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
put forth in Print without any adding or withdrawing any thing for the more faithful reporting of the same In Witness whereof they have subscribed their Names I will not go about to imitate their several different hands least I prove a Bungler at it but I observe the Bishop of Durham's Title is very differently Written from all the rest for it is in Greek Characters 1 Matthue Archbishop of Canterburye 2 Tho. Ebor. Archiepiscopus 3 Edm. London 4 Ja. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 5 Rob. Winton 6 William Bushoppe of Chicester 7 Jo. Bushop of Heref. 8 Richarde Bishope of Ely. 9 Ed. Wigorn. 10 N. Lincoln 11 R. Meneven 12 Thomas Covent and Lich. 13 John Norwic. 14 Joannes Carleolen 15 Will. Cestren 16 Thomas Assaphen 17 Nicolaus Bangor Hii Patres precedentes subscripserunt manibus suis propriis in hoc Libello Now out of the whole four things are observable 1. That even before the time of Elfrick the Doctrine of Christs Spiritual presence only was the Doctrine commonly and currently received in all the Western Churches whatever fantastical Notions some private men might entertain to the contrary For those Eighty Sermons which Elfrick spake of as of his Preface to the Book now mention'd own Writing whereof that upon Easter-Day was one were not of his own composure but Tranflations which he made out of Latin Writers which Ib. shews that the Latins whom he followed and Translated had been positive against the new conceit of a Corporal presence 2. That in Elfrck's time the same Doctrine was constantly held throughout the whole Church of England as the True Doctrine For how can we imagine that Elfricks Translations could be read publickly in the Churches in England if the English Bishops did not believe them to contain Doctrines that were found and agreeable to the Catholick Faith Or how can we conceive that Elfrick's Epistles should be put among the publick Writings of our Church had not the Doctrines in them been publickly own'd and profest here And yet it is evident that among other Canons which our Bishops collected out of Gildas Ib. Theodorus Egbert Alcuine and out of the Fathers of the Primitive Ages they did sort those Epistles of Elfrick for the better ordering of the English Church 3. That those Writings of Elfrick's did so directly strike at the Errours of Paschasius as if he had purposely designed to prevent those Errours from creeping into this Kingdom and throughly to season the whole Nation against them For in some places he takes the Opinion nay the very words of Paschasius and contradicts him so flatly in the words of Bertram and others of the former Century that you would think he had some of those Authors before him as perhaps he had 4. That upon the Conquest when divers of the Foreign Clergy came hither with and after Lancfrank an Italian Patron of Paschasius's gross Opinion and now sent for by the Conqueror to be Archbishop of Canterbury they found the Doctrine of the Spiritual presence only taught and profest in the Church of England For this reason they fell soul upon the Records of our Church and especially upon those Latin Authors which Elfrick had made use of and upon what they could understand of Elfrick's own Writings So that those Eighty Latin Sermons which Elfrick had Translated are long ago lost nor did the Latin Epistle to Wulfstane which they found in the Library Ibid. at Worcester and probably was given to that Library Ibid. by Wulfstane himself escape them neither For in part of that Epistle where the tender point lay a perfect Rasure was committed I have Noted the words above in a Parenthesis viz. that this Sacrifice is not made that Non fit tamen hoc Sacrificium Corpus ejus in quo passus est pro nobis neque Sanguis ejus quem pro nobis effudit sed spiritualiter Corpus ejus efficitur Sanguis sicut Manna quod de Coelo pluit aqua quoe de Petra fluxit Body of Christ in which he suffer'd for us nor that Blood of Christ which he shed for us but it becomes Spiritually his Body and Blood as the Manna that descended from Heaven and the Water which flowed out of the Rock These words were flatly and expresly against the Opinion of Paschasius and therefore they were quite rased out tho' afterwards they were restored to us out of another Latin Copy of the same Epistle in the Church of Exeter which by good luck had escaped their Tallons Had these Men understood the Saxon Language perhaps we should have had very little or nothing of Elfricks Writings left us But such foul play is an evident Argument of a very bad Cause And so I shall leave it to your consideration what little Reason the Romanists have to call us Hereticks and Innovators in this point when 't is so plain that the Innovation lieth at their own door and that when it first began to peep into the World the Church of England would not endure it but even in the days of the Saxons when the Controversie about it was so hot abroad especially in France She still maintain'd the Doctrine of the spiritual presence so that it held on constantly here to the time of the Conquest and might have held on still in an uninterrupted course from Age to Age had it not been for some Workers of Iniquity Let us now cross the Sea again and go on with out Relation of this matter how it stood abroad whence I have a little diverted you though I hope with no unuseful or unpleasant Digression In the Tenth Century this Controversie seem'd to lie pretty Quiet some following the phancy of Paschasius that Christ's Natural Body is in the Sacrament his Body properly so called that which he took of the Holy Virgin that which suffer'd upon the Cross c. Others following the Catholick Faith of the Ancient Church that it is Christ's Spiritual Body meaning not his Flesh properly but the Virtue of his Flesh Qui dicunt esse virtutem Carnis non Carnem virtutem Sanguinis non Sanguinem Paschas in Math. 26. not his Blood but the Virtue of his Blood as Paschasius himself represents their meaning in his time The Truth is this Tenth Century abounded with Men from whom the World could not expect any thing that was good some very illiterate some very Dull and Unactive some very Lewd some very Ambitious and self ended and some quite discouraged by the tempestuousness of the times By the account all Learned Men have given us it was a most Infamous Age the worst that ever was or hath been hitherto since the beginning of Christianity Probable it is that at this time Paschasius his Opinion did spread and even to the Court of Rome when nothing in comparison was in the way to stop it And when it was once gotten thither 't is easie to believe that indigent Men or flatterers would be found to
cadere sub fide si aliter dixisset minus benè dixisset qui alitur dieunt minus bene dicunt qui determinate assereret alterutrum proecisè cadere sub fide incur reret sententiam Canonis vel Anathematis Censura Facultatis Theologioe Paris before And when the Doctors of Divinity at Paris had Examined his determination they gave this Censure of him at the End of it that he had done well in delivering both as probable Opinions not so determin'd by the Church as to be thought either of them an Article of Faith and say they if he had said otherwise he would not have said so well and they who do speak otherwise speak amiss and whosoever shall peremptorily assert either Opinion to be precisely of Faith ought to incur the Sentence of the Canon or Excommunication I shall not need to trouble you with more Observations how the opposite Doctrine to Transubstantiation passed on still through a crowd of Adversaries down to the times of the Reformation which began presently after Anno 1500. You find ready at hand in the Treatise of Transubstantiation I mentioned before in Bishop Cosins Albertine and l'Arroque not to speak of any more not only the Names of some particular persons but an account too of Great Numbers of people in Bohemia France England c. Who notwithstanding all Threats and Oppressions persisted still in the True Faith and transmitted it down to Posterity I shall only add what the Learned Monsieur Alixius now in England hath particularly proved in his Preface to the Determination of Joannes Parisiensis that though the Doctrine of Transubstantiation prevailed among the fantastical School-men from time to time yet they found so many perplexities in it as did put all the Wits they had upon the Tenters the most sedate and intelligent Men among them own'd it only as an Opinion they had receiv'd by Tradition not as an Article of Faith declared by any Authentick and Obligatory Decrees of the Church And being a common Opinion they would not contradict it though some of them affirm'd that the Permanency of the Substance of the Bread and Wine is not impossible nor contrary to Reason or to the Authority of the Bible nay that it was the most Rational Opinion so that had they been Popes they would have defined it As for the definitions of Nicolas the Second and Gregory the Seventh they could not see how those did inforce the belief of the Annihilation of the Substances of the Elements but of a Substantial Presence only which they thought might easily be admitted though Permanency of the Substance in the Symbols should be believed too As for the Decree of Innocent the Third they laid no great weight upon it because it was not the deliberate and Synodical determination of the whole Council and I would sain know whether our present Romanists will insist upon the Authority of it seeing it asserts with a Witness the Deposing Power which the Gallican Clergy did Anno 1682. Condemn as Erroneous and Injurious to Princes As for the Council of Constance which Condemned Wicleffe for denying the Corporal presence and Transubstantiation An. 1415. it was ever thought by many Romanists themselves to be of questionable Authority because it Condemned and Deposed the Pope too And as touching the Council of Florence Anno 1439. However the Doctrine of the Sacrament was offer'd to their consideration yet nothing of Transubstantiation was in the least Defined then This is the Truth of the Case as far as I can find upon the strictest Enquiry By which it appears not only what an Innovation the Mysterious Notion of Transubstantiation is but also how this Innovation increas'd and swe ' d about 120 years a go at the Thirteenth Session of the Council of Trent when that which before had been the private Opinion of some fancyful Men was adopted into the Church as a necessary Article of Faith that by the Consecration of the Bread and Wine ther is a Conversion of their whole Substance into the Substance of Christs Body and Blood and thereupon they Define that whosoever should deny either of these Two Things 1. That the whole Christ his Body and Blood together with his Soul and Divinity is truly really and Substantially contain'd in the Eucharist Or Secondly that shall deny this wonderful Conversion of the whole Substance of Bread into Christ's Body and of the whole Substance of Wine into his Blood the Species only of Bread and Wine remaining should be Anathematiz'd Here were two New Opinions made Articles of Faith by a strange Synodical Definition The Corporal Presence and Transubstantiation The First as I have shew'd you was started by Paschasius Ratbertus in the 9th Century the other was introduced in the Eleventh Both very Late and Modern Imaginations in Comparison of the True Faith of the Church which was by all that I can discover held without interruption for about the space of the first 800 years and is still prosest by us of the Church of England and by other Protestant Churches The Two Opinions I speak of were no sooner vended but they were vigorously Oppos'd as New Errours And though by Arts and Violence with the help of Time they did spread in some Parts yet still they were but private Mens Opinions And though afterwards they came to be Countenanced by some that were in Authority yet they were not Definitions agreed upon after a Synodical manner by any Council of unquestionable Authority Nay though they were espoused by some fierce Popes and for that sole Reason were maintain'd by divers Doctors of the Church of Rome contrary to what others believed yet at the same time those Doctors reckoned them not especially that of Transubstantiation among the necessary Articles of the Christian Faith. They were made so by the late pack't Council of Trent who by so doing necessarily caused irreparable breaches in the Churches of Christ and brought a visible Scandal upon Christianity it self by establishing such nauseous Opinions as are enough to turn any Mens Stomachs that will but hearken to their Senses and Reason I know the Council of Trent did deliver this Doctrine as the Catholick Faith which had always been believed by the Church as they were pleased to say and because they said it the Romanists generally think themselves obliged to believe it But the Novelty is Evident and 't were no impossible matter to shew that even since the Council of Trent several Great Men in the Church of Rome have not been pleased with it Mr. Alixius mentions Two besides the now living Author of the late Learned Treatise of Transubstantiation viz. Petrus de Marca and Barnes a Benedictine who held that Transubstantiation is not now an Article of Faith. Alix ubisupr pag. 80. Nay to be free with you the present Romanists are so troubled with such intricate and inseparable difficulties throughout the whole point that I am tempted to believe many of them secretly wish it
figure and kind and are to be Seen and Touched as they were before Nothing can be plainer than this to Men who are not obstinately addicted to an Opinion in spight of all Reason and Sense And what Theodoret saith here is very agreeable to what he told Eranistes in the First Dialogue viz. That our Saviour honoured the visible Symbols with the Appellation of his Body and Blood not changing the Nature of them but adding Grace to Nature To avoid all this our Adversaries pretend that by Substance and Nature Theodoret means the Accidents of Bread which is in effect to tell us that they are utterly resolved to believe or at least to befriend a Lie For who that really loves Truth would thus confound things so as to make Substance and Accident the same But if they will strain their parts to play tricks with words how can they make this their interpretation to come up to Theodoret's design or to reach the Argument he had in hand which was about the supposed substantial change of Christ's Humane Nature into his Divinity Theodorets purpose was to Confute this by Arguing from the Doctrine of the Sacrament and had the Church believed a Substantial change of the Bread this would have confirm'd the Eutychian in his Opinion but it could not have Confuted it For the Heretick desired no more to be granted him but this that the Nature or Substance of the Elements doth cease though the Accidents continue And this indeed would have favour'd his conceit that the Substance of Christ's Humanity did cease the Properties of it Remaining still But Theodoret could not be so weak as to yield this for then he would inevitably have lost himself in his Dispute But what think you of a Pope that disputed against the Eutychians too and that from the very same Doctrine of the Sacrament It was no less a Man than Gelasius who was Bishop of Rome Anno 492. and wrote a Celebrated Book of the two Natures in Christ Which though Bellarmine and some more about Bellarmine's time denied to be this Galasius his Book yet the Arguments against them are so strong that Cardinal Perron Petavius and other Learned and more Ingenuous Men since have yielded us that point And the moderate Writer I quoted before saith This Work is assuredly of Pope Gelasius c. In that piece of Gelasius his Book which we have extant Treatise of Transub p. 40. in the Bibliotheca Patrum he teacheth the same Doctrine which Theodoret did and for the confirmation of the same thing as Cardinal Bellarmine doth Bellarm. de Euch. lib. 2. cap. 27. confess And what can be plainer than these words of Gelasius Viz. That the Sacraments which we receive of the Body and Blood Certè Sacramenta quae sumimus Corporis Sanguinis Domini divina res est propter quod per eadem divinae efficimur consortes naturae tamen esse non desinit Substantia vel Natura Panis Vini c. of the Lord is a Divine thing because by them we are made partakers of the Divine Nature and yet the Substance or Nature of the Bread and Wine doth not cease to be And truly the Representation and Similitude of Christ's Body and Blood is Celebrated in the Ministration of these Mysteries and therefore it is plain that we must think that of Christ himself which we profess and Celebrate in this Representation of him His meaning evidently is that we must believe the Permanency of Christ's Humane Nature though united to the Divine because in the Holy Eucharist which is the Representation of Christ the Nature and Substance of Bread and Wine remaineth though Consecrated by the Minister And yet we have another eminent Writer on our side no less a Man than Ephram who was Patriarch of Antiâ—ch about Anno 540. He disputed too against the Eutychians and drew the very same Argument from the Sacrament which others had used before him shewing that the Humanity of Christ did not Cease in its Substance by being united to the word no more than the Bread ceaseth in its Substance by the Addition of Spiritual Grace That says he Phetii Bibliothee cod 229. which is received by the Faithful doth not depart out of its own sensible Substance and yet continues undivided from the intelligible Grace And least it should be replyed though 't is strange it should that by Substance he means the Species and Accidents of the Bread he says the same thing of the Sacrament of Baptism where no Romanist ever affirmed any Transubstantiation to be His words are these Baptism also which becomes entirely a Spiritual thing and is One doth conserve still the propriety of the sensible Substance I mean Water and loseth not what it was Whence 't is clear that Ephram lookt upon the case in both Sacraments to be the same an Addition of Spiritual Grace to be in both but a loss of Substance to be in neither nor any other change to be in the Eucharist than what is in Baptism Sir I have instanced in those four Writers particularly not only because they were all Great Men in their Times Three of them Patriarchs nay one of them Patriarch of Rome but because they all argued against the same Heresie after the same manner which to me seems very observable and providential For tho the Eutychian Heresie prevailed so long and did spread so far that it did vast mischief yet God directed the issues of it so that 't was an occasion of shewing us what the Catholick Faith was both in the Greek and Latin Churches in those most Learned and flourishing times of Christianity concerning that great point which in these latter Ages hath made so many distractions in Christendom For it is not to be imagined but that these Eminent Bishops spake the sense of the whole Catholick Church over which they presided For having to do with obstinate Hereticks they were obliged to encounter them upon principles which all Christians consented to and were agreed otherwise the Disputations would have been Endless had they argued from principles of their own and which they were still to prove It was necessary for them to proceed upon some common Foundation whereon both Hereticks and Catholicks did stand and such was this Doctrine of the Sacrament for which Reason the Learned Doctors of the Church chose to insist upon it nor do I find that the Hereticks did contradict it or endeavour to destroy it which they would most certainly have done considering how much it made against them had they not known it to have been a principle universally receiv'd that the Bread and Wine are not Transubstantiated but remain still in their own Nature and Substance even after Consecration For this Reason I have omitted an hundred other quotations out of the Ancients and have taken notice only of this their common Argument against the Eutychians because I think it a plain and concise way of confuting the Popish pretence
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
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
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