerning this Epistle to shew how injuriously some have dealt with St. Chrysostome and how those men speak against their own Consciences when they tell us as they have often done that this great man is on their side A few years ago the learned Mounsieur Bigotius found this Epistle at Florence and Anno 1680. printed it in his Edition of Palladius with the best Apology he could make for this passage But when the Book was now ready to be published some of the Sorbon Doctors fraudulently cut out this Epistle and Bigotins his Preface to it What an Art is this first to cut out an Authors Tongue for speaking against them and yet to pretend that he spake on their behalf Yet it was not so cunningly done but that the abuse was complain'd of and by good Providence the Leaves which were thus shamefully cut out are lately fallen into the hands of a learned man of our Church who hath given us a full and particular account of this whole matter in his excellent Defence of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England to which I refer you for your more ample satisfaction both as to the Epistle it self and as to the strength of St. Chrysostome's Argument against the Apollinarians which utterly destroyes the Doctrine of Transubstantiation To go on now with our Historical Account Our next ancient Writer is Theodoret Bishop of Cyrus in Syria a great Man at the Council of Chalcedon Anno 451. and without controversie one of the most learned Men of that Age. The Heresie of Apollinarus had now been espoused by Eutyches of Constantinople Theodoret undertook the quarrel and wrote excellently against the Eutychians by way of Dialogue and among several other strong Arguments he drew an example from the Holy Eucharist as St. Chrysostome had done before him I think it is my best way to lay before you that part of the Dialogue which chiefly concerns us nakedly as it lies in Theodoret only you must remember that 't is between Orthodoxus and Eranistes now Orthodoxus personates the Catholick and Eranistes the Heretick the former held that Christ had two Natures in one Person the latter that his Humane Nature was absorpt and substantially changed into his Divinity Eran. It is necessary to turn every stone as the Proverb is that Truth may be found especially in Divine Matters Orthod Tell me then those mystical Symbols which are offered by the Priests at the Eucharist what are they representations of Eran. Of the Lords Body and Bloud Orthod Of a True or not of a True Body Eran. Of a True Body Orthod Right for there must be an Original of a Copy for even Painters imitate Nature and draw Pictures of things that are seen Eran. 'T is true Orthod If then the Divine Mysteries be the Similitudes or Figures of a True Body then is the Body of our Lord even now a True Body not changed into the Nature of the Divinity but filled with divine Glory Eran. You have spoken very seasonably of the Divine Mysteries or Sacrament For I will from thence shew the Conversion of our Lords Body into another Nature Answer my questions therefore Orthod I will Answer Eran. What do you call the Gift that is Offered before the Invocation of the Priest Orthod We are not to speak plainly least some should be here that are not sufficiently instructed Eran. Answer then Aenigmatically Orthod I say then it is Nourishment from certain Seeds Eran. But how do we call one of the Symbols Orthod Why it is a common Name that signifies a kind of Drink Eran. But what do you call those things after Consecration Orthod The Body of Christ and the Blood of Christ Eran And do you believe that you participate of Christ's Body and Blood Orthod Yes I believe so Eran. As then the Symbols of our Lords Body and Blood are other things before the Priests Invocation but after Invocation are changed and become other things even so was the Lords Body after its Assumption changed into the Divine Substance Orthod You are taken in the Nets which you your self have made for the Mystical Symbols do not in any wise pass out of their own Nature no not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theod. Dialogue 2. after Consecration for they remain in their own former Substance and
all this fell short of the New Opinion then so that it satisfied not the bigotted Men at Rome yet it gave satisfaction to others nay to the Pope himself so that the Case of Berengarius was put off to further consideration another year Now if the matter was thus as in all probability it was I cannot see what hurt this doth Berengarius's Reputation or why thy Romanists should take occasion hence to roar against him so for a perfidious and perjur'd person when in these instances he declared his ripened and deliberate judgment as far as the belief of a Real presence went to which as far as I can find he was constant all his Life time Nor do I see what advantage those Condemnations of him in his absence can bring to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation because those Synods seem to have been so zealously concern'd only for the Catholick Doctrine of the real presence and to have been unanimous as to that sole point not understanding rightly the sense either of Scotus or Berengarius For when the business was carried further from a real to a Corporal presence and from the belief of the main Thing to a belief of the Modus I mean when once it came to be urged that Christ's Body is Substantially and Materially in the Sacrament and that by a Substantial Conversion of the very Nature of the Elements into it when the matter was brought to this height Berengarius's very Judges blunder'd miserably and were much divided about it and inconsistent with themselves Thus we are expresly told by Zacharias Chrysopolitanus Sunt nonnulli imd forsan multi sed vix notari possunt qui cum damnato Berengario idem sentiant tamen eundem cum Ecclesia damnant In hoc videlicet damnant eum quia formam verborum Ecclesioe abjiciens nuditate sermonis seandalum movebat Non sequebatur ut dicunt usum scripturarum quoe passim res significantes tanquam significatas appellant presertim in Sacramentis Zachar. Chrysopol in concord Evangel lib. 4. cap. 156. BB. PP Soec. 12. in the next Age That there were some yea perhaps many who held the same Opinion with Berengarius although they condemned him In this thing they condemned him that laying aside the Churches way of speaking he gave offence by his open manner of expressing himself He did not observe the Language of Scripture which frequently gives the Name of the thing signified to that which signifies it especially in Sacraments This was the only quarrel which many had against him who as to his Doctrine perfectly concurr'd and agreed with him The truth is Berengarius his Judges were much to seek what to say to him or how to deal with him when he appeared personally before them Of which we have two plain instances in Two Synods at Rome the one under Nicolas the Second Anno 1059. the other under Gregory the 7th in February 1079. The first of these two Synods was called chiefly about the Election of Popes and against Simony which was then a great Trade at Rome Thither Berengarius was summon'd and there he defended himself with such irrosistible Evidence of truth against a material change in the Nicolaus Papa comperiens te docere panem vinumque altaris post Consecrationem sine materiali mutatione in pristinis essentiis remanere concessâ tibi respondendi licentid c. Lankfranc de Euchar. adv Berengarium Eique Berengario cum nullus valeret obsistere Albericus evocatur ad Synodum c. Leo Ostiensis in Chronic. Cassinens lib. 3. c. 33. Sacrament that he quite confounded the whole Synod though it consisted of no less than 113 Bishops Not a man of them had a word to say against his Arguments so that they were forced to send for Albericus a Cardinal Deacon and a man of great reputation for his Learning But he was so confounded too that he desired a Weeks time to write against Berengarius Lanfranck who relates things partially as the modern Romanists have done after him not only omits the main of this story but falsifies one part of it as if Berengarius had not answer'd for himself though the Pope had given him leave Whereas Leo Ostiensis who lived about that time relates the particulars of the story and Sigonius confirms it nay Guitmund himself though a bitter Adversary to Berengarius owns there was a conflict in that Synod All which the Learned Bishop Usher De succes statu cap. 7. has noted to my hands 'T is true after all this Berengarius Elegisti-palam atque in audientia Sancti Concilii orthodoxam fidem non amore veritatis sed timore mortis confiteri Lanfrane de Euchar in initio recanted in that Synod meerly for fear of Death An Argument that even great Men are subject to humane srailty especially in extremity of danger tho' the scandal of his complyance falls upon that cause which needed Fire and Faggot for its last Argument and an Executioner instead of a Disputant to bring it to a Conclusion But observe what a Blunder these Men committed in this their Sanguinary attempt on behalf of the New Opinion Humbertus was order'd by the Pope to draw up the Form of a Confession the Synod approved it and poor Berengarius to save his Life was forced to subscribe it Now the Confession was this in short That the Bread and Wine which are set upon the Altar after Consentio autem sanctoe Romanoe Ecclesioe scilicet Panem Vinum quoe in altari ponuntur post Consecrationem non solum Sacramentum sed etiam verum Corpus Sanguinem Domini nostri Jesu Christi esse sensualiter non solum Sacramento sed in veritate manibus Sacerdotum tractari frangi fidelium dentibus atteri Lansranc Alger alii multi Consecration are not only the Sacrament but also the true Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ that this true Body is sensually not only in the Sacrament but in Truth handled and broken by the hands of the Priests and ground or torn by the Teeth of the Faithful This was very harsh for it renders Christ liable to New Sufferings every day it is inconsistent with the finer Notion of the presence of Christ's Body after the manner of a Spirit it introduces such a crass sort of Eating as our Saviour rebuked the Capernaites for thinking of it makes us to be not only Eaters of a Sacrament but in very Truth Eaters of Mans Flesh Therefore the present Church of Rome will not stand to these Expressions divers of her Doctors formerly have renounced this definition as erronous and absurd though it was made by the Pope in Cathedra and in a publick Synod the boldest Writers have been lamentably put to it how to give it a Tolerable construction The Glossator upon the decrees confesseth that if it be not understood in a sound sense it leads into a greater Heresie than what Berengarius himself was charged with But
the Ingenuous * Thuan Hist lib. 6. ad An. 1550. Thuanus ‖ Citat in Câ—tal Test pag. 1526. Jacobus de Rebira the French Kings Secretary adds that they were in great Esteem above the ordinary Priests for Wit and Learning that they were Honoured by their very Enemies that they were freed from common Burdens and Impositions and that every ones safety seem'd to have been wrapped up in Theirs The growing interest and great strength which the Adversaries of Transubstantiation now had inraged the Court of Rome so that in the Papacy of Innocent the Third they were forced to the most extream but most dishonourable shists And even when they had so much business in their Hands about the recovering of Palestine from the Turks The Heresie at Tolouse being so increased †Non enim disceptationibus verborum tantùm verùm etiam armis opus fuit adeò inoleverat tanta haeresis apud Tolosani Platina in vitâ Innocentii 3. saith Platina there was need not of Disputations but of Arms too And the Zealots for Transubstantiatiation had now got a Tool for their turn at Rome this Innocent the Third made Pope Anno 1198. a young Man about Thirty years of Age Hot Fierce Imperious and as far as I find by his Speeches in the Lateran Ignorant enough This youngster soon laid about him and raised a long and bloody War against the Albigenses Thuanus in his Sixth Book shews particularly what outrages his General Simon Montfort committed in several places of France Hanging Beheading Burning and making the most horrible Slaughters wherever he went throwing into the Flames at Paris several Priests too that were of the Albigenses perswasion The way of dealing with them in England was to burn them in the Shoulders or Foreheads with a Red Hot Iron And the same Author shews you how the Pope used the Earl of Tolouse and the King of Aragon also And Binius Binii notae in Concil Lateran tells us out of Mathew Paris how that the Earldome of Tolouse was given to Montfort for almost twelve years service against the Albigenses after the War against them had been first begun by Pope Innocent As great a War saith Thuanus as that was which was raised against the Thuan. Praefat. Saracens But as he ingenuously acknowledgeth the Result of the War was this that great Numbers of the Albigenses were Kill'd Routed Stript of their Estates and Dignities and scatter'd up and down into several quarters but not convinced by these outrageous Courses After all which Anno 1215 the year before God took this Bloody Pope out of the World that Great Council met at the Lateran wherein the Doctrine of Transubstantiation was decreed in express Terms It had been a wonder indeed if at last one poor Decree could not have been got for the establishing of it after so many years had been spent in Arts and Violence first to form it and then to bring it to some perfection Yet I must desire you to note that this Decree was the Pope's only not Venère multa tum quidem in consultationem nec decerni tamen quicquam apertè potuit Platina de vita Innocent 3. Facto prius ab ipso Papa exhortationis sermone recitata sunt in pleno Concilio capitula 70. quae aliis placabilia aliis videbantur Onerosa Math. Par. in Joanne ad Ann. 1215. the Councils Platina tells us that nothing was openly Decreed by this Council though many things were proposed to their consideration And Mathew Paris assures us that the Pope having made a Speech to them Seventy Chapters or Heads which now are called the Decrees of that Council were read before them which were acceptable to some but seemed burdensome to others 'T is plain that there are no Acts of this Council extant which shew in the least that any of the things proposed were so much as debated but the Council rose before they had consider'd matters or came to any Solemn Conclusion after a Synodical manner The Reasons of it seem to have been partly because there were then Wars in Italy as Platina and others relate which extreamly frightned that Pope and partly too because some of the Council were dissatisfied as to the Reasonableness of the Popes Proposals as Mathew Paris well observed and it seems not improbable but that they might be dissatisfied as to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation in particular I will not be positive in this but leave it to be consider'd by Learned Men But the ground of my Conjecture is this because Sabellicus speaking of this Lateran Council expressy affirms that at that very time the pestilent Heresie of the Sunt Crucigeri Lateranensi conventu probati supremo Innocentii Anno qui salutis fuit humanae duodecies centesimus ac quintus decimus quum pestilen esset Romae Haeresis orta magnusque ex ea motus extitisset multi qui tum fortè in urbe erant cruce signati in Syram credo ituri aut certè inde reversi Innocentii hortatu pestem illam in horas gliscentem naviter extinaeerunt quidam Albiensem ab autore ut reor eam nuncuparunt Haeresim Sabellic Aenead 9. lib. 6. p. 736. edit Basil Albigenses as he terms it appear'd at Rome and that a great Commotion hapned there upon it which the Pope was forced to put an End by the help of the Crucigeri that is a sort of Souldiers that had listed themselves under the Sign of the Cross for an Expedition into the Holy Land. And if it were thus as very likely it was 't is no wonder that the Pope and his great Council should break up in some haste If you ask how it might come to pass that the Popes Decrees were not publickly opposed while the Council was yet sitting The Reason is evident enough This Innocent was a most Proud Insolent Cruel Man One that had deposed I know not how many Bishops that had deprived Otho the Emperour of the Romans that had huff'd Henry the Emperour of Constantinople that had Excommunicated King John of England that had arrogantly treated the Kings of Bohemia Portugal Sicily France and Aragon that had robb'd the Earl of Tolouse of all his Possessions that had Barbarously used the Albigenses by the flashing and burning Zeal of the Crucigeri and that now in the time of the Lateran Council was strengthned at Rome with Great Numbers of them ready to do any mischief that he should command them And then how could it be expected but that the whole Council would be over-awed into silence supposing any of them were against the Doctrine of Transubstantiation Especially if you consider that in the Third Head of his Proposals he had Condemned all Hereticks all that were but suspected of Heresie all that shew'd any Humanity to Hereticks not excepting Princes themselves over whom he claimed a Power and declared his purposes not only to Excommunicate them but moreover to absolve their Subjects from their