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
A FOURTH LETTER TO A PERSON of QUALITY BEING AN HISTORICAL ACCOUNT OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENT From the PRIMITIVE Times TO THE COUNCIL of TRENT SHEWING The NOVELTY of Transubstantiation LONDON Printed for Ben. Griffin and are to be Sold by Randal Taylor near Stationers-Hall 1688. IMPRIMATUR Liber cui Titulus A Fourth Letter to a Person of Quality May 17th 1688. H. Maurice R mo in Christo P. D. Wilhelmo Archiep. Cant. Ã Sacris A FOURTH LETTER TO A Person of Quality BEING AN HISTORICAL ACCOUNT OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENT SIR I HAVE been longer in your Debt than I intended when I last engaged my Credit to you I hope now to give you satisfaction in full but you must not expect Interest to make the payment swell because the thing I am accountable to you for is so Trite and worn that I think it a kindness to you to make as short payment as is possible because 't will save you the trouble of Examining a world of small quotations which is worse than the telling of odd and broken Mony. I promised you an account of the Doctrine of the Holy Sacrament which the Church of Rome hath turned at last into the Doctrine of Transubstantiation By which they mean that upon the Priests Consecration of the Bread and Wine the Substance of them is turn'd into Christ's Natural Flesh and Blood nothing remaining but the Species and Properties of the Elements that is the Smell the Taste c. This absurd Doctrine being so repugnant to Scripture to Reason and to the very Senses of Mankind their main business is to delude poor People into an Opinion that it was the sense of the Primitive Churches of Christ We are desirous to come to a fair Tryal of this matter and that I may do my part towards it I shall endeavour to bring it to a very short issue by this Method 1. I shall shew you the Faith of the Ancient Churches from a long Controversie they had with those Hereticks the Apollinarians and Eutychians Which being undeniable and publick matter of Fact will clear up the sense of the Ancients far better than single broken passages out of the Fathers which Men of parts know how to interpret to their own advantage 2. I shall shew you when and how the sense of the Ancient Church came to be alter'd what Progress that alteration made and what strong opposition it met with for several Ages after it began And by this plain Historical Account you will easily discern what an Innovation the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is 3. And then I shall give a Summary Answer to those things which the Modern Romanists do urge out of the Fathers by shewing you the Genuine meaning of them which they by wresting or by not understanding them rightly have used to deceive the world with false Notions I. As for the Faith of the Ancient Churches it will soon appear if you do but observe this One thing and bear it carefully in your mind About the year of Christ 370. or a little before Apollinarius Bishop of Laodicea had spread about this Heretical Opinion that the humanity of Christ was turned and swallowed up into the Deity so that tho his two Natures were distinct before the Union yet by and upon the Union they became one Nature his humane part being converted or Transubstantiated into the Divine the Properties only and appearance of Humane Body remaining This indeed was not all his Heresie for he asserted too that Christ took a Body without a Rational Soul the Deity supplying the place of it and several other strange Opinions he held to the great disturbance of the Church But it is too notorious to need any proof that this was part of Apollinarius his Heresie that upon the Union of Christs two Natures his Manhood was changed into his Divinity saving only the Properties of it so that he was forced to yield that the Deity was Circumcised and suffered upon the Cross in the appearance or if you will have it in the Language of the Romanists under the Species of Humane Flesh Within the compass of Twenty Years Apollinarius his Heresie was condemned by Three Councils at Alexandria at Rome and at Constantinople But about Sixty Seven years after I mean Anno 448. it was revived by Eutyches a Presbyter at Constantinople whose positive Opinion was that the two Natures of Christ being United the substance of the one utterly ceased his Humanity being quite converted into his Divinity so that nothing was left of his Humane Nature but the Qualities and Accidents This Heresie begun by Apollinarius and promoted by Eutyches lasted a long time and 't is very well worth your Observation how nearly it resembles the Romish Doctrine of Transubstantiation in the Sacrament For as our Adversaries hold that the Substance of Bread and Wine is upon Consecration turned into the very Substance of Christ's Flesh and Blood nothing of them remaining but the Accidents so the Apollinarians and Eutychians held that the Substance of Christ's Humane Nature was upon its Union turned into the Substance of his Divinity nothing of his Humanity remaining but the Qualities and Properties As these hold that the very Substance of Christ's Body and Blood is received under the Species of Bread and Wine so those Hereticks held that the very Deity Vide Histor Council Chalced in init Leonis ep 17. ad Maxim. part 3. istius Concilii of Christ was Born and did Grow Suffer Dye and Rise again under the Species of Humane Flesh Or briefly that Christ appeared not in the Truth or Substance of Humane Nature but only in the outward Form and Figure of a Man his Humanity being transubstantiated as they presumed into his Divinity all but the Idea of it Now among many Arguments which the Ancients used against those Hereticks some of the Greatest Men in the Church drew One Argument from the Doctrine of the Sacrament and made use of Our principle against Transubstantiation to expose the Heresie of the Apollinarians and Eutychians which plainly shews that Our Opinion as to the Holy Sacrament was in those times the received Opinion of the Catholick Church To prove this particularly St. Chrysostome Patriarch of Constantinople writing to his old Acquaintance Caesarius to reclaim him from the Apollinarian Heresie into which he had unluckily fallen among other Arguments he used to convince him he drew a parallel from the Eucharist to shew that Christ had two distinct Natures in one Person As saith he before Consecration we call it Bread but the Divine Grace having sanctified it by the Prayer of the Priest it is no longer called Bread but is thought worthy to be called the Lords Body altho the Nature of Bread remains in it and we do not say there be two Bodies but one Body of the Son so here the Divine Nature of Christ being joyned to the Humane they both make one Son and one Person You must know that the Greek
figure and kind and are to be Seen and Touched as they were before Nothing can be plainer than this to Men who are not obstinately addicted to an Opinion in spight of all Reason and Sense And what Theodoret saith here is very agreeable to what he told Eranistes in the First Dialogue viz. That our Saviour honoured the visible Symbols with the Appellation of his Body and Blood not changing the Nature of them but adding Grace to Nature To avoid all this our Adversaries pretend that by Substance and Nature Theodoret means the Accidents of Bread which is in effect to tell us that they are utterly resolved to believe or at least to befriend a Lie For who that really loves Truth would thus confound things so as to make Substance and Accident the same But if they will strain their parts to play tricks with words how can they make this their interpretation to come up to Theodoret's design or to reach the Argument he had in hand which was about the supposed substantial change of Christ's Humane Nature into his Divinity Theodorets purpose was to Confute this by Arguing from the Doctrine of the Sacrament and had the Church believed a Substantial change of the Bread this would have confirm'd the Eutychian in his Opinion but it could not have Confuted it For the Heretick desired no more to be granted him but this that the Nature or Substance of the Elements doth cease though the Accidents continue And this indeed would have favour'd his conceit that the Substance of Christ's Humanity did cease the Properties of it Remaining still But Theodoret could not be so weak as to yield this for then he would inevitably have lost himself in his Dispute But what think you of a Pope that disputed against the Eutychians too and that from the very same Doctrine of the Sacrament It was no less a Man than Gelasius who was Bishop of Rome Anno 492. and wrote a Celebrated Book of the two Natures in Christ Which though Bellarmine and some more about Bellarmine's time denied to be this Galasius his Book yet the Arguments against them are so strong that Cardinal Perron Petavius and other Learned and more Ingenuous Men since have yielded us that point And the moderate Writer I quoted before saith This Work is assuredly of Pope Gelasius c. In that piece of Gelasius his Book which we have extant Treatise of Transub p. 40. in the Bibliotheca Patrum he teacheth the same Doctrine which Theodoret did and for the confirmation of the same thing as Cardinal Bellarmine doth Bellarm. de Euch. lib. 2. cap. 27. confess And what can be plainer than these words of Gelasius Viz. That the Sacraments which we receive of the Body and Blood Certè Sacramenta quae sumimus Corporis Sanguinis Domini divina res est propter quod per eadem divinae efficimur consortes naturae tamen esse non desinit Substantia vel Natura Panis Vini c. of the Lord is a Divine thing because by them we are made partakers of the Divine Nature and yet the Substance or Nature of the Bread and Wine doth not cease to be And truly the Representation and Similitude of Christ's Body and Blood is Celebrated in the Ministration of these Mysteries and therefore it is plain that we must think that of Christ himself which we profess and Celebrate in this Representation of him His meaning evidently is that we must believe the Permanency of Christ's Humane Nature though united to the Divine because in the Holy Eucharist which is the Representation of Christ the Nature and Substance of Bread and Wine remaineth though Consecrated by the Minister And yet we have another eminent Writer on our side no less a Man than Ephram who was Patriarch of Antiâ—ch about Anno 540. He disputed too against the Eutychians and drew the very same Argument from the Sacrament which others had used before him shewing that the Humanity of Christ did not Cease in its Substance by being united to the word no more than the Bread ceaseth in its Substance by the Addition of Spiritual Grace That says he Phetii Bibliothee cod 229. which is received by the Faithful doth not depart out of its own sensible Substance and yet continues undivided from the intelligible Grace And least it should be replyed though 't is strange it should that by Substance he means the Species and Accidents of the Bread he says the same thing of the Sacrament of Baptism where no Romanist ever affirmed any Transubstantiation to be His words are these Baptism also which becomes entirely a Spiritual thing and is One doth conserve still the propriety of the sensible Substance I mean Water and loseth not what it was Whence 't is clear that Ephram lookt upon the case in both Sacraments to be the same an Addition of Spiritual Grace to be in both but a loss of Substance to be in neither nor any other change to be in the Eucharist than what is in Baptism Sir I have instanced in those four Writers particularly not only because they were all Great Men in their Times Three of them Patriarchs nay one of them Patriarch of Rome but because they all argued against the same Heresie after the same manner which to me seems very observable and providential For tho the Eutychian Heresie prevailed so long and did spread so far that it did vast mischief yet God directed the issues of it so that 't was an occasion of shewing us what the Catholick Faith was both in the Greek and Latin Churches in those most Learned and flourishing times of Christianity concerning that great point which in these latter Ages hath made so many distractions in Christendom For it is not to be imagined but that these Eminent Bishops spake the sense of the whole Catholick Church over which they presided For having to do with obstinate Hereticks they were obliged to encounter them upon principles which all Christians consented to and were agreed otherwise the Disputations would have been Endless had they argued from principles of their own and which they were still to prove It was necessary for them to proceed upon some common Foundation whereon both Hereticks and Catholicks did stand and such was this Doctrine of the Sacrament for which Reason the Learned Doctors of the Church chose to insist upon it nor do I find that the Hereticks did contradict it or endeavour to destroy it which they would most certainly have done considering how much it made against them had they not known it to have been a principle universally receiv'd that the Bread and Wine are not Transubstantiated but remain still in their own Nature and Substance even after Consecration For this Reason I have omitted an hundred other quotations out of the Ancients and have taken notice only of this their common Argument against the Eutychians because I think it a plain and concise way of confuting the Popish pretence
Corporeal Bread and Corporeal Wine For as to that he is positive that in respect of the Substance of those Creatures they continue the very same thing which they were before Consecration II. And as to the Second Question he distinguishes with St. Ambrose and St. Jerome between the Natural and the Spiritual Body of Christ and peremptorily determines against Paschasius and that over and over that it is not the true proper and Natural Body which was born of the Virgin which Suffer'd and was Dead c. which is receiv'd in the Sacracrament but his Spiritual Body that 't is Christ's Body though not his Corporal but Spiritual Body that 't is the Blood of Christ though not his Corporal but Spiritual Blood Which he explains thus not that Christ hath two Bodies severally existent and utterly different from each other in Nature as Body and Spirit are but because a Spiritual power and efficacy goes along with the bodily Bread and Wine because by and with these Creatures there is Ministred to the Faithful a Vital Virtue the vigour of a Spiritual Life that word of God which is the living Bread a Divine Virtue which secretly dispenseth Salvation to all Faithful Receivers an invisible Power which spiritually ministreth the Substance of Eternal Life a Substance of Spiritual Operation of invisible efficacy and of Divine Virtue as Bertram often expresseth himself all which is supposed to be derived from Christ's Glorified Humanity and therefore not improperly call'd his Spiritual Body according to that Old Notion which St. Cyril of A'exandria and the Ephesine Council had of the vivisick power of Christ's Body as being replenisht with the Deity But I will not give you a large account of this Book because it is common and because every one knows how strongly it confutes the Opinion not only of Transubstantiation but also of a Corporal presence which was the New phancy of Paschasius I shall only observe this to you by the way that the blessed Masters of the Inquisition whose business it was to search into Books and to let Men know what Authors they were not to use for the pretended Catholick Faith cannot well endure Examination that they might be lustily reveng'd upon poor Bertram for his plain dealing ordered this invaluable Piece of his to be supprest and accordingly 'tis ranked among the Prohibited Books in the Tridentine Roman and Spanish Indices Expargatorii Only the Men of Doway mistrusting that this course would turn to the shame and prejudice of their Cause the Book being abroad in all Mens hands thought it better to Tolerate it with some Blottings Alterations and Constructions of their own making Whereas say they there are very many Errours in other Old Catholick Writers which we bear with extenuate excuse many times deny by some Artificial device or other and fix a commodious sense upon them we see not but Bertram sudex Belgic a Catholick Presbyter may deserve the same Equity and diligent Rivisal But with what Equity they have used him or rather how basely and barbarously they have wronged him any man may see that will but look into the Belgick Index Expurgatorius for here they have quite rased him there they have wrested him there again they have made him speak flat Contradictions throughout they have used so many Charms and Spells over him as if they had perfectely designed by hook or by crook even to Transubstantiate Old Bertram out of himself But these Great Men stood not alone in this quarrel Bertram's contemporary the famous Joannes Scotus Erigena was deeply concern'd in it too I give him that Character because the Historians which speak of him mention him with Honour Carolus Calvus of France had such a value for him that he made Hovedan Annal him his Companion at Bed and Board Pope Nicolas himself gave him the Character of a Man renowned for his great knowledge Nor was it any thing but his Eminent worth that made King Alfred that Lover of Learning invite him back into England and fix him in the Monastery at Malmesbury for the advancement of good Literature Briefly those disputations of his which while he was yet in France he wrote against Gotteschalchus and which did so trouble the whole Church of Lyons how to Answer are a sufficient Argument of his Abilities Now all agree that this Joannes Scotus Erigena went hand in hand with Bertram as to the Doctrine of the Sacrament insomuch that some would make us believe that the Book commonly ascribed to Bertram was composed by this Scotus And though I see no good Reasons to think so yet certain it is that he wrote a Tract upon the same Subject and to the same effect and very probably at the Command of Carolus Calvus also About two hundred years after when Berengarius his business grew hot and the Opinion of a Corporal Presence by the interest of a Faction had gotten ground Scotus his Book was urged and Vindicated by Berengarius and his adversary Lancfranck own'd that 't was written in Opposition to Paschasius for which Reason it was condemn'd by that partial Synod at Vercellis Anno 1050. By the account we have of it now it appears that Scotus fairly went as Bertram did upon the sense of St. Ambrose Jerome Austin and other of the Ancients And this is very observable that in the Controversie with Gotteschalchus about Predestination which was ardent at that time these two Learned Men were divided for Bertram was on Gotteschalchus his side and Scotus was against him But however they differ'd in that Point in this concerning the Sacrament they were both agreed which shews that it was not Friendship or Prejudice or the love of a party which Govern'd them in their perswasions but the entire love they had for those things which seem'd to be True and that it appear'd to them both as an unquestionable Truth from Scripture Reason and the Catholick Doctrine of the Ancient Church which they both insisted on that Christ's Presence in the Sacrament is only Spiritual I end this with an Observation of a moderate Writer yet living in the Gallican Church concerning this Scotus that if he had advanced any New Doctrine he would certainly have been reproved for it Treatise of Transubstantiation turn'd into English and Printed at London 1687. pag. 58. by the Church of Eyons by Prudentius by Florus by the Colineils of Valence and Langres which condemned and censur'd his opinions on the Doctrine of Predestination As for his Death though he wsa barbarously Murder'd by his own Scholars at Malmesbury it is so far from being a Blot upon his Memory or a disparagement to his Cause that it is an Honour to Both For every one knows he was reckon'd a Martyr Indeed it is not certain what the true occasion of that horrid wickedness was Very probably he had been too liberal of his Wit against the dull and wanton Monks Though Genebrard insinuates that it was for his Doctrine of the
put forth in Print without any adding or withdrawing any thing for the more faithful reporting of the same In Witness whereof they have subscribed their Names I will not go about to imitate their several different hands least I prove a Bungler at it but I observe the Bishop of Durham's Title is very differently Written from all the rest for it is in Greek Characters 1 Matthue Archbishop of Canterburye 2 Tho. Ebor. Archiepiscopus 3 Edm. London 4 Ja. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 5 Rob. Winton 6 William Bushoppe of Chicester 7 Jo. Bushop of Heref. 8 Richarde Bishope of Ely. 9 Ed. Wigorn. 10 N. Lincoln 11 R. Meneven 12 Thomas Covent and Lich. 13 John Norwic. 14 Joannes Carleolen 15 Will. Cestren 16 Thomas Assaphen 17 Nicolaus Bangor Hii Patres precedentes subscripserunt manibus suis propriis in hoc Libello Now out of the whole four things are observable 1. That even before the time of Elfrick the Doctrine of Christs Spiritual presence only was the Doctrine commonly and currently received in all the Western Churches whatever fantastical Notions some private men might entertain to the contrary For those Eighty Sermons which Elfrick spake of as of his Preface to the Book now mention'd own Writing whereof that upon Easter-Day was one were not of his own composure but Tranflations which he made out of Latin Writers which Ib. shews that the Latins whom he followed and Translated had been positive against the new conceit of a Corporal presence 2. That in Elfrck's time the same Doctrine was constantly held throughout the whole Church of England as the True Doctrine For how can we imagine that Elfricks Translations could be read publickly in the Churches in England if the English Bishops did not believe them to contain Doctrines that were found and agreeable to the Catholick Faith Or how can we conceive that Elfrick's Epistles should be put among the publick Writings of our Church had not the Doctrines in them been publickly own'd and profest here And yet it is evident that among other Canons which our Bishops collected out of Gildas Ib. Theodorus Egbert Alcuine and out of the Fathers of the Primitive Ages they did sort those Epistles of Elfrick for the better ordering of the English Church 3. That those Writings of Elfrick's did so directly strike at the Errours of Paschasius as if he had purposely designed to prevent those Errours from creeping into this Kingdom and throughly to season the whole Nation against them For in some places he takes the Opinion nay the very words of Paschasius and contradicts him so flatly in the words of Bertram and others of the former Century that you would think he had some of those Authors before him as perhaps he had 4. That upon the Conquest when divers of the Foreign Clergy came hither with and after Lancfrank an Italian Patron of Paschasius's gross Opinion and now sent for by the Conqueror to be Archbishop of Canterbury they found the Doctrine of the Spiritual presence only taught and profest in the Church of England For this reason they fell soul upon the Records of our Church and especially upon those Latin Authors which Elfrick had made use of and upon what they could understand of Elfrick's own Writings So that those Eighty Latin Sermons which Elfrick had Translated are long ago lost nor did the Latin Epistle to Wulfstane which they found in the Library Ibid. at Worcester and probably was given to that Library Ibid. by Wulfstane himself escape them neither For in part of that Epistle where the tender point lay a perfect Rasure was committed I have Noted the words above in a Parenthesis viz. that this Sacrifice is not made that Non fit tamen hoc Sacrificium Corpus ejus in quo passus est pro nobis neque Sanguis ejus quem pro nobis effudit sed spiritualiter Corpus ejus efficitur Sanguis sicut Manna quod de Coelo pluit aqua quoe de Petra fluxit Body of Christ in which he suffer'd for us nor that Blood of Christ which he shed for us but it becomes Spiritually his Body and Blood as the Manna that descended from Heaven and the Water which flowed out of the Rock These words were flatly and expresly against the Opinion of Paschasius and therefore they were quite rased out tho' afterwards they were restored to us out of another Latin Copy of the same Epistle in the Church of Exeter which by good luck had escaped their Tallons Had these Men understood the Saxon Language perhaps we should have had very little or nothing of Elfricks Writings left us But such foul play is an evident Argument of a very bad Cause And so I shall leave it to your consideration what little Reason the Romanists have to call us Hereticks and Innovators in this point when 't is so plain that the Innovation lieth at their own door and that when it first began to peep into the World the Church of England would not endure it but even in the days of the Saxons when the Controversie about it was so hot abroad especially in France She still maintain'd the Doctrine of the spiritual presence so that it held on constantly here to the time of the Conquest and might have held on still in an uninterrupted course from Age to Age had it not been for some Workers of Iniquity Let us now cross the Sea again and go on with out Relation of this matter how it stood abroad whence I have a little diverted you though I hope with no unuseful or unpleasant Digression In the Tenth Century this Controversie seem'd to lie pretty Quiet some following the phancy of Paschasius that Christ's Natural Body is in the Sacrament his Body properly so called that which he took of the Holy Virgin that which suffer'd upon the Cross c. Others following the Catholick Faith of the Ancient Church that it is Christ's Spiritual Body meaning not his Flesh properly but the Virtue of his Flesh Qui dicunt esse virtutem Carnis non Carnem virtutem Sanguinis non Sanguinem Paschas in Math. 26. not his Blood but the Virtue of his Blood as Paschasius himself represents their meaning in his time The Truth is this Tenth Century abounded with Men from whom the World could not expect any thing that was good some very illiterate some very Dull and Unactive some very Lewd some very Ambitious and self ended and some quite discouraged by the tempestuousness of the times By the account all Learned Men have given us it was a most Infamous Age the worst that ever was or hath been hitherto since the beginning of Christianity Probable it is that at this time Paschasius his Opinion did spread and even to the Court of Rome when nothing in comparison was in the way to stop it And when it was once gotten thither 't is easie to believe that indigent Men or flatterers would be found to
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.
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
loose and that prediction fulfilled Apocal. 20. that after the expiation of a thousand years Satan should be loosed out of his Prison and should go about to deceive the Nations which are in the four quarters of the Earth Such commotions and convulsions then hapned in the world especially in the Papacy of this Gregory as if the Prince were come a broad with stormes and tempsts to mingle Heaven and Earth together This was the Pope of whom such Horrid yet true Characters were given by some of the very Romish Communion that it would weary one to transcribe but the half part The Pope who decreed that the Bishop of Rome alone is to be called Universal that He alone can depose all Bishops that Vidr Registir Gregor 7. lib. 2. He only can use the Imperial Arms that all Princes are to kiss his feet that 't is Lawful for him to depose Emperors that an unlimited power of Ordination is in him that no Synod may be called a general Council without his command that no Chapter nor Book is to be acounted canonical without his Authority that there is no appeal from his Sentence that he can be judged by none that the Roman Church never did never can Err that by his leave Subjects may call their Princes to account that be can absolve Subjects from their Allegiance and the like Notwithstanding all these terrible usurpations many were Thunder-proof still One Synod at Worms condemn'd the Pope another at Pavia excommunicated him a third at Brescia deposed him Setting aside those Flatterers at the Court of Rome who did not stick to prostitute their Consciences to their Interest and Ambition men of all ranks orders and degrees made the world ring with their out-cries Princes began now to resist the Pope being too late sensible that what power their excessive zeal had given him he armed himself with against his over kind Benefactors so that there was no such Enemy to Crowns as the Tripple Diadem the Bishops finding themselves robb'd of their just authority by one Usurper opposed him to his Face The whole considerate world Groan'd and Wept for the abominations in Babylon complain'd of the Errours and Corruption which had crept into the Church longed for a Redress of abuses and would fain have had a Reformation but could not obtain it being hindred by a potent Faction who should have Cured the Common Disease but were themselves the greatest Plague Among other Innovations the New Doctrine of the Sacrament was still opposed For to go on Tho' Berengarius died about nine years after the Synod at Rome yet the Truth expired not with him I confess in the Twelfth Century the word Transubstantiation was used by Stephen who was Bishop of Autun in Burgundy about Anno 1120 and as far as I can yet find the First that used it And it is no wonder if the Doctrine which went along with it found entertainment when it was sent abroad by those whose Favour some were willing to expect and whose displeasure all had Reason to be afraid of Nevertheless it made not such a progress but that divers Men of Note had the Heart and Honesty to oppose it still I mean in the Western Churches for to other Countries it was as yet perfectly a stranger whatever some have vainly pretended to the contrary Several of Our Writers have so critically observed the variety of Opinions about the Sacrament in this Age that I cannot hope to discover any thing New to Men of such sort of Learning nor indeed do they need it For your sake therefore who may not be so well acquainted with the state of those times I shall content my self in giving you a Concise account of it as a Collector for the most part or rather as an Abbreviator of what has been already Noted by others whose Books have not been yet answer'd that I know of Heriger Abbot of Lobes in Germany who dyed in the beginning of this Twelfth Century gather'd together many things which had been written by Catholick Fathers Sigebert de Script Excles of the body and blood of Christ against Paschasius Ratbertus Thuanus in his Epistle Dedicatory to Hen. the Fourth tells him that Bruno Archbishop of Treves expelled several Berengarians out of Liege Antwerp and other places thereabouts and that this was Anno 1106. for so Bishop Usher and Abbertine say it should be read because Bruno was not Archbishop there till after Usher de success Stat. c. 7. Abbert de Euchar. p. 959. the year 1106 Rupertus Abbot of Deutsch in Germany about Anno 1110 is acknowledg'd by several Romanists themselves to have been for the mystical Union I spake of before against Transubstantiation and the Corporal Presence and the thing is clear out of divers places in his Writings Honorius of Augustodunum about Anno 1120 is charged by Thomas Waldensis under the Character of the Author de Officiis for a Favourer of Berengarius his Doctrine and one of Rabanus his Sive gemma animoe ext in BB. PP Bread Eaters Algerus who Flourisht Anno 1130 a Man so cryed up by the Romanists for Writing against Berengarius and for Transubstantiation reckons up as Prolog ad Libr de Sacram. I Noted before Six several Opinions about the Sacrament that were common in his time besides that which he held himself And as I observed too Zacharias Chrysopolitanus who was towards the year 1160. tells us that there were some perhaps many who then held Berengarius his Opinion though they blamed him for his Vnscriptural and Vncommon way of expressing himself * Si autem quaeritur qualis sit illa conversio An formalis an Substantialis an alterius generis Definire non sufficio P. Lombard Sententiar lib 4. dist 11. Peter Lombard about the same time having reckon'd up various Doctrines about this matter and among the rest that against Transubstantiation in particular though he himself held the Corporal Presence yet as to the question about the Change of the Symbols he plainly confest as Gregory the Seventh had done that he could not tell whether it be Substantial or a change of another Nature But that which convinceth me more that the Opposers of the New Opinion were very numerous and formidable at this time is because the Court of Rome began presently after this to use Terrible and Outragious Methods against them and for many years together carried on these Methods with a very quick Hand Which as it shews plainly that other Arguments failed them now and that they had no security left them but downright Violence and Oppression so it shews too what great Fears they were under least the Old Opinion should prevail again notwithstanding all their endeavours hitherto Witness their proceedings against the Albigenses of whom I may hereafter give you a saithful Account but at present it shall be sufficient for me to tell you from some of the Romanists themselves that they were such a sort of people as
Allegiance and to give away their Territories By this it appears what little Reason our Romanists have to pretend the Authority of this Lateran Council for their beloved Transubstantiation and how little they gain by it upon a strict Examination of the matter After all the Arts and Toyl of so many years to bring this strange conceit into some shape and to Cure those Flaws which all discerning and upright Men found in the formation of it After such various Methods used to get a Decree for it and to obtrude it upon an easie World in times of Ignorance After so many Hostile and Barbarous Courses practiced in several Parts of Christendome upon those who saw the falsehood of it and would not submit to the Innovation After so much Blood shed and so many Lives taken away in that unjust Cause The Patrons of it having got at length a promising opportunity of settling it in this Great Council at Rome and under the awe of a most Heady and Insolent Pope they providentially mist of their designs at last In Rome it self many opposed it with Rage probably divers of the Council did not at all like it to be sure they rose without confirming it by a Synodical Decree so that it had no Authority but the Pope's own and that Pope's too who warranted Rebellion and Treason in Subjects and made it the great business and Delight of his own Life during his Papacy But Threats would not do the work yet For Matthew Math. Par. in Hen. 2. ad An. 1223. Paris tells us that Anno 1223 the Albigenses chose one Bartholomaeus their Anti-Pope in Bulgary Croatia Dalmatia and those parts about Hungary where their Opinion prevailed so that many Bishops and others agreed with them Moreover that Anno 1234. they had Bishops of their perswasion in Spain and that an infinite Number of them was kill'd in Alemannia in Germany the same year Besides the Writings of Lucus Iudensis about Anno 1240. and of Petrus Pilichdorfius about Anno 1450. both against the Albigenses do plainly shew that notwithstanding the Decree of Innocent the Third the Doctrine of Transubstantiation was still vigorously resisted in very many places of the World and even where the Church of Rome carried great Authority But I must not forget a memorable Story of Guido Grossus Archbishop of Narbonne Anno 1268. because it shews how little He and the Divines at Paris then hearkned to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation notwithstanding all that had been done by Pope Nicolas the Second Gregory the Seventh and Innocent the Third and when you have consider'd it well I leave you to judge too by the way whether the judgment of the Popes tho' in Council was in those days thought Infallible Guido Grossus going to see Pope Clement the Fourth his Old familiar acquaintance and discoursing in his Court with a certain Learned person could not forbear declaring his sense about the Eucharist which was directly repugnant to Transubstantiation For his Opinion was that the Body of our Lord is not essentially in the Eucharist but only as the thing signified is under the sign To which it seems he added that this was the Celebrated Opinion at Paris After Guido's return home Clemens heard of this and wrote him a chiding Letter wherein he insinuated also that if he persitted in that Opinion he would be in danger of losing his Dignity De Euchar. lib. 3. P. 973. and Office This Letter the Learned Albertinus hath given us a Copy of out of a Manuscript in Pope Clement's Register and the thing is further attested by Monsieur I Arroque in his History of the Eucharist lately rendred into English and just fallen into my hands where you may see it at large though the principal part of it is what I have already related I add out of both that though the Archbishop answer'd the Popes Letter with some Caution and Fear yet in his Answer he said enough to clear and justifie his own Opinion against Transubstantiation For saith he the Body of Christ is so called Four ways 1. In respect of Similitude as the Species of Bread and Wine and that improperly 2. It is taken for the Material Flesh of Jesus Christ which was taken of the Blessed Virgin And this signification is proper 3. For the Church in regard of its Mystical Union with Christ 4. For the Spiritual Flesh of Jesus Christ which is Meat indeed And it is said of those who Eat this Flesh Spiritually that they do receive the Truth of the Flesh and Blood of our Saviour which as it overthrows the Dream of Transubstantiation so it is the very Language of the Ancients Clemens Alexandrinus S. Jerome S. Ambrose S. Austin and others who did distinguish Christ's Natural Body which was of the Virgin from that Spiritual Body which is receiv'd at the Eucharist as you may see plainly in that excellent little Book called the DIALLACTICON which God be thanked is now reprinted at London A Book written as Bishop Cosins tells us by Dr. Poinet Bishop of Winchester a little before Bishop Jewels Apology came out Cassander and other Divines abroad Extolled it deservedly The late Sa. Oxon if I may rank him among such Company takes notice of it but P. 61. says withal I have not the Book by me And I verily believe it for had he ever seen or read that Book I am apt to think he would hardly have wrote his own at least not that part of it the force whereof is quite destroy'd by the Diallacticon But not to digress further especially when I am near the End of my business Though in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries Transubstantiation was the common Tenent yet I cannot find that it past in those times for a certain Article of Faith determined by the Publick Authority of the Church but as a probable Opinion only as they thought then Those many difficult Consequences about Eating Digesting Voiding the Sacrament whether by Men or Beasts and the like which the subtle Schoolmen met with in managing that Opinion do plainly shew that the thing was not yet cleared beyond all Reason of doubting nor setled by any Authority which might be presumed sufficient to require their submission It is well known that the Famous Doctor of Sorbon Johannes Parisicnsis near the Vide determinat Joan. edit Londin 1686. year 1300. though he profest to hold Transubstantiation yet he held it only as a current Opinion he was so far from urging it as an Article of Faith that he proposed another way of explaining the real presence viz. that Mystical Union of the Sacred Symbols with Christ's person which Rupertus and others had spoke of long In praesentia Collegii Magistrorum in Theologia dictum est utrumque modum poneudi Corpus Christi esse in altari tenet pro Opinione probabili approbat utrumque per dicta Sanctorum Dicit tamen quod nullus est determinatus per Ecclesiam ideo nullum