the Bald to make choice of Heribold for his Principal Chaplain if his Opinion had been an Heretical and Heterodox Opinion an Opinion contrary to the Belief of the Church as well as unto that of Adrian and of Nicholas But besides whilst Nicholas held the See of Rome there are arose a great Contest betwixt the Greek and Latin Churches betwixt Nicholas and Photius Patriarch of Constantinople Nicholas sued for the assistance of the Bishops of France to defend the Latins against the Greeks The French Prelates made choice of Bertram or Ratramn who by their Order undertook the Defence of the Latin Church against the Greek and in the four Books he wrote and which are now extant refuted the Accusations of the Greeks against the Latins This Ratramn I say which by order of King Charles the Bald composed a Treatise of the Body and Blood of Christ wherein he plainly opposeth the Doctrine of Paschas and doth establish that of his Adversaries Is it likely say many that if the Belief of Ratramn had not been the Belief of the Church that the Bishops of France would have made choice of him to have defended the Interest of the Latins against the Insolencies of the Greeks or if the French Prelates persuaded of the same Belief made no difficulty to make choice of Ratramn could it be imagined Nicholas would have approved this Choice if he had been of another Persuasion in this Essential Point of Religion I know that Nicholas wrote unto Charles the Bald desiring he would send him the Latin Translation of the Hierarchy of the pretended Dennis the Arcopagite made by John Erigenius who also wrote of the Sacrament by Order of the same Prince but after the same manner as is written by Protestant Doctors And that this Pope alledges for a reason that though this John was reputed to be very learned nevertheless it was said Nicolaus I. t. 3. Concil Gall. p. 352. ex Ivone That he had not formerly good Opinions of certain things but those things concerned not the Eucharist for it is not probable Nicholas would have spoke so coldly if these ill Opinions of John had been upon the Subject of the Sacrament Besides he would not have failed to have demanded what he had written either to have condemned or approved it as he intended to do of the Translation of the Works of Denis the Arcopagite And he would have demanded it so much the more earnestly as that there was more to be feared by the one than the other I mean by what he had written upon the Subject of the Eucharist than of his Translation of the pretended Denis the Arcopagite Add unto all this that if any ill reports had been published of John touching the Subject of the Sacrament it had been by reason of the Adversaries which his ill choice upon the Point of Predestination had stirred him up yet nevertheless it is certain they never taxed him to have erred in this point It must then be concluded that the ill Opinions mentioned by Nicholas and whereof the Report came unto him concerned the matter of Predestination whereupon John Erigenius suffered himself to be led away unto ungrounded and empty Conceptions which were aggravated with some heat by the learned Church of Lions by Florus its Deacon by Prudens Bishop of Troys and by the Councils of Valentia and of Langres Yet these Adversaries incensed against him never accused him of any ill Opinion touching the Sacrament from whence it is concluded That his Doctrine in this point directly opposite unto that of Paschas was the true Doctrine of the Church Therefore neither Nicholas the first nor any of his Successors did condemn it until Leo the Ninth who condemned his Book to be burnt at the Council of Verseil anno 1050. where Berengarius was also condemned I know also that the same Nicholas speaking of the vertue of Consecration and of what it operates in the things which are Consecrated and Sanctified alledges for examples the Altar the Cross the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist and that he observes that the Altar which naturally is but a common Stone and that differs not from others becomes by the Benediction the Holy Table That the Image of the Cross which is but common Wood before it receives this form becomes holy and terrible unto Devils Nicol. 1. Ep. 2. 〈◊〉 Concil p. 489. after having received it and that therefore Jesus Christ is represented in it That the Bread of the Eucharist is common Bread but when it is Consecrated it becomes the Body of Christ in truth and is said to be so and the Wine his Blood But some say these words do not prejudice the observations we have made because Nicholas considers the Vertue and Efficacy of the Sacrament and that in this regard it is truly the Body of Jesus Christ because in the lawful Celebration it possesseth the full Efficacy and Vertue of it and as he speaks almost as the Prelates of the Second Council of Nice did I desire the Reader would please to see what hath been said in the 12th Chapter because it is supposed after that he will be satisfied no advantage can be drawn from the words of Nicholas against what hath been observed in his proceedings upon this important occasion wherein I do not interpose my Judgment And what is said of the proceedings of Nicholas the First is also affirmed of Adrian the Second whose silence in most of the things spoken of Pope Nicholas and which we pretend not to repeat over again doth evidently prove that he no more then his Predecessor did not condemn the Doctrine of the Adversaries of Paschas I will only add that in the hot contest which Adrian had with the Bishops of France upon account of Hincmar Bishop of Laon he never taxeth them with any thing touching the Sacrament and what makes the thing the more considerable is that Charles the Bald having interposed in the quarrel as protector of the Cannons and of the Authority of the Prelates of his Kingdom Pope Adrian commanded him to send Hincmar Bishop of Laon to Rome condemned by the judgment of the Gallican Church which so highly displeased the King that he made him a very sharp answer wherein he tells him amongst other things that the Kings of France born of Royal Blood Ep. Carol. Calvin ad Hadria Papam 2. in Supplem Concil Gall. p. 269. 271 272. 274. are not Vice-Roys of Bishops but Masters of the Kingdom He demands what Hell had spewed out a Law that should impose upon Princes and out of what dark Cave it proceeded He warns him not to direct any commands unto him for the future nor threats of Excommunication contrary to the holy Scriptures the Doctrine of the Ancients the Imperial Constitutions and Ecclesiastical Canons He desires he would write him no more such Letters nor to the Bishops and great Lords of his Kingdom lest they should be forced to reject them with scorn
and affront his Messengers insomuch as he threatens him with Deposition or of Anathematizing according to the Decree of the Fifth Universal Council There are several other things of the like Nature in the Letter which is not necessary to be mention'd What hath been said sufficeth to shew that Pope Adrian could not wish a fairer occasion to tax Charles the Bald as Protector of the Doctrine of the Adversaries of Paschas against whom Ratramn and John Erigenius wrote by his command not to speak of his Principal Chaplain Heribold which was of the same Opinion Adrian doth no such thing On the contrary he endeavours to appease the spirit of Charles in the Letter which he after wrote to him and to mitigate the anger which the first had provoked him unto wherein he had commanded him with Authority to send Hincmar Bishop of Laon unto Rome It is said that these proceedings do in all likelihood justifie that the belief of Ratramn and of John Erigenius whom the King Protected was the belief of Adrian himself and of the whole Church it not being to be believed the Pope would have been silent unto this Prince who had so touched him to the Quick if the Doctrine which he favoured had not been Catholick and Orthodox I would here conclude the History of the IX Century were I not obliged to say something of the Greek Church for at the beginning of this Age Nicephorus Patriarch of Constantinople and Successor of Tarrasius following the steps of the Second Council of Nice whose Constitutions touching Image Worship he followed Nicephorus I say with the Fathers of the Council declared That the Eucharist is not the Image of Jesus Christ De Cherub c. 6. Bibl. Pat. t. 4. but his Body seeing he spake as the Prelates of Nice the same Explication must be given to his words as were given unto those of the Council and refer the Reader unto what hath been said in the 12th Chapter if it be not better to rank him with John Damascen of whom we have also spoke in the same Chapter and to say the truth he speaks many things which are inconsistent with the Doctrine of the real Presence As for example Ibid. c. 7. That the humane nature of Jesus Christ is not invisible that God only can be at several places at once Id. de imag That every Body is necessarily limited and that it filleth a place which he applies particularly unto the Body of Jesus Christ Id. libel 12. capitulor c. 3. The third sacred Council saith he hath declared that Jesus Christ our God is limited according to the Flesh and hath Anathematized those which believe not this word And elsewhere Id. de imag having treated of the manner of Existing of Bodies Jesus Christ saith he is bounded according to his humane Nature after all the ways which we have shewed for he hath born a true Body like us and not a supposed Body And in a Dispute which the same Nicephorus had with the Emperor Leo the Armenian which Father Combefis hath published he attributes unto the Body of Jesus Christ Origin Const p. 176. visibility touch and circumscription to distinguish it from his Divinity and shewing the reason why Angels cannot be in one place circumscriptively he saith It is because they be simple Ibid. p. 180. and without composition and that they have not Bodies Father Combefis in the same Collection of divers Authors concerning the City of Constantinople alledgeth a great passage of Theodorus Graptus P. 221. 222. touching the Eucharist but because he teacheth the same Opinion with John Damascen as is observed by this same Friar which hath given it unto us and as it is easie to observe inreading of it we will dispence with our selves in relating of it seeing the Reader may find what hath been said of it in the 12th Chapter upon the Belief of Damascen Leaving then this Theodorus Martyr of Image Worship let us speak of another Theodorus no less affectionate than the former unto this same Worship and imprisoned for it It is Theodorus Studite whom Michael Studite that wrote his Life introduceth thus speaking unto his Disciple My Son these Men as I find endeavour Apud Baron ad ann Dom. 816. num 12. besides the other cruelties they exercise against us to starve us to Death because they know it is the cruellest of all sorts of Death but let us put our trust in God which can feed us not with Bread only but with meat incomparably more excellent because alf Spirits subsist by his good pleasure only And because above all other things the participation of the Body of our Saviour is wont to be the nourishment of my Body and of my Soul for the Father always carried along with him some parcels of the quickning Body and Celebrated the Divine Mysteries as often as he had conveniency I will receive only this Food I will taste nothing else whatsoever and what is wont to be allowed for two shall be for thee only He speaks of the Eucharist as of a thing which nourisheth the Body and which may be divided into sundry parts which cannot be meant of the real Body of Jesus Christ but of his Sacrament which is called his Body be-because it hath the vertue of it for the nourishing of the Soul CHAP. XVI Of the State of the X. Century THe Tenth Age hath exercised of late years two good Writers and hath afforded matter and subject unto Authors which with much skill and industry each defending the cause of his party grappled a long time about this poor Age either to advance the credit of it or to shew the morosity ignorance and obscurity of it they both spoke very agreeably what they intended to say and having thereupon reflected sharply upon each other in the view of all France have not as yet decided their Controversie If I mistake not every body may see that I mean the Author of the Perpetuity of the Faith of the Eucharist and him that answered him The former having made a short Discourse which was to serve for a Preface unto the Office of the Holy Sacrament had not some reasons hindred the execution of this first design The latter at the desire of some Godly Friends undertook to make some Considerations upon this little Treatise and having in brief spoken of the X. Century as of an unfortunate ignorant Age overspread with Darkness and Errors according to the testimony of Historians The Author of the Perpetuity hath insisted upon this part of the considerations of his Adversary and hath employed all his endeavours to restore unto this Age all the Reputation and Glory that he thought it had been unjustly deprived of accusing the Ministers of disparaging it for interest sake The other was not silent but having fully vindicated his Brethren from the Accusation laid to their charge he proves by several Historians and of persons the most affectionate to the Latin
distribution of both Symbols separately in the latter Ages they came to administer the Bread in the Consecrated Wine so from the distributing the Eucharist steeped by little and little insensibly in some Churches of the West they gave the Communicants only the consecrated Bread a custom which in process of time introduced it self almost into all the Western Churches until that it was established in the year 1415. upon Saturday the 15. of June by this Decree of the Council of Constance Sess 13. t. 7. Concil part 2. p. 1042. This present holy general Council of Constance lawfully Assembled by the Holy Ghost declares discerns and defines that although Jesus Christ after Supper instituted and administred unto his Disciples this venerable Sacrament under both kinds of Bread and Wine yet nevertheless the commendable authority of holy Canons and the approved custom of the Church hath observed and doth observe that this Sacrament ought not to be celebrated after Supper nor to be received of Believers but fasting except in case of sickness or some other necessity allowed or admitted by Law or by the Church and in like manner that although in the Primitive Church Believers received the Sacrament under both kinds yet nevertheless to avoid certain perils inconveniencies and scandals this custom was fitly introduced that those who officiated should receive under both kinds and the Laity under the species of Bread only withall that they should firmly believe and nothing doubt that the intire Body of Christ and the Blood are truly contained as well under the species of Bread as under the species of Wine Therefore such a custom being reasonably introduced both by the Church and by the holy Fathers and that it was a long while observed it ought to pass for a Law which is not allowed to be rejected nor changed by every bodies fancy without the Authority of the Church Therefore they are to be judged erroneous that think it to be Sacrilegious or unjust to observe this custom or this Law and those who obstinately affirm the contrary of what is above said ought to be banished as Hereticks and severely punished by the Diocesans of the places or their Officials or by the Inquisitors of the Heretical evil in the Kingdoms or Provinces where by hazard or on purpose they have attempted or presumed any thing against this Decree according to the lawful Ordinances and Canons which have been seasonably made against Hereticks and their abettors against the Catholick Faith But notwithstanding the severity of this Decree Cassander hath left us upon Record in his Treatise of the Communion under both kinds formerly cited That it is read that Pope Martin the Fifth p. 1037 after the Council of Constance did practise in the solemn Office of Easter the Precept and Formulary of the Roman Order in giving the Communion unto the people under both kinds The same in the same place relates as from Thomas Waldensis That after the Synod of Constance the Pope of Rome did not forbear giving the Communion after the use of Rome that is to say under both kinds unto the Deacons the Ministers of the Altar and unto other persons eminent in Piety and Worth as also unto Rectors of places and considerable Monasteries his Brethren and unto others he thought worthy of so great a Gift He saith moreover That Cardinal Cusa in his Letter written unto the Clergy and learned Men of Bohemia Anno 1452. some years after the Council of Basle declares That until very near his time the Pope at the Feast of Easter suffered the Laity unto whom he had with his own hands given the Body of the Lord to receive the Blood from the hands of the Deacons And that Nicholas of Palerma who assisted at the Council of Basle saith That the opinion of Doctors is That it would not be ill done that the Communicant should also receive the Blood This Council of Basle whereat this Archbishop was present granted unto the Bohemians the Communion under both kinds provided that in all other things they should conform unto the Church of Rome and that they would instruct them to believe that Jesus Christ was contained wholly under the one and the other species All those who are any thing read in the History of those times know that those of Bohemia who differed nothing from the Church of Rome but only in the matter of the Communion under both kinds were called for that reason Calixtins different from the true Taborites but so 't is as it appears by a Letter from George Pogiebrac King of Bohemia that these Calixtins did not quietly enjoy this Grant for in this Letter which was written in the year 1468. and for which we are obliged unto Dom Luke d'Achery T. 4. Spicileg p. 413 414 415. a Benedictine Monk this Prince declares himself plainly to be a Calixtin That he was bred up in this manner of Communicating under both kinds That his Father Mother and Grand-mother had so practised That the Council of Basle had granted Liberty of it unto his Subjects not by way of permission as the Church sometimes tolerates Sins but to the end it should be allowed by the Authority of our Lord Jesus Christ and of our holy Mother the Church his Spouse That in all other things he agrees with the Church of Rome so that it appears by this apologetical Letter which he writes unto Matthias King of Hungary his Son-in-Law that he only desired liberty of Communicating under both kinds as he had been taught by his Father and Grandfather and I doubt not but a part of this Apology will in convenient time and place give sufficient ground for making a clear and certain Judgement of the Belief of the ancient Taborites upon the point of the Eucharist But after all these changes happened at sundry times the Council of Trent in the 21. Session being the Fifth under Pope Pius IV. Anno 1562. the 16. of July after having spoken of the Authority which the Church hath alwaies had in the dispensation of Sacraments to change in time and place what she thought fit the substance still remaining intire it adds Sess 21. c. 2. 3. de doctr That therefore the Holy Mother the Church being sensible of this wholsom Authority in the administration of Sacraments although that at the beginning of Christian Religion the use of both kinds was frequent nevertheless in process of time this custom being changed it was introduced for wise and solid reasons to approve this custom of communicating under one kind and hath commanded it to pass into a Law which shall not be allowed to be alter'd or laid aside at pleasure without the Authority of the same Church And in the following Chapter which is the Third of Doctrine It declares moreover That though our Redeemer as it is said in his last Supper instituted this Sacrament under both kinds and gave it unto his Apostles Yet it must be confessed that Jesus Christ intirely and
Greeks unto the Pope to see after what manner he was to sign it and that he commanded them to hear the discourse which the Bishop of Nice would make and that he no sooner began to speak but Cardinal Julian bid the Protonotary write and as this Bishop spake by order of the Emperor and drew near the end of his discourse he bid him speak touching the mystical Sacrifice saying Id. ibid. c. 8. p. 293. What the Roman Church believeth touching the Consecration of Divine Gifts or Oblations we believe also viz. That the Divine words of our Saviour Take eat This is my Body drink ye all of this This is my Blood are those which sanctifie and consecrate them herein we agree with you yet we say also that the Priest doth contribute thereunto as the Husband-man by his Labour contributes unto the production of the Fruits of the Earth but we refer the whole unto these words of our Saviour and are therein of the same opinion with you Let us now hear what the Historian saith unto this discourse of the Bishop of Nice who spoke so well that he obtained a Cardinals Cap and was afterwards sufficiently known by the name of Cardinal Bessarion Ibid. p. 293 294. It was saith the Historian the design and scope of the Cardinal of Nice to deliver himself in the Eloquence of a great Orator as if he had spoke in the name of all although we knew nothing of it and that we had not given our consent unto what he had spoke for it was all made up of Artifice and cunning and the Latins demanded this speech might be inserted in the Decree of the union which the Emperor refused absolutely to yield unto he feared that being returned unto Constantinople he should give occasion unto those that had a mind to talk that he had overthrown the Divine Liturgy which the great St. Basil and the Divine Chrysostom had left having received it of James the Brother of the Lord. But the Latins being earnest and desiring to have our consent in writing touching this Article the Emperor so ordered the matter that the Bishop of Nice should repeat these matters before the Pope some of our men being also present as if they had been come from the whole Assembly of the Greeks which being written by the Latins were published in all their Provinces which was done by force and surprise and contrary unto our knowledge see here with what sincerity what advice liberty and concord things were carried It was then after this manner things passed at Florence upon the Article of the manner of consecrating of the Eucharist which makes good what we have said That the Greek Church hath retained unto this day the custom of consecrating by Prayers and Supplications Let us now to reassume our discourse say That if some of the antient Doctors of the Church made the Consecration of the Symboles depend on the pronouncing of these words This is my Body it is of the number of those which have declared in favour of the Consecration by Prayer as for Instance St. Chrysostome and some others with him and in this case that they should not jar amongst themselves it may be said they have not attributed the Consecration unto these words This is my Body but as unto words declaring what was before befaln unto the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist for it is often said that a thing is done when it is declared that it hath been done or it may also be said That they considered these words as containing a promise of God whereby he tacitly accompanies with his Blessing and his Grace the Prayers which are addressed unto him for the Consecration of the Sacrament But if the Fathers who attributed the Consecration unto these words This is my Body are not of the number of those who have already declared in favour of a Consecration by the vertue of Prayer of necessity their thoughts must be interpreted after the manner as hath been said or freely confess that they have digressed from the common Road and that so their testimonies are not to be received nor allowed against so constant and so universal a tradition For in these rencounters we ought to follow the advice given unto us by Vincentius Lerinensis Common If sometimes the different opinion of one or a few more that are deceived rise up and thwart the received opinion of all or of a greater number of Catholicks the rashness of one or of a few ought to be opposed in the first place by the general Decrees of an universal Council if there be any in the second place if there be none That the Opinion of several great Doctors be followed who agree together For as he saith a little after Ibid. Whatsoever a private person believes more than others or against others were he Doctor Bishop Confessor Martyr let them be accounted as low opinions proper to himself hidden and private and let it not be owned to have the authority of an opinion commonly publickly and generally received Arcudius a Greek Latinized doth not differ much from the thoughts of Vincentius when speaking of the manner and form of Consecration L. 3. de concoâ—d c. 31. he saith It seems indeed there is some discord amongst the holy Fathers but those which seem obscure must be explained by those which are clear joyn the lesser number unto the greater and follow the judgment of the most considerable the most learned and of those which are much of the greatest number which words Goar finds much to his liking In Euchol p. 140. saying That Arcudius gave an advice which indeed was short but very discreet and convenient But that nothing might be wanting unto this Observation and that we may the better understand the nature of this Consecration and the great consequence of it let us compare the Consecration of Pagans unto that of Christians for many times these sorts of Comparisons do tend very much to the clearing of matters in question The Pagans called Consecration a certain Formulary whereby their Priests caused the Divinity which they adored to be present in his Image and this Formulary was nothing but certain precise and formal words whereby they thought to operate this presence in the Images which were made for that purpose Wherefore Tertullian told them in his Apology These Images are of the same matter with our Pans and Kettles Apol. c. 12. Minut. in Oct. but they change their fate by Consecration And Minutius Felix See it is melted forged wrought and is not yet a God see it is polished built erected and is no God see here it is beautified consecrated invoked and then 't is God when Men would have it so and do dedicate it Origen in his Books against Celsus upon these words of the 95th Psalm and according to the Hebrew the 96th L. 7. p. 378 ult Edit All the Gods of the Nations are but Devils That appears saith
their first Shape and in their first Form and are visible and palpable as they were before Pope Gelasius at the end of the fifth Century Certainly saith he the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ which you receive are something that is divine whence also it is that by them we are made Partakers of the Divine Nature and nevertheless they still retain the Nature and Substance of Bread and Wine It was also the Judgment of Ephraim Patriarch of Antioch in the sixth Age Ephraem Anâ—tâ—och apud Phoc. cod 229. The Body of Jesus Christ saith he which Believers receive doth not forsake the outward Substance and hold inseparably unto the inward Grace And that it may not be question'd that he spake of the Sacrament of his Body he adds the same of Baptism saying that it preserves just as the Eucharist doth the outward Form and the inward and spiritual Grace And Baptism Id. ibid. saith he being wholly spiritual and being but one keeps the propriety of its sensible Form that is to say Water and loseth not what it was made A Council of the East assembled at Constantinople Anno 754 declares Concil Const in Act. Nicaeâ— 2. Act. 6. That Jesus Christ commanded us to offer the Image of his Body a Thing chosen to wit the Substance of Bread Ahyto Bishop of Basil Walafridus Straho Ratran will teach the same Doctrine in the ninth Century Ratherius Bishop of Verona in the tenth and the Taborites of Bohemia in the fifteenth Yet it must be confessed there is to be found in the Writings of the Antients a Passage where the Author be he who he will seems to differ from this Belief universally received by the Church in his Time it is in an Easter Sermon attributed unto Caesarius Bishop of Arles who lived in the sixth Century although it be not certain whether it be his or not but so 't is that in this Sermon amongst other things it is said Cesar Hom. 1. de Pasch That the invisible Priest he means Jesus Christ changeth by the secret Power of his Word the visible Creatures into the Substance of his Body and Blood Some would answer that the private Opinion of Caesarius should not take place against the many Testimonies above alledged not being just that one should be preferred before so many the greater part whereof were nothing inferiour unto Caesarius in Dignity and Learning and some surpassed him both in one and the other as St. Chrysostom and Pope Gelasius others in Dignity at least as St. Ephraim Patriarch of Antioch not to mention his Learning which in all likelihood was nothing short of Caesarius if he were truly the Authour of the Sermon which we examine and others in fine in Learning as Theodoret whose Light and Knowledg was incomparably greater and they would not fail here to apply that Maxime of Vincentius Lyrinensis Vincent Lyrinens common already cited in the beginning of this History If sometimes the different Opinion of one Person or of some few which are deceived rise up in opposition against the Consent of all Id. ibid. or at least of much the greater Number of Catholicks Against the Obstinacy of one or of a few more should first be opposed the Decree of an universal Council if there be any Secondly if there are none let the Opinion of several great Doctors that do agree amongst themselves be followed for saith he whatsoever is believed by one particular Person above or against what is received and allowed by all be he Saint Doctor Bishop Confessor or Martyr let it be reputed a low peculiar and close Thing private and particular to himself and let it not have the Authority of an Opinion commonly publickly and generally received This is what several might answer unto this Difficulty and their Answer would not be contemptible Others think more kindness may be shew'd unto Caesarius in reconciling him with the rest rather than reject him for they conceive this Act of Humanity is due unto an Author to give a favourable Construction to his Words and not to make him clash with the Opinion generally received which ought especially take place in things that regard the essential Parts of Piety and Religion because in those Things without endangering our Salvation we cannot separate from the Belief which hath been always received in the Church of God Let us see then how they would reconcile Caesarius with those other glorious Witnesses above-mentioned It may easily be done say they if you consider that the Fathers often speak as Caesarius did although they only understand a Change of Quality which befals the Substance wherein this change is made Tertul. cont Marc. l. 3. l. 1. ad Uxor though nevertheless it is not changed it self for instance Tertullian said That we shall be changed into an Angelical Substance instead of saying that we shall be changed into an Angelical Quality as he elsewhere explains himself So Eusebius said of the Soul of Helen Mother of Constantin the great Euseb de vita Constant l. 3. cap. 46. that she was transformed into an incorruptible and Angelical Substance to signify that she had acquired Angelical Qualities in respect whereof she might assume the Name of Angelical Substance So St. Austin Aug. in Psal 68. Hom. 1. By Sin Man fell from the Substance wherein he was made nevertheless Man continues to be Man but because he lost the Righteousness and Holiness which beautified and adorned his Nature he made no difficulty of saying so And St. Peter Chrysologus speaking of the change hapned in the human Nature of Christ by the Refurrection Chrysolog Hom. 82. saith that our Lord changed Substance which is not true but in regard of Qualities But to come nearer the Sacraments all Christians generally confess that the Water of Baptism doth not lose its Substance Tertull. de Baptism yet that hinders not but Tertullian calls Baptism a divine Substance because the Waters of Baptism receiving by Consecration the Holiness which they had not they are said in some fort to pass into the divine Substance it being reasonable that the Subject should derive its Name from its best and most noble part What then may hinder but Caesarius might say in a good sense of the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament That Jesus Christ doth change them into the Substance of his Body and Blood although the Bread and Wine keep their Substance because he makes them pass into the efficacy of his own Flesh as St. Cyril of Alexandria speaks Certainly it ought not to be thought strange if they consider that Pope Gelasius who wrote about 50 Years before Caesarius Gelaf de duab nat Christ that the Substance or Nature of Bread and Wine still remains as we but now heard for all that saith that the Bread and Wine pass into a divine Substance because the Consecration gives them a heavenly and divine virtue by reason whereof
time the utter ruin of it there being no likelihood that being so powerfully opposed as it was it should ever do any harm whereas should they have set about censuring and condemning it publickly it might be feared lest it might recover strength because 't is often seen that persons grow stubborn against Reproofs and more earnestly desiring the things that are forbidden use their utmost skill and power to obtain the Enjoyment These as is supposed were the reasons and motives of the Conduct of these two Popes in regard of the Opinion of Paschas in not condemning him publickly although they did not also approve of him But it was not so of the other Opinion for they plainly did see that the Belief of the Enemies of Paschas was a Belief publickly received by all the World in France in Germany in England and elsewhere and moreover approved by the most learned Men of the Age publickly vindicated by Writings supported by the Authority of the most eminent Princes and Prelates They could not then be ignorant of the danger the Church was in if this Belief were not Catholick nor this Doctrine Orthodox And not being ignorant of it it had been Charity and the duty also of Nicholas and Adrian to have taken notice of it and to have redressed it for the case was not of two or three Friars which Paschas had drawn unto his Opinion but of the greatest part of the West which was over-spread with the Opinion of his Adversaries Had it been an Heretical and Heterodox Opinion and a Doctrine contrary unto the Faith of the Church it cannot be said but these Popes had Credit and Power enough to have opposed themselves For besides that every body knows the Popes had already acquired great Power over the Western Churches wherein they easily caused their Constitutions to be received the Bishops not daring much to oppose the Execution of their Decrees although they found them not always agreeable unto the ancient Canons Besides this I say who knows not but they might at least have protested against so pernicious an Opinion have opposed what they could unto its Settlement and earnestly exhorted the Prelates to stop the course and progress of so dangerous a Doctrine to have used Anathema's and Excommunications against the Promoters of it thereby to have discouraged others Yet nevertheless it is most certain they did no such thing Is it not then a manifest sign that they themselves were of this Belief and that they acknowledged that this Doctrine is the very same whereof the Church had ever been in peaceable Possession until Paschas came to disturb her in the Enjoyment of her Paternal Inheritance These are the Inferences made by Protestants from the Silence of these two Popes They say the thing will appear yet plainer if we consider the temper of Nicholas the First and the occasions he had as also Adrian the Second to take notice of the Doctrine of the Adversaries of Paschas Nicholas the First was a learned Man for that Age a daring and undertaking Man who very much advanced the Dignity of his See unto the prejudice of other Churches France felt the effects of his Policy and Power in that he obtained the Right of assembling Councils which the Kings were wont to do before that he gave a very great Assault unto the little power that its Prelates had remaining and that he began to make them receive the Decretals of the first Popes which had been forged by some Impostor about the time of Charlemain 'T is only necessary to read what the late Monsieur de Marca hath said in his Books of the Liberties of the Gallican Church Marca de concord l. 3. c. 5 6. l. 6. c. 28. l. 7. c. 23. to see what kind of a person Nicholas the First was and what Attempts he made against the Prelates of France and their Synods Nevertheless I do not find that ever he touched the point of the Eucharist although he had occasion either to have reproved their shameful Compliance or their Error For example In the difference he had with the Bishops of France first upon account of Walfad and some other Clerks which had been established by Ebbo Archbishop of Rheims after his Deposition and Re-establishment which was no way Canonical and whose Ordination was esteemed void in a Council of Soissons in the Year 853. And secondly upon the Subject of Rothard Bishop of Soissons who had been deposed by the French Prelates Nicholas informing himself of both these matters and forcing our Bishops to comply with his desires even to the prejudice of their Liberties and of their remaining Authority as those know very well that have any knowledge of the History of those times without reciting here the particularities of it It need only be said That if the Belief of Nicholas upon the point of the Sacrament had been different from that of the Adversaries of Paschas it is likely that these two Conjunctures of matters had offered him two fair occasions of reproaching them That as they made no difficulty of breaking the Canons in deposing of Clerks and Bishops for they thought so otherwise he could have had no pretext for re-establishing of them so also they feared not violating the Rule of Faith in so important a point as is that of the Sacrament either in embracing themselves a new Belief or in suffering it to get ground to the prejudice of the ancient Doctrine of the Church which Paschas had clearly explained Is it likely that Pope Nicholas who was a very learned politick and prudent Man should have forgot to have made them this Reproach in the differences he had with them thereby to have loaden them with shame and with the more plausible shew of Justice to have deprived them of their Rights and Privileges in shewing unto all the World that they had made themselves unworthy of them because they see the ancient Faith of Christians ruined without making any opposition by the establishing of a new Doctrine which insinuated it self into the minds of all Men and which was already generally received in all places It cannot be believed Nicholas would have been silent in these occasions if the Opinion of Paschas had been the first Belief of the Church and that of his Adversaries a new Opinion which they endeavoured to settle in the place of the Old Moreover we have made appear in the precedent Chapter that Heribold Bishop of Auxerr was Principal Chaplain unto Charles the Bald that he could not be so without the consent not only of the Synod but also of the Pope that is either of Nicholas the First or of Adrian the Second for in all likelihood it must have been under one or the other of them And in fine that he had an Opinion contrary unto Paschas upon the Subject of the Eucharist and agreeable unto that of the Protestants Is it probable say some that Nicholas or Adrian would have suffered Charles