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
touching the Antiquity of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation For it is not imaginable that the Ancients would have spoken so peremptorily and dogmatically in this point had they not had the Authority of the whole Church to have back't them And because they spake this so freely and that as a common Argument against those Learned Hereticks we may be sure that what they said was the common Faith of the Catholick Church in those times I mean in the Sixth Century And now Sir I shall proceed to Examine how the matter stood as to this point in the times following It is evident that the great Council of 338. Fathers who met at Constantinople Anno 754. were of this Faith That the Bread in the Eucharist is not Christ himself but the Image of him For this they urg'd as an Argument against the use of all other Images because the Symbols in the Eucharist are the only Image of himself which he left his Church Now this utterly overthrows the Doctrine of the Corporal presence and much rather the conceit of Transubstantiation For if the Bread be the Image of his Body it cannot be the Body it self as the Second Nicene Council argued when they oppos'd the Definitions of this Council at Constantinople And besides there is something very observable in the Discourse of this Council upon this point which I wonder so many Writers have not taken notice of and it is this that Christ Ordaining at his last Supper this Image of himself intended to shew the Mystery of his Incarnation And to this purpose they exprest themselves as any one may see by consulting the Acts of the Council As Conc. Nic. 2. Act. 6. when Christ took our Nature he took barely the matter of Humane Substance not his whole Person Divinity and all for to suppose that would be an Offence or Derogation to the Deity so when he appointed this Image of himself he chose barely the Substance of Bread not any shape of Man in it but only a Representation of his Natural Flesh for that would have been an Intreduction of Idolatry Moreover they say that as Christ's Natural Body was Holy by being filled with the Deity so this Image of him becomes Holy by being Sanctified by Grace and as that Flesh of ours which Christ took became Sanctified by being united to the Deity so is the Bread in the Eucharist the true Image of his Natural Flesh Sanctified by the Advent of the Holy Spirit c. Is this at all consistent with Transubstantiation or with the Doctrine of Christ's Corporal presence in the Sacrament And yet this was the sense of those 338. Fathers which they Dogmatically deliver'd as the sense of the Church whereof they lookt upon themselves as the Representatives Therefore Cardinal Bellarmine understanding their sense throughly and finding how strongly and invincibly it made against Transubstantiation had no other way left him but to rank this great Council among Hereticks nay he says they were the first that ever called in question the Truth of the Lords Body in the Eucharist Now this Bellarm. de Euchar. l. 1. c. 1. is easily said but by his favour they denied not the reality of Christ's Spiritual presence but of his Corporal presence only as we Protestants do Nay he himself rightly observes in the same place that the Protestant Faith in this point was not reckon'd among any of the Ancient Heresies nor so much as disputed against by any one of the Ancients for the first 600. Years For how should any Dispute against that which was the Common Faith of the Church and had been so all along to the time of this Constantinopolitan Council Those Fathers did no more but declare that publickly which they had received from former Ages and now made use of as a proper Argument against Images The Patrons of Images finding themselves pinch't with this Argument began to move a point which hitherto lay quiet and to strain those words This is my Body to a sense beyond what had been formerly taught though it was a great while before they could hammer out their New Notions into any Form for they spake very confusedly inconsistently and grosly as if Christ's Natural Body were in the Sacrament And though I do not find that any of them went so far as to own yet a Substantial change of the Nature of the Bread and Wine into the Substance of Flesh and Blood which is the conceit of the Church of Rome now yet 't is plain that what these Innovators said caused a New Great Controversie in Christendom and that just upon the neck of the former Quarrel about Images whereof I have already given you a particular and Faithful account II. And now I am come to the Second Thing I promised to shew you which was when and how the sense of the Ancient Church about the Sacrament came to be alter'd what progress that alteration made and what strong Opposition it met with for several Ages after it began It is generally agreed that Paschasius Rathbertus was one of the first Innovators in the Latin Church Vide Albertin de Sacram. p. 920. about Anno 818. He was first a Monk and afterwards Abbot of Corbey in France and a Man of some considerable Reputation especially for those times when Learning was most decayed which perhaps might transport him into an undue Opinion of his own abilities and that might make him affect singularity However it came about two very Learned Jesuites are agreed that Paschasius was a Leading Man in this business So says Bellarmine that Paschasius Bellarm. de Scriptor Eccles in Paschas Sirmond in vita Paschasii operibus ejus prefix was the first Author that wrote seriously and copiously of the Truth of the Lords Body and Blood in the Eucharist And so saith Sirmondus that Paschasius was the first that explained the Genuine sense of the Catholick he means the Roman Church so as that he opened the way to others who afterwards wrote upon the same Subject The Book which they chiefly mean is that of the Body and Blood of the Lord written to one Placidus a young man whom Paschasius dearly loved In reading of this Book one shall find so many dark Riddles unconquerable perplexities and plain inconsistences that it may be justly questioned whether they are possible to be reconciled to Truth or Sense nay whether the Man himself understood what he would be at One while he will have it to be nothing else but the Flesh and Blood of Christ and another while to be a Figure and the Flesh and Blood of Christ Mystically Now he says that Christ's Body is Created in the Sacrament than that it is made of the Substance of Bread and by and by that the Mystery is Celebrated in the Substance of Bread and Wine Sometime he tells us that 't is the very Body which Christ took of the Virgin and presently that it is wholly a Spiritual and Divine thing
Durand Ep ad Henr. 1. and was his Contemporary reckons it among those old Heresies which he accused Bruno the Bishop of Anger 's and Berengarius for reviving at that time You must make the man allowance for the word Herisie It was a scolding expression which some used in those days for want of strong Arguments But if you strip the Malice and Virulency off the naked and true meaning is that Berengarius held an Ancient opinion and you may easily see it by comparing his last judgement with the Faith of the Ancients 2. Tho' some private Doctors of the Roman Church strove at that time to Establish the Doctrine of the Corporal presence and to Introduce the other of a Substantial Change of the Holy Symbols in the Eucharist yet these Inovations were so far from being generally received that the Writers of those times nay on that very side sufficently shew us how distracted the world was about those points and what vast numbers in several parts of Christendome sided with Berengarius Durandus in his fierce Sanguinary Letter to Henry the first of France call'd the Berengarian Faith the foul reproach of his whole most Noble Kingdom And Totius nobilissime regni vestri heu nimis turpe opprobium hearing that the Berengarians defired to be heard in a publick Council and that King Henry had summon'd a Council in order to it he disswaded him from that course because as he told the King He and others were very much afraid least the Berengariand should come off and so the last State of things would be worse than the first therefore he besought the King to punish them unheard After this Man Guitmund tells us that not the Berengarians only but several others though Enemies to the Berengarians were very much divided in their sense about the Sacrament some believing the Bread and Wine to be changed in part only others imagining that though there should be an entire change yet where there are unworthy Receivers the Sacrament Returns into Bread and Wine again Some years after Algerus speaks of Alger Prolog in Librum de Sacrament no less than six different opinions about the Sacrament besides that New Opinion which now begun to spread Some held no other change to be in the Symbols than is in the Water at Baptism Others held such an Union between Christ and the Symbols as is between his Divinity and his Flesh Others held a change of them to be into the Flesh and Blood not of Christ but of some Son of Man who is acceptable unto God. Others believed that no change could be made by a wicked Priest Others again that though there were a change yet it doth not continue but that there is a return into Bread and Wine And others again that the Sacrament is Digested and doth Corrupt after eating All these hot Disputes which naturally sprang out of the Bowels of a gross opinion so full of sensible difficulties did plainly shew it to be a quite different thing from the Faith of the Ancient Church when there were none of these quarrols because the prolysick Doctrine which Naturally brought them into the World was not then in being for had it been so those many difficulties it necessarily yields must have brought forth abundance of Disputes especially in times when Men had a greater Liberty of disputing than in Berengarius his Days when the Pope and his party had usurped and did not stick to exercise a Tyrannical power over Princes themselves But of all these disagreeing parties they that stuck to Berengarius was the most formidable Body to the innovating Faction Sigebert shews that all France abounded with them William of Malmesbury though a hater of Berengarius his memory tells us the same Malmesbur ad an 1087. thing so doth Matthew Paris and Matthew of West-minister faith that Berengarius had almost corrupted as his Language is all the French Italian and English And indeed the vast endeavours the Popes used to suppress the Ancient Faith not in those Countries only but in Germany too plainly shews that their Innovations did not gain ground without meeting with strong opposition how lightly soever Lanfranck and Guitmund speak of this matter thinking thereby to disgrace Berengarius 3. Nay It is very observable as a further plain sign of the Novelty of Transubstantiation that the very Men who were the Patrons of it found so many perplexities in bringing it to its form that they could not agree among themselves but spake inconsistently so that it cost them much time to mould the absurdity into the shape wherein it appears now And this I shall shew you as briefly as the Matter will give me leave according to the Series of time The best Key to open the whole thing and the only way of doing right to Berengarius his Memory and Cause It being found by his Letters to Lanfranck then Abbot of Caen in Normandy that he was against the Opinion of Paschasius it was thought he held the Sacred Symbols to be nothing but empty Types and shadows which as I said perhaps might have been his first Opinion Hereupon to make him an Example to all of that perswasion Several Synods were called one after another at Rome and Verceil Anno 1050. under Leo the 9th besides several other Assemblies which Mabillon mentions in some of Mabillon Analect vet Tom. 2. p. 477. c. which Synods Berengarius was condemned though absent Now to give you my free thoughts and to be just to all parties very probable it is that they condemned him thus only upon his First supposed Opinion and therein indeed they seem to have been unanimous My Reasons are these 1. For in the Synod at Tours under Pope Victor II. Anno 1056. where and when Berengarius appeared in person he own'd his Correct Opinion which in common construction amounts to no more but a Citat ab Usser desucc statu cap. 7. p. 201. Confession of the Real Spiritual presence that the Bread and Wine do become not umbratically but truly the Flesh and Blood of Christ This doth not favour either Transubstantiation or a Corporal Presence and yet this gave satisfaction so that he was not only dismist but kindly received into the Communion Guitmund de Sacram. lib. 3. of the Roman Church saith Guitmund 2. Mabillon tells us of another short Confession which he saw in a Manuscript and which is supposed Mabillon Analect Tom. 2. p. 487. to have been voluntarily drawn up by Berengarius and presented to Gregory the 7th Anno 1078. that the Bread is the true Body of Christ and the Wine his true Blood Nor doth this Confession reach to the business of Transubstantiation without straining of it after a most violent manner but only asserts the Truth of Christ's presence in the Sacrament in opposition to a bare Type or shadow and therefore Mabillon himself doth acknowledg that this Confession was Artificially and cunningly worded And though
all this fell short of the New Opinion then so that it satisfied not the bigotted Men at Rome yet it gave satisfaction to others nay to the Pope himself so that the Case of Berengarius was put off to further consideration another year Now if the matter was thus as in all probability it was I cannot see what hurt this doth Berengarius's Reputation or why thy Romanists should take occasion hence to roar against him so for a perfidious and perjur'd person when in these instances he declared his ripened and deliberate judgment as far as the belief of a Real presence went to which as far as I can find he was constant all his Life time Nor do I see what advantage those Condemnations of him in his absence can bring to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation because those Synods seem to have been so zealously concern'd only for the Catholick Doctrine of the real presence and to have been unanimous as to that sole point not understanding rightly the sense either of Scotus or Berengarius For when the business was carried further from a real to a Corporal presence and from the belief of the main Thing to a belief of the Modus I mean when once it came to be urged that Christ's Body is Substantially and Materially in the Sacrament and that by a Substantial Conversion of the very Nature of the Elements into it when the matter was brought to this height Berengarius's very Judges blunder'd miserably and were much divided about it and inconsistent with themselves Thus we are expresly told by Zacharias Chrysopolitanus Sunt nonnulli imd forsan multi sed vix notari possunt qui cum damnato Berengario idem sentiant tamen eundem cum Ecclesia damnant In hoc videlicet damnant eum quia formam verborum Ecclesioe abjiciens nuditate sermonis seandalum movebat Non sequebatur ut dicunt usum scripturarum quoe passim res significantes tanquam significatas appellant presertim in Sacramentis Zachar. Chrysopol in concord Evangel lib. 4. cap. 156. BB. PP Soec. 12. in the next Age That there were some yea perhaps many who held the same Opinion with Berengarius although they condemned him In this thing they condemned him that laying aside the Churches way of speaking he gave offence by his open manner of expressing himself He did not observe the Language of Scripture which frequently gives the Name of the thing signified to that which signifies it especially in Sacraments This was the only quarrel which many had against him who as to his Doctrine perfectly concurr'd and agreed with him The truth is Berengarius his Judges were much to seek what to say to him or how to deal with him when he appeared personally before them Of which we have two plain instances in Two Synods at Rome the one under Nicolas the Second Anno 1059. the other under Gregory the 7th in February 1079. The first of these two Synods was called chiefly about the Election of Popes and against Simony which was then a great Trade at Rome Thither Berengarius was summon'd and there he defended himself with such irrosistible Evidence of truth against a material change in the Nicolaus Papa comperiens te docere panem vinumque altaris post Consecrationem sine materiali mutatione in pristinis essentiis remanere concessâ tibi respondendi licentid c. Lankfranc de Euchar. adv Berengarium Eique Berengario cum nullus valeret obsistere Albericus evocatur ad Synodum c. Leo Ostiensis in Chronic. Cassinens lib. 3. c. 33. Sacrament that he quite confounded the whole Synod though it consisted of no less than 113 Bishops Not a man of them had a word to say against his Arguments so that they were forced to send for Albericus a Cardinal Deacon and a man of great reputation for his Learning But he was so confounded too that he desired a Weeks time to write against Berengarius Lanfranck who relates things partially as the modern Romanists have done after him not only omits the main of this story but falsifies one part of it as if Berengarius had not answer'd for himself though the Pope had given him leave Whereas Leo Ostiensis who lived about that time relates the particulars of the story and Sigonius confirms it nay Guitmund himself though a bitter Adversary to Berengarius owns there was a conflict in that Synod All which the Learned Bishop Usher De succes statu cap. 7. has noted to my hands 'T is true after all this Berengarius Elegisti-palam atque in audientia Sancti Concilii orthodoxam fidem non amore veritatis sed timore mortis confiteri Lanfrane de Euchar in initio recanted in that Synod meerly for fear of Death An Argument that even great Men are subject to humane srailty especially in extremity of danger tho' the scandal of his complyance falls upon that cause which needed Fire and Faggot for its last Argument and an Executioner instead of a Disputant to bring it to a Conclusion But observe what a Blunder these Men committed in this their Sanguinary attempt on behalf of the New Opinion Humbertus was order'd by the Pope to draw up the Form of a Confession the Synod approved it and poor Berengarius to save his Life was forced to subscribe it Now the Confession was this in short That the Bread and Wine which are set upon the Altar after Consentio autem sanctoe Romanoe Ecclesioe scilicet Panem Vinum quoe in altari ponuntur post Consecrationem non solum Sacramentum sed etiam verum Corpus Sanguinem Domini nostri Jesu Christi esse sensualiter non solum Sacramento sed in veritate manibus Sacerdotum tractari frangi fidelium dentibus atteri Lansranc Alger alii multi Consecration are not only the Sacrament but also the true Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ that this true Body is sensually not only in the Sacrament but in Truth handled and broken by the hands of the Priests and ground or torn by the Teeth of the Faithful This was very harsh for it renders Christ liable to New Sufferings every day it is inconsistent with the finer Notion of the presence of Christ's Body after the manner of a Spirit it introduces such a crass sort of Eating as our Saviour rebuked the Capernaites for thinking of it makes us to be not only Eaters of a Sacrament but in very Truth Eaters of Mans Flesh Therefore the present Church of Rome will not stand to these Expressions divers of her Doctors formerly have renounced this definition as erronous and absurd though it was made by the Pope in Cathedra and in a publick Synod the boldest Writers have been lamentably put to it how to give it a Tolerable construction The Glossator upon the decrees confesseth that if it be not understood in a sound sense it leads into a greater Heresie than what Berengarius himself was charged with But
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
were afterwards upon the Resormation called Protestants All that disclaimed the Corruptions or dissented from the Errours of the Church of Rome in those days were comprehended Petrus Cisterciensis Monachus qui de Albigensibus visa explorataque in historiam retulit Innocentio tertio Pontifici dicatam Hereticos Tolosates atque aliarum Vrbium oppidorum eorumque protectores communi nomine Albigenses vocari consuevisse ait ab usu loquentium Marian. Prefat ad Lucan Tudens under the Common Name of the Albigenses The Numbers of them were so vast that * Ferè enim nulla est terra in quâ haec secta non sit Reinet cont Wald. c. 4. Reinerus their Persecutor ingenuously confest there was hardly any Nation wherein this Sect as he call'd them was not Let us now take a short view of the proceedings against them In the time of Alexander the Third Anno 1163. a Synod met at Tours in France chiefly against the Emperor Frederick and Victor the Anti-Pope in which Synod a Canon was made against the Albigenses that no Man should dare under the dreadful pain of an Anathema Can. 4. to allow them House or Harbour or have any Commerce with them or shew them any kind of Humanity The reason of this severity was grounded on strong jealousies they had of the dangers that might come from the great growth of these Albigensis whose Heresie as they said in the beginning of that Canon had spread like a gangrene from Tolouse and the parts about it through Gas coygny and several other Provinces Anno 1170. a certain Usser de succes stat p. 240. Cardinal was sent into the Province of Tolouse to suppress them by force of Arms. This course failing another Synod in France was held against them Anno 1176. which Binius calls a Gallican Council indefinitely but Labbey specifies the place calling it Concilium Lumbariense or a Synod at Lombers in the Archbishoprick of Tolouse In this Age infinite Numbers Quippe in latissimis Galliae Hispaniae Italiae Germaniaeque Provinciis tam multi hâc peste Publicanorum infecti esse dicuntur ut secundum Prophetam multiplicate esse super numerum arenae videbantur Guil. Novoburg a clar Usserio citat de success cap. 8. p. 238. of Christians in France Spain Italy Germany and England made Publick profession of the Old Faith against Transubstantiation tho they were called by several Names for several Reasons as the Albigenses Catharists Leonists Publicans Patarens and divers Names more which their Enemies fixt upon them But chiefly they abounded in the Southern Parts of France And seeing Force and open Violence had hitherto had very little Success against them at last they were * Quia in Gasconia Albigesio partibus Tolosanis aliis lecis ita Hereticorum quos alii Catharos alii Patrinos alii Publicanos alii aliis Nominibus vocant invaluit damnata perversitas ut jam non in occulto sicut alibi nequitiam suam exerceant sed errores suos publicam manifestent ad consensum suum simplices attrahant infirmos eas defensores corum receptares Anathema decernimus subjacere Concil Lateran Can 27. Anathematiz'd by Pope Alexander the Third and his party Anno 1179. in the Lateran Council at Rome But being neither daunted nor frightned at this Thunderbolt one ‖ Henricus a Papa Alexandro missus fuit in Gasconiam ad delendam hereticorum perfidiam altaris Sacramentum non credentium Gucl Nungiac Qui predicationis verbo militum peditumque copias undicunque contraxit praefatosque haereticos expugnavit Verùm id frustrà Nam ut sui compotes facti sunt se in erroris pristini volutabro revolverunt Robert. Altissiordor citat ab Usser ibid p. 244. Henry before Abbot of Clairvoux and now a Cardinal was sent by the Pope into Gascoigny against them Anno 1181. where he over-powred them indeed by his grear Army but to no purpose for assoon as they were got out of his Clutches they openly profest their Faith again Anno 1182. a great many of these poor people were burnt in several Parts of France and applications were made to Hen. the Second under pretence of a Vision that he would do the same thing in England But he would not suffer it to be done in his Country though there were abundance of that perswasion there saith †Tempus vero ne quo haec visio contigerat erat tunc quando Publicani comturebantur in quam pluribus locis per regnum Franciae quod Rex Henricus nullo modo fieri permisit in terra sua licet ibi essent perplurimi Roger. de Hoveden in fine Anni 1182. Hoveden It is no great honour to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation that when it came into the world it soon cost Bloud nor could it prevail till the party which upheld it made its way by Fire and Sword. The truths of Christianity were not propagated by such barbarous methods for there is such a natural lovelyness in Truth as renders it worthy of all acceptation and so much the more for not standing in need of Sanguinary proceedings But error is not easily supported any other way and 't is a sign of a false Doctrine when it must be forced upon the conscience by cutting of throats However the Persecutions that were now did this good that the true Faith was confirmed by New Martyrdomes and recovered some of that Lustre under butchering Popes which Christianity had gained under Nero. Lucius the Third was now Pope who in the year 1183 as Ad abolendum diversarum haeresum pravitaetem quae in plerisque mundi partibus modernis caepit temporibus pullulare c Imprimis Catharos Patarenos eos qui se Humiliatos vel Pauperes de Lugduno falso nomine mentiuntur Passaginos Josepinos Arnaldistas perpetuo decernimus Anathemati subjacere Lucii 3. Decret Labbaei Concil Tom. 10. L'abbey computes it issued out another Anathema for the abolishing of divers Heresies so called which in those times grew in most parts of the World and he particularly mention'd the Catharists the Patarens and those that were called the Humble Men or the Poor of Lions that is the Albigenses who stifly opposed among other Errors that of Transubstantiation One Outward Advantage which did help to make them so very Numerous and Spreading was the Protection they found from divers Princes and Great Men particularly Raymund Earl of Tolouse and Peter King of Aragon as †Nec mirum tam latè eam labem fuisse diffusam cum Albigensium secta a primo exortu principium vivorum quae magna Pernicies est favore fuerit armata Tolosatis primi Comitis deinde Fuxensis Biterarum Convenarum Accessit Petri Aragoniae regis patrocinium Joan. Marian. praefat ad Lucum Tùdensem Vide Concil Lavaurese Anno 1214. Item Math. Paris in Joanne Joannes Mariana doth confess And with this agrees the Account given of this matter by