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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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