born of the Virgin by a new and extravagant supposition of the Sacrament being the medium of uniting two real bodies of Christ viz. of his flesh and of his Church and therefore that must be a real body of Christ too which is so remote from justifying Paschasius his doctrine that Cellotius himself is ashamed of him This same doctrine of Rabanus and Ratramnus is expresly owned by the Saxon Homilies which deny the Sacrament to be a meer commemoration according to the opinion of Joh. Erigena but say that after consecration the bread becomes the Body of Christ after a spiritual and mystical manner and in the Saxon Code of Canons it is expresly determined not to be that Body of Christ which suffered on the Cross. And this I assert to be the very same doctrine which the Church of England embraced upon the Reformation as most consonant to Scripture and the Fathers which although it doth declare against the natural Body of Christ being in more places than one even that Body of Christ which is in heaven yet in the Articles it declares that the body of Christ is given taken and eaten so that to the faithful receivers the Bread consecrated and broken becomes the Communion of the Body of Christ and the cup of blessing the communion of the Blood of Christ. And so in the Catechism it is said that the Body and Blood of Christ are verily and indeed taken of the faithful in the Lords Supper i. e. that after consecration such a divine power and efficacy doth accompany the Holy Sacrament as makes the elements to become the Spiritual and mystical Body of Christ as the Church is really but mystically the Body of Christ because of his Spirit dwelling in them So the Apology of our Church saith that in the Lords Supper there is truly exhibited the Body and Blood of Christ because that is the proper food of our souls as Bread and Wine tends to the nourishment of our Bodiess And if the time would permit I could not only more largely prove this to be the sense of our Church but that it is the true and genuine sense of the Fathers both of the Greek and Latine Church And thus I hope I have done that which T. G. thought so impossible a thing viz. to explain this Rubrick so as not to undermine the doctrine of the real presence asserted by the Church of England nor to leave nothing but pure Zuinglianism in the place of it R. P. I was afraid of a Paradox and it appears not without Reason for I never met with any one yet who explained the doctrine of Bertram and the Church of England after this manner and all that attempted it talked so in the clouds that transubstantiation it self did not seem more hard to understand but I remember Pet. de Marca hath proved that the Book of Bertram was the same which was written by Joh. Scotus and therefore your hypothesis is utterly overthrown P. D. I have read and considered that faint attempt of that Great Man which seemed to be designed for no other end but to make us believe that Bertrams Book was burned for heretical at the Synod of Vercelles but if any one will impartially consider the Book of Bertram and compare it with the account given of the opinion of Joh. Scotus by the Writers against Berengarius they will find De Marca's opinion without the least colour of probability R. P. But Card. Perron Mauguin Cellotius and Arnaud all say that Bertram in the First part disputes against the Stercoranists who were a sort of Hereticks who held that the Body of Christ in the Eucharist was passible corruptible and digestible and in all things just as the bread appeared to our senses and asserted that all the accidents of the Bread were founded hypostatically in the Body of Christ and not to have any proper subsistence of their own P. D. These were a notable sort of Hereticks if they could be found but it appears by the enemies of Berengarius that this opprobrious name was fixed by them on all those who asserted the substance of the Bread to remain after consecration and it would be very strange if Bertram should confute that which himself asserts for he saith the Sacramental Elements do pass into the nourishment of our Bodies But if any were lyable to this accusation it must be Paschasius if Pet. de Marca's observation of him be true that he held both substance and quantity of the Bread and Wine to be turned into the Body of Christ from whence it follows that must be the subject of all those accidents which were in the Bread before which is the very sink of Stercoranism Nay I am very much deceived if Pope Nicholas 2. in the recantation prescribed to Berengarius did not fall into the filth of it far more than Rabanus or Heribaldus for he asserts therein that the Body of Christ is truly and sensibly handled and broken by the hands of Priests and ground by the teeth of Believers But what place could be fitter for this Heresie than the Sedes Stercoraria And Guitmundus striving to help Pope Nicholas and his Council out falls into the same Heresie himself for he shews that Christs Body may be handled and chewed in the Sacrament if so it must be the subject of the Accidents of the Bread and Wine Which according to Perron and his followers is plain Stercorâ—nism R. P. But do not you fall into another Heresie viz. of Impanation P. D. A man had need look to his words when Heresies are so common and buz so about a mans ears And some think they confute a man with a vengeance if they can find out some Heresie with a hard name to fasten upon him But if you did know wherein the heresie of Impanation lay you would never charge this doctrine of our Church with it For I find two distinct wayes of Impanation and this doctrine is lyable to neither of them 1. By union of the Bread to the Body of Christ and by that to the Divinity which was the way of Joh. Parisiensis 2. By an immediate conjunction of the Divine Nature to the Bread not meerly by divine efficacy and power but by an Hypostatical Vnion which is the opinion not without ground attributed to Rupertus Tuitiensis and is lyable to this great absurdity that all that befals the Bread may be attributed to the person of Christ which Bellarmine saith it is blasphemy to imagine And then it might be said that the bread is God that the Word is made Bread and that God is both bread and wine But all which the doctrine of our Church implyes is only a real presence of Christs invisible power and Grace so in and with the Elements as by the faithful receiving of them to convey spiritual and real effects to the souls of men As the Bodies assumed by Angels might be called their Bodies while they assumed them or rather as the
say If Christ be the Sacrifice he must be slain again at every Mass as he was once on the Cross or you can assign no destruction which you say is necessary to such a true and proper Sacrifice R. P. Do not you observe T. G.'s words that Christ is whole under either species and his Blood separated from his Body not really but Mystically only and in representation P. D. How is that Whole Christ under the bread and whole Christ under the wine and the blood separated from the Body not really but mystically only and by representation This is admirable stuff and true Mystical Divinity If the body of Christ doth remain whole and entire where is the true proper Sacrifice where is the change made if not in the Body of Christ if that be uncapable of a change how can it be a true and proper Sacrifice If the blood be not really separated from the Body where is the mactation which must be in a propitiatory Sacrifice If Christ do remain whole and entire after all the Sacrificial Acts where I say is the true and proper Sacrifice T. G. had far better said and more agreeably to Scripture Antiquity and Reason that there is no real and proper sacrifice on the Altar but only mystical and by representation R. P. But T. G. saith that Religion which admits no external visible Sacrifice must needs be deficient in the most signal part of the publick worship of God P. D. I pray remember it is an external and visible Sacrifice which you contend for and now tell me where it is in your Church Doth it lye in the mimical gestures of the Priest at the Altar in imitation of Christ on the Cross If that be it the necessary consumption of the Sacrifice will be no comfortable doctrine to the Priest Doth it lye in the consecration of the Elements which are visible But you say the essence of the Sacrifice consists in the change and we can see no visible change made in them and therefore there is no external and visible Sacrifice Besides if the Sacrifice did lye in the change of the Elements after Consecration into the Body of Christ then the Elements are the thing sacrificed and not the Body of Christ for the destructive change is as to the elements and not as to the Body of Christ. Or doth it lye in the swallowing down and consumption of the species after Consecration by the Priest But here likewise the change is in the accidents and not in the Body of Christ which remains whole and entire though the species be consumed and I think there is some difference between changing ones seat and being sacrificed For all that the Body of Christ is pretended to be changed in is only its being no longer under the species but T. G. I suppose will allow it to be whole and entire still Doth it then lye in pronouncing the words of consecration upon which the Body of Christ is under the species of Bread and the Blood under that of Wine and so separated from the Body But this can least of all be since T. G. assures us that whole Christ is under the Bread as well as under the Wine and so there cannot be so much as a moment of real separation between them and we know how necessary for other purposes the doctrine of Concomitancy is Tell me then where is your external and visible Sacrifice which you boast so much of since according to your own principles there is nothing that belongs to the essence of a sacrifice is external and visible and consequently your own Church labours under the defect T. G. complains of R. P. But what makes Dr. St. so bitter against the Sacrifice of the Altar since the most true and genuine Sons of the Church of England do allow it as Mr. Thorndike Dr. Heylin and Bishop Andrews and doth not this rather look like betraying the Church of England than defending it P. D. I see now you are wheeling about to your first Post and therefore it is time to give you a space of breathing Your great business is to set us at variance among our selves but you have hitherto failed in your attempts and I hope will do I do not think any two or three men though never so learned make the Church of England her sense is to be seen in the Publick Acts and Offices belonging to it And in the Articles to which T. G. sometimes appeals your Sacrifices on the Altar are called blasphemous Figments and dangerous Impostures But as to these three persons I answer thus 1. Mr. Thorndike as I have shewed already declares against the true proper Sacrifice defined by the Council of Trent as an innovation and a contradiction And that which he pleads for is that the Eucharist is a commemorative and representative Sacrifice about which Dr. St. would never contend with him or any one else and immediately after the words cited by T. G. he adds these It is therefore enough that the Eucharist is the Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross as the Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross is represented renewed revived and restored by it and as every representation is said to be the same thing with that which it representeth 2. Pet. Heylins words are expresly only for a commemorative Sacrifice as T. G. himself produces them and therefore I wonder what T. G. meant in citing them at large For he quotes the English Liturgie for the Sacrifice of Praise and Thanksgiving and S. Chrysostom calling it the remembrance of a Sacrifice and many of our learned Writers a Commemorative sacrifice What is there in all this in the least repugnant to what Dr. St. had delivered R. P. But he quotes Bishop Andrews saying Take from the Mass your Transubstantiation and we will have no difference with you about the sacrfiice P. D. Bishop Andrews calls the Eucharist a commemorative sacrifice and he saith it was properly Eucharistical or of the nature of peace-offerings concerning which the Law was that he that offered should partake of them and a little after follow those words you mention to which he adds We yield you that there is a remembrance of Christs sacrifice but we shall never yield that your Christ being made of Bread is there sacrificed Which is the very thing that T. G. is so angry with Dr. St. about And have not you bravely proved that Dr. St. hath herein gone against the sense of the genuine Sons of the Church of England If you have any thing yet left which you think material I pray let us have it now for fear lest T. G. make use of it to stuff out another Book R. P. I think we are near the Bottom P. D. So I imagine by the dregs which came last R. P. There is one thing yet left for a close which is Dr. St. saith supposing this sacrifice were allowed yet this doth not prove that we reserve any
as the younger sister to the Whore of Babylon never a barrel the better herring only we can have liberty of Conscience with one and not with the other It is all one to me to bow to an Image and to bow to the Altar to worship Images and to kneel at the Sacrament P. D. I am in hopes you are now coming to the point I pray keep there without any farther rambling F. C. Call you this rambling You know Amesius saith even in controverted points much respect ought to be had to the experience of Gods people I tell you I have found it thus with me and you ought rather to hear me teach you than dispute with me P. D. All this shall not serve I must have your arguments since you urge me thus F. C. Why look ye now d' ye see how petulant and malapert these Divines of the Church of England are But since nothing will satisfie you but arguing I have an argument ready for you will do your business To Worship the Bread is Idolatry But to kneel at the Sacrament is to Worship the Bread Ergo. P. D. I am glad to find you come to any kind of Reasoning I deny that in kneeling at the Sacrament we do worship the Bread for our Church expresly declares the contrary in this Rubrick F. C. What do I care for your Church or her Rubricks I say you do worship the Bread and prove it too That which you kneel before and look towards when you worship you do give the worship to But you kneel before and look towards the bread when you worship Ergo. P. D. I begin to be afraid of you now for you do not only prove by this argument kneeling at the Sacrament but reading the Common Prayer to be Idolatry For if that which we kneel before and look towards when we worship must be the object of our worship it is plain we must indeed make an Idol of the Common Prayer for every time we read it we kneel before it and looks towards it when we worship F. C. Look you to that I alwayes took the Common Prayer for an Idol but I did not think I had proved it now P. D. I shall endeavour to undeceive you in this matter Since we are not pure spirits but must worship God with our bodies by kneeling and looking towards something in our Acts of Worship we must not determine that to be the object of our Worship which our bodies are bended towards or we look upon in our worship unless there be some other reason for it for then Idolatry would be necessary and unavoidable For we cannot kneel with our eyes open but we must look upon some creature which according to your way of arguing must be the object of our Worship I pray Sir without being angry give me leave to ask you whether a man kneeling in the Fields and praying with his eyes lifted up to Heaven be an Idolater or not F. C. I think not P. D. Yet he kneels towards some creature and looks upon some creature when he worships therefore you must prove by some other way that we do make the bread the Object of our Worship But this we utterly deny and say the doing it is Idolatry and to be abhorred of all faithful Christians And will you make us worship it whether we will or no F. C. But you use the same postures which the Papists do and yet you charge them with Idolatry P. D. Because this is a thing many of you stumble at I will make the difference of our case and theirs plain to you In all moral Acts we are to have a great great regard to their circumstances from whence they take a different denomination He that kills a man by accident and he that kills a man out of malice do the very same thing as to the substance of the Act yet no man will say it is the same act upon a moral consideration We kneel and the Papists kneel but we declare when we kneel we intend no adoration to the Elements but the Papists cannot deny that they do give proper adoration to that which is before them which we say is bread and they say the Body of Christ under the species of bread and yet not meerly to the invisible Body of Christ but taking the species of bread as united to that Body of Christ and so directing their worship to these two together as the proper objects of divine adoration And to make this evident to you their adoration is performed at the Elevation of the Host and at the carrying it about in processions and at the exposing it on their Altars and not meerly in the participation of it Whence it is observable that the Church of Rome doth not strictly require kneeling at the participation which it would do if it looked on the kneeling at receiving as a proper Act of Adoration The Rubricks of the Mass do not that I can find require the Priest to kneel in the Act of receiving and the Pope when he celebrates receives sitting Espencaeus saith in the Church of Lions many of the People did not receive kneeling and upon complaint made about it they were by the advice of two Cardinals left to their old custome And I wonder your Brethren have not taken notice of the difference of kneeling at the elevation of the Host and in the Act of receiving it the one was required by the Constitution of Honorius and was intended for an act of adoration to the Host the other was derived from the ancient Church which although it did not alwayes use the same posture of adoration that we do yet it is sufficient for our purpose if they received the Sacrament in the same posture in which they worshipped God And this I could easily prove if this were a place or season for it F. C. Well Sir I do not love disputing I pray go on with your former Adversary R. P. Sir I thank you for the diversion you have given us if you please I will now return to the place where we left I was about to tell you the Answer T. G. gives to Dr. St.'s third Argument from the Rubrick at the end of the Communion The words are It is here declared that by kneeling no adoration is intended or ought to be done either unto the Sacramental bread or wine there bodily received or unto any corporal presence of Christs natural Flesh and Blood For the Sacramental bread and wine remain still in their very natural substances and therefore may not be adored for that were Idolatry to be abhorred of all faithful Christians and the natural Body and Blood of Christ are in Heaven and not here it being against the truth of Christs Natural Body to be at one time in more places than one About which Dr. St. charges T. G. first with Ignorance in saying it was not yet above a douzen years since it was inserted into the Communion Book whereas he might have
found it above a hundred years before in the Liturgie of Edw. 6. To which T. G. answers That the various fate of this Rubrick first in not being annexed till the second Liturgie of Edw. 6. and being cast out again in the year 1562. and then admitted again almost a hundred years after is no eviction to him that the charge of Idolatry is the dogmatical doctrine of the Church of England P. D. If this were all the declaration our Church had made of her sense and the intention of this Rubrick were only to declare this point of Idolatry there were some probability in what T. G. suggests But I have shewed already how fully our Church hath declared her sense about Romish Idolatry by other wayes and the design of this Rubrick was not to express her sense of Idolatry so much as to give satisfaction to those who scrupled the lawfulness of kneeling For which cause it was first put in and afterwards not thought necessary to be continued when persons were better satisfied about the intention of our Church But when after long disuse and violent prejudices the dissenters were grown unacquainted with the design and intention of our Church there was the same reason for inserting it again which held at first for putting it in And what now hath T. G. gained by this observation If it had been as he imagined what he had gotten in one point he had lost in another for then it would appear that there was no such heat in the beginning of Q. Elizabeths dayes if they were willing to leave out such a declaration of the Idolatry of the Church of Rome at that time when Q. Elizabeths Title was the most disputed at Rome so that from hence appears the vanity of T. G.'s former observation and how far they were from taking things into our Liturgie out of spite to the Pope nay so far were they from this that in the first year of Q. Elizabeth that petition in the Letany was left out which had been inserted by Henry 8. and continued in both Liturgies of Edw. 6. From the Tyranny of the Bishop of Rome and all his detestable enormities Good Lord And this he might have found in the same Historian And was not the title of Head of the Church taken by her Father and Brother so qualified and explained then as might prevent any occasion of quarreling at it by the most captious persons Do these passages look like doing things on purpose to provoke and exasperate and out of pure spite to the Pope or like putting in things on purpose to heighten the differences when T. G. himself confesses they left out this Rubrick and it is evident they did leave out some of the most provoking expressions R. P. I see you cannot bear the charge of intemperate heat on the beginning of the Reformation P. D. I cannot bear such an unreasonable and unjust imputation as this is and I have a particular esteem for the Wisdom Learning and Piety which was shewed in the Ecclesiastical part of our Reformation But how doth T. G. take off the charge of Idolatry in this Rubrick R. P. He saith he takes the meaning of it not to be the denying adoration to be due in regard of Christs Body being present spiritually but truly in the Sacrament but only that no adoration ought to be done to any corporal presence of Christs natural flesh and blood as the word Corporal is taken to signifie the natural manner of a bodies being present For which he gives these reasons 1. Because those words in the second Liturgie of Edw. 6. No adoration ought to be done to any real or essential being of Christs natural flesh and blood are now changed into any corporal presence of Christ natural flesh and blood 2. Because the Protestant Divines do yield the real presence of Christs Body for which he quotes Bishop Taylor and Bishop Cosins and he desires Dr. St. so to explain these words as not to undermine the constant doctrine of the Church of England concerning the real presence and leave us nothing but pure Zuinglianism in the place of it P. D. I am so much his Friend that at this time I will undertake this task for him First We must consider the words of the Rubrick 2. How this sense of it can be reconciled with the real presence as owned by the Church of England 1. For the meaning of the Rubrick We are to consider that the Rubrick denies adoration to be intended either unto the Sacramental bread and wine or unto any corporal presence of Christs natural flesh and blood And after it gives two distinct reasons for denying adoration to either of these 1. To the Sacramental bread and wine for this reason because they remain still in their very natural substances and therefore may not be adored for that were Idolatry to be abhorred of all faithful Christians 2. To the corporal presence of Christs natural flesh and blood because the natural body and blood of our Saviour Christ are in heaven and not here it being against the truth of Christs natural Body to be at one time in more places than one You see here are two plainly distinct reasons given for denying adoration to the elements and to the Natural Body of Christ. The former is said to be Idolatry the latter to be absurd and unreasonable it being repugnant to the truth of Christs body to be in more places than one at one time So that the sense of the Rubrick lyes in these two propositions 1. That it is Idolatry to give adoration to the elements remaining in their natural substances 2. That it is absurd to believe Christs natural body to be present because then it must be in more places than one which is repugnant to the truth of a body These things to my apprehension are the plain and natural sense of this Rubrick R. P. But we do not give adoration to the Sacramental elements but to the Body of Christ. P. D. I do believe I can prove that you give adoration to the Sacramental Elements as they make up one entire object of adoration with the body of Christ but that is not my present business which is to shew the sense of our Church which lyes in these particulars 1. That the Sacramental Elements do remain in their natural substances after consecration 2. That to adore them so remaining is Idolatry and to be abhorred of all faithful Christians No one questions the former to be the sense of our Church the only question lyes in the later whether that be Idolatry or no It is no question that to give divine adoration to any creature is Idolatry and it is so acknowledged on all sides the only question then can be whether the substance of bread and wine be a creature or not and this is no question with any man in his wits therefore to give adoration to the substance of bread and wine is Idolatry No demonstration
resolved to believe it for the Authority of your Church can never perswade any man that is not R. P. When you are gotten to this point of transubstantiation it is hard to get you off It is the sore place of our Church and you are like Flyes in Summer alwayes busie about it I pray return to your Rubrick for you seem to have forgotten it P. D. No I have been pursuing it hitherto R. P. But what say you to T. G.'s reasons why this must be understood of a corporeal presence of Christs natural Body because you else overthrow the doctrine of a real presence which hath been accounted the doctrine of the Church of England P. D. To this I answer 1. The Rubrick saith expresly that it is against the truth of Christs natural Body to be at one time in more places than one It doth not say against the corporeal presence of his natural Body but the truth of it from whence it follows that our Church believes the true natural body of Christ which was born of the Virgin suffered on the Cross and ascended into Heaven can be but in one place which is declared in the foregoing words And the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven and not here i. e. in Heaven exclusively from being in the Sacrament Which are not true if the same natural Body of Christ could be at the same time in Heaven and in the Host. R. P. How then can your Divines hold a real presence of Christs Body as T. G. saith they do P. D. You had heard if you had staid till I came to my second Answer which is that notwithstanding this our Church doth hold that after Consecration the Elements do become the Body and Blood of Christ and so there is a real presence of Christs Body but not of his natural but of a mystical Body I will endeavour to make this out to you because you look strangely upon me as if I were big of some mighty paradox When Paschasius Radbertus did first broach the modern doctrine of the Roman Church about the same body of Christ being in the Sacrament which was born of the B. Virgin in the Western Church he met with great opposition therein from the most learned Divines of that Age among the rest there lived then in the Court of Carolus Calvus a man very eminent for his Learning called Joh. Scotus or Erigena This man at the request of Carolus Calvus delivered his opinion directly contrary to Paschasius for whereas he asserted that the very same Body of Christ which was born of the B. Virgin was invisibly present under the accidents of Bread and Wine Scotus denyed that the Elements were in any real sense after consecration the Body and Blood of Christ the Sacrament being only a bare commemoration or figurative representation of the Body and Blood of Christ. So Hincmarus who lived in that Age delivers his opinion which was afterwards taken up by Berengarius as appears by Lanfrank's answer to him And Ascelinus in his Epistle to Berengarius shews that Joh. Scotus out of opposition to Paschasius set himself to prove from the Fathers that what was consecrated on the Altar was not truly and really the Body and Blood of Christ. These two opposite doctrines being thus dispersed and a Schism being likely to break out upon it as appears both by Ratramnus and the Anonymous Authour published by Cellotius and extant in MS in the Cotton Library Carolus Calvus sends to Ratramnus an eminent Divine of that Age being imployed by the Gallican Church to defend the Latins against the Greeks to know his judgement in this matter He who is better known by the name of Bertram gives in his Preface an Account to his Prince of both these opinions and rejects them both as against the sense of the Fathers and Doctrine of the Church In the first part of his Book he disputes against Scotus who would allow no Mysterie and in the second against Paschasius who contended that the same Body of Christ was in the Sacrament which was born of the B. Virgin this he saith was the state of the second Question whether that very Body of Christ which sits at the right hand of God be reâ—eived by believers in the Sacramental Mysterie And he proves the Negative at large from the Testimonies of the Fathers shewing that they did put a difference between that Body of Christ which was born of the Virgin and suffered on the Cross and that true but mystical body of Christ on the Altar and so from the Testimonies of S. Ambrose S. Augustine S. Hierom Fulgentius from the Scriptures and from the Offices of the Church he concludes point-blank against Paschasius that it was not the same Body of Christ in the Sacrament which was born of the B. Virgin But then against the opinion of Scotus he delivers his mind fully in answer to the first Question saying If there were nothing in the Sacrament but what appeared to the senses it was unfitly called a Mysterie and there would be no exercise for faith no change at all wrought in the Elements the Sacrament would fall short of Baptism and the Manna in the Wilderness and lastly to what purpose did Christ promise his Flesh to be the Food of his People which being not to be understood carnally and literally must have a spiritual signification so that though as to their outward appearance the Sacramental Elements are Figures yet according to the invisible Power and Efficacy they are the Body and Blood of Christ. And this he shews to have been the sense of the Fathers and Christian Church This opinion of Ratramnus Paschasius in his Epistle to Frudegardus calls the doctrine of those who deny the presence of Christs Flesh in the Sacrament but do hold an invisible power and efficacy in and with the Elements because say they there is no body but what is visible and palpable And whoever will read that Epistle of Paschasius will find the expressions he answers the very same that yet occur in the Book of Bertram Of the same opinion with Ratramnus in this matter was Rabanus Maurus the greatest Divine accounted of his Age who wrote his Epistle to Egilo against them who had lately broached that doctrine mark that that the Body of Christ in the Sacrament was the very same which was born of the B. Virgin and suffered on the Cross and rose from the dead And this appears from his Epistle to Heribaldus still extant wherein he saith he declared in what sense the Sacrament was the Body of Christ. Besides the Anonymus Authour published by Cellotius the only person about that time who appeared in behalf of the doctrine of Paschasius and very inconsiderable in comparison of his Adversaries confesseth the opposition made to Paschasius by Rabanus and Ratramnus and endeavours to excuse his simplicity in asserting that the same flesh of Christ was upon the Altar which was