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
loose and that prediction fulfilled Apocal. 20. that after the expiation of a thousand years Satan should be loosed out of his Prison and should go about to deceive the Nations which are in the four quarters of the Earth Such commotions and convulsions then hapned in the world especially in the Papacy of this Gregory as if the Prince were come a broad with stormes and tempsts to mingle Heaven and Earth together This was the Pope of whom such Horrid yet true Characters were given by some of the very Romish Communion that it would weary one to transcribe but the half part The Pope who decreed that the Bishop of Rome alone is to be called Universal that He alone can depose all Bishops that Vidr Registir Gregor 7. lib. 2. He only can use the Imperial Arms that all Princes are to kiss his feet that 't is Lawful for him to depose Emperors that an unlimited power of Ordination is in him that no Synod may be called a general Council without his command that no Chapter nor Book is to be acounted canonical without his Authority that there is no appeal from his Sentence that he can be judged by none that the Roman Church never did never can Err that by his leave Subjects may call their Princes to account that be can absolve Subjects from their Allegiance and the like Notwithstanding all these terrible usurpations many were Thunder-proof still One Synod at Worms condemn'd the Pope another at Pavia excommunicated him a third at Brescia deposed him Setting aside those Flatterers at the Court of Rome who did not stick to prostitute their Consciences to their Interest and Ambition men of all ranks orders and degrees made the world ring with their out-cries Princes began now to resist the Pope being too late sensible that what power their excessive zeal had given him he armed himself with against his over kind Benefactors so that there was no such Enemy to Crowns as the Tripple Diadem the Bishops finding themselves robb'd of their just authority by one Usurper opposed him to his Face The whole considerate world Groan'd and Wept for the abominations in Babylon complain'd of the Errours and Corruption which had crept into the Church longed for a Redress of abuses and would fain have had a Reformation but could not obtain it being hindred by a potent Faction who should have Cured the Common Disease but were themselves the greatest Plague Among other Innovations the New Doctrine of the Sacrament was still opposed For to go on Tho' Berengarius died about nine years after the Synod at Rome yet the Truth expired not with him I confess in the Twelfth Century the word Transubstantiation was used by Stephen who was Bishop of Autun in Burgundy about Anno 1120 and as far as I can yet find the First that used it And it is no wonder if the Doctrine which went along with it found entertainment when it was sent abroad by those whose Favour some were willing to expect and whose displeasure all had Reason to be afraid of Nevertheless it made not such a progress but that divers Men of Note had the Heart and Honesty to oppose it still I mean in the Western Churches for to other Countries it was as yet perfectly a stranger whatever some have vainly pretended to the contrary Several of Our Writers have so critically observed the variety of Opinions about the Sacrament in this Age that I cannot hope to discover any thing New to Men of such sort of Learning nor indeed do they need it For your sake therefore who may not be so well acquainted with the state of those times I shall content my self in giving you a Concise account of it as a Collector for the most part or rather as an Abbreviator of what has been already Noted by others whose Books have not been yet answer'd that I know of Heriger Abbot of Lobes in Germany who dyed in the beginning of this Twelfth Century gather'd together many things which had been written by Catholick Fathers Sigebert de Script Excles of the body and blood of Christ against Paschasius Ratbertus Thuanus in his Epistle Dedicatory to Hen. the Fourth tells him that Bruno Archbishop of Treves expelled several Berengarians out of Liege Antwerp and other places thereabouts and that this was Anno 1106. for so Bishop Usher and Abbertine say it should be read because Bruno was not Archbishop there till after Usher de success Stat. c. 7. Abbert de Euchar. p. 959. the year 1106 Rupertus Abbot of Deutsch in Germany about Anno 1110 is acknowledg'd by several Romanists themselves to have been for the mystical Union I spake of before against Transubstantiation and the Corporal Presence and the thing is clear out of divers places in his Writings Honorius of Augustodunum about Anno 1120 is charged by Thomas Waldensis under the Character of the Author de Officiis for a Favourer of Berengarius his Doctrine and one of Rabanus his Sive gemma animoe ext in BB. PP Bread Eaters Algerus who Flourisht Anno 1130 a Man so cryed up by the Romanists for Writing against Berengarius and for Transubstantiation reckons up as Prolog ad Libr de Sacram. I Noted before Six several Opinions about the Sacrament that were common in his time besides that which he held himself And as I observed too Zacharias Chrysopolitanus who was towards the year 1160. tells us that there were some perhaps many who then held Berengarius his Opinion though they blamed him for his Vnscriptural and Vncommon way of expressing himself * Si autem quaeritur qualis sit illa conversio An formalis an Substantialis an alterius generis Definire non sufficio P. Lombard Sententiar lib 4. dist 11. Peter Lombard about the same time having reckon'd up various Doctrines about this matter and among the rest that against Transubstantiation in particular though he himself held the Corporal Presence yet as to the question about the Change of the Symbols he plainly confest as Gregory the Seventh had done that he could not tell whether it be Substantial or a change of another Nature But that which convinceth me more that the Opposers of the New Opinion were very numerous and formidable at this time is because the Court of Rome began presently after this to use Terrible and Outragious Methods against them and for many years together carried on these Methods with a very quick Hand Which as it shews plainly that other Arguments failed them now and that they had no security left them but downright Violence and Oppression so it shews too what great Fears they were under least the Old Opinion should prevail again notwithstanding all their endeavours hitherto Witness their proceedings against the Albigenses of whom I may hereafter give you a saithful Account but at present it shall be sufficient for me to tell you from some of the Romanists themselves that they were such a sort of people as
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
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
touching the Antiquity of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation For it is not imaginable that the Ancients would have spoken so peremptorily and dogmatically in this point had they not had the Authority of the whole Church to have back't them And because they spake this so freely and that as a common Argument against those Learned Hereticks we may be sure that what they said was the common Faith of the Catholick Church in those times I mean in the Sixth Century And now Sir I shall proceed to Examine how the matter stood as to this point in the times following It is evident that the great Council of 338. Fathers who met at Constantinople Anno 754. were of this Faith That the Bread in the Eucharist is not Christ himself but the Image of him For this they urg'd as an Argument against the use of all other Images because the Symbols in the Eucharist are the only Image of himself which he left his Church Now this utterly overthrows the Doctrine of the Corporal presence and much rather the conceit of Transubstantiation For if the Bread be the Image of his Body it cannot be the Body it self as the Second Nicene Council argued when they oppos'd the Definitions of this Council at Constantinople And besides there is something very observable in the Discourse of this Council upon this point which I wonder so many Writers have not taken notice of and it is this that Christ Ordaining at his last Supper this Image of himself intended to shew the Mystery of his Incarnation And to this purpose they exprest themselves as any one may see by consulting the Acts of the Council As Conc. Nic. 2. Act. 6. when Christ took our Nature he took barely the matter of Humane Substance not his whole Person Divinity and all for to suppose that would be an Offence or Derogation to the Deity so when he appointed this Image of himself he chose barely the Substance of Bread not any shape of Man in it but only a Representation of his Natural Flesh for that would have been an Intreduction of Idolatry Moreover they say that as Christ's Natural Body was Holy by being filled with the Deity so this Image of him becomes Holy by being Sanctified by Grace and as that Flesh of ours which Christ took became Sanctified by being united to the Deity so is the Bread in the Eucharist the true Image of his Natural Flesh Sanctified by the Advent of the Holy Spirit c. Is this at all consistent with Transubstantiation or with the Doctrine of Christ's Corporal presence in the Sacrament And yet this was the sense of those 338. Fathers which they Dogmatically deliver'd as the sense of the Church whereof they lookt upon themselves as the Representatives Therefore Cardinal Bellarmine understanding their sense throughly and finding how strongly and invincibly it made against Transubstantiation had no other way left him but to rank this great Council among Hereticks nay he says they were the first that ever called in question the Truth of the Lords Body in the Eucharist Now this Bellarm. de Euchar. l. 1. c. 1. is easily said but by his favour they denied not the reality of Christ's Spiritual presence but of his Corporal presence only as we Protestants do Nay he himself rightly observes in the same place that the Protestant Faith in this point was not reckon'd among any of the Ancient Heresies nor so much as disputed against by any one of the Ancients for the first 600. Years For how should any Dispute against that which was the Common Faith of the Church and had been so all along to the time of this Constantinopolitan Council Those Fathers did no more but declare that publickly which they had received from former Ages and now made use of as a proper Argument against Images The Patrons of Images finding themselves pinch't with this Argument began to move a point which hitherto lay quiet and to strain those words This is my Body to a sense beyond what had been formerly taught though it was a great while before they could hammer out their New Notions into any Form for they spake very confusedly inconsistently and grosly as if Christ's Natural Body were in the Sacrament And though I do not find that any of them went so far as to own yet a Substantial change of the Nature of the Bread and Wine into the Substance of Flesh and Blood which is the conceit of the Church of Rome now yet 't is plain that what these Innovators said caused a New Great Controversie in Christendom and that just upon the neck of the former Quarrel about Images whereof I have already given you a particular and Faithful account II. And now I am come to the Second Thing I promised to shew you which was when and how the sense of the Ancient Church about the Sacrament came to be alter'd what progress that alteration made and what strong Opposition it met with for several Ages after it began It is generally agreed that Paschasius Rathbertus was one of the first Innovators in the Latin Church Vide Albertin de Sacram. p. 920. about Anno 818. He was first a Monk and afterwards Abbot of Corbey in France and a Man of some considerable Reputation especially for those times when Learning was most decayed which perhaps might transport him into an undue Opinion of his own abilities and that might make him affect singularity However it came about two very Learned Jesuites are agreed that Paschasius was a Leading Man in this business So says Bellarmine that Paschasius Bellarm. de Scriptor Eccles in Paschas Sirmond in vita Paschasii operibus ejus prefix was the first Author that wrote seriously and copiously of the Truth of the Lords Body and Blood in the Eucharist And so saith Sirmondus that Paschasius was the first that explained the Genuine sense of the Catholick he means the Roman Church so as that he opened the way to others who afterwards wrote upon the same Subject The Book which they chiefly mean is that of the Body and Blood of the Lord written to one Placidus a young man whom Paschasius dearly loved In reading of this Book one shall find so many dark Riddles unconquerable perplexities and plain inconsistences that it may be justly questioned whether they are possible to be reconciled to Truth or Sense nay whether the Man himself understood what he would be at One while he will have it to be nothing else but the Flesh and Blood of Christ and another while to be a Figure and the Flesh and Blood of Christ Mystically Now he says that Christ's Body is Created in the Sacrament than that it is made of the Substance of Bread and by and by that the Mystery is Celebrated in the Substance of Bread and Wine Sometime he tells us that 't is the very Body which Christ took of the Virgin and presently that it is wholly a Spiritual and Divine thing
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
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
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
Sacrament yet Monsieur Duval consesseth this was Genebrards private conjecture not founded on any Authority or Testimony I believe Genebrard in Liturg Dionys Duval annot in lib. Ecclesiae Lugd. adv Scot. the conceit of a Corporal Presence was hardly so much as known at that time in England and after it came to be vended here it was a long time e're it came to that value as to be made the price of Blood. There were many other men of note in this Ninth Century whom divers Writers on our side have proved to have declared their minds against the Innovation of Paschasius such as Hincmarus Walesridus Strabo Heribald Drusilmanus and several more whose names you meet with in many Latin Tracts and in that English Treatise I mention'd just now But I will not spend my time upon every little quotation least I should make this Letter swell beyond a due proportion and besides I think it not amiss to divert you a little with some account of the posture of this affair about that time here at home because I have just spoken of Scotus who was either our Country Man or a near Neighbour Somewhat after the 900th year from Christ Odo was ArchBishop of Canterbury and he would have brought into England the belief of a Corporal presence But it seems the Clergy were too Honest to be wrought upon In those days most doubted of the Truth meaning the Substantial Presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament saith William Malmesb. de gest pontif Angl p. 201. Osbern in vita Odon of Malmesbury Some Clergy Men asserted saith Osbern that the Bread and Wine after Consecration remain in their own former Substance He saith some but he should have said the Generality of Men believed so for it was then the common Opinion in the Church of England But this has been the custome of that sort of men when they are to tell Noses or go to the Poll to represent the adverse party as a little Handful though sometimes to their cost they find themselves sadly mistaken in their account For after the death of Odo this was the common Faith of the Church of England even in the days of Elfrick or Alfrick who was made Abbot of Malmesbury by King Edgar Anno 974. if Ingulphus be right in his computation Indeed about that time Men did search how bread that is gather'd of Corn and A Saxon Homily on Easter-Day through fires heat baked may be turned to Christ's Body c. But the Doctrine of our Church which was then profest and which upon that search was the more vigorously maintain'd was that 't is Christ's Body Mystically Spiritually and by signification The Reason why I say it is this Elfrick was of such great esteem in the Church that his Writings were sorted among the publick Acts of the Church and judged to contain the avowed and Authentick Doctrine of the Church of England then For some of them were put among the Ecclesiastical Canons and Constitutions for the instruction and good Government of the Clergy and some of his Writings were publickly read in Churches as Authoriz'd Homilies for the Information of all People This account I find in in the Preface to a very scarce Book under this Title A Testimony of Antiquity shewing the Ancient Faith of the Church of England touching the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of the Lord here publickly preached and also received in the Saxon time This Book was Printed in Archbishop Parkers days but there is no printed date of the year only in MSS. 1567. and Mr. Fox seems to have taken out of it all that account which he gives us of this matter in his Acts and Monuments It is a little Manual of some of Elfrick's Works First a Sermon Translated by Elfrick out of some Latin Author into the Saxon Language which was publickly read here on Easter-Day and then two of his Epistles to two Bishops Out of which saith the Prefacer it is not hard to know not only so much what Alfrickes judgment was in this Controversie but also that more is what was the common received Doctrine herein of the whole Church of England as well when Elfricke himself lived as before his time and also after his time even from him to the Conquest The piece I now speak of being a Rarity I will give you this account of it premising this only that by Housel is meant the Elements in the Sacrament the Sacramental Bread and Wine In the Sermon for Easter the Saxon Language on the one Page and the common English over against it on the other after a pretty long comparison made in the beginning between the Paschal Lamb in Egypt and our Blessed Saviour these words follow Now Men have often searched and do yet often search how Bread that is gathered of Corne and through fyers heate baked may be turned to Christes Body or how Wyne that is pressed out of many Grapes is turned through one blessing to the Lords Bloude Now say we to suche men that some thinges be spoken of Christ by signification some thyngs by thyng certain True thyng is and certain that Christ was born of a Maid and suffered Death of his own accorde and was buryed and on thys day rose from Death He is sayd Bread by a signification and a Lamb and a Lyon and a Mountayne He is called bread because he is our Life and Angels Life He is sayd to be a Lamb for his innocence a Lyon for strength wherewith he overcame the strong Devil But Christ is not so notwithstanding after true Nature neither Bread nor a Lamb nor a Lyon why is then that holy Housel called Christ's Body or his Blood if it be not truly that it is called Truly the Bread and the Wyne which by the Masse of the Priest is Halowed shew one thing without to humayne understanding and another thing they call within to beleving mindes Without they be sene Bread and Wine both in Figure and in tast and they be truely after their halowing Christes Body and hys bloude through Ghostly mistery An heathen Childe is Christened yet he altereth not hys shape without though he be chaunged within He is brought to the Font-Stone sinful through Adams disobedience Howbeit he is washed from all Sinne within though he hath not altered hys shape without Even so the Holy Font Water that is called the well spryng of Life is lyke in shape to other Waters and is subject to corruption but the Holy Ghostes myght commeth to the corruptible Water through the Priestes Blessing and it may after wash the Body and Soule from all Sinne through Ghostly myghte Beholde now we see two thyngs in this one Creature After true Nature that Water is corruptible Water and after Ghostly mistery hath halowing mighte So also if we beholde that Holy Housell after bodely understanding then see we that it is a Creature corruptible and mutable If we acknowledge therein ghostly myghte then understand we
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
comply with it For how can you think that such Men in such an Age would resist the strong Temptations of a Court and not resign up Truth and their own Consciences as a composition for their Crimes or as a price for their Preferments the Popes having now got so much power into their hands Besides the Priests might easily foresee what a prositable Errour this would prove in time what Authority they would hereby gain over people and how easily they might have their Purses and Consciences at Command For what will not Men do to have the very Body of their Saviour put into their Mouths And when a Priest hath his Penitent at his knee he must needs have full power over him if he can make him believe that he hath his God in his hand too For these and the like Reasons the Paschasian Opinion of the Corporal Presence stole about without meeting with any publick opposition in this Age wherein there was such a great scarcity of Writers and a greater of Scholars Yet in all this time I do not find any footsteps of Transubstantiation That Doctrine was grafted afterwards upon the wild conceit of Paschasius to the great mischief of the World that hath been poyson'd since with its very unsavoury and deadly Fruit somewhat like that which grew upon the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil the occasion of Mans Fall. I will not dissemble with you The most Learned and impartial Men about this time both before and after the Tenth Century did speak of the presence of Christs Body in the Sacrament in very high terms But their Opinon was this that the consecrated Bread becomes Christs Body not by a Substantial change of the one into the other nor by an Identity of Nature in Both for they all held the True Body of Christ to be still in Heaven and in Heaven only But they conceived the Bread and the Body to be United by means of a Third Thing that is by the Holy Spirit whereby the Bread and the Body were United by a mysticall Consociation and by an ineffable Conjunction both Bread and Body remaining still distinct in their own proper Natures I pray observe it They believed as very many of the Ancient Fathers did that upon the Priests blessing that Divine Spirit which replenisheth and dwelleth in Christ's glorified Body in Heaven doth also replenish the Bread and Wine at the Eucharist and that by this mediation of the Spirit the Holy Elements are joyned to Christ's Body by a Divine and Spiritual coadunation Now this is a quite different thing from Transubstantiation for that supposeth the matter of the Elements to be annihilated or to pass into another Substance whereas the Divines of former Ages believ'd no more but a Mystical and Spiritual Union And howsoever they exprest themselves about the Conversion Transmutation and Transfusion of the Elements 't is evident they meant only the transferring of them from a Common to a Sacramental Use and the raising of them up from the meer condition of Earthly Creatures to an high degree of Divine Dignity and Excellence being now no longer bare Bread and bare Wine but things of a sublime Quality and Condition the venerable Means and Instruments of Communicating Christ's Body and Blood to us through the secret Operation of the Holy Ghost All which is very consistent with the Church of England's Notion of Christ's Real Spiritual Presence but is opposite to the Paschasian conceit of a gross Corporal Presence and utterly Destructive of the later conceit of Transubstantiation But to go on In the beginning of the Eleventh Century the Paschasian Doctrine met with fresh Opposition For the Romish Writers themselves confess that Leuthericus who was Archbishop of Sens in France Anno 1004 was a Great Stickler against it Baronius tells us that he fell under King Roberts displeasure for that Reason The Writer of the Life of Pope John the Seventeenth in one of the Tomes of the Councils would have it that this Leuthericus scatter'd Hujus tempore Leuthericus Senonensis Archiepiscopus hoeresis Berengarianae primordia semina sparsit the Seeds of the Berengarian Heresie And Spondanus insinuates that Fulbertus in his Epistles to Leuthericus reprehended him for dissenting from the Catholicks in this point But upon perusing those Epistles as they are set out by Carolus de Villiers in the Bibliotheca Patrum I find no such thing Some hard words indeed past upon the score of Ecclesiastical Discipline but as to this matter I can see nothing Nor can I conceive how it should be so not because Fulbertus was Berengarius his Instructor but because his Writings shew him to have been of an Opinion quite different from nay contrary to that of Paschasius though indeed the Romanists would fain pull him on their side because he was of such Authority and Eminence in his time so greatly admired that some Dreaming Monks devis'd this pleasant Romance of him which some Learned Writers too have been willing to report that when he was Sick the Virgin Mary was seen to come and Suckle him with Milk out of her own Breasts But let us be serious This Fulbertus was Bishop of Chartres in the Province of Leuthericus Anno 1007. And the first thing to our purpose which I find in his Epistle to Adeodatus is very remarkable For having mentioned Three Things necessary to be understood whereof this is the Third viz. what the two Sacraments of life that is of the Lords Body and Blood do consist of presently he saith that many looking on this and other things too Carnally while they gazed on a Carnal Sense or meaning more than on the secret Mysteries of Faith they tumbled down the precipice of a pernicious Errour And is not this directly against the Carnal opinion of Paschasius as well as against those who lookt upon these Mysteries as Empty things And after he saith because Christ was to take away into Heaven that Body which he offer'd up for us that we might not want the help of his Body so taken away he left us this Pledge of his Body and Blood not the Symbol of an empty Mystery but that which a secret Vertue invisibly works in under the visible Form of a Creature the Holy Ghost joyning the True Body of Christ to it You see Fulbertus runs clearly upon that Mystical ' Compaginante Spiritu Sancto Corpus Christi verum Union I spake of before which supposes the Substance and Nature both of Bread and Body to remain still in themselves distinct In his Epistle ad Finardum he plainly distinguisheth that Body which Christ took in the Virgin 's Womb from that which is in the Sacrament And at the End of his Sermons he tells us that some Eat to Life and others to Destruction but that the Thing represented by the Sacrament is to every Man for Life only so that he who Eateh to his Condemnation Eateth not the Flesh of Christ nor Drinks his
Blood although he Eats and Drinks that which is the Sacrament of so great a thing All which how can it possibly consist with the fulsome Doctrine of a Corporal presence which supposes that very Flesh and Blood which Christ took of the Virgin to be truly Really Substantially and materially in the Sacrament This last passage in Fulbertus is probably thought to have been that which did stick so deeply in the mind of his Scholar Berengarius Whose famous case I am at length come to and shall search into it impartially though it be no small unhappiness that we must have recourse to the Writings of his profest Adversaries there being little extant which either he wrote for himself or his Friends for him though it was a case wherein we may be sure many Pens were at work And so we are expresly told by Sigebort who lived near the time of this Controversie that many disputed much both in their Discourses and Writings some Contra eum Berengarium pro eo multum à multis Verbis Scriptis disputatum est Sigeb Chron. ad an 1051. against Berengarius and some for him And the Truth of this will appear in the Sequel Though some Romanists have endeavoured to oppress the Memory of Berengarius with a heavy weight of ill Characters as 't is usual with them in all such cases yet several of that side have ingenuously acknowledg'd that he was a most Eminent person in his time not only for his great Charity Humility and Austerities of Life but also for his great Parts and Learning And the thing is evident partly from his Dignity in the Church for he was Archdeacon of Anger 's in France intrusted with the Office of Instructing the Clergy and of training them up in the Studies of Divinity And partly from those great stirs which hapned in so many parts of Christendom upon his Quarrel Not that I can imagine such hot contentions should arise in France England and Italy as 't is plain there were purely upon the personal account of Berengarius For it is impossible to conceive how one single Frenchman though of the greatest Note could engage such distant Numbers in a common Controversie by any New Doctrines of his own No their general Concurrence with him is a plain sign that they had a deeply radicated Love for the Ancient Truth however it was Deprest by the then prevailing Patrons of the Paschasian phancy that they were well prepared for a publick Declaration of the Truth and that they waited only for a fair Opportunity of declaring it and for some such Leading Man as Berengarius was to appear in the Head of them So you know it was at the time of the Reformationl people had had such bitter Experience of the Spirit of Popery that 't was every where Hated and the World was well disposed for the entertainment of Christ's Religion so that when Luther cryed out against Indulgences and Priest-craft the cry went presently round not so much for Luthers sake as for the respect men had for Truth and honesty and out of their detestation of a Lucrative contrivance which some Popes and their fellow work men had formed to oppress the world Thus a great part of Christendom seems to have been dispos'd in Berengarius his days if that had been God's time for a general Reformation But the Sins of the World were to be punish'd and God in his Wisdom chose rather to bring good out of evil afterwards than to prevent the evil at that time As to Berengarius his Principles I must intreat you to observe that his First opinion seems to have been that the Bread and Wine are barely Figures and Shadows without the invisible thing if we may believe those that wrote against him Lancfranck Adelmannus Durandus of Liege and especially Guitmund But searching more narrowly into this point and finding how obnoxious he was to his adversaries who could not but object against him the sense of the whole Catholick Church his Opinion afterwards rose higher as to this and his settled Judgement was That the Lancfranck de Euchar. Sacram Sacrifice of the Church consisteth of two things the visible Sacrament and the Thing of the Sacrament that is the spiritual Body of Christ as the Ancients themselves spake And to this exactly agrees what Guitmund fairly said of the Berengarians that they were divided in their positive Opinions some of them believing that there is Berengariani multum in hoe differunt quod alii nihil omnino de Corpore Sanguine Domini Sacramentis istis in esse sed tantummodo umbras hoec figur as esse dicant Alii verò dicunt ibi Corpus Sanguinem Domini revera sed latenter continueri ut sumi possint quodammodo ut ita dixerim impanari Et hanc ipsius Berengarii subtiliorem esse Sententiam aiunt Guitmund de Veritate Euchar. lib. 1. non procul ab initio nothing at all of the Lords Body and Bloud in the Sacrament but that the Symbols are shadows and figures only whereas others of them confest the Lords Body and Blood to be there truly but secretly and as it were joyned with the Bread and Wine that they may be received which they say saith Guitmund is the more subtile Opinion of Berengarius himself So that the main of the Controversie wherein Berengarius and his Party where concern'd lay in these two Negative Points which are now the great Points in Controversie between us and the Church of Rome 1. They utterly opposed the Paschasian Error of a corporal Presence 2. They absolutely denied any Essential change of the Nature and Substance of the Bread and Wine For now the Evil began to swel to a very high degree Tho I do Isti enim licet inter se diversi sint contra nos tamen unam habent penè sententiam argumentis nituntur eisdem Utrisque enim nibil de pane vino mutari essentialiter asserunt Id. not yet find the word used yet the Doctrine of Transubstantiation began now in this Age in the 11. Century to be introduced as an Additional Doctrine which some endeavoured to obtrude upon the World because they found it impossible for them to maintain their new Paschasian conceit of a corporal Presence without maintaining lustily this Newer fancy of a substantial change of the Sacramental Elements But the extream Novelty of this Opinion will easily appear from these following Considerations 1. Cardinal De sacr Euch. lib. 1. cap. 1. Bellarmine tho he seldome yields any thing that is against him and when he doth 't is with a sparing hand and against His own Will yet he confesseth that Berengarius was not reputed the first Inventer of his Error as he is pleased to call it Durandus the Bishop of Liege who wrote against Berengarius Qualiter Bruno Andegavensis Episcopus item Berengarius Turonensis antiquas hoereses modernis temporibus introducendo c.
Durand Ep ad Henr. 1. and was his Contemporary reckons it among those old Heresies which he accused Bruno the Bishop of Anger 's and Berengarius for reviving at that time You must make the man allowance for the word Herisie It was a scolding expression which some used in those days for want of strong Arguments But if you strip the Malice and Virulency off the naked and true meaning is that Berengarius held an Ancient opinion and you may easily see it by comparing his last judgement with the Faith of the Ancients 2. Tho' some private Doctors of the Roman Church strove at that time to Establish the Doctrine of the Corporal presence and to Introduce the other of a Substantial Change of the Holy Symbols in the Eucharist yet these Inovations were so far from being generally received that the Writers of those times nay on that very side sufficently shew us how distracted the world was about those points and what vast numbers in several parts of Christendome sided with Berengarius Durandus in his fierce Sanguinary Letter to Henry the first of France call'd the Berengarian Faith the foul reproach of his whole most Noble Kingdom And Totius nobilissime regni vestri heu nimis turpe opprobium hearing that the Berengarians defired to be heard in a publick Council and that King Henry had summon'd a Council in order to it he disswaded him from that course because as he told the King He and others were very much afraid least the Berengariand should come off and so the last State of things would be worse than the first therefore he besought the King to punish them unheard After this Man Guitmund tells us that not the Berengarians only but several others though Enemies to the Berengarians were very much divided in their sense about the Sacrament some believing the Bread and Wine to be changed in part only others imagining that though there should be an entire change yet where there are unworthy Receivers the Sacrament Returns into Bread and Wine again Some years after Algerus speaks of Alger Prolog in Librum de Sacrament no less than six different opinions about the Sacrament besides that New Opinion which now begun to spread Some held no other change to be in the Symbols than is in the Water at Baptism Others held such an Union between Christ and the Symbols as is between his Divinity and his Flesh Others held a change of them to be into the Flesh and Blood not of Christ but of some Son of Man who is acceptable unto God. Others believed that no change could be made by a wicked Priest Others again that though there were a change yet it doth not continue but that there is a return into Bread and Wine And others again that the Sacrament is Digested and doth Corrupt after eating All these hot Disputes which naturally sprang out of the Bowels of a gross opinion so full of sensible difficulties did plainly shew it to be a quite different thing from the Faith of the Ancient Church when there were none of these quarrols because the prolysick Doctrine which Naturally brought them into the World was not then in being for had it been so those many difficulties it necessarily yields must have brought forth abundance of Disputes especially in times when Men had a greater Liberty of disputing than in Berengarius his Days when the Pope and his party had usurped and did not stick to exercise a Tyrannical power over Princes themselves But of all these disagreeing parties they that stuck to Berengarius was the most formidable Body to the innovating Faction Sigebert shews that all France abounded with them William of Malmesbury though a hater of Berengarius his memory tells us the same Malmesbur ad an 1087. thing so doth Matthew Paris and Matthew of West-minister faith that Berengarius had almost corrupted as his Language is all the French Italian and English And indeed the vast endeavours the Popes used to suppress the Ancient Faith not in those Countries only but in Germany too plainly shews that their Innovations did not gain ground without meeting with strong opposition how lightly soever Lanfranck and Guitmund speak of this matter thinking thereby to disgrace Berengarius 3. Nay It is very observable as a further plain sign of the Novelty of Transubstantiation that the very Men who were the Patrons of it found so many perplexities in bringing it to its form that they could not agree among themselves but spake inconsistently so that it cost them much time to mould the absurdity into the shape wherein it appears now And this I shall shew you as briefly as the Matter will give me leave according to the Series of time The best Key to open the whole thing and the only way of doing right to Berengarius his Memory and Cause It being found by his Letters to Lanfranck then Abbot of Caen in Normandy that he was against the Opinion of Paschasius it was thought he held the Sacred Symbols to be nothing but empty Types and shadows which as I said perhaps might have been his first Opinion Hereupon to make him an Example to all of that perswasion Several Synods were called one after another at Rome and Verceil Anno 1050. under Leo the 9th besides several other Assemblies which Mabillon mentions in some of Mabillon Analect vet Tom. 2. p. 477. c. which Synods Berengarius was condemned though absent Now to give you my free thoughts and to be just to all parties very probable it is that they condemned him thus only upon his First supposed Opinion and therein indeed they seem to have been unanimous My Reasons are these 1. For in the Synod at Tours under Pope Victor II. Anno 1056. where and when Berengarius appeared in person he own'd his Correct Opinion which in common construction amounts to no more but a Citat ab Usser desucc statu cap. 7. p. 201. Confession of the Real Spiritual presence that the Bread and Wine do become not umbratically but truly the Flesh and Blood of Christ This doth not favour either Transubstantiation or a Corporal Presence and yet this gave satisfaction so that he was not only dismist but kindly received into the Communion Guitmund de Sacram. lib. 3. of the Roman Church saith Guitmund 2. Mabillon tells us of another short Confession which he saw in a Manuscript and which is supposed Mabillon Analect Tom. 2. p. 487. to have been voluntarily drawn up by Berengarius and presented to Gregory the 7th Anno 1078. that the Bread is the true Body of Christ and the Wine his true Blood Nor doth this Confession reach to the business of Transubstantiation without straining of it after a most violent manner but only asserts the Truth of Christ's presence in the Sacrament in opposition to a bare Type or shadow and therefore Mabillon himself doth acknowledg that this Confession was Artificially and cunningly worded And though
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 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
were afterwards upon the Resormation called Protestants All that disclaimed the Corruptions or dissented from the Errours of the Church of Rome in those days were comprehended Petrus Cisterciensis Monachus qui de Albigensibus visa explorataque in historiam retulit Innocentio tertio Pontifici dicatam Hereticos Tolosates atque aliarum Vrbium oppidorum eorumque protectores communi nomine Albigenses vocari consuevisse ait ab usu loquentium Marian. Prefat ad Lucan Tudens under the Common Name of the Albigenses The Numbers of them were so vast that * Ferè enim nulla est terra in quâ haec secta non sit Reinet cont Wald. c. 4. Reinerus their Persecutor ingenuously confest there was hardly any Nation wherein this Sect as he call'd them was not Let us now take a short view of the proceedings against them In the time of Alexander the Third Anno 1163. a Synod met at Tours in France chiefly against the Emperor Frederick and Victor the Anti-Pope in which Synod a Canon was made against the Albigenses that no Man should dare under the dreadful pain of an Anathema Can. 4. to allow them House or Harbour or have any Commerce with them or shew them any kind of Humanity The reason of this severity was grounded on strong jealousies they had of the dangers that might come from the great growth of these Albigensis whose Heresie as they said in the beginning of that Canon had spread like a gangrene from Tolouse and the parts about it through Gas coygny and several other Provinces Anno 1170. a certain Usser de succes stat p. 240. Cardinal was sent into the Province of Tolouse to suppress them by force of Arms. This course failing another Synod in France was held against them Anno 1176. which Binius calls a Gallican Council indefinitely but Labbey specifies the place calling it Concilium Lumbariense or a Synod at Lombers in the Archbishoprick of Tolouse In this Age infinite Numbers Quippe in latissimis Galliae Hispaniae Italiae Germaniaeque Provinciis tam multi hâc peste Publicanorum infecti esse dicuntur ut secundum Prophetam multiplicate esse super numerum arenae videbantur Guil. Novoburg a clar Usserio citat de success cap. 8. p. 238. of Christians in France Spain Italy Germany and England made Publick profession of the Old Faith against Transubstantiation tho they were called by several Names for several Reasons as the Albigenses Catharists Leonists Publicans Patarens and divers Names more which their Enemies fixt upon them But chiefly they abounded in the Southern Parts of France And seeing Force and open Violence had hitherto had very little Success against them at last they were * Quia in Gasconia Albigesio partibus Tolosanis aliis lecis ita Hereticorum quos alii Catharos alii Patrinos alii Publicanos alii aliis Nominibus vocant invaluit damnata perversitas ut jam non in occulto sicut alibi nequitiam suam exerceant sed errores suos publicam manifestent ad consensum suum simplices attrahant infirmos eas defensores corum receptares Anathema decernimus subjacere Concil Lateran Can 27. Anathematiz'd by Pope Alexander the Third and his party Anno 1179. in the Lateran Council at Rome But being neither daunted nor frightned at this Thunderbolt one ‖ Henricus a Papa Alexandro missus fuit in Gasconiam ad delendam hereticorum perfidiam altaris Sacramentum non credentium Gucl Nungiac Qui predicationis verbo militum peditumque copias undicunque contraxit praefatosque haereticos expugnavit Verùm id frustrà Nam ut sui compotes facti sunt se in erroris pristini volutabro revolverunt Robert. Altissiordor citat ab Usser ibid p. 244. Henry before Abbot of Clairvoux and now a Cardinal was sent by the Pope into Gascoigny against them Anno 1181. where he over-powred them indeed by his grear Army but to no purpose for assoon as they were got out of his Clutches they openly profest their Faith again Anno 1182. a great many of these poor people were burnt in several Parts of France and applications were made to Hen. the Second under pretence of a Vision that he would do the same thing in England But he would not suffer it to be done in his Country though there were abundance of that perswasion there saith †Tempus vero ne quo haec visio contigerat erat tunc quando Publicani comturebantur in quam pluribus locis per regnum Franciae quod Rex Henricus nullo modo fieri permisit in terra sua licet ibi essent perplurimi Roger. de Hoveden in fine Anni 1182. Hoveden It is no great honour to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation that when it came into the world it soon cost Bloud nor could it prevail till the party which upheld it made its way by Fire and Sword. The truths of Christianity were not propagated by such barbarous methods for there is such a natural lovelyness in Truth as renders it worthy of all acceptation and so much the more for not standing in need of Sanguinary proceedings But error is not easily supported any other way and 't is a sign of a false Doctrine when it must be forced upon the conscience by cutting of throats However the Persecutions that were now did this good that the true Faith was confirmed by New Martyrdomes and recovered some of that Lustre under butchering Popes which Christianity had gained under Nero. Lucius the Third was now Pope who in the year 1183 as Ad abolendum diversarum haeresum pravitaetem quae in plerisque mundi partibus modernis caepit temporibus pullulare c Imprimis Catharos Patarenos eos qui se Humiliatos vel Pauperes de Lugduno falso nomine mentiuntur Passaginos Josepinos Arnaldistas perpetuo decernimus Anathemati subjacere Lucii 3. Decret Labbaei Concil Tom. 10. L'abbey computes it issued out another Anathema for the abolishing of divers Heresies so called which in those times grew in most parts of the World and he particularly mention'd the Catharists the Patarens and those that were called the Humble Men or the Poor of Lions that is the Albigenses who stifly opposed among other Errors that of Transubstantiation One Outward Advantage which did help to make them so very Numerous and Spreading was the Protection they found from divers Princes and Great Men particularly Raymund Earl of Tolouse and Peter King of Aragon as †Nec mirum tam latè eam labem fuisse diffusam cum Albigensium secta a primo exortu principium vivorum quae magna Pernicies est favore fuerit armata Tolosatis primi Comitis deinde Fuxensis Biterarum Convenarum Accessit Petri Aragoniae regis patrocinium Joan. Marian. praefat ad Lucum Tùdensem Vide Concil Lavaurese Anno 1214. Item Math. Paris in Joanne Joannes Mariana doth confess And with this agrees the Account given of this matter by
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
had been otherwise defined But now it is done they will not Retract for fear of losing the Credit of Infallibility which supports all Sir I promised you in the beginning of this Letter to take notice of what hath been said upon this Point in some late Pamphlets and the Task will be the less because the Learned Author of the Veteres Vindicati has been before hand with me who have been forced to wait till this Point fell in my way in that Historical Account which I undertook in my First Letter However I will not make this Swell but desire your Patience till another time Perhaps some brisk Gentleman may afford me some New Work and then I may Answer all under one In the mean time I have a request to you My Second Letter you know about Images was quarrell'd with by one to whom I gave a Civil Return without receiving yet any sort of Reply that I know of 'T is odds but he will be Quarrelling with this too because it bears hard upon a Mighty Point of Controversie Therefore if you chance to know him be pleas'd to whisper him in the Ear that if he will keep close to matter of Fact and use Genuine Authors and forbear Reproachful and Unhandsome Language and Deal with me like a Scholar he shall certainly find me a fair Adversary But if he shall run out into things that are impertinent and quite out of the way you may wish him to have a care least some Honest Protestant Footman give him a Breathing I am SIR Your most Faithful and Obedient Servant May 11. 1688. FINIS BOOKS Printed for and Sold by Ben. Griffin at the sign of the Griffin in the Great Old-Baily near Ludgate-hill THe History and Antiquities of Rutlandshire collected from the Records Ancient Manuscripts Monuments on the Place and other Authors by J. W. Esq A Discourse of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper wherein the Faith of the Catholick Church concerning that Mystery is explained proved and vindicated after an intelligent catechetical and easie manner by Edw. Pelling Chaplain to his Grace the Duke of Somerset The Regular Christians daily Sacrifice or a Collection of Prayers chiesly out of David's Psalms and the rest of the Common-Prayer to be used by the People in their private Devotions on all ordinary and special occasions with a particular Office for Sacrament-Days by Edw. Pelling Chaplain to his Grace the D. of Somerset A Sermon preach'd at the Abbey July 1685. being the Thanksgiving day for his Majesties Victory over the Rebells by Edw. Pelling Chaplain to his Grace the D. of Somerset A Sermon preached at St. Georges Church at Windsor Sept. 26. 1685. by Edw. Pelling Chaplain to his Grace the D. of Somerset Printed by Order The Antiquity of the Protestant Religion with an answer to Mr. Sclater's Reasons and to the Collectioins made by the Author of a Pamphlet Intituled Nubes Testium in a Letter to a Person of Quality The First Part. The Antiquity of the Protestant Religion concerning Images with an Answer to the Collections made by the Author of the Pamphlet Intituled Nubes Testium In a Letter to a Person of Quality The Second Part. A Third Letter to a Person of Quality being a Vindication of the former In an Answer to a late Pamphlet Intituled a Discourse of the Vse of Images c. 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 Diallaction Viri Boni Literati de Veritate Natura atque Substantia Corporis Sanguinis Christi in Eucharistia Georgii Buchanani Scoti Poemata in Tres Partes digesta Pars Prima Psalmorum Davidis paraphrasis poetica Jephtes sive Votum Tragaedia Baptistes sive Calumnia Pars Secunda Franciscanus Fratres Elegiarum Liber Sylvarum Liber Hendecasyllabωn Liber Iambωn Liber Epigrammatum Libri III. Miscellaneorum Liber De Sphoera Mundi Lib. V. Pars Tertia Euripidis Medea Ejusdem Alcestis utraque Latino carmine reddita G Buchanani vita ab ipso scripta biennio ante mortem Adjecta sunt Paraphrast Psalmorum Argumenta singulis Psalmis praefixa Item Collectanea quibus Vocabula Modi loquendi tam Poetici quà m alià dissiciliores minùs vulgo obvii perspicuè explicantur Etiam diversa Carmiuum Genera Margini adjecta Opera Studio N. Chytraei His accedunt nunc primùm variae lectiones conjecturae in partem secundam Assize of Bread with sundry good and needful Ordinances for Bakers Brewers Inholders Victuallers and Butchers c. The Perfect Major In French and English Shewing the easiest way of handling Arms The Millitary Motions with the Manner how to enter into the Field and to form a Battalion By F. d' Morains formerly an Officer in the French Army's The French Bible in large 4º French N. Testmt. in large 4º French N. Test in large 8º French Psalms in 24o. All of them in a Fair large Letter