Doctrines and Practices of the Ancient Church Relating to the Eucharist, Chapter 16
CHAP. XVI. The Sixteenth Difference. Our Ancient Roman-Saxon Church differred from the preſent Roman Church, in the Article of Tranſubſtantiation and Corporal Preſence.
THis is the Laſt Difference I ſhall mention, tho' not the leaſt; but a very material conſirmation of what I have been all along proving, That there is no conſen… …f the Ancient Church with the preſent Roman Church, in their Faith and Opinions about the Euchariſt; when we ſhall find, that even our own Old Engliſh Church, that had received moſt of its Inſtructions in Chriſtianity from the Roman, and in many other things agreed with what it now profeſſes, yet in this widely differ'd from it.
This plainly argues one of theſe two things, either that the then Roman Church, had not the Opinions of the preſent Church in theſe Matters and ſo did not propagate them to us; (which cannot be ſaid, when we remember the buſy Diſputes about theſe Matters in the 9th Century, tho' they were not yet come to a determination); or elſe, that when the Roman Church warped, and generally eſpouſed a New Doctrine which the Ancient Fathers were ſtrangers to, we ſtill kept our Ground, and did not ſuffer our ſelves to be perverted, but held to the Ancient Belief.
This is the Truth of our Caſe, as appears by a noble Remain of an Eaſter Sermon (about 700 Years old) in the Saxon Tongue, among other Catholick Homilies that were to be read yearly in the Church, It was produced in the laſt Age in the Saxon with a Tranſlation in our Engliſh Tongue; (printed by John Day) it was fince put, with the ſame Tranſlation, by Mr. Fox into his Martyrology *Vol. 2. p. 380. laſt Edition., and has been ſet forth with a Latin Tranſlation by the Learned Abr. Whelock, in his Saxon Edition of Bede's Eccleſiaſtical Hiſtory, p. 462. printed at Cambridg 1644. out of which I ſhall tranſcribe as much as will ſerve to prove our Aſſertion, ſoftning the harſhneſs of the Phraſes of the laſt Age, and expreſſing the ſenſe in words more eaſily underſtood.
The Eaſter Sermon begins thus:
MEN Beloved, you have been often diſcourſed to, concerning our Saviour's Reſurrection, how he, after his Paſſion on this Day, roſe powerfully from the Dead. Now we ſhall, by God's Grace explain ſomething to you about the Holy Euchariſt, which this day we are bound to frequent, and inſtruct your underſtanding about this Myſtery, both according to the Old and New Teſtament, that no doubting may diſturb you concerning this Life-giving Banquet.—
The Sermon goes on with an account of the Jewiſh Paſſover, and the Application of thoſe things to the Euchariſt, which I omit;
— Chriſt, before his ſuffering, conſecrated Bread, P. 469.and diſtributed it to his Diſciples, ſaying thus, Eat this Bread, it is my Body, and do this in remembrance of me: Alſo he Conſecrated Wine in a Cup, and ſaid, Drink ye all of this, This is my Blood which is ſhed for many for the Remiſſion of Sins. The Apoſtles did, as Chriſt commanded, they conſecrated Bread and Wine for the Euchariſt. And to his memory alſo afterward every one of their Succeſſors, and all Chriſt's Prieſts, According to Chriſt's Command, by the Apoſtolical Benediction, did conſecrate Bread and Wine in his Name. Now Men have often diſputed, P. 470.and do it ſtill, How that Bread which is prepared of Corn, and is baked by the heat of Fire, can be changed into Chriſt's Body; and how that Wine which is preſſed out of many Grapes, by any bleſſing of it, can be changed into our Lord's Blood? Now to ſuch Men, I anſwer, that ſome things are ſpoken of Chriſt by ſignification, ſome others by a known thing: It is a true thing, and known, that Chriſt was born of a Virgin, and voluntarily ſuffered Death, and was buried, and this Day roſe from the Dead. He is called Bread, and a Lamb, and a Lion, and otherwiſe, by ſignification. He is called Bread, becauſe he is our Life, and the Life of Angels. He is called a Lamb, for his Innocency. A Lion, for his Strength, whereby he overcame the ſtrong Devil. Yet notwithſtanding, according to true Nature, Chriſt is neither Bread, nor a Lamb, nor a Lion. Wherefore then is that Holy Euchariſt called Chriſt's Body, or his Blood, if it be not truly what it is called? Truly the Bread and Wine, which are conſecrated by the Maſs of the Prieſts, ſhow one thing outwardly to Mens Senſes, and another thing they declare inwardly to believing Minds. Outwardly, Bread and Wine are ſeen both in appearance, and in taſt; yet they are truly after Conſecration Chriſt's Body and Blood, by a Spiritual Sacrament. An Heathen Child is Baptized, yet he altereth not his outward ſhape, though he be changed within. He is brought to the Font full of Sin through Adam's Diſobedience, but he is waſhed from all his Sins inwardly, tho' he has not changed his outward Shape. So alſo that Holy Font-Water, which is called the Well-ſpring of Life, is like in Nature (in ſpecie) to other Waters, and is ſubject to corruption; but the Power of the Holy Ghoſt, by the Prieſt's Bleſſing, comes upon that corruptible Water; and after that, it can waſh both Body and Soul from all Sins, P. 471.by ſpiritual Power. We ſee now in this one Creature two things: that, whereby, according to true Nature, it is corruptible Water, and that whereby, according to the Spiritual Myſtery, it has a ſaving Power. So alſo, if we look upon that Holy Euchariſt according to a corporeal Senſe, then we ſee that it is a Creature corruptible and changeable; but if we own a ſpiritual Power there, then we underſtand that Life is in it, and that it confers Immortality on thoſe that taſt it by Faith. There is a great difference betwixt the inſible Vertue (and Power) of this Holy Euchariſt, and the viſible appearance of its proper Nature. By its Nature it is corruptible Bread, and corruptible Wine; and by the Virtue of the Divine Word, it is truly the Body and Blood of Chriſt; yet not corporally ſo, but ſpiritually. There is much differencce betwixt that Body which Chriſt ſuffer'd in, and that Body which is conſecrated for the Euchariſt. The Body that Chrivt ſuffer'd in, was Born of the Fleſh of Mary, with Blood and Bones, with Skin and Nerves; animated by a rational Spirit in humane Members: but his Spiritual Body, which we call the Euchariſt, is collected from many grains of Corn, without Blood and Bone, without Member or Soul: wherefore there is nothing in it to be underſtood Corporeally, but all is to be underſtood Spiritually. Whatſoever is in that Euchariſt which reſtores Life to us, this is from Spiritual Virtue, and from Inviſible Operation. Therefore that Holy Euchariſt is called a Sacrament, becauſe one thing is there ſeen, and another thing underſtood: that which is there ſeen has a bodily Nature, that which we underſtand in it has a ſpiritual Virtue. The Body of Chriſt, that ſuffered Death, P. 472.and roſe from the Dead, henceforth dies no more, but is eternal and impaſſible. That Euchariſt is Temporary, not Eternal; it is corruptible, and capable of diviſion into minute Parts; it is chewed with the Teeth, and ſent into the draught: yet it will be true, that according to ſpiritual Virtue, it is whole in every part: Many receive that Holy Body, yet according to the ſpiritual Myſtery, it will be whole in every part. Tho' ſome receive a leſſer part of it, yet there will not be more virtue in the greater part than in the leſſer, becauſe it will be whole in all Men according to the inviſible virtue. This Sacrament is a Pledg, and a Type; the Body of Chriſt is the Truth: We keep this Pledg Sacramentally, till we come to the Truth it ſelf; and then is the Pledg at an end. It is indeed, as we ſaid before, Chriſt's Body and his Blood, but not Corporally, but Spiritually. Do not diſpute, how this can be effected, but believe it firmly, that ſo it is.
Here follow ſome idle Viſions, which that credulous Age were fond of, but are nothing to the purpoſe, and therefore I omit them.
— Paul the Apoſtle ſpeaketh of the old Iſraelites writing thus in his Epiſtle to the Faithful. P. 473.All our Fore-fathers were baptized in the Cloud and in the Sea; and all ate the ſame ſpiritual Meat, and all drank the ſame ſpiritual Drink, for they drank of that ſpiritual Rock, and that Rock was Chriſt. That Rock, from whence the Water then flowed, was not Chriſt in a Corporal Senſe, but it ſignified Chriſt, who declared thus to the Faithful, Whoſoever thirſteth, let him come to me and drink, and from his belly ſhall flow living Water. This he ſaid of the Holy Ghoſt, which they that Believed on him, ſhould receive. The Apoſtle Paul ſaid, that the People of Iſrael ate the ſame ſpiritual Meat, and drank the ſame Spiritual Drink, becauſe the heavenly Food that fed them for forty Years, and that Water that flowed from the Rock, ſignified Chriſt's Body and Blood, which are now dayly offered in the Church of God. It was the ſame which we offer to day, not corporally, but ſpiritually. We told you before, that Chriſt conſecrated Bread and Wine for the Euchariſt before his Paſſion, and ſaid, This is my Body, and my Blood: he had not yet ſuffered, and yet he changed, by his inviſible Power, that Bread into his Body, and that Wine into his Blood; as he did before in the Wilderneſs, before he was born Man, when he turned the heavenly Food into his Fleſh, and that Water flowing from the Rock into his Blood. P. 474.Many Perſons ate of the Heavenly Food in the Deſart, and drank of the Spiritual Drink, and yet, as Chriſt ſaid, are dead. Chriſt meant not that Death which no Man can avoid, but he underſtood eternal Death, which ſeveral of that People, for their Unbelief, had deſerved. Moſes and Aaron, and ſeveral others of the People that pleaſed God, ate that heavenly Bread, and did not die that everlaſting Death, tho' they died the common Death. They ſaw that the heavenly Food was viſible and Corruptible; but they underſtood that viſible thing ſpiritually, and they taſted it ſpiritually. Jeſus ſaid, Whoſo eateth my Fleſh, and drinketh my Blood, hath Eternal Life: He did not command them to eat that Body which he had aſſumed, nor to drink that Blood which he ſhed for us; but by that Speech, he meant the Holy Euchariſt, which is Spiritually his Body, and his Blood; and whoſoever taſteth this, with a believing Heart, ſhall have that Eternal Life. Under the old Law, the Faithful offered divers Sacrifices to God, which had a future ſignification of the Body of Chriſt, which he hath offered in Sacrifice to his heavenly Father for our Sins. This Euchariſt which is now conſecrated at God's Altar, is a Commemoration of the Body of Chriſt which he offered for us, and of his Blood which he ſhed for us: As he himſelf commanded, Do this in remembrance of me. Chriſt once ſuffered by himſelf; but yet his Paſſion by the Sacrament of this Holy Euchariſt, is daily renewed at the Holy Maſs. Wherefore the Holy Maſs is profitable very much both for the Living, and alſo for the Dead, as it hath been often declared, &c.
The reſt of the Sermon being of a moral and allegorical Nature, I omit.
Beſides this Sermon in Publick, we have alſo two other Remains of Elfrike the Abbot in the Saxon Tongue *Publiſhed at the end of the foreſaid Sermon, printed by John Day. Alſo in the Notes on Bede's Eccl. Hiſt. p. 332, 333, 334., which ſpeak the very ſame Senſe, and deſerve to be inſerted as far as they concern this Argument of the Euchariſt, and the change made in it.
The firſt is an Epiſtle to Wulffine Biſhop of Shyrburn, in which is this Paſſage.
— The Euchariſt is not the Body of Chriſt corporally, but ſpiritually: not the Body in which he ſuffered, but that Body when he conſecrated Bread and Wine for the Euchariſt, the night before his Paſſion, and ſaid of the Bread he Bleſſed, This is my Body; and again of the Wine he bleſſed, This is my Blood, which is ſhed for many for the Remiſſion of Sins. Now then underſtand, that the Lord, who was able to change that Bread before his Paſſion into his Body, and that Wine into his Blood, Spiritually; that the ſame (Lord) by the Hands of the Prieſts, daily conſecrates Bread and Wine for his Spiritual Body, and for his Spiritual Blood.
The ſecond, an Epiſtle of Elfricke to Wulfſtane Arch-Biſhop of York, in which, among other things (againſt too long reſerving the Euchariſt,) he ſays thus:
Chriſt himſelf conſecrated the Euchariſt before his Paſſion; Vid. p. 334. Hiſt. Eccleſ. Sax. Lat. Bedae.he bleſſed Bread, and brake it, ſaying thus to his Apoſtles, Eat this Bread, it is my Body: and again he bleſſed the Cup, filled with Wine, and ſpake thus to them, Drink ye all of this, it is my Blood of the New Teſtament, which is ſhed for many for the Remiſſion of Sins. Our Lord, who conſecrated the Euchariſt before his Paſſion, and ſaid; that Bread was his Body, and Wine truly his Blood, he alſo daily conſecrates, by the Prieſts hands, Bread for his Body, and Wine for his Blood, in a Spiritual Myſtery, as we read in Books. [Yet notwithſtanding that Lively Bread is not the ſame Body in which Chriſt ſuffered, nor that Holy Wine the Blood of our Saviour (which was ſhed for us) in bodily thing (or ſence, in re corporali) but in a Spiritual ſence (in ratione Spirituali.) That Bread indeed was his Body, and alſo that Wine his Blood, juſt as that heavenly Bread which we call Manna (which fed God's People forty Years) viz. was his Body, and that clear. Water was his Blood that then flowed from the Rock in the Wilderneſs.] As Paul writes in his Epiſtle, They all ate the ſame ſpiritual Meat and drank the ſame ſpiritual Drink, &c. The Apoſtle that ſays, what you have heard, They all ate &c. he do's not ſay, corporally, but ſpiritually. Chriſt was not as yet born, nor his Blood ſhed: then it was the People of Iſrael did eat that Spiritual Meat, and drank of that Rock; neither was that Rock Chriſt Corporeally tho' he ſpake ſo. The Sacraments of the Old Law were the ſame, and did ſpiritually ſignify that Sacrament (or Euchariſt) of our Saviour's Body, which we now conſecrate.
This Laſt Epiſtle Elfricke wrote firſt in the Latin Tongue to Wulfſtane, containing, tho' not word for word, yet the whole Sence of the Engliſh Epiſtle; and that Paragraph of it which I have incloſed between two Brackets, was look'd upon as ſo diſagreeable to the preſent Faith of the Roman Church, that ſome had raſed them out of the Worceſter Book; but the ſame Latin Epiſtle being found in Exceter Church, it was reſtored.
I was once about to have added ſome Citations here out of Bertram's Book, (de corpore & ſanguine Domini) out of which many paſſages in the Saxon Sermon foregoing, were taken. But they are ſo many, that I muſt have tranſcribed, and the Book it ſelf is ſmall, and ſo well worth the reading, eſpecially with the late Tranſlation of it into Engliſh, and a Learned Hiſtorical Diſſertation before it, giving a large account of the Difference betwixt his Opinion, and that of Tranſubſtantiation (printed An 1686) that I ſhall rather refer the Reader to it, where he may abundantly ſatisfy himſelf.
Inſtead of it, I will only add one Teſtimony more out of Rabanus Arch-biſhop of Mentz, in an Epiſtle to Heribaldus *Epiſt. ad Herib. c. 33. de Euchariſt.. Which we are beholden to the Learned Baluzius for giving it us entire, (in Appendice ad Reginonem, p. 516.) a Paſſage having been raſed out of the Manuſcript, out of which it was firſt publiſhed. Thus he ſays;
As for the Queſtion you put, Quod autem interrogaſtis, utrum Euchariſtia poſtquam conſumitur & in ſeceſſum emittitur, more aliorum ciborum, iterum redeat in naturam priſtinam quam habuerat, antequam in Altari conſecraretur, ſuperflua eſt hujuſmodi Quaeſtio, cùm ipſe Salvator dixerit in Evangelio, Omne quod intrat in os, in ventrem vadit, & in ſeceſſum emittitur. Sacramentum Corporis & Sanguinis ex rebus viſibilibus & corporalibus conficitur, ſed inviſibilem tàm corporis quàm animae efficut ſanctificationem, Quae eſt enim ratio, ut hoc quod ſtomacho digeritur, & in ſeceſſum emittitur, iterum in ſtatum priſtinum redeat, cum nullus hoc unquam fieri aſſcruerit? Nam quidam nuper de ipſo Sacramento corporis & ſanguinis Domini non ritè ſentientes dixerunt, hoc ipſum corpus & ſanguinem Domini quod de Maria Virgine natum eſt, & in quo ipſe Dominus paſſus eſt in Cruce, & reſurrexit de ſepulchro, [Idem. eſſe quod ſumitur de altari] cui errori quantum potuimus, ad Egilonem Abbatem ſcribent…s, de corpore ipſo quid verè credendum ſit, aperuimus.Whether the Euchariſt, after it is conſumed and ſent into the Draught as other Meats are, do's return again into its former Nature, which it had before it was conſecrated on the Altar; This Queſtion is ſuperfluous, when our Saviour himſelf has ſaid in the Goſpel, Every thing that entreth into the Mouth, goeth into the Belly, and is caſt out into the Draught. The Sacrament of the Body and Blood, is made up of things Viſible and Corporeal, but effects the Inviſible Sanctification both of Body and Soul. And what reaſon is there, that what is digeſted in the Stomach, and ſent into the Draught, ſhould return into its priſtine State, ſeeing none has ever aſſerted that this was done? Some indeed of late, not thinking rightly of the Sacrament of our Lord's Body and Blood have ſaid (which are the very words of Paſchaſius, whom he oppoſes) that the very Body and Blood of our Lord, which was born of the Virgin Mary, and in which our Lord ſuffered on the Croſs, and roſe again out of the Grave, [is the ſame that is taken from the Altar]; which Error we having oppoſed as we were able, writing to the Abbot Egilo, and declared what ought truly to be believed concerning the Body it ſelf.
That which he calls here an Error, is an Article now of the Romiſh Faith, which ſome Zealous Monk meeting withal, and not enduring it ſhould be condemned as an Error, that the ſame Body which was born of the Virgin, &c. is the ſame that we receive at the Altar, ſcraped out thoſe words which I have incloſed between the Brackets; and we may ſecurely truſt our Adverſaries in this Matter, who have skill enough to know what Aſſertions make for them, and what againſt them.