designed to ordain Reader Dominico interim legit nobis id est auspicatus est pacem dicit dedicat lectionem which Mr Rigaut did not understand no more than Mr Lombert who followed the Sentiment of Mr Rigaut in the fair and exact Translation which he hath given us of this Father 5. Upon the Letter of the Council of Antioch which condemned Paul of Samosatia 6. Upon the Tenth persecution which shall be found more exactly describ'd than in all the former Histories because Monsieur L'ARROQVE hath borrow'd great helps from Lactantius his Treatise de Mortibus Persecutorum published of late by Mr Baluze 7. De Sacerdotibus secundi Ordinis Archidiaconis 8. De Ordinibus ex quibus Episcopi sumebantur 9. De Epistolis Tractoriis 10. De Natura veteris Ecclesiae 11. De Energumenis c. 12. De Paenitentibus eorumque gradibus 13. De Antiquo ritu dimittendi ab Ecclesia Catechumenos Energumenos paenitentes 14. De dupliti Catechumenorum genere 15. De tempore quo obtinere caepit in Ecclesia orientali haec loquendi formula EPISCOPVS DEI GRATIA ET SEDES APOSTOLICAE 16. De pluralitate beneficiorum ut vulgo loquuntur 17. De Nudipedalibus As he from whom we expect these pieces of Ecclesiastical History is endow'd with much wit and learning it needs not be fear'd that they will in his hands lose any thing of their luster and beauty All we have hitherto said refers unto the Wisdom of Monsieur L'ARROQVE which indeed is a very vast and spacious Field but should we speak of the qualities of his Soul we should have much more matter to insist on He had a Soul so sincere as is scarcely to be found in this Age he without envy beheld the merits of other learned persons and esteemed their good qualities he was a great and strict observer of Discipline and contented not himself to declaim in the Pulpit against Vice in general but persecuted it in all places running the hazard of creating himself Enemies by the security of his life he preached by example and discover'd a true Christian Constancy in all the troubles of his life he discharged his Duty with so much exactness that he would never discontinue performing his Function during an Ague which held him ten Months after his being call'd to Saumur I say he would neither discontinue the Duties of his Ministry nor those of his studies although the Physitians told him that a distemper which often had fits of 36 hours would not be removed if he did not give himself some repose The Troubles of the Churches of France these last years were incomparably more grievous unto him than any particular Afflictions unto his own Family could have been and should these Misfortunes continue what Cicero said of another may be said of him Ii rempublicam casus sequuti sunt ut mihi non erepta L. Crasso a Diis immortalibus vita sed donata mors esse videatur THE HISTORY OF THE EUCHARIST PART I. Containing the exteriour Form of Celebration CHAP. I. Wherein is treated of the Matter of the Sacrament THE first thing that presents it self in the Celebration of the Eucharist is the matter of the Sacrament that is to say the Bread and Wine for three of the Evangelists and St. Paul testifie that Jesus Christ took Bread and a Cup wherein there was Wine and that he called the Wine the fruit of the Vine All the Holy Fathers unanimously avouch the same all the Liturgies which are come to our hands depose the same seeing we find these two Elements imployed in this mystery and the form of Celebration proposed unto us by St. Justin Martyr the Author of the Apostolical Constitutions St. Cyril of Jerusalem in his Mystagogicks the pretended Denis the Arcopagite in his Hierarchy and generally all those which have writ on this subject suffer us not to doubt of it as neither doth the defence which the Fathers and Councils have made of offering any thing else but Bread and Wine in celebrating the Sacrament Also all Christians generally agree herein therefore it would be superfluous to stand to prove it seeing the thing is clear and it is granted by all the World and all Christian Societies are agreed on this Subject It will only be necessary to consider that Jesus Christ which is the Wisdom of the Eternal Father and who never did any thing but with a Wisdom and Conduct worthy of himself did not chuse Bread and Wine to make them Symbols of his body and blood but that he was thereunto induced for considerable Reasons Nevertheless I will not now stand to examine the Reasons which obliged him to make this choice I refer that unto Divines whose drift it is to inquire into this matter it will serve our turn to say that our Saviour having a design by means of his Sacraments to raise up the minds of Christians unto the consideration of the comforts they find in his blessed Communion he made choice of Elements which had some likeness and relation unto those things which they were to signifie and represent as for Instance When he instituted the Sacrament of Baptism which is the Sacrament whereby we are born into his Church he made choice of water to be the sign and symbol of it because it is proper to represent the vertue of his Blood and of his Spirit for the purifying of our souls for as water hath the quality of cleansing our bodies from all uncleanness so also the Blood and Spirit of Jesus Christ have the vertue the force and efficacy of washing and purifying our souls from all filthiness and impurities therefore it is that the Apostle calls Baptism the washing of Regeneration â—it 3. that is of our New Birth and for that reason it is that he saith elsewhere Eph. 5. that Christ hath cleansed the Church by the washing of water by the Word in like manner when he instituted the Eucharist which is another Sacrament of his Covenant whereby he gives unto us life after having given us our being he chose Bread and Wine to represent unto us the vertue of his Sacrifice and of his Death and which is the food of our souls For as Bread Wine are food very proper for nourishing the body and for preserving this mortal and perishing life even so his Body broken and his Blood poured out do divinely feed and nourish our souls and do admirably preserve this heavenly and Spiritual life whereof we enjoy even here below some fore-tastes and first-fruits the accomplishment whereof we shall one day receive to our comfort in Heaven And it is in regard of this wonderful effect John 6. that his Flesh is meat indeed and his Blood is drink indeed and that those who eat this Flesh and drink this Blood have life everlasting and that they shall be raised unto glory and immortality in the last day Nevertheless it must be granted that the relation and resemblance which the
Continuator of Sigebert doth inform us Supplem Chron. Sigeb ad an 1124. We shall not now say any more because that upon another Subject we shall be forc'd to inlarge upon this History which plainly shews that the Devil doth not cease from time to time to make his Attempts against this great mystery of Christian Religion knowing very well that 't is one of the most precious pledges of our blessed Jesus a Divine and efficacious seal of his gracious Covenant and an illustrious Memorial of his Sacrifice and Death wherein we find immortality and life Wherefore having armed Hereticks to combate this Divine Sacrament some after one manner some after another he stirred up the Jews and others to take occasion from the Sacrament to reproach Christians some to say that they had reduced all the Service of their Religion unto an Oblation of Bread or at least that they had invented a new Oblation others that they were worshippers of Ceres and Bacchus and that they religiously adored those imaginary Deities In fine Rabbi Benjamin in S. Isidore of Damieta Isid Pelus l. 1. Ep. 401. urgeth this accusation against Christians That they had invented a new and strange Oblation in consecrating Bread unto God whereas the Law established Sacrifices in the Blood which S. Isidore doth not deny but only saith unto this Jew That he ought not to be ignorant That the Law it self consecrated the Shew-bread And others reproach the Orthodox in S. Austin That they served Ceres and Bacchus August contra Faust l. 20. c. 13. under pretence of the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist whereunto this holy Father only replies That although this be Bread and Wine yet they do nothing refer unto those Heathen Idols It may be collected from a certain place in Tertullian that the Pagans did calumniate Christians for that they celebrated their Mysteries with Bread steept in the Blood of a young Child a calumny occasioned in all likelihood by the abominations of the Gnosticks for I am not certain whether in Tertullian's time there were of those Pepusians which as S. Austin doth report made the Bread of their Eucharist with the Blood of a Child of a year old which they drew from the body of the innocent Infant by pricking it all over with a Needle or some such sharp Instrument Tertul. l. 2. ad Uxor c. 5. But see here what Tertullian writes unto his Wife touching one that had an unbelieving Husband The Husband shall not know what you eat in secret before all other meat and if he knows 't is Bread will not he conclude that 't is that there is so much stir about Upon which words the late Mr. Rigaut makes this observation in his Notes upon Tertullian When you take the Eucharist which you keep in your house shall he not know of it Will not he diligently inform himself what it is you eat in private before all other meat and if he knows it is Bread will not he presently say in himself That 't is that Bread which was said to be steept in the Blood of a little Child which Calumny at that time much troubled the Christians I said expresly that it seemeth it might be thus gathered from the words of this learned African for I would not positively affirm this Induction to be absolutely necessary especially when I consider that Tertâ—llian himself represents unto us the unbelieving Husband suspecting the Christian Wife to go about to poyson him Id. ibid. Will he saith he suffer these things without sighing and without being in doubt whether it be Bread or Poyson Therefore I leave the Reader at his liberty to incline unto which side he please But because a Kingdom divided against it self cannot stand as our Saviour saith in the Gospel and that nothing is more pernicious unto a State than civil and intestine Wars there 's no question to be made but the Devil thought considerably to advance his design when he as it were armed and stirred up the Greek Church against the Latin Church touching the nature and quality of the Bread of the Eucharist the Greeks affirming That it was Leavened and the Latins on the contrary contending for the use of Unleavened Bread It must be granted the Greeks were mistaken in affirming that Jesus Christ celebrated the Eucharist with Leavened Bread for it is certain that when he did celebrate it there was no Leaven at all suffered to be kept amongst the people of Israel Thence it is that the holy Scripture calls those days The days of unleavened Bread What likelihood was there then that our Saviour should use Leavened Bread in his Sacrament seeing there was none in all Judea and that the Jews were not permitted to have any But it also must be confessed that the Latins were not wholly without Blame to be so self-will'd or obstinate in employing unleavened Bread in their Eucharist under a pretence that Jesus Christ used it in his making a general Rule of a particular Occasion which ought not in reason to be insisted upon For inasmuch as our Saviour used unleavened Bread it was through the custom of the time which suffered him not to have any other seeing there was no other in the whole Country But in the main the design of the Son of God being to give us in the Symboles of his Sacrament a Figure of the vertue and efficacy of his Body broken and of his Blood shed for the nourishment of our Souls by the relation they have unto the vertue of these two Elements for the nourishing our Bodies it is very evident that he would have the same Bread used to make his Eucharist and the same Wine which were commonly used for the preserving of life so that if there were any Christian Nation found which used Bread without Leven for their ordinary Food there is no question to be made but they may be permitted to use it for the celebration of the Sacrament and that they ought to make use of it But in all Countreys where Leavened Bread is used for the feeding of Men no other should be sought after for the Sacrament If the Bread be the Sacrament of the Body of Christ it is not so as leavened or unleavened but only as it is Bread fit to nourish us and as broken to represent unto us the painful Death of our Saviour upon the Cross therefore it is that it ought to be used according to the diversity of the places where one resides I say that no other Bread should be used in the Celebration of the Eucharist but the same Bread which is eaten for our common Food and when I say that the Latins are not wholly without blame in so scrupuloully observing the use of unleavened Bread I do not regard it simply but in respect of what hath been practised some Ages past for they used leavened Bread in their Sacrament a great while as other Christian Communions did the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist
have always the Sacrament ready to Communicate Sick Folks be they old or young that they may not dye without Communicating Gautier Bishop of Orleans prescribes the same unto his Priests in his Capitularies of the year 869. And Riculfe Bishop of Soissons unto his in the year 889. proving the necessity of Communicating Infants which he will have to be given presently after Baptism by the same words whereby S. Austin proves it The Book of Divine Offices called the Roman Order was written as some think at the end of the Eighth Century or the beginning of the Ninth and as others think in the Eleventh In that Book this Decree is to be seen Ord. Rom. t. 10. Bibl. Pat. p. 84. Care is to be taken that young Children receive no Food after they are Baptized and that they should not give them Suck without great necessity untill they have participated of the Body of Christ Greg. lib. Sac. p. 73. Nevertheless in S. Gregory's time it was not forbidden to give them Suck but at the end of the Eleventh and beginning of the Twelfth Centuries this pity was shewed unto these poor Infants and for the difficulty there was in making them swallow Bread they were communicated with the blessed Wine only Pasch 2. Ep. 32. t. 7. conc patr 1. p. 530. So it was enjoined by Pope Paschal the Second who succeeded unto Vrban the Second Anno 1099. according to Cardinal Bellarmin's computation and this custom continued after his death as Hugh of S. Victor testifies who lived in the Twelfth Century in his Ecclesiastical Books of Ceremonies Sacraments Offices and Observations L. 1. c. 20. t. 10. Bibl. Pat. p. 1376. Vnto Children new born saith he must be administred with the Priest's Finger the Sacrament in the species of blood because such in that state do naturally suck And he saith It must be so done according to the first Institution of the Church he laments the Ignorance of Priests who saith he retaining the form and not the thing give unto them Wine instead of Blood which he wished might be abolished if it could be done without offending the ignorant Nevertheless this practice of giving a little Wine unto young Children after Baptism continued a long time in divers parts of the Western Church Lindan Panop l. 4. c. 25. as appears by the words of Hugh of S. Victor and some have observed that not much above one hundred years ago the same thing was used and practised in the Church of Dordrecht in Holland Apud Arcad. de concord l. 3. c. 40. before it embraced the Protestant Reformed Religion In fine Simon of Thessalonica Cabasilas Jeremy Patriarch of Constantinople and Gabriel of Philadelphia also defend this necessity of Communicating not only of persons of discretion but also of young Children This Tradition thus established there only rests to finish this Chapter to speak something touching the words of the Distributer and of the Communicant When the Lord gave unto the Disciples the Sacrament of Bread he said This is my Body and in giving them the Symbole of Wine This is my Blood or this Cup is the New Testament in my Blood but we do not find that the Apostles said any thing In Justin Martyr's time Apolog. 2. the Distributer nor the Communicant said nothing but the Deacons gave unto the Believers Bread and Wine which had been consecrated Serom. l. 1. p. 271. and it may be collected from Clement of Alexandria that it was so practised at the end of the Second Century Some time after it was said unto the Communicants in giving them the Sacrament the Body of Christ the Blood of Christ and the Receivers answered Amen as may be read in the Apostolical Constitutions S. Ambrose S. Cyril of Jerusalem S. Austin and elsewhere but it must also be observed that they said unto them Ye are the Body of Christ and that unto these words they answered Amen as they had answered in receiving the Sacrament as is restified by S. Austin in his Sermon unto the new Baptized in S. Fulgentius In the days of Gregory the First and after they said in distributing the Eucharist The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ keep ye unto Life everlasting The Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ redeem ye unto Life everlasting But I do not find that Believers answered so punctually Amen Such Liberty the Church hath used in this circumstance of distributing the Sacrament Amongst the Greeks they say unto the Communicant In Euchol p. 83. Servant of God you do Communicate of the holy Body and precious Blood of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in remission of Sins and unto Life everlasting But 't is time to consider the things which were given unto Believers when they did participate of the Sacrament and it is wherein we will employ the following Chapter CHAP. XII Of the things distributed and received WHat was distributed unto Believers in Communicating were the things which had been Blessed and Consecrated to be made the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of our Lord. I will not now examine the change which Consecration may thereunto bring this not being the place to treat of the Doctrine of the holy Fathers which shall appear in the second part of this Treatise it will suffice here to enquire if Christians have always participated of both Symboles and if they have ever been permitted to Communicate under both kinds as is spoken or under one kind only As for the Symbole of Bread it is an undoubted truth that it hath always been given to Believers in all Christian Communions in the whole world and there hath never been any contest on this subject at least in what regards the thing it self I mean the matter of fact not to speak of the difference touching the quality of the Bread which ought to be used in this Mystery The greatest difficulty then is to know the practice of the Church in the species of Wine we are indispensably forced to treat of the Communion under both kinds and to lay before the Readers eyes the practice of Christians with the changes and innovations which have therein happened Jesus Christ who distributed the Bread unto his Apostles gave unto them also the Cup and expresly commanded them all to drink of it as S. Matthew hath written S. Mark hath said that they all drank of it The Christians immediately following the Apostles practised the very same but because it would make a whole Volume to collect the passages of the Ancients to prove the certainty of this matter and besides both Roman Catholicks as well as Protestants confess That Jesus Christ did institute this Sacrament under both kinds That the Apostles taught so and that it was so practised by the primitive Church for a long time as I think it may suffice to prove this Tradition from age to age by some of the clearest passages and to follow it until its abolishing at the Council of
it and in saying of the Wine that it is his Blood who will question it and who will say it is not his Blood Ibid. He teacheth him that the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ and the Wine his Blood but to the end that he should not stagger at it Ibid. he conducts him unto the Metaphorical and Figurative Sense when he saith in the same place The Body is given unto you in the Figure of Bread and the Blood in the Type of Wine And if he saith unto him besides That we shall be Bearers of Christ when we have his Body and Blood distributed into our Members See here what he adds to let him see how that is done Jesus Christ said unto the Jews If you eat not my Flesh and drink my Blood you have no Life in you But they not understanding it spiritually were offended and forsook him thinking that he would have them eat human Flesh The old Law also had Shew-bread which are not now used because they appertained unto the ancient Dispensation but under the new the heavenly Bread and the Cup of Salvation sanctifieth both Body and Soul for as the Bread regards the Body so also the Word doth regard the Soul In fine he gives also this other Instruction unto his Neophyte Hold for certain that the Bread which is seen Id. ibid. p. 2â—9 is not Bread although the Relish judgeth it to be Bread but believe that it is the Body of Jesus Christ and that the Wine which is seen is not Wine although the Taste think so but that it is the Blood of Jesus Christ These Words already begin to inform him That there is Bread and Wine in the Sacrament and that the Sight and Taste do both testifie the same the Infallibility and Certainty of which Testimony the Fathers have asserted But because St. Cyril's Design in so speaking unto him was to instruct him that he should not look upon them as bare Bread and bare Wine but as the efficacious Sacraments of the Divine Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Id. P. 237. which they fail not to communicate unto those who worthily participate of them He told him a little before Do not consider them as bare Bread and Wine for by these Words he plainly presupposeth that it is Bread and Wine as he presupposeth elsewhere that it is Water and Oyl when he saith of Baptism Do not look at the bare Water Id. Catech. 3. illum p. 16. Mystag 3. p. 235. consider not this Washing as of common Water beware of thinking that it is common Oyl Thence it is that he likens the Change which happens unto the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist by Consecration unto what befals the Oyl of Chrism by Benediction to the end his Catechumeny may be perswaded that it is a Change of the same Nature Id. Mystag 3. p. 235. As saith he the Bread of the Sacrament after the Invocation of the Holy Ghost is no longer common Bread but the Body of Jesus Christ So also this holy Chrism is not bare Oyl or if it may be so said common after Invocation but it is a Gift and Grace of Jesus Christ And to compleat this Instruction Id. Mystag 5. p. 244. he tells him in the fifth Catechism you hear a Divine Melody which to invite you to the Communion of the holy Mysteries sings these Words Taste and see how good the Lord is Think you that you are commanded to make this Tryal with the Mouth of the Body not at all but rather with an undoubted Faith which changeth not for you are not bid to taste the Bread and Wine but the Antitype or the Figure of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ As St. Cyril ended his Course St. Gaudentius was called to the Bishoprick of Bressia in Italy he also composed a kind of Catechism for his Neophytes Gaudent tract 2. de rat Sacram Bibl. Patr. t. 2. p. 14. wherein he speaks unto them after this manner In the shadow of the Legal Passover there was not one but several Lambs slain there was one slain for every House one alone not being sufficient for all the People because it was the Figure and not the Passion it self of our Lord. The Figure is not the Substance but the Imitation of the Truth In this Truth then whereof we are perswaded one died for all and the same being offered in all the Churches doth nourish in or by the Mystery of Bread and Wine being believed he vivifies and being consecrated he sanctifies those which consecrate it is the Flesh of the Lamb it is his Blood for the Bread which came down from Heaven said the Bread which I will give is my Flesh and I will give it for the Life of the World and his Blood is also well expressed by the Species of Wine because when himself saith in the Gospel I am the true Vine he sufficiently declares that all the Wine offered in the Figure of his Passion is his Blood In this whole Discourse he teacheth them in the Death of Jesus Christ to search the Body and Substance of what had been prefigured by the Lambs of the Jews and if he speaks unto them of offering it again he intended not to understand it of a real Immolation because all Christians have always believed and all do still believe that Jesus Christ was never truly sacrificed but upon the Cross and that he cannot be any more sacrificed because he cannot die again They might then easily understand that St. Gandentius spake unto them of an improper Sacrifice which consists in the Representation of that which was made on the Cross For 't is in this Sense St. Aug. Ep. 23. Gaud. Serm. 19. p. 72. Austin saith That he is every day offered in Sacrament and in Figure And Gaudentius himself That we offer the Sufferings of the Passion of Jesus Christ in Figure of his Body and of his Blood Besides in telling them that he is immolated who was consecrated He plainly shews them that it is done not in the Person of Jesus Christ but in his Sacrament else he should have instilled into these Catechumenes two Doctrines which would directly contradict Christian Piety one is That Jesus Christ is less than him that consecrates him Cyril Alex. de Trin. dial 6. p. 558 t. 5. Heb 7.7 For as St. Cyril of Alexandria saith What is sanctified is sanctified by a greater and more excellent thing than it is by Nature according to what is said by the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews that which is less is blessed by the greater The other is That Jesus Christ should not have been always holy For as the same Cyril again saith Id. ibid. p. 595. Reason will absolutely perswade us to say That that which is said to be sanctified hath not ever been holy Therefore our Gaudentius declares unto them in the same Catechism That Jesus Christ commanded to offer the
deceived that it hapned about they year 630. Hist Miscel l. 18. And because Anastatius wrote some time after there being yet in Egypt an Augustal Prefect it necessarily follows that he wrote about the year 637. And before the year 639. Hist Sarac in Omar that the Sarrazins entring into Egypt expelled the Augustal Prefect and made themselves Masters of the Country Which being granted the Reader may please to take notice that this Anastatius of whom we speak disputing against the Hereticks which held that the Body of Christ could not suffer from the first moment of his Conception brings in the Orthodox making this question to the Heretick Annasâ—at Sin in cap. 23. Tell me I pray the Communion of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ which you offer and whereof you are partakers is it the true Body and Blood of Jesus Christ or common Bread as that which is sold in Markets or only a Figure of the Body of Jesus Christ as the Sacrifice of the Goat offered by the Jews Whereunto the Heretick having answered God forbid we should say that the Holy Communion is the Figure of the Body of Jesus Christ or bare Bread Anastatius replies We believe it to be so and confess it according to Christ's words to his Disciples when in the Mystical Supper he gave them the Bread of Life saying Take Eat this is my Body He also gave them the Cup saying This is my Blood He said not this is the Figure of my Body and Blood He is the first that deviated from the usual Expressions and that denied what all the holy Fathers before him had affirmed and some also after him as we have shewed in the Third Chapter of this Second Part And have shewn that these holy Fathers testifie That when our Lord gave his Eucharist to his Apostles he gave them the Figure of his Body Anastatius then denying what the others affirmed according to the Maxim of Vincentius Lirinensis his Opinion should be rejected as an Opinion private and peculiar to himself and we are firmly and constantly to hold and embrace the publick and universal Belief but because the words of Authors are favourably to be interpreted at least as much as may be some say it should be so done towards Anastatius and that 't is easie to give a good sense unto what he said He declares the Eucharist is the true Body and Blood of Jesus Christ he saith nothing as they think that being rightly understood but is very reasonable because it is most certain that the Sacrament is unto the faithful Soul instead of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ that he truly communicates unto him this broken Body and this Blood poured out for his Consolation and Salvation and that it is changed as St. Cyril of Alexandria speaks into the Efficacy of his Body If Anastatius say they erred in rejecting the word Sign and Figure the Fathers both before and after him having used it it cannot be believed that he hath changed any thing in the ground of the Doctrine they think so for several reasons in the first place he saith it is not simple Bread as is sold in the Markets for thus speaking is to acknowledge that it is Bread which by Consecration hath acquired the quality of an Efficacious and Divine Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ of whom for that reason it takes the name as it hath the virtue and efficacy in its lawful use as when the Fathers say of the Waters of Baptism and the Oyl of Chrisin Cyril Hieros Catech. 3. illum Mystag 3. that it is not common Water and common Oyl they deny not that it is Water and Oyl they only mean that it is Water and Oyl sanctified to be the Symboles of the washing and purifying our Souls by the Blood of Jesus Christ and by the Vertue of the Holy Ghost Secondly He declares that it is not a Figure as the Sacrifice of the Goat which the Jews offered that is a Type and Figure without efficacy and vertue having taken this name of Type and Figure for a Legal Figure and without Operation in which sense it is true that the Communion is not a Figure and bare Type destitute of the truth like the Types and Figures of the Law whereof he produceth an Example in the Sacrifice of the Goat In the third place he speaks of a Body of the Lord Which being kept in a Vessel corrupts in few days Id. Anast Ibid. c. 23. changeth and quite altereth of a Body and Blood which as he saith in another Chapter of the same Treatise may be broken divided Id. c. 13. Ibid. c. 13. and distrihuted in parcels broken with the Teeth changed poured out and drank And in the same Chapter he saith That the Body and Blood distributed unto the People saying The Body and Blood of our Lord God and Saviour is a Visible Body created and taken from the Earth They conclude then that if there was imprudence in his expressions there was no Error in his Doctrine and they are very much confirmed in this Opinion which I freely remit unto the judgment of others if they consider the Doctrine had received no Opposition in the East nor West Maxim in Nol. Dionys Arcop pag. 68. 75. 69. not in the East because in the time Anastatius wrote in his Desert Maximius Abbot of Constantinople whose Name was more famous and his Doctrine more eminent taught That the holy Bread and Cup of Benediction are Signs and sensible Symbols or Types of true things Symbols and not the truth that the things of the Old Testament were the Types those of the New Testament are the Antitypes but that the truth shall be in the state of the World to come This Author faithfully retains the ancient Expressions and Doctrine of those which went before him and he thus defines the word Symbol Id. in Interp. vocum The Symbol is a sensible thing taken for an intelligible thing as the Bread and Wine are taken for the Divine and immaterial Food Not in the West because in the same Age Anastatius lived Isid Hispal de Offic. Eccl. l. 1. c. 18. St. Isidor of Sevil said That the Bread which we break is the Body of Jesus Christ that the Wine is his Blood that the Bread is called his Body Id. Origin l. 6. c. 19. because it strengthens the Body that the Wine resembles the Blood of Jesus Christ because it creates blood in the body Id. voca c. 26. de alleg in Genes c. 12. And that these two things which be visible pass into a Sacrament of the Divine Body being Sanctified by the Holy Ghost That by the Commandment of the Lord we call the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ that which being made of the fruits of the Earth is sanctified and becomes a Sacrament by the Invisible Operation of the Holy Ghost Id. in Genes
At Troys is solemnized the memory of St. Prudens Bishop and Confessor this Saint was born in Spain endowed with Divine Graces and Illustrious by his Zeal for Religion and his knowledge of the Holy Scriptures having been driven out of Spain by the Saracens and being come into France he drew the Admiration and Love of all men therefore after the Death of Adelbert Bishop of Troys whither he had retired himself and had given proofs of his Vertue and Merit he was Elected and appointed the 37th Bishop of that Church by the common consent of the Clergy and People being so advanced unto the Episcopal Dignity he shined like a Light set in a Candlestick not unto this Church alone but also throughout all France by the example of a most holy Life and by the splendour of Divine Wisdom he was the Ornament and Delight of the Bishops of his time a Defender of the Purity of the Faith and an Oracle of Ecclesiastical Knowledge As for the Deacon Florus he hath transmitted unto us himself evidences of his belief in his Explication of the Mass at least if that be the work of this Florus Deacon of the Church of Lyons who in this Explication is styâ—â—â— Master Florus for Trithemius attributes this little Treatise whereof we speak unto one Florus a Benedictine Friar in the Abby of Trom in the Country of Liege and others make its Author to be the Deacon Florus that wrote against Amalarius and against John Scot upon the Subject of Predestination This latter Opinion seems the most likely and the reason which makes me not to doubt of it is that I observe the Author of this Interpretation of the Mass hath copied ten lines verbatim out of the Book which Agobard Bishop of Lyons under Lewis the Debonair Son of Charles the Bald wrote against Amalarius Vid. Flor. Bibl. Patr. t. 6. edit ult p. 171. unde Eccles c. Et Agobard contr Amalar. c. 13. p. 115. Florus in Exposit Missae Bibl. Patr. t. 6. p. 170. Now there 's much more probability to say that it was written by a Deacon of the same Church then by a Monk of the Country of Liege It being then evident after this remark if I mistake not that this little Treatise is to be attributed unto the Deacon Florus Let us hear what he hath designed to inform us The Oblation saith he although taken from the simple fruits of the Earth is made unto Believers the Body and Blood of the only Son of God by the ineffable virtue of Divine Benediction He seems to make a difference betwixt the Wicked and the Good and saith the Sacrament is made unto the latter the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ but unto the former it is nothing less because they have not Faith a Declaration which as the Protestants say agrees not with the Doctrine of the Real Presence by which the Eucharist is made the Body of Jesus Christ not only unto the Good but unto the Wicked also Florus explains himself very clearly Ibid. when he adds This Body and this Blood is not gather'd in the Ears of Corn and in the Grapes Nature gives it not unto us but it is Consecration that maketh it unto us mystically Jesus Christ is eaten when the Creature of Bread and Wine pass into the the Sacrament of his Flesh and Blood by the ineffable Sanctification of the Holy Ghost he is eaten by parcels in the Sacrament and he remains entire in Heaven and entire in your heart He would say that the Eucharist is naturally Bread and Wine that Consecration makes it the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ which is eaten in Morsels under the Sign which represents him but as to himself he is whole and entire in Heaven as he is whole and entire in the heart of every Believer in quality of a quickning and saving Object embraced by Faith so to find Life and Salvation in partaking of him because it is he that hath merited Salvation for us by his Death and purchased Life for us by his Sufferings And as the Eucharist is the Memorial of this Death and these Sufferings Florus makes no difficulty to say that it is made unto Believers the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ because in participating of this Divine Mystery Faith looks unto him as the only Object of its Contemplation Manducation and Participation Thus much these other words of the same Author import Ibid. p. 171. All that is done in the Oblation of the Body and Blood of our Lord is mystical we see one thing and we understand another what is seen is corporal what is understood hath a spiritual Fruit. Moreover he saith plainly that what our Saviour commanded his Disciples to take and eat was Bread He said unto them of the Bread Take and eat ye all of this Ibid. And speaking of the Cup The Wine said he was the Mystery of our Redemption And he proves it by these words I will no more drink of this Fruit of the Vine In fine expounding these last words of the Mass Whereby O Lord Ibid. thou always createst for us all these good things c. which is a kind of Thanksgiving which in the Latin Liturgy doth follow the Consecration he sufficiently gives to understand that he believed not that the Bread and Wine were changed into the substance of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ seeing he speaks of them as of things which God had created from the beginning of the World which he maketh still every year by Propagation and by Reparation which he sanctifieth and fills with his Grace and Heavenly Blessing which himself interprets to be of Corn and of Wine Thus it is that many do explain the meaning of this Author About the same time that the Deacon Florus wrote at Lyons Christian Druthmar Priest and Friar of Corby and Companion or Ratramn in the same Monastery composed his Commentary upon St. Matthew's Gospel and we should forthwith see what he wrote of the Eucharist if Sixtus Senensis did not stop us a little moment This famous Library-keeper doth accuse Protestants of having corrupted the Text of Druthmar in Reading in the Sacrament whereas he pretends upon the Credit of the Copy of a Manuscript to be seen in the Library of the Franciscans at Lyons that it should be read Subsisting really in the Sacrament The first thing we should do then is to consider the nature of this Accusation for the faith of Sixtus is look'd upon by many as the faith of a Man that approves very well of Expurgatory Indexes and one that hath laid two other Accusations unto the same Protestants Charge which are believed to be false Bibl. Sanct. in Ep. ad Pium V. Id. l. 6. Annot. 72. One is to have corrupted and altered a passage of Ferus a Franciscan Friar concerning the Temporal Power of the Pope although Ferus his Commentary upon St. Matthew wherein the passage in dispute is contained was
printed the first time at Mayans An. 1559. with the Emperor's permission And thereupon the Protestants say That it would be very unjust to accuse them with these kind of Depravations they which have so much complained of Expurgatory Indexes to do themselves what they so highly condemned in other Men. The other Accusation consists in that he charged them with the printing a pernicious Book of Oecolompadius under the Title of Bertram De Corpore Sanguine Domini Ibid. in praesar against the truth of History which informs us as hath been proved that Bertram or Ratramn was the true Author of it Besides say they Wherefore was not this Manuscript of Lyons publickly made known to convince us without reply of this eminent Depravation for it must be confessed that should we be guilty of so great a piece of Malice and so horrible an Infidelity as that wherewith Sixtus Sinensis doth accuse us we should be unworthy the name of honest Men and on the contrary deserve all Mens hatred and scorn But besides Sixtus his Accusation falls upon Sererius a Lutheran Printer had it fallen upon any Calvinist Printer it would have had a little more shew of truth But that a Lutheran that believes the Real Presence should have taken these words out of the passage of Druthmar Subsisting truly in the Sacrament which entirely favours it makes it appear very strange seeing the Interest of them of his Communion require that they should exactly be retained Add unto all these things that whereunto there can be no Reply which is That in the Year 1514. before Luther appeared James Wimfelling of Schelstad caused Druthmar to be printed at Strasbourg sixteen years before Sererius his Edition with License of Maximilian the Emperor and the Arms of Leo the Tenth in the same manner Sererius had printed it though it was by other Manuscripts which as 't is said makes void Sixtus his Accusation against the Lutheran Printer who acted like an honest Man and sheweth that the passage should be read as the Protestants read it and as the latter Collectors of the Library of the holy Fathers have given it unto us In fine say they It only is requisite to read over the whole passage with some caution to know that the Correction of Sixtus cannot subfist and that by consequence his Accusation is groundless And to the end the Reader might do it conveniently I will relate it at large as he hath transmitted it unto us Christian Druthmar comment in Matth. Bibl. Patr. t. 16. p. 361. Jesus Christ took Bread because bread strengthens the heart of Man and preserves life better than any other food he therein establisheth the Sacrament of his Love but this property ought much rather to be attributed unto this spiritual Bread which perfectly strengthens all Men and all Creatures because it is by him that we do subsist and that we have both Life and Being He blessed it He blessed it in the first place because as Man he blessed in his own Person all Mankind and then he gave to understand that the Benediction and Power of the Divine and Immortal Nature was truly in that Nature which he had taken of the blessed Virgin He broke it He broke the Bread which is himself because exposing himself freely unto Death he broke and shatter'd the habitation of his Soul thereby to satiate us according to what he said himself I have power to lay down my Life and I have power to take it up again And he gave it unto his Disciples saying unto them Take and eat this is my Body He gave to his Disciples the Sacrament of his Body for remission of sins and preservation of charity to the end that being mindful of this action they should always do this in Figure and that they should not forget what he was going to do for them This is my Body That is to say in Sacrament And having taken the Cup he gave Thanks and gave it unto his Disciples As amongst all things which are useful to preserve life Bread and Wine are those which do most strengthen and repair the weakness of our Nature it is with great reason that our Saviour would in these two things establish the Mystery of his Sacrament for Wine rejoyceth the heart and increaseth blood therefore it is very fit to represent the Blood of Jesus Christ because all that cometh from him rejoyceth with perfect joy and increaseth all that is good in us In fine like a person undertaking a great Voyage he leaves unto them he loves a particular mark of his Love upon condition that they shall take care to keep it always thereby to remember him so also God spiritually changing the Bread into his Body and the Wine into his Blood hath commanded us to celebrate this mystery to the end these two things may eternally make us remember what he hath done for us with his Body and Blood and that it might hinder us from being ungrateful and unmindful of so great and tender Love Now because we are wont to mix Water with the Wine in the Sacrament of his Blood this Water represents the faithful People for whom Jesus Christ would lay down his Life and the Water is not without the Wine neither is the Wine without the Water because that as he died for us so also we should be ready to die for him and for our brethren that is to say for the Church therefore there came out of his side Water and Blood This passage is taken out of a Commentary where the Author explains these words of the Institution This is my Body by these others That is to say in the Sacrament to signifie that the Bread of the Eucharist is not really the Body of Jesus Christ but only the Sacrament of it Therefore he sheweth that our Saviour gave unto his Disciples the Sacrament of his Body that he commanded them to celebrate the Eucharist in Figure of what he was going to do for them that his Blood is figured by the Wine and that in going up to Heaven he left them this Pledge of his Love to the end that during his absence they should always make Commemoration of his Person and of his Sufferings All which things clearly shew that the spiritual Change whereof he speaks is a Change of Use and of Vertue to import that the Bread and Wine are changed by the Grace of Consecration into the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ as St. Isidore of Sevil Bede and Rabanus hath taught and also changed into its Efficacy and Vertue after the language of Theodotus and of Cyril of Alexandria Whence it is that the same Druthmar explaining these words Ibid. p. 360. C. The Poor ye shall have always with you but me ye shall not have always saith He speaks of the presence of his Body because he was to depart from them for as for the presence of his Divinity it is always present with all the Elect.
Ibid. p. 362. A. And upon this also I will no more drink of this fruit af the Vine until the day I drink it new with you in my Father's Kingdom After that time of Supper saith he he drank no Wine until he became immortal and incorruptible after his Resurrection This is the Explication Protestants give unto the words of Druthmar Hitherto we have spoken of Writers of the IX Century out of whom it is accustomed to produce Testimonies to prove that they opposed the Doctrine of Paschas Radbert excepting Heribold unto whom we reserve a Chapter apart But besides these Witnesses which have deposed there be some others whose Testimonies may conduce to the clearing the Subject we treat of therefore we will make no difficulty to receive their Depositions beginning with Ahyto Ahyto Bishop of Basle was so famous for his Holiness of Life for the Light of his Doctrine and for his Wisdom in managing great and important Affairs that Charlemain had a very particular kindness and esteem for him whereupon in the Year 811. he sent him Ambassador unto Constantinople to treat of Peace with the Eastern Emperor as the Annals of France Eginhard Author of the Life of Charlemain the Annals of Fulda Herman Contract and others do testifie This Ahyto who departed this Life Anno 836. left a Capitulary for the Instruction of the Priests of his Diocess which Dom Luke d'Achery caused to be printed three or four years since the Copy of it being sent him from Rome and taken from a Manuscript of the Library of Cardinal Francis Barbarini The same d'Achery observing also that it is to be found in the Manuscript Copies of the Vatican Library Now amongst many other Instructions which he gives unto his Priests in this Capitulary this is to be read Anyco apud Dom. Luc. d'Acher Spicileg t. 6. p. 692. In the fifth place the Priests ought to know what the Sacrament of Baptism and of Confirmation is and what the Mystery of the Body and Blood of our Lord is how a visible Creature is seen in the same Mysteries and nevertheless invisible Salvation is there communicated for the Salvation of the Soul the which is contained in Faith only Ahito speaketh of Baptism and of the Eucharist He distinguisheth in the one and the other the Sign and the thing signified and lays it down for certain that in both of them alike there is a visible Creature without making any distinction betwixt the Creature that is seen in the Eucharist and that which is seen in Baptism it must needs be then of necessity That as by the Creature which is seen in Baptism he understands the substance of Water and Chrism so also by that which is seen in the Eucharist he understands the substance of Bread and Wine and because Baptism and the Eucharist are two Sacraments of the New Testaments Instituted by one Lord Jesus Christ and appointed to render us partakers of his Grace Ahyto attributes unto them both the same effect viz. the Communication of Eternal and Invisible Salvation unto those which receive both the one and the other of these Sacraments with Faith No other sense can be given unto the words of this Bishop neither can it be avoided by consequence to conclude but that his Doctrine was directly contrary unto that of Paschas Unto this Bishop of Basil I will joyn another of Orleans Theodulphu-Aurelian ad Magn. Senon de ordine Baptis c. 18. I mean Theodolph who in the year 817. was of the Conspiration of Bernard King of Italy against the Emperor Lewis the Debonair and who speaks thus in his Treatise of the Order of Baptism There is a saving sacrifice which Melchisedek King of Salem offered under the Old Testament in Figure of the Body and Blood of our Lord and which the Mediator of God and Man hath accomplished under the New before he was delivered up when he took the Bread and the Wine blessing them and distributing then unto his Disciples he commanded them to do those things in remembrance of him it is then this mystical sacrifice which the Church celebrates having left and put an end unto the Ancient Sacrifices offering Bread because of the Bread of Life that came down from Heaven and Wine because of him that said I am the true Vine to the end that by the Priest's visible offering and by the invisible Consecration of the Holy Ghost the Bread and Wine should pass into the dignity of the Body and Blood of our Lord in which Blood Water is mingled either because Water flowed out of the side of Christ with the Blood or that because according to the interpretation of the Ancients as Jesus Christ is figured by the Wine so the People is figured by the Water This Prelate intimates that Jesus Christ accomplished under the Gospel the Sacrifice of Melchisedek which was a Sacrifice of Bread and Wine which he demonstrates by the act of our Saviour who instituting the Sacrament of the Eucharist took Bread and Wine and having blessed them gave them them unto his Disciples with order to commemorate him in the Celebration of this Mystery He declares it is the Sacrifice which the Church celebrates offering Bread and Wine That the Wine in the Cup signifies Jesus Christ as the Water doth the People And that in fine all that befalls the Bread and Wine by Consecration is that they pass he doth not say into the substance of the Body and Blood of our Saviour which he must needs have said if he had believed the real Presence but he saith they pass into the Dignity of his Body and Blood because indeed we should consider them as his Body and Blood for they be in the room and are invested with the Dignity of his Person and accompanied in their lawful use with the vertue and efficacy of his Body broken and of his Blood poured forth According to which he orders in his Capitulary Every Lords day to receive during Lent time the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Id. in capitulari c. 41.44 and prescribes the dispositions with which one should approach unto so great a Sacrament Thus it is that several do understand this passage of Theodolph After the testimony of two Bishops we are obliged to mention an Archbishop of Lyons who lived in the same Century and who in the year 834. was of the number of the Prelates which joyning with the Children against the Father deprived Lewis the Debonair of Crown and Scepter it is easie to perceive that I mean Agobard who undoubtedly was one of the most Learned Bishops of his time and whose Writings as I conceive have more of light and vigour and although he hath not said very much of the Eucharist yet we will nevertheless judge of his belief upon this Article both by his words and by his silence The better to understand of what import his silence is 't is to be observed that Amalarius of whom we
contrary unto the Doctrine of Paschas who taught that the Eucharist was no other Flesh but that which was born of the Virgin Mary and which suffered upon the Cross But in these two Sermons the people are taught that it is not the same Flesh nor the same Body which suffered nor the same Blood which was shed for us You cannot but think those that said so were opposite unto Paschas and endeavoured to ruin his Belief and it may be also that of Odo Arch-Bishop of Canterbury if it be true that he did what William of Malmesbury wrote a long while after for there be a great many that think this Relation is very suspicious In the main Bishop Usher observes that the words which were but now alledged in the last Testimony have been stolen away by some perfidious hand from the Manuscript which was transported from the Church of Vigorn into the Library of the Benedictines College at Cambridge But besides these two Witnesses which shew what was believed of the Sacrament in England there is to be seen a Sermon which was read unto the people every Year at Easter to preserve in their minds an Idea of the Belief which their Fathers had left them It is needless to transcribe it here at large some parts of it shall suffice which shewing that it was almost copied out of the Treatise of Ratramn of the Body and Blood of Christ they will by the same means shew that it contains a Doctrine opposite unto that of Paschas Liber Catholic serm Anglice recitandorum ad Bedam l. 5. c. 12. edit Anglo-Sax Latin seeing Ratramn was one of his declared Enemies There is great difference saith this Homily betwixt the Body wherein Jesus Christ suffered and the Body which is consecrated for the Eucharist for the Body wherein Jesus Christ suffered is born of the Flesh of Mary and is furnished with Blood Bones Skin Nerves and Humane Members and with a reasonable Soul but his spiritual Body which we call Eucharist is composed of several Grains without Blood without Bones and Members and without a Soul The Body of Jesus Christ which suffered death and which rose again shall never die any more it is eternal and cannot die but this Eucharist is temporal not eternal it is corruptible and divided into several parts broken by the teeth and goeth into the draft This Sacrament is a Pledge and a Figure the Body of Jesus Christ is the truth it self We hold this Pledge sacramentally until we do attain unto the Truth and then the Pledge shall be accomplished And a little before If we consider the Eucharist in a corporal manner we see that it is a corruptible and fading Creature but if we consider the spiritual vertue which is therein we know very well that there is life in it and that it gives immortality unto those which which receive it with Faith There is great difference between the invisible vertue of this holy Sacrament and the visible form of its proper Nature by Nature it is fading Bread and corruptible Wine but by the vertue of the Word of God it is truly his Body and his Blood not for all that corporally but spiritually that is to say in vertue and in efficacy Whereunto amounts what is said before The Bread and Wine which the Priests do consecrate Ibid. do outwardly offer one thing unto the eyes of the Body and another thing inwardly unto the eyes of the faithful Soul outwardly it is plainly seen it is Bread and Wine and it is judged to be such by its form and by its savour and nevertheless they be truly after Consecration his Body and Blood by a spiritual Sacrament And to the end the Hearers should be well persuaded they were the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ not in substance but in vertue the Change which happens unto the Bread and Wine by Consecration is compared unto that which comes unto Children by Baptism and unto the Water of this Sacrament of our Regeneration Ibid. The Child of a Gentile is baptized yet it doth not change its outward form although it be changed inwardly It is led unto the Font full of sin by the disobedience of Adam and he is cleansed from all inwardly although he is nothing changed outwardly So also the Water of Baptism which is called the Fountain of Life in appearance is like unto other Waters and subject unto Corruption but the vertue of the Holy Ghost intervenes by Prayer unto this corruptible Water and by a spiritual vertue renders it fit to cleanse the Body and Soul from all sin Now we consider two things in this only Creature according to its true nature it is a corruptible Water but according to the spiritual mystery it hath a saving vertue It is well said that Jesus Christ did change by an invisible power the Bread and Wine into his Body and Blood but after the same manner that formerly he changed the Manna and the Water of the Rock into this same Body and and into this same Blood to wit because he made it the Sacrament of his Body and of his Blood And again Ibid. What there is in the Sacrament that gives life proceeds from a spiritual Vertue and an invisible Operation therefore the Eucharist is called a Sacrament because one thing is therein seen and another thing is understood that which is seen is of a bodily Species that which is understood hath a spiritual Vertue And in another part of the Sermon expounding what Jesus Christ said of eating his Flesh in the 6th of St. John He commanded not to eat the Body which he had taken Ibid. nor to drink the Blood which he had shed for us but by this discourse he meant the Sacrament which is spiritually his Body and Blood for whosoever eateth him with a believing heart shall have this Life everlasting Under the Old Law Believers offered Sacrifices which represented the Body which Jesus Christ offered unto his Father for our sins but as for the Sacrament which is consecrated at the Altar of God it is the Commemoration of the Body which he offered and of the Blood which he shed for us as he himself commanded saying Do this in remembrance of me I am not ignorant that in this same Homily there is some miraculous Apparitions made mention of whereunto Christians had given some way since Paschas his time But that serves only to confirm the Observation that was made That although our Saviour had bestowed upon his Servants in the X. Century Light sufficient to avoid the most dangerous Errors yet he communicated not so great a measure unto them as to be safe from all sorts of Surprises in matters of Religion If from England we pass into the Country of Liege we shall there find Folcuin Abbot of the Monastery of Lobes who speaking of the Eucharistical Table Tom. 6. Spicil de Gestis Abbat Lob. p. 573 saith That it is the Table whereupon
said is an Evil that flies and increaseth in its Progress It were to be wished that Christians were more cautious in censuring of one another and that they would better consider the Love of Jesus Christ which should not be Censorious In the second place Berengarius had to deal with Adversaries which made no Conscience of corrupting Tradition and the Fathers and to deny the most evident things Lanfranc very confidently tells us that there were formerly two Heresies which proceeded from these words of Jesus Christ Lanfranc de Euch. Sacram. t. 6. Bibl. pat p. â—â—3 If you eat not the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood you have no Life in you They all believed saith he with one common consent that the Bread and Wine was changed into the real Flesh and Blood of the Son of Man but they were not agreed who this Son of Man was Some thought that it might be meant of any Man whatever whether just or sinful and that the earthly substance changed into his Flesh and Blood was received in the Remission of Sins Others conceived that this Son of Man was not any Man of the ordinary sort but a holy just person separated by his excellent living from the common sort of men which was the Temple of God in whom the Divinity resided and they confidently and heretically maintained that the Bread and Wine of the Altar might be changed into his Flesh and Blood But saith he in the time of Pope Celestin and of Cyril Bishop of Alexandria the Council of Ephesus was celebrated where these two mortal Heresies were condemned and the Faith was confirmed whereby we believe that the Bread is changed into the Flesh that was crucified and the Wine into the Blood which flowed out of the side of Jesus Christ hanging on the Cross To see the confidence wherewith this Prelate entertains his Readers with these two Heresies and their Condemnation at the Council of Ephesus one would take his Relation for a true History and yet it is but a meer forged Fable and the people of the XI Century did receive it upon Credit to be as true as Gospel It is the same Lanfranc that relates unto us as a true passage of St. Austin's these words which had been before falsly alledged by Paschas Receive in the Bread what was nailed to the Cross and in the Cup what issued out of the side of Jesus Christ Durandus Abbot of Troarn animated with the same Spirit Durand Troarn de corp Sang Dom. p. 7 doth with an unsupportable Impudence falsifie a passage in St. Austin upon the 98th Psalm which saith You shall not eat this Body which you see You shall not drink the Blood which they shall shed that crucifie me And this Abbot makes no more ado but to make this holy Doctor say For you shall eat this Body which you do see And after this insolent Alteration he cries out overjoyed with his Victory What is there more clear and evident You shall eat this Body which you see It is by the same Principle that Guitmond Bishop of Antwerp Guitmund de veritate Euchar l. 2. initio fere did formally deny that the Sacrament in regard of its visible Species it self was not subject unto Digestion nor to Corruption nor to be eaten by Rats and assured that though our eyes see it yet it was not true See here after what manner the Enemies of Berengarius did act Let it be judged if it was lawful and fit to be done by Christians The third in fine consists in discovering if Berengarius persevered in his Belief until his death and if he continued to teach it William of Malmesbury an English Historian saith Guill Malmsb. hist l. 3. c. 27. That after having dishonoured the vigour of his Youth by the defence of some Heresies he repented in his riper years But because there are found in the History of Berengarius some things which do not very well agree with the Relation of this Historian it will not be amiss to examine them It is granted that Berengarius began to publish his Opinions about the Year 1035. at which time he must be about thirty years old for it is not likely that he made any great stir before that Age. He defended his Cause at Rome in the Year 1079. that is according to our Computation in his 74th Year which is directly contrary unto what William of Malmesbury saith That after the first fire of his Youth he repented in a riper Age. Moreover it appears by a Letter from Lanfranc unto Reginald Abbot of St. Cyprian of Poitiers writ very probably in 1087. or 1088. that is the year of Berengarius his decease or a year before that the Conversion hinted at by the English Historian is but imaginary seeing that in this Letter Lanfranc calls him Schismatick and saith Epist 50. That he believes and teacheth evil things of Jesus Christ Besides the Chronicle of St. Maixant makes this Observation upon the Year 1080. Tom. 2. Eibl. l'Abbe p. 212. There was a Council assembled at Bourdeaux wherein Berengarius gave an account of his Faith According unto this Chronicle for which we are obliged unto the Industry of Father l'Abbe Berengarius did yet defend his Belief and Doctrine a Year after the Council held at Rome under Gregory the Seventh An. 1079. Unto all these Considerations may be added an Anonymous Author who wrote Anno 1088. which was the year of the death of Berengarius a small Treatise whose Title was De Berengarii Haeresiarche Damnatione multiplici Of the several Condemnations of Berengarius the Heretick which sheweth if I mistake not that he retained his Opinion unto his death And Father Chifflet who gave us this Anonymous doth sufficiently shew that he believes so when he saith in the Preface being offended with the Commendations given unto Berengarius by Hildebert that this Anymous made his Obsequies after a more discreet manner Chifflet in pralat Prudentius ei funus duxit to wit in calling him Heretick unto his death I would then conclude after all that hath been said that William of Malmesbury was deceived in placing the Conversion of Berengarius after the first vigour of his Youth Guill Malmsb. lust l. 3. c. 27. in a riper Age and that the History of this Conversion is no more true than what he related unto us of Fulbert Bishop of Chartres that as he was at the point of death his House was throng'd with people that flocked thither from all parts and perceiving Berengarius amongst the Croud he made a sign that he should be driven away protesting that there was by him a prodigious Devil and that he infected a great many by his tongue and by his hand for none of Berengarius his Adversaries who had studied under Fulbert never taxed him with any such thing not so much as Adelman his Fellow-student under this famous Prelate Tom. 2. Spicil d'Ach. p. 741. Moreover
purpose after curious questions fit rather to engender strifes and quarrels than to edifie and instruct Christians I shall only desire the Reader seriously to consider if either or both of these Opinions can agree or hold with the Doctrine of the Latins for those which held that the Mysteries were incorruptible alledge for their reason That the Sacrament is a Confession and Commemoration of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ instead of saying that it is the glorified Body it self of our Lord And the others which affirm that it is corruptible say That the Bread of the Sacrament is the dead Flesh of Jesus Christ which cannot be in the reality of the thing because all Christians do confess that our Lord dyeth no more and that his state of Death and Crucifiction hath been past above XVI Ages ago whereby may be judged the disposition of Zonarus which held of both sides and of the strange manner wherein he explains himself I know not if I should make mention of one Samonas Bishop of Gaza who is placed in the XIII Century for all do not receive his testimony which is wholly favourable unto that of the cause of the Latins seeing he saith in a Dispute against Achmet a Sarrazin Tom. 12. Bibl. patr p. 524 525 526. touching the Eucharist That the Bread and Wine are not the Antitypes of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ but that they are by Consecration changed into the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and that the Division which is made to wit by means of breaking it is of sensible Accidents Were there nothing to be objected in the Nature of a Witness it could not be denied but this Greek Bishop was of the Belief of the Latin Church But the Protestants do deny that ever there was any such Dispute affirming That no Author hath made any mention of this Samonas because at that time there was no Greek Bishop at Gaza nor in all Pallastine being possessed by the Sarrazens having expell'd the Latins which had before setled Bishops of their own Language And in fine because the greatest part of this Writing was taken word for word from the Dispute of Anastatius the Sinaite against the Gaianites whereof mention hath been made in the History of the VII Century Whereunto may be added that this pretended Samonas speaketh formally of the Union of the Bread and Wine unto the Divinity which is just the Opinion of John Damascen as also what he saith Ibid. p. 525. that the Bread and Wine is taken that is to say that the Divinity joyns and unites them unto it self All the Protestants do not indeed say that there was not any Greek Bishop in all Pallastine in the XIII Century but they all agree to say That it belongs to the Roman Catholicks to prove that there was at that time at Gaza a Greek Bishop called Samonas seeing they produce him as a Witness and is such a Witness as no Writer makes any mention of In the same Tome of the Library of the Holy Fathers there is a Confession of Faith made by Nicetas in the XIII Century in favour of those which should be converted from Mahumetism unto the Religion of Jesus Christ wherein he saith Tom. 12. Biâ—â— Patr. p. 53â— That Christians do sacrifice Mystically Bread and Wine and that they participate thereof in the Divine Mysteries He adds nevertheless That he believes they are also truly the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ having been changed by his Divine Power in a Spiritual and Invisible manner above and beyond all Natural comprehension only known unto himself And it is so also saith he that I intend to participate thereof for the sanctifying of Body and Soul for Life Eternal and for inheriting the Kingdom of Heaven This Author saith That what Christians sacrifice and receive at the Holy Table is Bread and Wine that this Bread and Wine are in truth the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ having been changed by his Divine Power not unto all Communicants indifferently but only for them which Communicate with a true and sincere Faith Let the belief of this man be guessed at after all this But now I call to mind that I had almost forgot two Witnesses of the Greek Church of the XII Century one of the Ages whose History we examine in this Chapter to wit Euthymius and Zonarus In Matth. 26. The first saith thus Our Lord did not say These are the Signs of my Body and of my Blood but he said This is my Body and Blood And again As our Saviour Deified the Flesh which he assumed supernaturally so also he changeth these things into his quickning Body Words which Roman Catholicks mightily prize and value thinking that they favour their Hypothesis But it must not be concealed also that in another Treatise Euthymius testifies that he follows the Opinion of Damascen touching the Sacrament alledging to this effect a great passage out of his 4th Book of Orthodox Faith Panopl part 2. titul 21. Now the Opinion of Damascen was neither that of the Roman Catholicks nor the Protestants as hath been shewed in the 12th Chapter And Euthemius seems to assure so much in the words but now alledged when he compares the change befallen unto the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist unto that happened unto the Humane Nature of Jesus Christ when it was taken into the Unity of one person by the Eternal Word besides that in the same place whence both the mentioned passages were taken he said That not the nature of the things proposed should be considered but their vertue which shews that he believed with Damascen that the substance of the Symbols do remain As for Zonarus another Greek Friar we have already seen how he embraced as well the side of those which held that the Mysteries were corruptible as those which supposed them to be incorruptible besides he expoundeth elsewhere the 32. Canon of the Council in Trullo In Concil 6. in Trullo can 32. The Divine Mysteries saith he I mean the Bread and the Cup represents unto us the Body and Blood of our Saviour for giving the Bread unto his Disciples he said Take Eat This is my Body and giving them the Cup he said Drink ye all of it This is my Blood CHAP. XIX An Account or Narrative of the XIV and XV. Centuries DUring the Papacy of Boniface the VIII who had so great a contest with Philip the Fair one of our Kings there was in Italy great numbers of Waldensis who were called Fratelli because they stiled themselves Brethren as the Primitive Christians who frequently so denominated themselves where it was that the whole Body of the Church was called the Brotherhood and what induces me to believe that these Fratellis were Waldensis and Albigensis many of whom retired themselves into the Vallies of Piedmont at the time that Waldo and his Adherents were driven away from Lyons is that an uncertain Author which wrote against
inanimate that the substance of Bread and Wine remain after Consecration and because one is found amongst them that much varies from this language I represent unto the Reader what some have said to reconcile this Authour with others who have expressed themselves otherwise than he hath done Then re-assuming the thred of my History I make appear that these same Doctors have believed that participating of the Eucharist broke the fast and that they have spoken of what is received in the Communion as of a thing whereof one received a little a morsel a piece a small portion And having seen what they believed and what they said of the things which we receive in the Eucharist I inquire what they taught of the Use the Office and Imploy of the sacred Symbols And they tell us that the Eucharist is the Sacrament the Sign the Figure the Type the Antitype the Symbol the Image the Similitude and the resemblance of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ And the better to instruct us in the nature and force of these expressions they will have us make these two observations First that when they speak of the Eucharist as of a Sign a Figure an Image it is in opposition to the reality which they consider as absent The other is that they constantly hold that the Image and the Figure cannot be that whereof they are the Image and Figure And indeed not to leave their Doctrine exposed unto the stroaks of Calumny they declare that if the Eucharist be a Figure and an Image it is not a bare Figure nor an Image without operation but a Figure an Image and a Sacrament replenished with all the vertue and all the efficacy of the Body and Blood of our blessed Saviour clothed if it may be so said with the Majesty of his person and accompanied in the lawful Celebration with all the fruits and with all the benefits of his death and Sufferings But because the same Fathers who affirm that the Eucharist is Bread and Wine and who say that it is the Sign the Symbol the Figure and the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Saviour do say also That it is his Body and his Blood that it passeth and is turned into his Body and Blood I have not omitted to report the explications which they give us thereupon and to shew which of those sorts of expressions they have limited for by this means it is easie to comprehend their words and intentions Having ended the Examination of their Doctrine I have applied my self unto the search and inquiry of its consequence to know if they believed the eating of the Flesh of Jesus Christ with the mouth of the body the eating of the same Flesh by the wicked as well as by the righteous and the presence of the Lord upon Earth as to his Humanity and how they understood the following Maxims whether a Body can be in several places at the same time whether it can subsist invisibly after the manner of a Spirit without occupying any space whether what hath been done long since can still be done every day whether the Cause can be later than the Effect whether that which containeth ought not to be greater than that which is contained whether Accidents can exist without their Subject whether the Senses may be deceived in the report they make of sensible Objects when there is no defect in the Organ or in the medium or situation of the Object whether a Body ought to be visible and palpable and whether it ought to have its parts so distinguished the one from the other that each part ought to answer the respective part of place whether there may be penetration of dimensions whether one may dwell in himself whether a Body may be all intirely in one of its parts and whether whatsoever is seen and touched and falls under sense be a Body And to the end nothing be wanting to establish the Doctrine of the Fathers in the point of the Eucharist I add unto direct proofs a great many indirect proofs taken from their words and actions whence are drawn several inductions which contribute very much to shew what were their sentiments of this Article of our Faith Then I represent the Alterations and changes happened in the ancient expressions and Doctrine the contests of the Ninth Age whereunto if I mistake not I have given much light by certain considerations which shew as clear as the light which of the two Opinions had the better that of Paschasius or that of his Adversaries The History of the Tenth Age shall be represented in such a manner I hope as will not be displeasing unto the candid Reader seeing it will inform him that in that Age which I consider neither as an Age of Darkness nor of Light but participating of both wherein things passed otherwise than hath been hitherto believed I treat exactly of what passed in the Eleventh Century in regard of Berengarius and his Followers in regard of the Albigenses and Waldenses in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries of Wicklif and the Lollards in England in the Fourteenth Age of the Taborites in Bohemia in the Fifteenth and until the separation of the Protestants with some Observations which I make from Age to Age upon the Greek Church And in the last Part wherein I treat of the Worship I examine the preparations which precede the Celebration I inquire the time wherein Christians began to introduce in the exercise of their Religion the use of Incense and Candles especially at the Celebration of the Sacrament Unto this practice I add that of the sign of the Cross and also of material Crosses the consideration of holy Vestments and of those particularly appointed for this holy Ceremony not forgetting that of Flowers which were used in form of Coronets or otherwise in honour of the Eucharist I make one Chapter of the dispositions requisite for a Communicant in respect of God and of Jesus Christ and another of those which he ought to have in regard of the Sacrament which ingageth me to speak something of Auricular Confession and to inquire whether the Holy Fathers have requir'd it as a disposition absolutely necessary unto a lawful Communion And I conclude the whole Work with the question of the Adoration of the Sacrament which I treat of with some care and exactness to the end the Reader might see what hath been the Belief and practice of the ancient Church on so important a point as this is and when the first Decrees were made for worshipping the Host I know very well there can be nothing of testimony be it never so clear but the subtilty of men will find means to elude and this is it which hath rendred and will render the disputes of Religion immortal many of those who handle them seeking more their own than Gods glory and examining the passages of the Ancients with the prejudices they have been before prepossess'd with Thence it is that beholding them
in a bad light they can never rightly understand what was the true Belief of the Church upon the Controversies wherewith it hath been agitated so many years Nevertheless there is nothing we should more indeavour than to represent and discover the naked truth not caring that men should triumph over us so that truth might triumph over us all It is with this design that I have undertaken to discover sincerely what Christians have believed in past Ages and the Article of the Eucharist which seems to me one of the most essential and which causeth the greatest division amongst Christians in the West But to the end that none may be mistaken in the explication of the testimonies of the holy Fathers and not swerve from their Intentions I will propose some means which seem not to me improper and the practice whereof may be of great use unto all such as desire to be instructed in what they believed In the first place their Works ought to be read without any prejudice I speak of their genuine not forged Works for when one is pre-occupy'd in favour of an Opinion and sets about reading them one shall find what is not intended therein prejudice so darkning the understanding that many times the shadow is taken for the substance and a fallacious appearance for the truth because that prejudice predominates and makes men incapable of rightly judging what they read the Idea of the opinion which prepossesseth us so filling the faculty of the Understanding that it can receive no other impression until we dismiss these prejudices Wherefore the first thing to be done when we set about reading the Monuments which we still injoy of Ecclesiastical Antiquity is well to examine our selves to see if we be free from all sorts of preoccupation For provided we bring unto this study nothing of our own but attention and a sincere desire of knowing the truth we shall gather Fruits full of consolation and joy and we shall doubtless discover what hath been the belief of those ancient Doctors upon the point which we examine Secondly great heed must be taken not to separate what God hath joined together I mean the nature and the matter of the Symbols from their efficacy and from their vertue in their lawful use for then these things are inseparable although they be different one from another for the nature of Bread and Wine is one thing and the grace and vertue which the Consecration addeth unto their nature is another thing and therefore it is that the holy Fathers spake not so honourably of the Sacrament when they consider the substance of the Symbols as when they regard their efficacy and vertue And indeed when they have a design to represent this efficacy they make use of the loftiest and most magnificent expressions to raise the Dignity of this Mysterie and to make us conceive a grand Idea of it and certainly it is with great reason because 't is a thing very worthy our admiration and which I may say doth surpass our understanding that Christ Jesus should accompany his Sacraments with so great a power that he should cleanse our Souls with a few drops of Water and that he should nourish them with a few crumbs of Bread and a few drops of Wine but after a manner so Noble so Heavenly and so Divine that all we can do is to feel the fruits and advantages without conceiving the manner or how it is effected And therein is seen that magnificence of the Works of God Tertul. de Baptis c. 2. which is promised in the effect whereof Tertullian speaks and which he opposeth unto the simplicity of these same Works which appears in the Action and in respect of which Simplicity the Fathers have expressed themselves in terms more humble and not so lofty agreeable unto the nature of Symbols This second means shall be follow'd by a third which is not the least considerable and for the understanding whereof it is necessary to observe that the Holy Fathers have used two sorts of expressions in speaking of the Eucharist by the one they affirm that the Sacrament is Bread and Wine and by the other they say it is the Body and Blood of Christ These two sorts of expressions taken literally cannot agree together nor be both true in relation to one and the same Subject For if the Eucharist be properly the Body of Jesus Christ it is not properly Bread and if it be properly Bread it cannot be understood to be properly the Body of Jesus Christ Nevertheless the Fathers who have said that the Eucharist is Bread have also said that it is the Body of Jesus Christ how shall we then do to give a right sense unto expressions so different and which in appearance are so inconsistent That which we should do is maturely to consider what these Holy Doctors have said for explanation of their meaning and that cannot better be done than by diligently searching their Works that of the two sorts of expressions which they have used they have restrained the one without giving any limitation unto the other for in equity it must be granted that those which they have limited ought not to be explained according to their intention without the restrictions which they have used and that on the contrary the others which have received no limitation should be understood simply and absolutely and in the proper terms wherein they have expressed them and to say the truth had they intended that these two so different expressions should have been understood in the same manner wherefore should they have taken so much care and pains to limit and restrain the one and never heed to take the least care in restraining or sweetning the others Such different proceedings in regard of these kinds of expressions doth it not plainly declare that they intended that they should be differently understood and that there should be given unto those which they have restrained a Figurative and Metaphorical Sense and unto those which were not restrained a proper and litteral Sense that is to say that the former should be taken for Figurative Speeches and the latter for proper expressions and without any Figure If then they have restrained and limited the expressions which do affirm that the Eucharist is Bread and Wine and if they have not limited those which affirm that 't is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ it must be concluded that those which declare that the Sacrament is Bread and Wine are improper and figurative Speeches and that the others which say that it is the Body and Blood of our Lord are proper and literal expressions But if on the other side they have taken exact care to restrain the propositions which say That the Eucharist is the Body of Jesus Christ without adding any limitation unto the others which asserted that it is Bread it must be necessarily infer'd that when they said that the Eucharist is the Body of our Lord they spake improperly and
Bread and Wine may naturally have with the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ is a general uncertain and undetermin'd resemblance and which of it self is not sufficient to make them Sacraments of this Divine Body and of this precious Blood It is necessary that the Benediction and Consecration confer upon them this quality and invest them with this dignity which they cannot have by Nature and that setting them apart from the prophane and common uses which they have in Nature it should apply them unto a Religious and Divine use in Grace Nevertheless it may be affirm'd that this likeness and relation which they have by Nature with the Body and Blood of this Divine Saviour were as it may be said the first ground and the first motive of the choice which our Saviour was pleas'd to make of them for what St. Austin said in one of his Letters may well be apply'd unto this matter Aug. Ep. 23. ad Bonif. That if the Sacraments had not some resemblance with the things whereof they are Sacraments they would be no Sacraments The Holy Fathers confirm this resemblance some in the composition of Bread and Wine and say That the Bread is called the Body because it is made of several grains and the Wine the Blood because it is gather'd from sundry grapes This is the Notion of * Comm. in Matth. c. 26. Theophilus of Antioch of †Ep. 76. St. Cyprian and of some others Others ground it in the Effects and say That the Bread is called the Body of Jesus Christ because it doth nourish and strengthen the body and that the Wine is called his Bloud because it increaseth blood in the body and rejoiceth the heart This is the Reason given by St. ‖ Lib. l. deoffie Ecclâ—s c. 18. Isidore Archbishop of Sevil * Comm in Marc. 14. Bede †Lib. 〈◊〉 Inâ—â—â— cleric c. 31. Rabanus and ‖ Comm. in Matth. 26. Christian Drutmer and I make no question but when Jesus Christ chose Bread and Wine to make them Sacraments and Types of his Body and Blood he had regard unto the Effects which they produced And seeing the four Divine Writers which have related in their sacred books the history of the Institution of the Sacrament have not mentioned whether the Wine which our Saviour used in instituting and celebrating the Sacrament was pure or mixed the antient Christians made no scruple to mingle water with the Wine in the Communion The Jewish Rituals as a learned * Buxtâ—â—f 〈◊〉 hist S. 〈◊〉 § 20. person and extreamly well vers'd in the knowledge of the Uses and Customs of that Nation observes left it unto the free will and choice of every person in celebrating the Passover to use pure Wine or Wine mixt with water so that our blessed Saviour accommodating himself as much as he could in the Celebration of his Sacrament with what was practis'd in the celebrating the Jews Passover it seemeth to me impossible considering the silence of the Evangelists and of S. Paul to determine whether the Wine imploy'd in the celebrating of his Sacrament was mixed with water or not Nevertheless it is most certain that the Ancients believed there was water mingled with the Wine and that it was upon this perswasion that they established the custom of so doing a very ancient practice seeing that St. Justin Martyr who wrote about fifty two years after the death of St. John doth expresly mention it for in shewing the manner of celebrating the Sacrament in his time Just Martyr Apolog. 2 or rather 1. he observes positively that there was presented unto the Pastor Bread and a Cup with Wine mingled with Water that after he had blessed and consecrated them all those which were there present received of the Bread the Wine and the Water which had been consecrated Indeed as the first Christians sought not so many mysteries as those which came after I mean that they troubled not themselves in seeking out of Mysteries in most things relating to Religion so they satisfy'd themselves with the innocent practice of this custom and religiously to observe this use with much simplicity but about one hundred years after St. Justin had writ what is above express'd they bethought themselves of seeking a mystery in this mingling of water with the Wine The first if I mistake not that pleased himself to discover a Mystical signification in the Wine and Water in the holy Cup and of the mingling the one with the other was the glorious Martyr S. Cyprian who would that the Wine should represent the Blood of Jesus Christ the Water should shew the believing people and that the mingling the one with the other should shew the indissoluble union which there is betwixt Christ and Believers Cyprian â—p 63. The faithful people saith he is understood by the Water and the Blood of Jesus Christ is denoted by the Wine and when the Water is mingled with the Wine in the Cup the People are united unto Jesus Christ and the body of the faithful are incorporated in him in whom they believed and this mixture of water and wine in the Cup of the Lord is such that those things cannot be any more separated whence it follows that nothing can separate the Church from the Communion of Jesus Christ that is to say the Believers which are in the Church and do persevere faithfully and firmly in what they believed nor hinder but this indivisible Love shall subsist Therefore it is not permitted in consecrating the Cup of Our Lord to offer Wine alone or Water alone for if only Wine were offered it might be said that the Blood was separate from the people and if only Water were offered it might be said the people were absent from Christ but when they are mingled and inseparably joyn'd together then is effected the Spiritual and Heavenly Sacrament St. Cyprian was followed by the * Can. 2. third Council of Braga in the year 675 by †De offic Eccles lib. 1. cap. 18. Isidore by ‖ In Marc. 14. Bede by ‖‖ De Corp. lang Dom. Bertram or Ratramne But in fine the Holy Fathers have thought this mixture so Essential unto the Holy Sacrament that the sixth Oecumenical Council assembled in the year 691 reckon it amongst the Heresies of the Armenians that they celebrated the Eucharist with pure Wine because they justified themselves in this practice by the Authority of St. Chrysostom The Fathers explain the passage of this holy Doctor whereof the Armenians made use to authorize the practice of their Churches and having explain'd it they make this Decree Concil Trullan Can. 32. If any Bishop or other Priest doth not follow the Order left by the Apostles and if they mingle not Water with the Wine to offer the spotless Sacrifice let him be deposed because he declares the mystery imperfectly and by that means introduceth a change in the Traditions But notwithstanding all that the
Armenians desisted not to persevere in this practice and always to celebrate the Sacrament with pure Wine until the year 1439. that they sent their Deputies unto the Council of Florence under Pope Eugenius the IVth but they arrived not untill after the departure of the Greeks as appears by the History of that Council transmitted unto us by Sylvester Sguropulus a great Prelate of the Church of Constantinople which was present at all that there happened Nevertheless in the direction given unto those Deputies on the behalf of the said Pope Eugenius but in the name of the Council as if it had still been Assembled which might have been so in regard of the Latines but not of the Greeks who were gone home in this Instruction I say The Armenians were enjoyn'd to conform themselves unto all the other Christians To. 8. Concil p. 866. and to mingle a little Water with the Wine in the oblation of the Cup but there is no great likelihood that this Decree was much regarded in this Christian Communion seeing we find by their Liturgies that they continued in the Custom of not mingling Water with the Wine in the holy Cup. Apud Cassand in Lit. C. 12. But besides this Mystical signification which the Holy Fathers have discovered of this mingling Water with the Wine of the Eucharist I find they have used it to represent the Water and Blood which issued out of the pierced side of Jesus Christ at his passion and when he was on the Cross Concil Trull Can. 32. It is the Doctrine of the Eastern Council before mentioned and which was Assembled in the Hall of the Imperial Palace at Constantinople As for St. Athanasius he resembles this mixture unto the Union of the Eternal Word with the human Nature Athan. in Psal 74. apud Combesis auct Bibl. Pat. t. 2. pa. 435. The mystical Cup of the Communion saith he was given mingled with Water because the pure Wine doth signifie the Divine Nature which is unmixed and in that 't is temper'd with Water it intimates the Vnion which is betwixt us And there is no question to be made but these Holy Doctors pleas'd themselves in searching out these Mystical significations not only in one of the Symbols of the Sacrament but also in the other In fine as they discovered Mysteries in mixing Water with the Wine practised by the Antient Church so they also discovered other Mysteries in making the Bread for they believed that the Bread of the Eucharist being a Body compos'd of sundry grains represented very well the Body of the Church composed of sundry believers united into one Society It is also the Doctrine of S. Cyprian Cyprian Ep. 76. vide 63. When saith he the Lord called his Body Bread composed of sundry grains of Wheat he would denote the believing people which he bore in as much as 't is but one people and when he termed his Blood the Wine which is made of several Clusters of Grapes pressed together and reduc'd to one he again signified the same faithful People composed of sundry Persons in one and the same Body It is the frequent Doctrine of * Serm. ad Infant tract 26. in Joan. Serm. 83. de divers S. Augustin and generally of all the Holy Fathers of †Com. in Matth. Theophilus of Antioch of ‖ Hom. 24. in 1 Cor. S. Chrysostom of * De Off Eccles lib. 1. c. 18. Isidore of Sevil of †Com. in 1 Cor. 10. Bede of ‖ De Reb. Eccles c. 16. Walafridus Strabo of ‖‖ De Instit Cler. lib. 1. c. 31. Rabanus Archbishop of Mayence and of many others but alas at the same time that these Holy Doctors pleased themselves in finding out all these Mystical Significations wherein they took so much delight the Devil who is always vigilant to disturb the peace of the Church and who always finds occasions to worry it failed not to raise her up Enemies even from her Infancy and to spew out from his dark Dungeon sundry sorts of Sects and Hereticks totake occasion either to slander the Innocency of her Mysteries by the Gnosticks or to corrupt their purity by the Montanists and Pepusians if what some have written be true or to gainsay their Utility by the Ascodrupites or to make them pass for dreams and delusions by the Marcosians or to render them odious by the Ophites or to change the matter either by adding of some strange things as the Artotyrites or by taking away the Essentials as the Hydroparastates or Aquarians and this is what we intend to examine in the following Chapter CHAP. II. Wherein is discoursed of sundry sorts of Sects and Heresies only so as may be sufficient to give light unto the present Subject THE first Hereticks which the Devil stirred up to trouble the Church upon the matter of the Sacraments were the Gnosticks that is such as assumed to themselves that proud and insolent Title to perswade the ignorant People that they were possest with great Wisdom and that they were able to dive into the knowledge of the most obscure and difficult Mysteries some derive their Original from the Nicolaïtans others say they had for their Leader an eminent Heretick called Carpocrates but from what Original soever they came it cannot be doubted but it was very pernicious seeing it produced so cursed an off-spring certainly this fountain was very corrupt seeing the streams were so infectious and the Root of this cursed Tree was very venemous seeing the Branches produced no less than the bitter Fruit of mortal Poison an infamous brood as ever was whose Mysteries abounded with Abomination and Horrour therefore were they also called Borborites or Borborians to denote their filthiness and vileness these miserable wretches suffered themselves to be swayed by their own corrupt desires and being Slaves unto their passions and disordered Lusts they polluted themselves frequently with Women which were in common amongst them and coveting nothing more than this filthy practice they were blindly led on by their wicked concupiscence and without any restraint wallowed in the most brutish Actions the very thoughts whereof fills me with amazement and horror But what is most dreadful and strange in the conduct of these Organs of the Evil Spirit is that they acted their greatest abominations in their Assemblies and in the Places where they were accustomed to meet to exercise their Diabolical Religion S. Epiphanius who more exactly than any other of the Antients relates unto us all that passed in the abominable mysteries of these Wretches is ashamed to write and were it not in some sort necessary to be published to render them odious unto all the World he would have forborn to have related the Brutalities and Filthinesses which they were not ashamed to commit As for my own particular although I have learned from S. Paul that all things are puâ—e unto the pure yet I will forbear reciting all the Impurities which were acted in
to observe every one may easily judge by what hath been hitherto said that what was offered for the celebration of the Sacrament was Bread and Wine but it may be all the world do not know that they were not the only things which were offered at first for the charitable Oblations of Believers being appointed not only for the Celebration of the Sacrament but also for the support of the Ministers and Pastours for relief of the Poor and generally for the necessity of the Church it cannot be questioned as I suppose that besides the Bread and Wine of which was taken what was convenient for the Sacrament there were also other things offered and if we should make any question of it the directions which we shall alledge will soon remove this doubt and scruple In fine the Pastours of Christian Churches having in time thought convenient to set apart the Oblation of Bread and Wine for the Celebration of the Eucharist from all the other Oblations made by Believers they absolutely prohibited that any thing else should be offered for the celebration of the Sacrament but Bread and Wine in pursuance whereof the third Canon attributed to the Apostles doth reprove and censure those who offered Honey Can. 3. Apost can 4. Milk Birds Beasts or Roots upon the Altar and in the fourth it allows of offering Oyl for the lights and incense for the times of Oblation But to prove what hath been said by a better authority recourse must be had unto more Authentick Monuments and to such as bear not the marks of Forgery as these Canons do The first of these Monuments which presents it self unto our sight is the third Council of Carthage assembled Anno 397. for in one of its Canons which is the 37. of the Code of the Church of Africa it makes this Decree That in the Sacraments Concil Carthag 3. can 24. or as Martin de Braga reads it in his Collection that in the Sanctuary nothing else be offered but the body and blood of our Lord as our Saviour hath taught that is to say Bread and Wine mingled with Water and to distinguish this Oblation which related unto the Eucharist from the others offered by the faithful people the Council adds As for the first-fruits whether it be Honey or Milk let them be offered after the usual manner upon some solemn day for the mystery of Infants and if these things especially the Milk be offered at the Altar yet let them receive their particular blessing to distinguish them from the consecration of the Body and Blood of our Lord and as to first-fruits that nothing be offered but Grapes and Wheat Martin Bishop of Braga in his Collection of Canons hath expressed in these words that of the Council of Carthage There ought nothing to be offered in the Sanctuary Collect can c. 55. but the Bread and Wine which are blessed in Type or in Figure of Jesus Christ And the fourth Council of Orleans Anno 541. makes this decree That none presume to offer in the Oblation of the holy Cup ought else but the fruit of the Vine mingled with Water Concil Aurel. 4 c 4. it is what is repeated in the VIII Canon of the Synod of Auxerre Anno. 578. The third Council of Braga in Gallicia assembled the year 675. going about to reform some Abuses crept into Spain touching this Oblation made this Decree which Gratian and others ignorantly alledge as a fragment of a Letter of Pope Julius unto the Egyptians Concil 3. Bracar c. 1. al. 2. We have been informed that certain Persons puffed up with a Schismatical ambition do offer Milk instead of Wine at the Holy Offertory contrary to the command of God and contrary to the institution of the Apostles and that there be others which do not offer at the Sacrament of the Cup of our Lord the Wine pressed out but they communicate the people with Grapes which have been offered and having alledged against this abuse the Authority and Example of Jesus Christ these Fathers add That they should therefore forbear offering Milk at the Sacrifice because the manifest and evident Example of the Evangelical truth hath appeared the which permits only that Bread and Wine should be offered This was also the method of the VI. Oecumenical Council when it transcribes in the 32. Canon that which hath been above alledged of the Synod of Carthage and in transcribing they appropriate it unto themselves and make it their own But if any ask the reason of this proceeding of the Fathers I mean wherefore they thought fit to distinguish the Oblation of the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist from all other things which in all likelihood were promiscuously offered at the same time with these things because these kinds of charitable Oblations had not for their scope the celebration of the Sacrament only I answer that by reason of the silence of Antient Writers it is very difficult to answer distinctly this question yet I will nevertheless thereupon offer my conjectures I say then in the first place I suppose the Fathers have thus done in honour and respect unto the Sacrament imagining that it was very just and reasonable that this Bread and Wine which by consecration were to be made the efficacious and Divine Symbols of the Body and blood of Jesus Christ should not be offered conjunctly with other things which indeed were to be applyed unto pious uses but less noble and considerable and methinks the Fathers of the Council of Carthage give us sufficient ground to conclude so from their Decree Secondly I think that having made this distinction they provided some other way for the maintenance of Church-men and for the relief of the Poor and so there being nothing else wanting but for the Sacrament the holy Fathers judged fit to limit the Oblations only to the species of Bread and Wine the two only things necessary for the celebration of the Divine Mystery Whereunto possibly it might be added that by this wise conduct they would prevent a growing superstition the multitude being but too much inclined to abuse the most innocent ceremonies being always sensual and carnal they might imagin that the Oblations made at the Altar being called First-fruits were of the same kind with the first-fruits of the Law whereof the Oblation sanctified the whole Lump so that the Fruits of the Earth might not be lawfully used until the first-fruits had been first offered unto God upon the holy Table as if without this Sanctification the use had been unlawful I cannot see but it may be so inferr'd from the words of Theodoret who speaking of the Oblation which the Church makes of the Symbols of the Body and Blood of the Lord saith That it sanctifieth the whole Lump by the first-fruits Theod. in Psalm 109. And what renders this conjecture the more probable is what S. Austin observed Aug. de Civit. Del l. 8. c. ult That many amongst the Christians
O God upon us and upon this reasonable service which we offer unto thee and receive them as thou didst the Oblations of Abel the Sacrifices of Noah the Priesthoods of Moses and Aaron the peaceable offerings of Samuel the repentance of David the Incense of Zacharias to the end that as thou receivedst from the hand of thine Apostles this true worship thou also of thy goodness wouldest receive of us who are sinners these gifts which we offer unto thee Grant that our Oblation may be agreeable being sanctified by the Holy Ghost for the propitiation of our Sins and of those which the People have committed through ignorance This action of the faithful people offering the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist for the Divine Service is called not only Oblation but also Sacrifice as we have shewn in examining whence the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist were taken Cypr. de oper Eleemos And in fine St. Cyprian doth positively call this Action a Sacrifice in that place of his formerly alledged When the Oblations are set upon the Altar or upon the Holy Table to be blessed they are again offered unto God by Prayer as hath been shewed in the foregoing Chapter but because that in some sort relates unto this first Oblation whereof we speak I would seek for the second in the Oblation made unto God of these same Oblations at the very instant of time that they are consecrated for we have seen that the Author of the Apostolical Constitutions Constit Apost l. 8. c. 12. at that instant addresses this Prayer unto God We offer unto thee O our God and our King this Bread and this Cup giving thee thanks by Jesus Christ because thou hast counted us worthy to appear in thy sight and to execute the Priesthood and we beseech thee O God who hast need of nothing to behold these Oblations with a favourable eye which are set before thee that thou wouldest accept them for the honour of thy Son and that thou wouldest send the Holy Ghost upon this Sacrifice c. It is very likely they did after this manner thinking that Jesus Christ who began the Celebration of his Eucharist with Prayer made a kind of Oblation unto God of the Bread and Wine and shewed at the same time his willingness of sacrificing himself soon after for the expiation of the Sins of the World therefore it is as I conceive that they grounded the Oblation whereof we treat wherein they desired of God that he would sanctifie unto them the use of these two things and that he would by his blessing make them the efficacious and Divine Sacraments of the Body broken and the Blood shed of his Christ for the Salvation and consolation of their Souls From hence it is that St. Cyprian in one of his Epistles saith in sundry places that Jesus Christ offered Bread and Wine in the Sacrament that we offer Wine and that Wine ought to be offered in the Cup of the Lord and not only so but that the Lord therein offered himself having in all likelihood regard unto the disposition wherein he shewed himself to be of exposing himself unto death for us when he instituted the Sacrament and memorial of it Cyprian Ep. 63. Our Lord saith he offered himself first unto his Father and commanded it should be so done in remembrance of him so that the Sacrificer which imitates what Jesus Christ hath done doth truly supply the place of Jesus Christ As for the third and last of the Oblations which I mentioned to be practised by Christians it was done after the Consecration of the Symbols after which they offered them unto God whereunto relates the warning made unto the People in the Apostolical Constitutions Const Apost l. 8. c. 13. To pray unto God by Jesus Christ for the gift offered unto our Lord to the end that he would receive it as an odour of a sweet savour upon his Heavenly Altar through the intercession of Jesus Christ In the Liturgy of St. James also Liturg. S. Jacob. They pray for the gifts which have been offered and sanctified to the end God would accept them and receiving them upon his Heavenly Altar as a sweet and spiritual savour he would in their stead send his Heavenly grace and the gift of his Holy Spirit and a little after they also pray That because he hath received as an odour of sweet savour Ibid. the Oblations and Presents which have been offered and hath been pleased to sanctifie and consecrate them by the grace of his Christ and the coming of the Holy Ghost he would also sanctifie their Souls their Spirits and Bodies c. in that of St. Chrysostom We offer unto thee of thy goods Liturg. Chrys Germ. Theor. p 403. or as Germain Patriarch of Constantinople explains it We offer unto thee the Antitypes It is true that considering the manner of the Greeks consecrating this Oblation should immediately precede the Prayer whereby they pretend to consecrate but if the Latins are considered this Oblation is not made unto God until after the Consecration be ended But there is seen in this Liturgy for the Oblation whereof we treat the same as in that of St. James In fine in all the Liturgies which we have although they be not all made by the Authors in whose names they pass the Oblation which is made unto God after the consecrating Liturgy of the Latins is an Oblation as is expresly said of Bread and Wine of Gifts and Fruits of the Earth But of all the Liturgies there is none that better informs us of the nature of this Oblation than that which is used by the Latin Church which thus speaks unto God Missa Can. We offer unto thy glorious Majesty of thy Gifts and of thy Presents a holy and immaculate Host the Holy Bread of Life and the Cup of Eternal health upon which things we beseech thee to look with a favourable and propitious Eye and to accept them as thou wert pleased to accept the Presents of thy righteous Son Abel and the Sacrifice of our Patriarch Abraham and the Holy Sacrifice the immaculate Host which thy Sovereign high Priest Melchisedeck offered unto thee we humbly beseech thee O Almighty Lord God to command that these things might be carried by thy Holy Angel upon thy high Altar into the presence of thy Divine Majesty And a little after continuing the like discourse they say unto God By the which Jesus Christ O Lord thou hast made all these things for us thou sanctifiest blessest and bestowest them upon us From whence it is that the Holy Fathers meditating upon this latter Oblation and considering that the Bread and Wine was the matter of it they spake as near as I can guess of the Sacrifice of the Christian Church as of a Sacrifice of Bread and Wine and although they have not all expressed themselves after one manner yet nevertheless their expressions however they seem to
differ in words yet tend to the same sense and contain one and the same Doctrine some instead of saying that there is offered Bread and Wine unto God have said that there were offered unto him the first-fruits of his Creatures that is to say things which he gives us for our nourishment Iren. l. 4. c. 32. so it is that St. Irenaeus expressed himself when he said That the new Oblation of the New Testament which the Church offers unto God throughout all the World is an Oblation of the first-fruit of his gifts that is of the Food which he hath given us Ibid. or as he saith afterwards of the first-fruits of his Creatures which he explains afterwards by Bread and by Wine which are Creatures of this World Others have spoken positively of Bread and Wine Just Martyr dial cum Tryph. p. 260. Macar Hom. 27. as St. Justin Martyr who makes the Sacrifices of Christians offered in all places in the Sacrament to consist of Bread and Wine St. Macarius an antient Anchorite was of the same mind when he observed that the primitive Believers knew not that Bread and Wine was offered in the Church to be the Antitype or the Figure of the flesh and Blood of our Lord. l. 1. ep 401. Thence it is that St. Isidore of Damietta confesseth unto Rabbi Benjamin That the Oblation of Christians is an Oblation of Bread Fulgent ad Pet. de side c. 19. That St. Fulgentius saith That the Catholick Church doth not cease to offer unto God throughout the world a Sacrifice of Bread and Wine That venerable Bede one of the greatest lights of the Church of England in the VIII Bed in Psal 133. t. 8. Id. de tabern l. 2. c. 2. t. 4. Century taught That our Lord had changed the Sacrifices of the Law into Sacrifices of Bread and Wine and that whereas the Antients celebrated the Sacrament of the passion of our Lord in the flesh and blood of Sacrifices we celebrate it in the Oblation of Bread and Wine That the Author of the Commentary of the Epistle to the Hebrews attributed unto Primasius but which is of Haimon of Halberstad or of Remy of Auxerre and by consequence at least of the IX Century declares In c. 5. ad Hebr. That the Lord left unto his Church these two gifts Bread and Wine to offer them in remembrance of him Amalar. praesat 2. l. de offic l. 3. cap. 25. And that Amalarius Fortunatus seeks a Sacrament of Jesus Christ in the person of the Priest offering Bread Wine and Water and that he saith that the Sacrificer recommends unto God the Father that which was offered in stead of Jesus Christ That others not contented to speak of an Oblation of Bread and Wine have added the quality of this Bread and Wine saying that they were Sacraments of the Body and blood of Jesus Christ The Author of the Commentary upon Genesis attributed unto Eucherius Bishop of Lyons thus expresses his thoughts Eucher in Genes l. 2. c. 18. It hath been commanded saith he that Christians should offer in Sacrifice not the bodies of Beasts as Aaron did but the Oblation of Bread and Wine that is to say the Sacrament of his body and blood Words which are yet seen in St. Isidore Archbishop of Sevill Isidor Hisp in Gen. c. 12. and which shew that where any of the Fathers instead of these words that is to say the Sacrament of his body and blood have said that is to say his Body and Blood as St. Cyprian and the Commentary upon the Epistle to the Hebrews under the name of Primasius it must of necessity be taken in the sence of St. Eucherius and St. Isidore otherwise they would be made to clash amongst themselves and those would be made to seem Enemies whose Doctrine differed not from one another as will evidently appear if the passages of the one are compared with the others and if the terms and expressions of the latter are carefully heeded with what went before and follows after It is also by the same Principle that the same St. Isidore saith elsewhere Idem de Allegor Idem de voc c. 26. That the Sacrament of the Body and blood of Christ that is to say the Oblation of Bread and Wine is offered all the world over and that Christians do not now offer Jewish Sacrifices such as the Sacrificer Aaron offered but such as were offered by Melchizedeck King of Salem that is to say Bread and Wine which is the most venerable Sacrament of the Body and blood of Christ Theodor. in Psal 109 Heb. 10. As for the famous Theodoret it is true that he speaks not of the Oblation of Bread and Wine but yet he sufficiently explains himself when he saith That the Church offers the Symbols of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ sanctifying the whole lump by the first-fruits Others in fine have shewed their belief on this point in saying that Jesus Christ offered and that we offer in the Eucharist the same things Melchisedeck offered It is what Clement of Alexandria meant by these words That Melchisedeck presented Bread and Wine Clem. Alex. Stromat l. 4 p. 539. Cyprian Ep. 63. a Food sanctified in Type of the Sacrament And S. Cyprian when he said That our Lord offered unto God the Father the same Sacrifice which Melchisedeck had done that is Bread and Wine to wit his Body and Blood For as he saith again not to leave the least doubt in the mind of the Reader Ibid. We see prefigured in the High Priest Melchisedeck the Sacrament of the Sacrifice of our Lord as the Divine Scripture testifies when it saith and Melchisedeck King of Salem brought Bread and Wine Thence it is that he observes in the same little Treatise some lines after the words before mentioned Ibid. That the Lord accomplishing and perfecting the Image of his Sacrifice offered Bread and the Cup mixed with Water And Eusebius Bishop of Caesarea doth not he say Euseb demonst l. 5. c. 3. That Jesus Christ doth at present accomplish by his Servants as Melchisedeck did all the Sacrifice that there is to be performed amongst men that Jesus Christ first of all and then all his Ministers do by Bread and Wine declare and shew the Mysteries of his precious Body and Blood and that Melchisedeck having foreseen these things by the Spirit of God made use before of the types of future things the Scripture witnessing that he brought out Bread and Wine It was also if I mistake not the meaning of S. Ambrose when going to prove that the Sacraments of the Church were ancienter than those of the Synagogue Ambros l. de init c. 8. t. 4. p. 349. Chrysost in Psal 109. he saith That Abraham which was before Moses received the Sacraments of Melchisedeck Wherefore saith S. Chrysostom said he After the Order of Melchisedeck because of the Sacraments for he offered
if it be true that the Priesthood according to the Law was abrogated and that the High Priest after the order of Melchisedeck offered a Sacrifice and that for this reason he did it that we may have no more need of another Sacrifice see here how he resolves this difficulty It is manifest unto those that are instructed in Divine matters that we do not offer another Sacrifice but that we do or celebrate the remembrance of that only saving Sacrifice he means that of the Cross for the Lord himself hath commanded us Do this in remembrance of me to the end that by contemplating the Figure we may bring to our minds what he suffered for us thereby to inflame our love unto our Benefactor and to expect the injoyment of good things to come Eulogius Patriarch of Alexandria contemporary and friend unto Gregory the First followed the others steps when he said Eulog apud Phot. Cod. ult That the Sacrament which we celebrate is not an oblation of divers Sacrifices but the commemoration of the Sacrifice which was once offered The same language was used in the Ninth Century seeing that Bertram or Ratramn said That the Oblation which Jesus Christ once offered Bertram de corp Sang. Domini is every day celebrated by the faithful but mystically and in remembrance of his Passion and that nevertheless it is not falsely said that the Lord is sacrificed or that he suffers in these Mysteries because they have a resemblance of this death and passion whereof they are the representations Id. Ibid. c. That the Bread and the Cup do represent the memorial of the death of our Lord and that they are set upon the Altar in type and memory of his death to represent unto our memory what was formerly done and that to the end we thinking of this death he who hath delivered us from death might make us to partake of the Divine Oblation And the Deacon Florus said he not at the same time Flor. in Exposit Miss That the Oblation of this Bread and this Cup is the commemoration and annunciation of the death of Jesus Christ and that the commemoration of the death of Christ is the shewing forth of his love because he so loved us as to die for us If we descend lower Peter Lombard Master of the Sentences will tell us in the Twelfth Century Lombard l. 4. sentent dist 12. litt g. That is called a Sacrifice and Oblation which is offered and consecrated by the Priest because it is the memorial and representation of the true Sacrifice and of the holy immolation which was made upon the Altar of the Cross And Thomas Aquinas in the Thirteenth Century That the Celebration of the Eucharist Thom. sunn part 3. q. 83. part 1. is called the immolation of Jesus Christ because as S. Austin saith unto Simplicius the Images are wont to take their name from those things whereof they be Images and that the Celebration of this Sacrament is a certain representative type of the death of Jesus Christ which is his true immolation therefore the Celebration of this Sacrament is called Immolation Secondly the Eucharist being an act of our duty towards God and towards his Son for the admirable and ineffable benefit of his Death the antient Doctors might also in this regard call it by the name of Eucharistical Sacrifice of Thanksgiving of Prayer and of Acknowledgement This in appearance was the meaning of St. Chrysostom when he said Chrysost in Matth. Hom. 26. That the venerable Mysteries are called Eucharist because they are a commemoration of sundry benefits and because they dispose us always to render thanks unto God And because God is honoured with two very different qualities one of Creator the other of Redeemer we give him thanks that as Creator he gives unto us the Fruits of the Earth and we then consecrate unto him the Bread and Wine as the First-fruits of his Creatures and that in quality of Redeemer he hath given unto us the Body and Blood of his Son and in this regard we consecrate unto him the Bread and Wine as Memorials of the bloody death of our Saviour St. Ireneus observes this use as to the first regard Iren. l. 4. cap. 34. We are obliged saith he to make our offerings unto God and that in all things we should be thankful unto the Creator but that must be done with pure affections and with a sincere Faith a firm hope and ardent Charity in offering unto him the First fruits of his Creatures which are his but it is only the Church which offers unto God this pure Oblation presenting unto him with Prayers of the Creatures which he hath made St. Austin if I be not deceived intended to touch the latter regard when speaking of the Sacrifice of the Cross August l. 20. contr Faust cap. 21. he said That the flesh and blood of this Sacrifice had been promised before the coming of Christ by typical Sacrifices of resemblance that in the passion of Jesus Christ they were accomplished by the truth it self and that after his Ascension they are celebrated by a Sacrament of Commemoration But Justin Martyr hath joyned both together in his Excellent Dialogue against Tryphon Jesus Christ saith he hath commanded us to make the Bread of the Sacrament in Commemoration of the Death which he suffered for those whose Souls have been purified from all malice Just Mart. dialog contr Tryph. p. 259 260. to the end we should neturm thanks unto God for the Creation of the World and the things which are therein for the use of Man And for that he hath delivered us from the wickedness wherein we lay having triumphed over Principalities and Powers by him who in executing the good pleasure of his will was pleased to take upon him a frail Nature In the third place the Holy Fathers considering that the Eucharist serves us now in the room of Mosaical Sacrifices being our outward worship under the dispensation of the Gospel as the Sacrifices were the Jewish Service under the Oeconomy of the Law they have freely called it Sacrifice and rightly to understand in what sense they have given it this Title in the consideration that 't is our Worship and exteriour Service we must consider that they often take this word Sacrifice in a very large extended and improper sence therefore 't is that they apply it unto all the acts of Piety and Devotion and generally unto all things that pertain unto the worship of our Saviour in which they have followed the stile of the Holy Scriptures that so speak in many places David calls the contrite heart Psal 51. a Sacrifice well pleasing unto Almighty God The Prophet calls it Hosea c. 14. Heb. 13. Philip. 4. rendring Calves of our lips which the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews explains The fruit of the Lips which confest the name of God The Apostle gives the name of Sacrifices
of a Sacrament of Communion for the benefit of all Christians Therefore it is Constit Apostol l. 8. c. 13. that the Author of Apostolical Constitutions mentioning the Persons who ought to communicate and in what manner he comprehends generally all faithful Christians as well Clergy as People without distinguishing Age or Sex John Cochloeus writing against Musculus a Protestant Josse Clicthou upon the Canon of the Mass Apud Cass in Liturg. and Vitus Amerpachius all three of the Communion of Rome confess the truth of this Tradition which we have established and the two former confirm it by the Authority of Pope Calixtus which practice is at this time observed in other Christian Communions and which I make no doubt was alwayes observed in the West because at the time it ceased in the Latin Church that is to say in the Twelfth Century at soonest those who went out and departed from her observed it very Religiously never celebrating the Eucharist without Communicants until the last separation of Protestants whose practice also it is Having spoken of the Communion of aged persons we must treat of that of young Children according to the rule which was proposed St. Cyprian reports the story of a little Christian Girl Cypr. de laps p. 175. whose Nurse had carried her unto the Pagan Temple where they made her eat Bread steept in Wine both having been consecrated unto Idols and that afterwards as her turn came to Communicate in the Christian Church they had very much trouble to open the Childs Lips into whose mouth with much adoe they poured a little of the Sacrifice of the Cup but in vain Id. Ep. 59. The Sacrament saith he not enduring to abide in this polluted Mouth and Body and indeed she vomited what they had forced her to take The same may be collected from another place in his Works where he defines with his Brethren and fellow Bishops that nothing hinders the Baptizing of Infants presently after their Birth because that for the most part the participation of the Sacrament followed the reception of Baptism and to say the truth it seemeth that he explains himself sufficiently not to leave us the least doubt of it In the Apostolical constitution Const Apost l. 8. c. 13. Children are counted amongst those who ought to Communicate this custom then is very antient seeing we find it established in the third Century but if it is antient it was also of a large extent this custom having since continued in all Christian Climats and Countreys and is at this time practised in all the Churches of the Greeks the Russians or Moscovites the Armenians and Ethiopians and we do not find that those Christian Communions have ever laid it aside which doth fully prove what we said That this custom was soon spread into all parts of the Christian World But to speak particularly of the Latin Church we must as near as may be follow the steps of this antient practice and in the first place I will instance in what hath been said by the Jesuit Maldonat in his Commentaries upon St. John Maldon in c. 6. Joan. v. 53. I lay apart saith he the opinion of St. Austin and of Innocent the First which was believed and practised in the Church six hundred years That the Sacrament also was necessary for young Children at present the thing hath been cleared by the Church and the practice of several Ages and by a Decree of the Council of Trent that not only it is not necessary for them Ep. ad Syn. Mil. apud Aug. Ep. 93. but that also it is not permitted to give it unto them And indeed Innocent the First shews plainly that it was the practice of his time that is of the Fifth Century As for St. Austin his constant Doctrine in a great many passages of his Works is That the Eucharist is necessary unto young Children for obtaining eternal Life I shall content my self with two or three passages of this famous Doctor Aug. de pec mer. rem l. 1. c 20. Let us hear saith he the Lord saying of the Sacrament of the holy Table unto which no body approaches as they ought unless they are first Baptized If ye eat not my Flesh and drink not my Blood you have no Life in you What more do we look for what can be replied to this only that obstinacy knits its Sinews to resist the Force of this evident truth Else durst any one deny but that this Speech concerns little Children and that they can have life in themselves without the participation of this Body and of this Blood Id. ibid. 24. And in the same Book It is with great reason that the Christians of Africa call Baptism Salvation and the Sacrament of the Body of Christ Life whence is that as I think but from an antient and Apostolical Tradition by which the Churches of Christ hold for certain That no body can attain either unto the Kingdom of God or unto Salvation or eternal Life without Baptism and the participation of the Supper of our Lord. And writing against Julian the Pelagian Id. contr Jul. l. 2. c. 1. alibi What saith he would you have me do Is it that the Lord saying If ye eat not my Flesh c. I ought to say That young Children who dye without this Sacrament shall have Life The same thing may be justified by several other Doctors of the same time but seeing it is owned by both sides it would be needless It may be only observed that Maldonat set not his bounds right when he included this use or rather abuse in or about the six first Centuries for besides that there is mention made of Communicating Infants presently after Baptism in Gregory the First his Book of Sacraments Lib. Sacram. Greg. p. 73.74 Conc. Tol. 11. Can. 11. Vit. Leufr c. 17. in Chron. Insulae Lirin we have a Canon in the Eleventh Council of Toledo Anno 675. which plainly commands it In the beginning of the Eighth Century the Life of the Abbot Leufred affords an example of this custom for we therein read That Charles Martel having desired him by his Prayers to restore health unto his Son Griphon who was afflicted with a great Feaver amongst several things which he did 't is observed that he gave unto him the Sacrament of the Body of our Lord. Charlemain in a Treatise written by his order and in his name doth plainly shew that this was still practised in the West at the end of the Eighth Century De Imag. l. 2. c. 27. for he not only saith That there is no Salvation without participating of the Eucharist but he also mentioneth the Communion of little Children Capit. l. 1. c. 16. Suppl Conc. Gal. p. 183. c. 7. Ibid. p. 306. c. 8. whom he represents unto us fed and nourished with the Body and Blood of our Lord And in his Capitularies he commands That Priests
Constance and from that time until the Council of Trent Justin Martyr affirms Apolog. 1. that in his time there was distributed Consecrated Bread and Wine unto all the Communicants Ep. ad Philadelph The pretended Ignatius tells us of one only Cup distributed unto all And S. Irenaeus disputing against certain Hereticks who denied the Resurrection of the Body Advers haer l. 5. c. 2. How saith he do they deny that the Body is capable of the gift of God which is life eternal which is nourished with the Blood and Body of Christ L. 4. c. 34. And again How do they again say that the Body corrupteth that is to say with a final corruption and that it receiveth not life to wit in rising again being nourished with the Body and Blood of Christ Hom. 16. Origen on the Book of Numbers What is this people which are wont to drink Blood the Christian people the faithful people follow him who said If you eat not my Flesh and drink not my Blood you have no life in you because my Flesh is Meat indeed and my Blood is drink indeed And to shew that he speaks of the Sacramental Communion Hom. 14. in Matth. he adds It is said that we drink the Blood of Jesus Christ not only in the Celebration of the Sacraments but also when we receive his words And elsewhere he speaks of unadvisedly taking the Bread of our Lord and his Cup. The blessed Martyr S. Cyprian Ep. 63. hath written a Treatise expresly of the Sacrament of the Cup as S. Austin calls it where he amply proves this Communion which we examin and in another place writing with his Brethren unto Cornelius Bishop of Rome touching the resolution they had taken to admit into the unity of the Church those who had flinched in times of persecution and speaking of the excellent Motive which they found in communicating of the Cup to incourage Christians unto Martyrdom see here what they said Ep. 54. How should we incourage them to shed their blood for the confession of the name of Jesus if going to the Combat we should deny them the Blood of Christ Or how should we make them fit to drink the Cup of Martyrdom if we do not admit them first to drink in the Church the Cup of the Lord by the right of Communication And in his Treatise of those that had fallen during the persecution of the Church he saith P. 175. ult edit That the Deacon presented the Cup unto them who were present as Justin Martyr also hath taught us The Councils of Ancyra Anno 314. Apud Athanas Apolog. p. 732. in the second Canon and that of Neocaesarea the same Year in the XIII Canon inform us also the same thing as also a Synod of Alexandria Assembled during the Persecutions stirred up by the Arrians against S. Athanasius Thence it is that Leo the First In natal ejus c. 2. L. 1. contr Parmen speaking in the V. Century of S. Vincent Levite that is to say Deacon and glorious Martyr saith That he administred the Cup unto the Christians for their salvation Optatus Bishop of Milevis in Numidia observes the same of Cecilian as he was yet but Deacon of the Church of Carthage and writes also that what drew on him the hatred of Lucilla a powerful and factious Woman who by her Riches and Credit supported the Party of the â—onatists against Cecilian promoted to be a Bishop was That Cecilian performing the Office of a Deacon pronounced a severe Sentence against her because in presenting her the Cup she kissed the Bone of some dead person or Martyr before she put her lips unto the Cup of the Lord. Mystag 5. p. 245. vide p. 244. L. de Baptism c. 3. S. Cyril of Jerusalem in his Mystagogicks Aster having communicated of the Body of Christ draw near unto the Cup of his Blood c. S. Basil said the benefit of the words of the Institution of the Eucharist is That eating and drinking we should alwaies have him in remembrance who Died and is Risen again for us And elsewhere Ep. 289. It is a thing good and profitable to communicate daily and to participate of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ The Liturgies also which go in his name may be here alledged and all the others which are now remaining from which it is easie to collect the use and practice of communicating under both kinds S Chrysostom in his Homilies upon S. Matthew Hom. 32. Graec. p. 319. E. The same Table is offered unto all the same Drink is given unto all but not only the same Liquor but it is also given unto us all to drink of one and the same Cup for our Father injoining us to love one another he so ordered it that we should drink of the same Cup And upon S. John speaking of the Water and Blood which came out of Christs side Hom. 85. Graec. The Mysteries do from thence take their Original to the end as oft as ye approach unto the terrible Cup ye should draw near as if it were to drink out of his side it self And upon the Second to the Corinthians Hom. 18. There are certain times when there is no difference betwixt the Priest and those over whom he doth preside as when they are to participate of the terrible Mysteries for we are all equally admitted there it is not as under the old Law the Priest ate some things and the people other things and the people were not permitted to eat of what the Priest did eat but now it is otherwise for one Body and one Cup is offered unto all S. Austin in his Questions upon Leviticus The Lord saying L. 3. c. 57. t. 4. If you eat not my Flesh and drink my Blood you have no life in you What was the reason of so strictly prohibiting the people from the Blood of the Sacrifices offered for sins if those Sacrifices did represent the only Sacrifice wherein the true and full remission of sins is made nevertheless no person is hindred from taking this Sacrifice for his nourishment but rather all those who would be saved are exhorted to drink it Leo the First in his Lent Sermon speaking of the Manicheans who not to appear what they were frequented the Assemblies of Believers and did also participate with them of their Sacraments Serm. â— c. 5. To hide saith he their Infidelity they have the impudence to assist at our Mysteries they so dispose themselves in the Communion of the Sacraments to shelter themselves the better they receive with an unworthy mouth the Body of Christ but they absolutely refuse drinking the Blood of our Redemption Therefore we give your Holiness notice of it to the end this kind of men may be known by these marks and that such other Sacrilegious Dissimulation hath been discovered may be marked and that being forbidden to be present in the Society
of the Saints they might be expell'd by the Priestly Authority In the Tenth Action of the Council of Chalcedon Assembled An. 451. there is a request of the Priests of the Church of Edessa against Ibas their Bishop wherein they complain of many things T 3. Concil p. 382. F. ult edit but more especially That when the Commemoration of Martyrs was made there was no Wine given to offer at the Altar to be Sanctified and distributed unto the people except it were a very little and that bad and muddy just newly prest and made Pope Gelasius at the end of the V. Century De consecr dist 2. Ep. ad Major Joan. in Gratians Decree We have been informed saith he that some persons having only taken part of the holy Body do refrain the Cup of the holy Blood which persons doubtless it being said they are hindred by I know not what Superstition ought to receive the whole Sacraments or be quite excluded from them because that the dividing of one and the same Mysterie cannot be done without Sacriledge Fragm 28. contr Fabian L. 2. de vita sua c 15. p. 216. S. Fulgentius said That we participate of the Body and Blood of Christ when we eat of his Bread and drink of his Cup. S. Eloy Bishop of Noyon in the VII Century requires That the sick should with Faith and Devotion receive the Eucharist of the Body and Blood of Christ T. 4. Concil p. 503. The Third Council of Toledo Assembled Anno 589. in the second Canon Ordains That the peoples heart being purified by Faith they should draw near to eat the Body and Blood of Christ Which the Fourth held in the year of our Lord 633. in the 7. and 8. Canons called Ibid. p. 584 587. To receive the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ And in the Eighteenth Canon it makes this Rule for reforming a certain abuse crept into the Church in the celebration of this Sacrament Some Priests communicate presently after saying the Lords Prayer and then give the Blessing unto the people which we forbid for the future but that after the Lords Prayer and the conjunction of the Bread and the Cup the blessing be given the people and that then the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Lord be received in this manner that the Priest and Deacon communicate before the Altar the Clergy in the Quire and the people without the Quire From which words it appears That in Spain in the VII Century the Communion of the Laity did nothing differ from that of the Priest who Officiated as to the manner but in respect of the place only Also the XI Council of Toledo Ib. p. 825. Assembled Anno 675. in the Eleventh Canon plainly speaks also of the Communion under both the Symbols of Bread and Wine when it forgiveth such as being very sick through weakness refuse the Eucharist not through infidelity But because they cannot swallow it down except it be what they drink of the Lords Cup. Thus far it was the practice of the Church to administer unto Communicants both Symbols severally apart It is true that at the same time of this XI Council of Toledo some going about to change this wholsom custom and to administer the Bread steept in the Consecrated Wine the Council of Braga in Gallicia made a Decree to stop the current of this practice but before we alledge this new Decree it must be observed That the Church by a charitable condescension suffered the Eucharist steeped to be given unto very weak and sick persons and to young Children who were of a long time admitted to the participation of the Sacrament as hath been shewn We have an instance of the first in the old Man Serapion a Penitent and Bed-ridden for as I perceive in the Third Century the Eucharist was administred to no sick folks but such as were of the number of the Penitents and in danger of Death And we read in Eusebius that a Priest of Alexandria following the example of Denys his Bishop sent by a young Boy a bit or little parcel of the Eucharist Euseb Hist Eccles l. 6. c. 44. commanding that it should be steept and put into the old Mans mouth that he might swallow it As for young Children it appears that it may be collected both from S. Cyprian in his Treatise of those that were fallen and yielded during the time of Persecution Dimid temp c. 6. and of the counterfeit Prosper in what he hath written of Promises and Predictions that it was so done to such as were very weak I say it may seem to be gathered for the thing is very dubious in S. Cyprian who teacheth us that the Communion was given unto little Children but he doth not positively say that the Bread was steept in the Wine the pretended Prosper speaks more formally In a word it is evident that this kind of Communion was not practised but in great necessity De commun sub utraque spec p. 1027. and also as Cassander hath judiciously observed Those persons who steeped the Bread in the Wine did plainly shew and declare how necessary they believed both Symbols were to make a lawful Communion I say this sort of Communion was not practised I mean that the Bread was not steeped in Wine but upon great necessity In fine Hugh Maynard a learned Benedictine speaking of the Council of Clermont under Pope Vrban the second as 't is reported by Cardinal Baronius he collects that according to the intent of the Council may be given in a Spoon unto sick Persons ready to dye the Body of our Lord steeped in the Blood that they might swallow it the easier And to shew that the Eucharist was not so administred but unto such as were very weak he makes mention of a Manuscript of St. Remy of Rheims Of the anointing the sick written towards the end of the X. Century upon which he observes that when the Sacrament was administred unto such as were not extream ill it was said unto them separately The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ keep you to life everlasting the Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ ransom you unto life everlasting which words saith he make a separate and distinct reception But as for those who were as 't were at the point of death these two expressions were joined together saying The Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve thy Soul unto everlasting life because saith he there was given unto the sick Person in a Spoon the Body of the Lord steeped in the holy Blood Now to return to the Council of Braga in Gallicia it was assembled in the year of our Lord 675. and in the second Canon which Gratian Ives of Chartres Cassander and several others mis-alledge as a Fragment of an Epistle of Pope Julius to the Egyptians I say in the second Canon it reproves divers abuses and amongst others that of administring the Sacrament
steeped therefore we will rest satisfied with alledging that which properly relates to the Subject in hand T. 4. Concil p. 832. We are given to understand that some Persons present unto the people as a perfect Communion the Eucharist steeped And having touched another abuse and having proved by the Scriptures that Milk should not be offered in stead of Wine in divine Sacrifices the Fathers add And whereas they give unto the people as a perfect Communion the Eucharist steeped the example of the Scripture which is alledged where Jesus Christ recommended his Body and Blood unto his Apostles will not admit of it for it is said that he bid them take his Body apart and his Blood apart And we do not read that Jesus Christ gave the steeped Bread unto any but the Disciple which should be known to be him to whom 't was given even him that would betray his Master and not to shew the Institution of the Sacrament We are then arrived at the end of the VII Century without seeing any other attempt against the Communion under both kinds separately but that which was vigorously condemned and censured by the Council of Braga Let us continue to give farther proofs of this use A Council at Paris assembled Anno 829 under Lewis the Debonnair it is the VI. which unto that time was there celebrated this Council I say in the first Book Canon the 45. condemns an abuse which was crept into certain Provinces T. 3. Concil Gall. Where the Women distributed unto the people that is in the Churches the Body and Blood of our Lord and in the 47. Canon it forbids Priests to celebrate Masses any where but in consecrated places unless it be in case of necessity To the end the people should not be without the celebration of Masses and the participation of the Body and Blood of our Lord. De ord Bapt. z. c. 18. Theodulph Bishop of Orleans in the same Century speaking of life eternal To obtain saith he this life we are Baptized and we eat the flesh of Christ and do drink his Blood and afterwards the Church continues the custom of receiving the Eucharist which was bequeathed unto her by Jesus Christ that is when any one is new born by Water and the spirit that is to say is Baptized he is nourished with the body of our Lord and drinks his Blood because that immediately after Baptism T. 7. Spicil p. 174. they received the Sacrament Amalarius Fortunatus It is to be observed saith he that every Sunday in Lent all the believers except such as are excommunicated ought to receive the Sacraments of the Body and blood of Christ Pope Nicholas the First in his answer to the Bulgarians requires T. 6. Concil p. 619. c. 65. that the venerable Body of Christ and his pretious Blood be distinguished and discerned from other meat and that the one and the other be received Regino in his Chronicle of the year of our Lord 869. observes that Pope Adrian the second gave the Sacrament unto King Lothair after that he had sworn that he had dismist for ever Waldrad his Concubine Regino in Chro. ad an 869. and that this Prince received in his hands the Body and Blood of the Lord and that it may not be thought it was a priviledge belonging to Lothair by reason of his Kingly Dignity the Historian saith that Pope Adrian did present the Communion unto all those which accompanied Lothair with these words If you have not been assisting unto Lothair your Lord and King in the sin of Adultery laid to his charge and if you have no way consented thereunto and have had no communication with Waldrad and others who have been excommunicated by this Apostolical Chair the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ be profitable unto you for life everlasting Ratherius Bishop of Verona in Italy De Contempt can part 1. t. 2. Spicileg p. 182. Ib. p. 262. towards the end of the X. Century Let all evil intentions be laid aside as well of those which receive as of those which administer the Body and Blood of the Lord in his Synodical unto his Priests he orders them to warn Believers to come four times a year to the Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ and in his first Sermon of Easter P. 309. Let us saith he celebrate the Feast that is to say let us eat the flesh of the Lord and drink his Blood And again Lay aside wickedness Page 310. if you will eat the flesh of the Lamb of God and drink his Blood And again speaking of him that had unduly celebrated the precedent Easter P. 311. He dared approach to receive the Body and Blood of the Lamb of God And of him that had not followed the example of the Saints P. 313. How doth he presume without sighing and grieving this day to receive the Body and Blood of the Lord And in his second Sermon P. 320. Let us with joy receive the Body and Blood of Christ which was sacrificed for us And in the third Let every one examine himself to see if the Priest hath said true of him that is to say if he hath received the Body and Blood of the Lord with the unlevened Bread of sincerity and of truth Ratherius dyed Anno 974. yet it is true that the practice of administring the Eucharist steeped was introduced into some places about the time Ratherius did write for Hugh Maynard above mentioned amongst several Manuscripts he used in his work upon the Book of Sacraments of Gregory the First makes use of one under the name of Ratold Abbot of Corby written about the year of our Lord 986. wherein it is read that the Bishop should give the Communion unto the sub-Deacons In mingling the Sacrifice that is to say in mingling the holy Bread with the consecrated Wine for as for the Priests and Deacons he will have them to taste with their lips the Blood in the Cup the sub-Deacon holding it And another of John Bishop of Auranch whose title is The antient manner of celebrating Mass which he got from an antient Manuscript of the Priory of Saluza of the Prebends of the Order of St. Austin in Normandy of Vexin near Vernon But it appears by the beginning of the Manuscript cited by Maynard that this John Bishop of Auranch is Author of the piece which he dedicated to Maurill Archbishop of Roan and this John dyed as the same Maynard in his Notes observes P. 277. in the year 1079. there this is to be read That the Priest should communicate not with steeped Bread but according to the definition of the Council of Toledo in all likelihood he means that of Braga in the year 675. The Body apart and the Blood apart excepting the people unto whom he is permitted to give the Communion with steeped Bread not by authority but by great necessity for fear of shedding the Blood of
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
every one should and ought with all diligence and fidelity to contribute his Endeavours and improve the Talent which our Lord hath committed unto his trust This is what I have endeavoured to do hitherto and which I intend to do for the time to come if it be not with all the Delight and Ornament the Reader could wish at least it shall be with all the Sincerity which can be expected from one who believes to have well bestow'd his Labour and Pains if his Endeavours would create in the Minds of Christians divided by various Opinions in Religion more tender Inclinations of Love and Charity and greater Desires unto Peace and Concord We have already seen all that relates unto the outward Form of the Celebration of the Sacrament with the Alterations thereunto hapned in succession of time now we must endeavour to discover what hath been believed of this Mystery in this large and spacious Country but to do it the more orderly and to shew with more ease and clearness the History of the Innovations which have happened as well in the Expressions as in the Doctrine we will extend our Proofs as to the Expressions but unto the seventh and eighth Centuries at which time they suffer'd some Attempt and as to the Doctrine unto the ninth supposing it received some Alteration in the beginning of that Age. CHAP. I. The Reflections made by the Fathers upon the Words of the Institution of the Sacrament THE holy Fathers had so great a Love for Jesus Christ and Veneration for all his Institutions that they took a singular pleasure in meditating upon this great Mystery and in making divers Reflections upon this divine Institution Our Lord said of the Bread which he had taken which he blessed and which he broke That it was his Body and of the Wine that it was his Blood The antient Doctors of the Church considering this Expression of the Son of God have declared with a common Consent and as it were united Suffrages that Jesus Christ called the Bread and Wine his Body and his Blood Our Lord said St. Irenaeus Iren. l. 5. c. 2. Tatian tom 7. Bibl. Patr. has assured that the Bread was his Body Tatian in his Harmony upon the Evangelists saith That he testified that the Bread and the Cup of Wine were his Body and Blood Tertullian Tertul. l. 5. contr Jud. c. 11. l. 5. Carm. cont Marc. Origen in Matth. Hom. 35. Cyprian Ep. 75. ad Magn. That he called the Bread his Body and that he said of the Bread and of the Fruit of the Vine This is my Body and my Blood poured out Origen in one of his Homilies upon St. Matthew That he confessed the Bread was his Body And the blessed Martyr St. Cyprian That he called his Body the Bread which was made of the collection of several Grains The Author of the Commentaries upon the Evangelists which go in the Name of Theophilus of Antioch though 't is not certain whether they be his for all they are attributed unto him in the Library of the Fathers this Author I say has expressed his thoughts almost as St. Cyprian had done saying That Jesus Christ called his Body Theophil Antioch in Matth. the Bread which is made of the collection of divers Grains and his Blood the Wine which is pressed out of several Grapes and this he saith in explaining the Words of the Institution of the Sacrament This is my Body this is the Cup of my Blood Eusebius Bishop of Cesarea in Palestin had no other meaning I think when he said Euseb Dem. lib. 8. That the Lord commanded to make use of Bread for the Symbol of his Body Nor St. Cyrill of Jerusalem in these Words Cyrill Hie of Mystag 4. Our Lord spake and said of the Bread This is my Body Nor the Poet Juvencus when he declares Juvenc l. 4. de Evang. Hist That our Saviour giving the Bread unto his Disciples taught them that he gave them his Body Nor in fine an unknown Author in the Works of St. Athanasius which saith De Dict. Interp. Parab 9.72 That our Lord called the Mystical Wine his Blood St. Epiphanius hindered by the Scruple which the Fathers made of calling the Symbols of the Eucharist Bread and Wine contented himself to intimate unto us that Jesus Christ did assimilate his Body unto a Subject round as to its Form Epiphan in Anchor and without sense as to its Power having no manner of resemblance unto the incarnate Image nor with the proportion of Members Gaudent tract 2. in Exod. St. Gaudentius observes that our Lord in giving the consecrated Bread and Wine unto the Disciples said This is my Body this is my Blood It is also the Observation of the Author of the Apostolical Constitutions who makes Christ say of the Bread which he broke Const Apost lib. 8. c. 12. and gave unto his Disciples This is the Mystery of the New Testament Take eat this is my Body St. Chrysostome is no less clear Chrysost in 1 Co. Hom. 24. Hieron cp 4 ad Hidib 92. What is the Bread saith he it is the Body of Jesus Christ. St. Jerome also follows the same way seeing he assures That the Bread which our Lord broke and gave unto his Disciples was his Body and the Cup his Blood and that he proves it by these Words This is my Body St. Austin in the Sermon unto the new baptized August apud Fulgen. de Baptis Aeth cap. vet Cyril l. 12. in Joar 20.26 27. saith expresly That the Bread is the Body of Christ and the Cup is the Blood of Christ St. Cyrill of Alexandria was doubtless of the same mind for in his Commentary upon St. John he makes Christ say Of the Bread which he broke and distributed this is my Body which is given for you in Remission of Sins We may descend lower and carry further the Proof of this first Reflection were we not prevented by the Rule which we prescribed and of the Resolution taken of avoiding as much as possible may be the repeating of the same Testimonies It shall then suffice to inform the Reader that 't is a certain Truth owned by all Men both Protestants and Roman Catholicks that when there is a Dispute of two Subjects of a different Nature it cannot properly be said that the one is the other when therefore these sorts of Propositions meet in Discours of necessity recours must be had unto the Figure or Metaphor What the Fathers have deposed is considerable yet I do not think it sufficient nor that it is all which they have to say unto us If we examine anew these faithful Witnesses I doubt not but they will speak again and that they will inform us of other Truths besides them above-mentioned and that they will not leave us ignorant how they understood the Words of the Institution of this angust Sacrament Those which have diligently applied themselves to
11. After his coming we shall have no need of Signs or Symbols of his Body because the Body it self shall appear It was also the meaning of St. Austin if I mistake not when he said Aug. Serm. 9. de divers Id. in Psal 37. That we shall not receive the Eucharist when we are come unto Christ himself and that we have begun to reign Eternally with him he said also elsewhere That no Body remembers what is not present A Maxim grounded upon the Light of Reason De memor reminisc c. 1. De Invent. l. 2. for 't is by this Principle the Philosopher said that the Memory is not of things present and the Prince of Eloquence That the Memory is that whereby one remembers things which are past I never think of these Words of the Institution of the Sacrament This is my Body but I deplore with grief and sorrow of Heart the State of Christians which have made the Sacrament which our Saviour instituted to be the Bond of their Love and Union the occasion of their Hatred and the sorrowful matter of their sad Divisions and as I should be over-joy'd to contribute any thing to disabuse those which are in Errour by giving the Words the Explication which they ought to have I thought one of the best means to effect it was diligently to search in what sense the Holy Fathers have taken them and in what manner they understood them for I make no question but a belief agreed upon by Christians at all times and universally received at all times in all the Climates of the Christian World is Catholick Orthodox and by consequence worthy to be retained in the Church as an Apostolical Truth Therefore I have applied my self unto this Inquiry to endeavour to find in their Works their true and real Thoughts and because for the most part in their Homilies and popular Exhortations they are transported with the fervour of Zeal and the motions of Piety which often made them use Hyperbolical Expressions fit for the Pulpit and suitable unto Orators which should be pathetical and feeling I have not stopt at these sorts of Works I have chiefly examined Commentaries and Expositions where for the most part they speak Dogmatically and in cold Blood and the true and genuine Thoughts of those which write or expound may be seen And but that I mean exactly to keep within the Bounds prescribed at the beginning of this second Part I might continue my Inquiry unto the XIIth Century which would give us the Testimonies of Zonaras a Greek Canonist and of Rupert de Duitz as the IXth doth those of Raban of Christian Druthmar and of Bertram Laying then aside these five Testimonies not to infringe the Law I willingly imposed on my self I 'le begin vvith Clement of Alexandria Clem. Alex. Paedag. l. 2. c. 2. who lived at the end of the second Century Jesus Christ said he blessed Wine saying Take drink this is my Blood the Blood of the Vine the holy Liquor of Joy represents by Alegory the Word to wit with regard to his Blood which was shed for many for the Remission of Sins From Clement of Alexandria I will pass unto Theophilus of Antioch Theoph. Anti. och in Matth. who wrote in the same Age When Jesus Christ saith he said This is my Body he called Bread which is made of many Grains his Body whereby he would represent the People which he hath taken unto himself Tertul. l. 4. contr Marc. c. 40. Cyprian ep 76. The third shall be Tertullian which saith That Jesus Christ having taken Bread and distributed it unto his Disciples he made it his Body saying This is my Body that is to say the Figure of my Body The fourth is St. Cyprian When the Lord saith he doth call the Bread made of several grains of Wheat his Body he signifieth thereby the faithful People whose Sins he bore inasmuch as it was but one Body The fifth is St. Jerome Hieron Com. in Matth. c. 26. who dyed in the year of our Lord 420 As they were at Supper saith he Jesus took Bread blessed it and brake it and gave it to his Disciples and said Take eat this is my Body And taking the Cup he gave Thanks and gave it unto them saying Drink ye all of it for this is my Blood of the New Testament for the remission of Sins When the Typical Passover was accomplished and that Jesus Christ had eaten with the Apostles the Flesh of the Lamb he took Bread which strengthneth Man's Heart and proceeds on to the true Sacrament of the Passover to the end that as Melchisedek Priest of the most High God had offered Bread and Wine to represent him so he also should represent the Truth of his Body and of his Blood The sixth is St. Austin contemporary with St. Jerome and dyed about eleven years after him The Lord made no difficulty to say August contr Adim c. 12. This is my Body when he gave the Symbol of his Body The seventh is Theodoret Our Lord saith he made an Exchange of Names Theod Dial. 1. and gave unto his Body the Name of the Symbol and unto the Symbol the Name of his Body and in the same place tells us in Truth whereof the Holy Food is the Sign and Figure Is it of the Divinity of Jesus Christ or of his Body and Blood Id. ibid. It is evident 't is of the things whereof they have their Names for the Lord having taken the Sign said not This is my Divinity but This is my Body and afterwards This is my Blood The eighth is Facundus Bishop of Hermiana in Africa who assisted at the Fifth Oecumenical Council about the middle of the sixth Century Facund l. 9. p. 404 405. We do call saith he the Sacrament of the Body and Blood which is in the Bread and consecrated Cup the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ not that the Bread is properly his Body and the Cup his Blood but because they contain in them the Mystery or the Sacrament of his Body and Blood From whence it is also that the Lord himself called the Bread and the Cup which he blessed and gave unto his Disciples his Body and his Blood The ninth is St. Isidor Bishop of Sevill in Spain Isid Hist oâ—igin l 6. c 19. We call saith he by the Command of Christ himself his Body and Blood that which being sanctified of the Fruits of the Earth is consecrated and made a Sacrament The tenth is Bede that bright Star of the English Church which finished his Course Anno 735. Beda Commâ— in Marc. 14. Jesus Christ saith he said unto his Disciples This is my Body because Bread strengthens the Heart of Man and Wine doth increase Blood in the Body it is for this reason that Bread represents mystically the Body of Jesus Christ and the Wine his Blood The eleventh is a Council of 338 Bishops Concil Constantinop in act
Concil Nicaen 2 act 6. assembled at Constantinople against Images in the year 754. Jesus Christ say these Fathers having taken Bread blessed it and having given Thanks he brake it and giving it to his Disciples he said Take eat for the Remission of Sins This is my Body in like manner having given the Cup he said This is my Blood do this in remembrance of me there being no other kind of Thing nor Figure chosen by him that could so fitly represent his Incarnation See then the Image of his quickning Body made honourably and gloriously Here are eleven substantial Witnesses which being added unto the five others which we passed over and shall appear in due time make up the number of sixteen without touching those which may by evident and necessary Consequences be drawn unto the same Testimonyâ— for I have made choice only of those which seemed most evident and of those also some speak in more express Terms than others The Reader may judg if all these Witnesses which speak of Bread Wine Fruit of the Vine of Figure Sign Type Symbol Sacrament of Representation of Fruits of the Earth do not give a figurative sense unto these Words This is my Body This is my Blood And to do it the better let him exactly see if any of these antient Commentators have spoken of Reality of bodily Conversion and of local Presence in interpreting them for say the Protestants they could not pass over in silence so important a Doctrine as that in an occasion which indispensably obliged them to say something of it without rendring themselves guilty of horrid Hypocrisy and Injustice So that if they have not done it and that there appears no such thing in what hath been produced and examined as indeed say they whatever Scrutiny we could make no such thing nor like it doth appear it may be safely and lawfully concluded that all these Fathers have taken these Words not in a proper and literal Sense but in a figurative and metaphorical Sense Moreover all these Reflections of the Ancients upon these Words of the Institution of the Sacrament amount just to the manner of understanding them commanded by the Council of Trent when it forbids to interpret the holy Scriptures Sess 4. contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers Because as 't is explained by Melchior Canus Locor l 7. c. 3. num 10. Bishop of the Canaries who assisted at the Council The Sense of all the Saints is the Sense of the Holy Ghost CHAP. II. Of what the Father 's believed concerning what we receive in the Sacrament and what they have said of it BEsides the many Reflections made by the ancient Doctors upon the Words used by our Saviour in the instituting this most august Sacrament which we have sufficiently enumerated and set down in the foregoing Chapter I find they have said many other things which may direct us unto the true understanding of their Belief which we will enquire into in this second Chapter In the first place they have called the Eucharist Bread and Wine in the very act of communicating There is given unto each of these present Just Mart. Apol. 2. vol. 1. Iâ—en l. 4. c 34. saith Justin Martyr the Bread the Wine and the Water which have been consecrated St. Irenaeus Bishop of Lyons gives it the same Name calling it The Bread upon which Prayers and Thanks have been made And I make no question Contr. Tryph. p. 260. Orig. contr Cels l. 8. Id. ibid. Id. Homil. 5. in Levitic Cyprian Ep. 76. 63 Apud Euseb Hist l. 6 c. 43. prope fin but 't is also for the same reason that our Christian Philosopher I mean St. Justin speaks of the Eucharist of Bread and Wine Origen against Celsus The Bread which is called the Eucharist the Symbol of our Duty towards God And in the same Book The Bread offered with Thanksgivings and Prayers made for the Mercies bestowed on us And in his Homilies upon Leviticus The Bread which the Lord gave unto his Disciples St. Cyprian was of the same Judgment when he called it The Bread of the Lord And in his Treatise of the Cup or in his Epistle to Cecilius he very often calls it Bread and Wine mix'd with Water and saith That the Body of the Lord is not Flower only nor Water only but a composition of these two things kneaded and moulded together and made into the substance of Bread And Cornelius Bishop of Rome writing unto Fabian Bishop of Antioch of what passed in the undue Ordination of Novatian unto the Episcopacy and speaking of the Sacrament in the act of distribution and reception he calls it That Bread From hence 't is that Tertullian disputing against the Marcionites Tertul. contr Marc. l. 1. c. 23. who taught that the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ was not the Creator he reproaches them That they were baptized in the name of another God upon anothers Earth and with anothers Water and that they made Prayers and gave Thanks unto another God upon the Bread of another It is easy to understand that in speaking in that manner to Marcion he presupposed that the Orthodox made their Prayers unto God the Creator upon this Bread that is to say The Bread of the Eucharist And the Author of the Epistle to the Philadelphians under Ignatius's Name Ep. ad Philad saith That there is one Bread broken unto all If we descend lower Conc. Ancyr c. 2. Conc. Neoces c. 13. we shall find that the Council of Ancyrus in the year 314 forbids Deacons that had sacrificed unto Idols To present the Bread and the Cup. And that of Neocesarea of the same Year saith That the Country-Priests cannot offer nor give the Bread in Prayer nor the Cup in the chief Church in the City if the Bishop or the Priests of the City are present Euseb dem l. 5. c. 3. Eusebius Bishop of Cesarea wrote about the year 328. That the Ministers of the Christian Church express darkly by the Bread and Wine the Mysteries of the Body and Blood of Christ It was also the opinion of St. Hilary Bishop of Poictiers Bil. in Matth. c. 30. when he said That the Passover of our Lord was made the Lord having taken the Cup and broke the Bread Macar Hom. 27. St. Macarius followed the same Steps in saying That in the Church one participates of visible Bread to eat spiritually the Flesh of our Lord. Concil Laod. c. 25. The Council of Laodicea assembled about the year 360 ordains That Ministers ought not that is to say the Deacons or rather Sub-Deacons to administer the Bread nor bless the Cup. A Council of Carthage made this Decree Concil Carth. c. 24. That in the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of our Lord nothing else should be offered but what the Lord himself had done to wit Bread and Wine mingled with Water This Decree is the 37th in the Code
he plainly shewed his own self in saying unto his Disciples I will no more drink of this Fruit of the Vine until I drink it with you in my Father's Kingdom St. Cyprian said the same for having repeated these same Words of our Saviour he saith s Cypr. ep 63. That we find that what our Saviour offered was a Cup mingled with Water and that what he said to be his Blood was Wine Nothing can be seen more formal to this purpose than what is read in t Aug. ad Infan apud Fulg. de Bapt. Aet c. ult Theod. Dial. 1. Prosp de promis praed part 1. c. 2. Facund l. 9. c. ult St. Austin's Sermon unto the new Baptized related intirely by St. Fulgentius where speaking unto them of the Sacrament which they saw upon the holy Table What you have seen saith he is Bread and a Cup as your Eyes do testify Theodoret who was present at the Council of Calcedon The Lord saith he in distributing the Mysteries did call the Bread his Body and the Wine his Blood We may also say the same thing of the counterfeit Prosper which saith That the Lord did declare at his Table that the consecrated Bread was his sacred Body Of Facundus which saith The Lord himself called the Bread which he had blessed and the Cup which he gave his Disciples his Body and his Blood And in fine of Maxentius a Religious Person and afterwards Priest of the Church of Antioch in whose Dialogues we read That the Bread whereof the Universal Church doth participate Maxent cont Nest dial 2. in remembrance of the Death of our Lord is his Body But this is not yet all they have to say unto us there is found in their excellent Works several other things which lead us as it were by the hand unto the Knowledg of what we search for In the first place they declare our Bodies are nourished with what we receive at the Lord's Table as Justin Martyr who speaks of the Eucharist Just Mart. Apol. 2. Iren. l. 4 c. 34. l. 5. c. 2. Aug. serm 9. de divers Isid Hispal apud Bertram de Corp. Sang. Dom. Ibid. as of a Food wherewith our Flesh and Blood are nourished by Transmutation St. Irenaeus doth depose that our Flesh is fed with it that our Blood our Body and Flesh are nourished increased and do subsist by it St. Austin saith that it is Bread which fills the Belly St. Isidore Arch-bishop of Sevill that the Substance of this visible Bread doth nourish the outward Man and satisfies it Or as Ratran who hath transferr'd to us his Words not any more to be found in Isidore's Works now printed that all that is outwardly received in the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Lord is fit to feed the Body The Fathers of the sixteenth Council of Toledo in the Year 693 Conc. Tolet. 16. c. 6. speak of the Remainders of the Sacrament as of a thing that a quantity of it may incommode the Stomach That was also the Belief of Raban Arch bishop of Mayence in the ninth Century and of the Taborites in Bohemia in the fifteenth as shall be demonstrated in time and place convenient Secondly there are some of them that positively affirm that what is distributed at the holy Table is Bread the Matter whereof after we have taken and eat it doth pass by the common way of our ordinary Food Origen teacheth so in plain terms when expounding these Words of the 15th Chap. of St. Mathew Origen in Math. 15. That it is not what entreth into the Mouth defileth the Man he saith If what enters in the Mouth goes into the Belly and is cast into the Draft the Meat which is sanctified by the Word of God and Prayer goeth also into the Belly according to the gross part of it and afterwards into the Draft but by reason of Prayer made over it it is profitable according to the proportion of Faith and is the cause that the Understanding is enlightned and attentive unto what is profitable and 't is not the Substance of Bread but the Word pronounced upon it which is profitable unto him that eateth it not in a way unworthy of the Lord. This Doctrine was also taught in the ninth Century by Raban Arch-bishop of Mayence and by Heribold Arch-bishop of Auxerre and I think I lately hinted that Amalarius Fortunatus who liv'd in the same Century was of this Judgment which shall be examined when we come to inquire into the Belief of the ninth Century Father Cellot the Jesuit attributes the same Doctrine unto the Greeks Append. Miscel op 7. p. 564 It is true this Doctrine was not the Opinion of all the antient Fathers of the Church therefore I said at the beginning of this Observation that there were some of them that did believe so in effect St. Cyril of Jerusalem saith Cyril Hieros Mystag 5. That the Bread of the Sacrament doth not go into the Belly and is not cast out into the Draft but that it is disperst throughout the Substance of the Communicant for the good of his Body and Soul The Author of the Homily of the Eucharist for the Dedication in St. Chrysostom's Works saith almost the same with St. Cyril Serm. de Euchar in Encoen apud Chrysost t. 5. pa. 596. Take no heed that it is Bread think not that it is Wine for they are not cast out as other Meat God forbid you should once think so for as when Wax is cast into the Fire nothing of its Substance doth remain or there remains no superfluity or it leaves not behind it neither soot nor cinders in like manner here imagine that the Mysteries are consumed with the Substance of the Body We may add John Damascen unto these two Authors Damasc l. 4. Orthodox fid cap. 14. who speaks thus The Shew-bread did represent this Bread and it is this pure Oblation and without Blood which the Lord fore-told by the Prophet which should be offer'd unto him from the East unto the West to wit the Body and Blood of Christ which should pass into the Substance of our Soul and Body without being consumed without being corrupted or passing into the Draft O God forbid but passing into our Substance for our Preservation These three Testimonies as every one doth see differ from Origen which indeed was also the Opinion of Raban Heribold and Amalarius but if they were not of the Opinion of Origen they were of that of St. Justin Martyr Irenaeus St. Austin St. Isidore of Sevil of the sixteenth Council of Toledo Ratran and others I mean that if they believed not with Origen that the Bread of the Eucharist as to its material Substance was subject unto the shameful necessity of other common Food they believed with the others that it turned it self into our Substance that our Bodies were nourished by it and that they were increased and strengthned by it and so
their Difference with Origen was only in the Circumstance whether or no the holy Bread went unto the Place of Excrements Origen holding the Affirmative the others the Negative but as to the Ground of the Doctrine I find them all agreed and that all of them teach that what we receive at the Lord's Table is the Substance of Bread which some subject to the same fate of our common Food that goes into the Belly and from thence into the Draft others think this Bread doth pass into our Substance and if it feed our Souls by the virtue wherewith God accompanies it after Consecration and lawful Use of the Sacrament it also nourisheth and increaseth the Body by its proper Nature without turning into Excrements And the latter as I conceive are inclin'd unto this Opinion the rather because receiving but very little Bread and Wine in the Sacrament they made no difficulty to believe that it all turns into our Substance In the third place the holy Fathers testify that this Sacrament is consumed Aug. de Trin. lib. 3. c. 10. The Bread saith St. Austin which is made for that purpose is consumed in taking the Sacrament And again in the same Chapter What is put upon the Table is consumed the holy Colebration being ended Commonly there was no more alledged but this Passage of St. Austin to prove that the antient Christians believed that what was received at the Sacrament was of such a nature as to be in effect consumed Wherefore I hope the Reader will not be displeas'd if I lead him farther and make it appear this manner of Speech was us'd in the Church a long time after St. Austin's Death These Considerations we make upon the Doctrine of the holy Fathers are of such importance that we endeavour to find out in all Ages of the Christian Church what Foot-steps they have left us of it in their Writings Hugh Maynard in his Notes upon the Books of Sacraments of Gregory the first alledgeth and wholly transcribes a Pontifical Manuscript which is kept in the Church of Rouen and is as far as I can guess near to the eighth Century and probably of later times in this Pontifical the whole Ceremony of holy Thursday is represented and amongst many other Observations this is to be read When the Bishop washeth his Hands In Not. Menar in Sacram. Greg. p. 84. and the Deacons go unto the Altar to uncover the holy Things and that the Bishop comes to the Altar separates the Oblations to break them that he takes some of the whole ones to keep until next day the Day of Preparation and that they communicated without the Blood of the Lord because the Blood was wholly consumed the same Day It may be easily seen that the Blood mentioned by the Pontifical is not the proper Blood of Jesus Christ for all Christians unanimously confess that the real Blood of our Lord which was shed upon the Cross for the Salvation of Mankind is shed no more and is not in a state of being consumed in the Celebration of the Sacrament then saith the Protestant he must needs speak of a Typical and Figurative Blood I mean of the Mystical and Sanctified Wine which Believers drink at the holy Table and which is subject unto the fate of being consumed No other Explication can be given unto the Words of the Pontifical above-mentioned which doth not ill suit with those of St. Austin and I promise my self that the tenth Century however dark and ignorant it be represented by Historians will furnish us with another Witness an Abbot of a famous Monastery which will speak of the other Symbol what the Pontifical hath said of the Symbol of Wine In the fourth Place They avow that the Sacrament of the Eucharist is an inanimate Subject as Theophilus Arch-bishop of Alexandria for refuting the Opinion of Origen who denied that the holy Ghost exercised any Operation upon Things that have no Soul he speaks thus In affirming this he doth not consider Theop. Alex. Pasch 1. Bibl. Pat. t. 3. p. 87. that in Baptism the Mystical Waters are consecrated by the holy Ghost which descends and that the Bread of the Lord whereby the Body of the Lord is shewn forth and which we break for our Sanctification and the holy Cup which with the Bread is set upon the Table of the Church and which are things inanimate are sanctified by Prayers and by the coming of the holy Ghost St. Epiphanius was not far from this Belief when comparing the Bread after Consecration with the Body it self of our Saviour he said Epiphan in Anchor That the one is round as to its Form and insensible as to its Power but the other hath the Features and Lineaments of a Body and is all Life Motion and Action To thus much also amounts their Belief that the Change in the Sacrament concerned not the Nature of the Bread and Wine to change them into another thing but only to add unto them the Grace which they had not before that is to say a quickning and sanctifying virtue in the right use of the Sacrament Theod. dial 1. Jesus Christ saith Theodoret hath honoured the visible Symbols with the Name of his Body and Blood not in changing their Nature but in adding the Grace In the fifth place These same Fathers affirm that the substance of Bread and Wine remain after Consecration it is the Judgment ment of St. Chrysostom Chrysost ep ad Caesar The Bread of the Sacrament saith he is called Bread before it is sanctified but Divine Grace having sanctified it by the Ministry of the Priest it is no longer called Bread but it is judged worthy to be called the Body of Christ although the Nature of Bread remains Monsr de Marca in his French Treatise of the Eucharist Pag. 12 13. of the last Edit pag. 9. doth agree That until St. Chrysostom the Fathers believed that the Bread did not change its Nature after Consecration Moreover he confesseth for truth the Letter of St. Chrysostom unto Caesarius As also the Abbot Faggot doth in his Letter unto Monsr de Marca Son to that Illustrious Prelat and President of the Parliament of Paris he therein further informs us that this Letter of St. Chrysostom is in the custody of Monsr Bigot who in his Voyage into Italy found it in the Library whence Peter Martyr of Florence formerly procur'd it I mean in the Library of the Duke of Florence so that for the future there ought not to be any farther Contest of the validity of this Letter because the true Author of it cannot be unknown Theodoret a great admirer of St. Chrysostom Theod. dial 2. tells us That the Nature of the Symbols is not changed And in another of his Dialogues The Mystical Symbols saith he after Consecration do not change their proper Nature for they continue in their former Substance Gelas de duab in Christ natur ad Nestor â—ueych in
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
Miles but St. Marsus felt the Eucharist was turn'd into a Scrpent which rouled about him and as he found by the pain he suffered that he was severely punished for his Disobedience and Neglect he had committed at the Communion He cast himself at the Feet of St. Milain and told him what was happened the holy Bishop wept for him all Night Watching and Praying and next Day gave him Absolution and the Blessing and presently after the Serpent took again the Form of the Eucharist and St. Marsus taking it he communicated with Joy which he neglected to do to his Damage It is plain that the Eucharist here mentioned is nothing else but the Bread of the Eucharist which St. Cyril of Alexandria commonly calls by that Name In short this Eucharist was intended for the Communion as appears by the whole Story Therefore St. Milain gave unto each of them a Portion it also appears that Marsus had received some Tincture that the receiving the Sacrament broke the Fast and I find not but the other Bishops were of the same Mind All that is blam'd in Marsus is the having preferr'd the Fast of the Day before the Communion whereas he ought to have preferr'd the Communion before the Fast that is to say that it was better to have communicated with the others and broke his Fast as they had done than to deprive himself of the Sacrament to keep the Fast of the Day Theodoret. Hist Relig. p. 791. because the Sacrament is a Bond of Charity which is infinitely greater than Fasting Therefore the Anchorit Marcion said to Avitus who went to visit him in his Solitude and who made some scruple of breaking his fast to eat with him We know that Charity is more excellent than Fasting But in fine it was believed in our France in the VIth Century as 't was in Tertullian's time that the receiving the Eucharist broke the Fast and it shall appear in the Course of this History that the Greeks believed so in the XIth Century and that they still believe it at present as Father Cellot informs us To conclude if any desire to know the Dioceses of these five French Bishops abovementioned he may understand St. Milain was Bishop of Rennes Albin of Anger 's Launus of Constance in Normandy Apâ—d Eus b. Hist l. 6. c. 49. Serm. 35. de verb. Dom. c. 5. Contr. Donat. post Collat. c. 6. Clem. Alexand. Sâ—romat l. 1. p. 271. Cyril Alex. in Joan. l. 4. c. 14. Victor of Mans and Marsus of Nantes In the seventh place I observe that the Fathers speak of the Eucharist as of a thing whereof but a little is received a Bit a Piece a Portion So the Priest of Alexandria in Eusebius sent unto Seraphion A little of the Sacrament So St. Austin speaks of receiving a little and again That Peter and Judas received each of them a Morsel So Clement of Alexandria said That each of the People took a little And St. Cyril of Alexandria That Jesus gave Morsels of Bread unto his Disciples And so in a number of other places which is not necessary here to mention in a thing not contested and that is owned by every Body In fine having endeavoured with some labour to find if the ancient Doctors of the Church have affirmed as the Latines at this time do that several Miracles are done by the Sacrament August l. 3. de Trinit c. 10. I can find nothing of that Nature on the contrary they have informed me That these things might have been honoured or receive respect as religious but not cause astonishment as things strange or miraculous CHAP. III. Of the Use and Office of the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament HAving seen what was believed and said in this spatious and vast Country of Ecclesiastical Antiquity of the things received in the Sacrament and having examined the Reflections which the Doctors of that Empire have made upon the Words of Institution of this Divine and August Sacrament we are obliged to enquire what they have taught of the Use Office and employ of these sacred Symbols I mean of the Bread and Wine If we will search into their Records wherein the Laws and Maxims of this Kingdom may be found we shall see that those which have had the Government and Direction of it have conceived that the Eucharist is the Sacrament the Sign the Figure the Type the Anti-type the Symbol the Image the Similitude and the Resemblance of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ It 's true 't is not enough to say so the Reader must moreover see the Testimonies where the holy Fathers say so for 't is their Opinions are now in question and not ours Let us then take all these Titles in Order and shew what the ancient Doctors of the Church have said unto each of them at least as far as may be necessary unto our purpose They say in the first place That it is a Sacrament Hil. in Matth. cap. 9. Ibid. c. 30. as when St. Hilary Bishop of Poictiers speaks Of receiving the Sacrament of the Bread of Life in Faith of the Resurrection and that he saith of Judas Ambros de iis qui init c. 9. Aug. Ep. 163. Id. l. 3. de Trinitat c. 4. Id. Serm. ad Infant Facund l. 9. p. 404 405. Isid Hisp dâ— Offic. Eccles l. 1. c. 18. that he was not worthy of the Communion of Eternal Sacraments St. Ambrose calls it The Sacrament of the true Flesh of our Lord. St. Austin The Sacrament of his Body and of his Blood Again he saith That it is a great Sacrament And again These things saith he are called Sacraments Facundus said the same when he saith That the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ is called his Body and Blood and that Believers do receive the Sacrament of his Body and Blood St. Isidore of Sevil in the VIIth Century saith positively That the Bread and Wine are made the Sacraments of the Divine Body being sanctified by the Holy Ghost But being there is nothing more frequent amongst the Latin Fathers than this manner of Speech which continued in the Latin Church until these late times we shall not insist on gathering more Testimonies to prove that the holy Fathers believed that the Eucharist was the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ It shall suffice to warn the Reader Aug. de Civit. Dâ—i l. 10. c. 5. comr advers leg l. 2. c. 9. aâ—â—i that St. Austin teacheth us in sundry parts of his Works that the word Sacrament signifies a holy Sign and that those which desire more proofs of this Expression may see what is said by the Author of the Commentaries attributed unto St. Jerom on the 11th of the 1st Epist to the Corinthians Charlemain in his 4th Book of Images chap. 14. Christian Druthmar upon St. Matth. in the Library of the Fathers Tome 16. p. 361. The second Title we have set down August contâ—
Adim c. 12. is that of Sign St. Austin saith That our Lord made no difficulty to say This is my Body when he gave the Sign of his Body The third is that of Figure Tertul. contr Marc. l. 4. c. 40. according to which Tertullian said That Jesus Christ made the Bread his Body in saying This is my Body that is to say the Figure of my Body Id. l. 3. c. 19. and in the foregoing Book he said That our Lord gave unto the Bread the Figure of his Body St. Gaudentius Bishop of Bress Gaud. tract 2. in Exod. Aug. in Psal 3. said That the Wine is offered in Figure of the Passion of our Lord that is to say of his Blood And St. Austin declares that Jesus Christ in his first Sacrament recommended and gave unto his Apostles the Figure of his Body and Blood It was also the Opinion of the Author of the Treatise of the Sacraments L. 4. de Sacram. apâ—d Ambros falsly attributed unto St. Ambrose when he calls the Oblation of the Eucharist The Figure of the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ This Passage also is alledged by Paschas Rathbert â—ede in Luc. c. 22. in his Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord. Venerable Bede who died Anno 735 spoke the same Language for in his Commentary upon the Gospel according to St. Luke he saith That instead of the Flesh and Blood of the Jews Passover Our Lord substituted the Sacrament of his Flesh and Blood in the Figure of Bread and Wine Id. in Psal 3. And upon the 3d Psalm he repeats the Words of St. Austin and saith That our Lord in his Sacrament gave unto his Disciples the Figure of his Body and Blood This Expression continued longer in the Latin Church seeing Charlemain who lived until the Year 814 used it in one of his Letters unto Alcuin De Ration Sepâ—â—uzg ad Alcuin wherein he treats of the Reason of the Septuagesima Our Lord saith he Supping with his Disciples broke Bread and also gave them the Cup for the Figure of his Body and Blood and left them a great Sacrament for our Benefit Christian Druthmar will employ the same Word in the IXth Century The fourth is that of Type Eâ—â—r de natur Dei non serut in this sense Ephrem the Syrian saith in the IVth Century That our Lord taking Bread into his Hands broke it and blessed it for a Type of his immaculate Body and that he blessed the Cup and gave it to his Disciples for a Type of his Blood Cyril Hiâ—ros Mystag 4. St. Cyril of Jerusalem In the Type of the Bread is the Body given unto you and the Blood in the Type of Wine St. Gregory of Nazianzen Greg. Nazian Orat. 42. vol. 2. de Pasch We are made Partakers of the Passover and nevertheless typically although this Passover is more manifest than the old one for the legal Passover I dare affirm was an obscure Type of another Type that is to say of the Eucharist And again Id. Orat. 17. p. 273. Hieron in Jerem. c. 31. Id. l 2. contr Jovin Ibid. Theod Dialog 3. Id. Dialog 1. he calls the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament The Types of his Salvation St. Jerome in his Commentary upon Jeremiah The Type of the Blood of Jesus Christ is made with Wine And again Jesus Christ offered not Water but Wine for a Type of his Blood And again The Mystery which our Lord expressed in Type of his Passion Theodoret speaking of the Holy Bread calls it The venerable and saving Type of the Body of Jesus Christ And in another place he said That the Eucharist is the Type of the Passion of our Lord and that the Holy Food is the Type of his Body and of his Blood The fifth is that of Anti-type Const Apost l. 5. c. 13. the Author of the Apostolical Constitutions saith That our Lord gave unto his Disciples the Mysteries Anti-types of his Body and precious Blood Judas not being there present And again He calls the Eucharist Ibid. l. 6. c. 29. Ibid. l. 7. c. 26. the Anti-type of the Royal Body of Jesus Christ And again he affirms That we celebrate the Anti-types of the Body and Blood of our Lord. St. Macarius Macar Hom. 27. There is offered in the Church Bread and Wine the Anti-type of his Flesh and of his Blood Eustatius Bishop of Antioch Act. 6. Cenc Nicaen 2. expounding these Words of the 9th Chapter of Proverbs Eat of my Bread and drink the Wine which I have mingled by the Bread and Wine saith he he meaneth the Anti-types of the bodily Members of Jesus Christ Basil Liturg. St. Basil in his Liturgy We beseech thee presenting the Anti-types of the Body and Blood of thy Christ St. Gregory of Nazianzen Greg. Nazian de obiâ—u Gorgon vel Orat. 11. Id. Orat. 1. Cyril Hierosol Mystag 5. Theod. Dial. 2. Id. Dial. 3. extr his intimate Friend to express both parts of the Eucharist saith The Anti-types of the precious Body and Blood And in his Apologetick he considers the Sacrament as The Anti-type of great Mysteries St. Cyril of Jerusalem saith That we eat the Anti-type of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Theodoret The Divine Mysteries saith he are the Anti-types of the true Body And elsewhere He speaks of participating of the Anti-types of the Body Now the words Types and Anti-types are nothing else but the Form the Expression and a Representation and they signify almost the same as the word Figure doth The sixth is that of Symbol which signifies a Sign Signal or Mark as Grammarians say so in the Apostolical Constitutions Consâ—â—t Apost l. 6. c. 23. there is mention of a Sacrifice which is celebrated in memorial of the Death of Jesus Christ and which was instituted to be the Symbol of his Body and of his Blood Dionvs Hier. Eccles l. 9. The Author of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy under the Name of Dennis the Areopagite declares That Jesus Christ is signified and that we partake of him by the venerable Symbols Ibid. And again he observes That the Bishop that officiates washeth his Hands before the sacred Symbols and that this washing is done before the most holy Symbols as in the Presence of Christ himself Euseb demonst l. 1. c. 10. who knows our most secret Thoughts Eusebius saith we have received or learned to make the Memorial of this Sacrifice of our Lord upon the Table with the Symbols of his saving Body and Blood Ib. l. 8. a Gen. And in the same Treatise he saith That Jesus Christ commanded his Apostles to make use of Bread for a Symbol of his Body and accordingly he calleth the Wine the Symbol of his Blood Ibid. and testifies that our Lord himself gave unto his Disciples the Symbols of the Divine Oeconomy that is to say Chrys Hom. 83. in Matth. Palled
in vita Chrysost of his Incarnation St. Chrysostom If Jesus Christ be not dead of whom are the consecrated things Symbols Palladius in the Life of St. Chrysostom often useth this term speaking of pouring out the Symbols of communicating of the Symbols of our Lord Theod. 1 Cor. 11. and of burning the Symbols of Mysteries Theodoret After the coming of our Lord we shall have no more need of the Symbols of his Body Id. in Psal 109. And in another Treatise The Church offers the Symbols of his Body and Blood And in his Dialogues he often speaketh thus Id. Dial. 1. Our Lord saith he hath made an exchange of these Names and hath given unto his Body the Name of Symbol and to the Symbol the name of his Body that is to say giving unto his Body the name of Bread and the name of Bread unto his Body calling himself a Vine and his Blood that which is the Symbol of it Ibid. He saith again That our Lord honoured the visible Symbols with the Name of his Body and Blood that the Holy Food is the Symbol and Type of the Body and Blood of our Lord. Id. Dialog 2. And in the following Dialogue he speaks of the Mystical Symbols which after their Sanctification do not change their first Nature Maxim in c. 3. Hier. Eccles And Maximius Scholiast of the pretended Dennis the Areopagite speaking of the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist said These things are Symbols and not the Truth it self Vict. An ioch in c. 14. Mâ—rc Victor of Antioch in his Commentary upon St. Mark calls the Bread of the Eucharist The Symbol of the Body of Jesus Christ The seventh is that of Image but because Image Similitude and Likeness signify the same thing we will comprehend all three under the Name of Image Euseb dem l. 8 a Genes Eusebius Bishop of Cesarea saith That Jesus-Christ commanded his Disciples to make the Image of his Body Trocop in Geâ—es c. 49. Gelaf de duab Christ Nat. Procopius of Gaza upon Genesis He gave saith he unto his Disciples the Image of his Body Pope Gelasius said the same at the end of the fifth Century Certainly saith he the Image or Similitude of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ is celebrated in the Mysteries that sheweth us plainly what we are to believe touching Jesus Christ our Lord even what we profess what we celebrate and what we receive in his Image The Author of the Dialogues against the Marcionites in the Works of Origen keeps the same language when he calls the Bread and the Cup the Images of his Flesh and Blood Orig. Dial. 3. contra Marc. And 338 Bishops assembled at Constantinople Anno 754 say that Jesus Christ hath commanded us to offer the Image of his Body and all along in their Discourse which is very large they constantly and divers times call the Bread of the Eucharist the Image of the Body of our Lord. We may add unto these Testimonies of the antient Doctors of the Church those which say that the Body and Blood of our Lord are signified shewn represented in the Eucharist as having clearly the same force and meaning as the former as when Tertullian saith of the Bread of the Sacrament Tert. l. 1. c. 14. that it is a Bread by which Jesus Christ represents his Body St. Cyprian Cypr. ep 63. that the Blood of Jesus Christ is exhibited by the Wine the which is repeated by the Council of Braga in the second Canon Anno 675. Dion Areop Hier. Eccl. â— 3. Theoph. ep Pasch Ambros de iis qui init c. 9. Apud Bed in 1 Cor. 11. The pretended Denis the Areopagite that by the Symbols Jesus Christ is signified Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria that by the Bread of our Lord his Body is represented unto us St. Ambrose that before the Words of divine Benediction another thing is named after Consecration the Body of Jesus Christ is signified St. Austin that the Infant is not frustrated of the participation of this Sacrament he means that of the Eucharist when he finds what the Sacrament doth signify The Commentary upon St. Paul's Epistles under the Name of St. Ambrose that in eating and drinking in the holy Communion we signify the Flesh and Blood In fine the true St. Jerome imitating Tertullian's Expression Hieron in Mat. c. 26. that Jesus Christ took Bread and Wine that he might also represent that is as Melchisedek had done before the truth of his Body and of his Blood But the more easily to penetrate into the meaning of these Expressions and the better to understand their Force we must relate two things which we have observed in the Writings of the holy Fathers First when they speak of the Eucharist as of a Sign a Symbol a Figure an Image It is in opposition unto the Reality which they consider as absent In this sense they say Maxim 〈…〉 Dionvs Areop p. 68. 75. 6â— that these things are Symbols and not the Truth That the sacred Oblations to wit the Bread and the Cup are Signs of Things from above which are more certain That the things in the Old Testament were the Shadow that those of the New are the Image but that the Substance shall be in the World to come That the Shadow was under the Law the Image under the Gospel and the Truth in Heaven And I believe it was in this sense that the old Latin Liturgies said Lord Ambros l. 1. de Offic. c. 48. Vetus Liturgia apud Bettram in receiving the Earnest of Life Everlasting we humbly beseech thee that we may receive by a manifest Participation what we now have in a Sacramental Image And sometimes after That thy Sacraments O Lord may accomplish in us what they contain to the end we may receive in reality what we now celebrate in shew and appearance The second thing I have observed is that the Holy Fathers unanimously avow that the Image and Figure cannot be the Thing itself whereof they be the Image and Figure As when Tertullian saith Tert contra Marc. l. 1. c 9. That the Image will not be entirely equal unto the Substance for saith he it is one thing to be according to Truth and another thing to be the Truth it self And elsewhere Id. contra Prax. c. 26. Athan. contra Hipocr Melet. Contr. Marcel l. 1. c. 4. Hilar. de Syn. that which is of a Thing is not the Thing it self whereof it is And St. Athanasius that which is like unto a Thing is not the Thing it self whereunto it is like Marcellus of Ancyras if it be not Eusebius himself who disputes against him Never was the Image of a Thing and the Thing whereof 't is an Image one and the same And St. Hilary Bishop of Poictiers No Body is the Image of himself St. Ambrose Bishop of Milan observed almost the same language when he said
Ambr. de fide l. 1. c. 4. Id. in Psal 118. serm 12. Ibid. serm 13. No Body can be his own Image And elsewhere he opposeth the Image and the Sign unto the Substance It is the Image saith he and not the Truth And again These are Signs and not the Substance Gregory of Nazianzen in his Treatise of Faith against the Arrians whereof we have only Ruffin's Translation unjustly attributed to St. Ambrose Greg. Nazian de fid vel orat 49. p. 729. Id. orat 13. 37. Id. orat 36. as appears by St. Austin's 111th Letter The Resemblance saith he is one Thing and the Truth another for Man was also made after the Image and Likeness of God yet he is not God Accordingly he declares elsewhere that the Image never attains to the Original and that the nature of an Image consists in the representing of the Arch-type Gregory of Nyss Brother unto the great St. Basil spake the same Greg. Nâ—ss de anim refur Gaudent tr 2. in Exod. Aug. de Trin. l. 7. c. 1. Theod in Dan. l. 2. c. 2. Claud. de stat anim l. 1. c. 5. The Image saith he would be no more an Image if it were quite the same with that whereof it is an Image It is in the same sense St. Gaudentius said That the Figure is not the Verity but the resemblance of the Verity And St. Austin in his Treatise of the Trinity What can be more absurd than to say that an Image is the Image of it self And Theodoret in his Commentaries upon the Prophet Daniel The Image hath the Features and not the Things themselves Claâ—dian Mammert Priest of Vienna One Thing saith he is the Truth and another Thing the Image of the Truth And we have already heard Maximius Scholar of the pretended Denis the Areopagite saying These things are Symbols Maxim in c. 3. Hieros Eccles but they are not the Substance There be some which treating of the Eucharist with regard to the Body of Jesus Christ have not forborn these kind of Expresons as the Deacon Epiphanius in the second Council of Nice If saith he it be the Image of the Body Synod Nic. 2. Act. 6. Niceph. de cherub c. 6. t. 4. Bibl. Patr. it cannot be the divine Body it self And Nicephorus Patriarch of Constantinople How is it that one and the same Thing is called the Body and the Image of Jesus Christ for that which is the Image of any one cannot be his Body and that which is the Body cannot be the Image because every Image is a thing different from that whereof it is an Image And we shall see in due Time that it was in the ninth Century the Doctrine taught by Ratran Bertram de corp sang Dom. That the Earnest and Image is Earnest and Image of something c. that is that they refer not unto themselves but unto another But what may some say is that all you have observed in travelling in the Dominions of Ecclesiastical Antiquity The Registers of that Kingdom do they contain no other Laws and have you found no other Maximes in its Records Is it possible that the wise and prudent Councellors who in the several Ages have had the Government and Conduct of it have agreed to speak so meanly of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper and consider'd this great and sublime Mystery but as the Image the Figure the Type the Symbol of the Body and Blood of our Lord as if a Believer under the Gospel were to feed his Soul only with empty and vain Figures with Images without efficacy and with Sacraments without any virtue Reader have but a little patience and you shall see that the holy Fathers have not abandoned their Belief unto Scorn or Calumny and that they very prudently prevented the Reproaches which would have been made against them What likelihood is there that Persons of so much Light and Knowledg as the antient Doctors of the Church were should speak meanly of the venerable Mystery of the holy Sacrament they who so valued and commended and highly praised the holy Scriptures which St. Paul calls the Power of God unto Salvation unto those which believe Rom. â— 16 and who have consider'd it as the powerful and efficacious Instrument of the Conversion and Salvation of Men which made St. Justin Martyr writing against Tryphon the Jew to say Just Martyr contra Tryph. We have not believed vain Fables and Words which cannot profit but which are full of the Spirit of God and grow into Grace for as he observed a little before the Words of our Saviour have in them something which command a Respect and Fear and they are able to shame those which turn from the right way whereas those which exercise themselves therein find Comfort and Peace What appearance is there that these same Fathers which have given unto Baptism one of the Sacraments of the New Testament which the Apostle calls the Washing of Regeneration Tit. 3. Gal. 3. and wherein he assures that we put on Jesus Christ such great high and magnificent Commendations and Encomiums calling it the Remedy which drives away all Evils the Death of Sin the Chariot which carries to Heaven the Deluge of Sin the Scattering of Darkness the Key of the Kingdom of Heaven the Inlargement from Slavery the Breaking of Bonds the putting on of Incorruption Grace Salvation Life the Remedy the Antidote that which leads to Immortality the Water of Life the Waters which can extinguish the Fire to come and which bring Salvation the best and most excellent of the Gifts of God and several other Elogies of this Nature I say what likelihood is there that they should have had any meaner lower or less honourable thoughts of the holy Sacrament and that after the Apostle's Declaration 1 Cor. 10. That the Bread which we break and the Cup which we bless are the Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ that they should look only upon this Sacrament as an empty and bare Sign without any effect or virtue without raising their Contemplations any higher Alas God forbid we should ever do them the Injustice as to think so In short if they taught that the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament are Images and Figures they judged them not to be empty Figures which had no other use nor virtue but to set before our Eyes some form that may be like the Original whereof they are Figures like the Images and Pictures which are to be seen in Painters and Carvers Shops they have firmly believed that they are Signs instituted by God and consequently accompanied with his Grace and Benediction which makes them efficacious unto those which receive them worthily and that with holy dispositions draw near unto the Mystical Table And if I mistake not this is what St. Epiphanius means when speaking of this Sacrament he saith Epiph. in pan exposit fid That the Bread is the Food or
Nourishment which we there receive but that the virtue which is in it quickeneth us As if he should say that this quickening doth not proceed from the proper Substance of Bread but from the virtue and enlivening efficacy wherewith our Lord according to his Promise doth accompany the lawful use of his Sacrament What he adds of Baptism doth sufficiently inform us of his meaning when he saith That it is not the Water alone which cleanseth us but that by the Water it perfects our Salvation by the Faith and Energy by Hope and the perfection of the Mysteries and the Invocation of Sanctification St. Gregory of Nysse if I mistake not explains himself fuller when he saith of the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament Greg. Nyss de B. pt Christ That being but common Things and of little worth before Consecration both the one and the other do operate excellently after Sanctification which is or comes from the Spirit It is in the same sense that St. Cyril of Alexandria cited by Victor of Antioch Victor MS. in c. 14. Marc. said That God having pitty of our Infirmities bestows or sends upon the Things presented or offered that is to say the Bread and Wine an enlivening virtue and doth change them into the efficacy of his Flesh It is this same power which St. Cyril in his Epistle to Caelosyrius calls the Virtue and Benediction Cyril Alex. Ep. ad Caeâ—â—â— t. 6. and the quickning Grace It is also the Doctrine of Theophylact as will appear when we examine the Belief of his Age which being beyond the ninth Century permits us not here to insert his Testimony but so it is that this virtue and efficacy whereof we speak Chrysost de Sacerd. l. 3. c. 4. t. 4. Id. de Coem Appel de resurrect Christ t. 5. Theod. Dial. 1. Gelas de duab nat is nothing else but the Grace mentioned by St. Chrysostom when he represents unto us the Priest praying that the Blessing might descend upon the Sacrifice that is to say upon the Sacrament And elsewhere he saith that it is the holy Ghost that gives this Grace and that without it the Mystical Body and Blood are not made And Theodoret a great Admirer of St. Chrysostom witnesseth that our Saviour added Grace unto the Nature of the Bread and Wine It is also for the same reason that Pope Gelasius saith That the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are Things divine and that by them we are made Partakers of the Divine Nature Iâ—d Hispal orig 1.6 And St. Isidore Arch-bishop of Sevil That thâ—s divine Virtue operates inwardly the Benefit of the Sacraments that is to say the Salvation which God communicates unto us by the Ministry of the Sacraments Therefore it is that Raban Arch-bishop of Mayans in the ninth Century will have it called the virtue of the Sacrament and the Nourishment of our Souls But in fine it is unto this efficacy and virtue that is to be attributed all the great Praises which the holy Fathers give unto the Sacrament in the same manner as is imputed unto the power which our Saviour gives unto the use of Baptism whereof the same Fathers have delighted themselves in honouring this Sacrament of our new Birth their design having been to raise and advance the Dignity of these Mysteries and the admirable effects they produce by the Grace Benediction and Vertue which God bestows on them for the Salvation of Men. And it is in relation to this Efficacy and Vertue whereof we have treated that the Fathers call the Eucharist The Body and Blood of Jesus Christ saying that the Bread and Wine pass into his Body and Blood that they change and are transelemented into his Body and Blood They also use other expressions which in effect amount to the same all which the Latins expound to their advantage and which they make the chief ground of their Belief But because these last Expressions at first sight seem inconsistent with what they said unto us before that the Eucharist is true Bread and real Wine Bread which is broken that nourishes the Body which is converted into our Substance Bread which is inamate that is consumed in the celebration of the Sacrament whose Substance remains and that passeth as to its material part by the sordid way of our ordinary and common Food that this Bread and this Wine are the Signs the Symbols the Types the Antitypes the Sacraments the Figures the Images the Resemblances and the Representations of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ not vain Figures and empty and void Signs without any effect and vertue but Signs and Sacraments replenished as may be said with all the Vertue and all the Efficacy of the Body broken and the Blood of our Lord poured out who having instituted them to be the Instruments and Organs of our Salvation doth accompany their lawful use with his Blessing and Grace to bestow upon us the Merits of the enlivening Sacrifice of his Death which Merit ought never to be separated from his Body seeing it was by the sufferings of his broken Body and his Blood poured out that he merited for us this quickning and saving Vertue For this Reason I say it will be very necessary to clear up this Difficulty and to remove this seeming Contradiction I say seeming for I make no question but the Fathers themselves will sufficiently inform us of their Intention and that we shall find in their Works Lights by which we shall safely conduct the Reader to the clear and distinct knowledg of the belief of the antient Church upon this Article of our Salvation Those who are any thing verst in reading their Works doubtless do observe that when they say the Sacrament is Bread and Wine they never intimate that it is a figurative improper and equivocal Expression and that it must not be taken according to the Letter neither do they say that the Sacrament is called Bread and Wine altho it is not so after Consecration because it was so in effect and still retains the Accidents and Likeness For my part I ingeniously confess that I have never found such Cautions or Advertisements in their Works Nevertheless Men having much difficulty to believe those things which resist the Testimony of their Senses and the light of Reason and the Holy Fathers affirming frequently that the Eucharist is true Bread and real Wine if say the Protestants they believed it was not Bread nor Wine though they called it so but the very Body and Blood of Christ they should have been so kind nay 't would have been their Duty to have informed their Readers and Hearers that they might avoid this Stone of Stumbling and Rock of Offence see here already say they a very considerable Information and which will be more if it be considered that when on the other Hand they say that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ c. They fail not to make
certain Observations which suffer us not to be ignorant after what manner they understand it to be so Aug. Serm 53. de verb. Dom. For in the first place they make this Observation Almost all saith St. Austin call the Sacrament the Body of Christ And again Id. l. 3. de Triâ—it c. 4. We call nothing the Body and Blood of Christ but that which being taken from the Fruits of the Earth and consecrated by mystical Prayer is received by us for the Salvation of our Souls Isid Hâ—sual Orig. 6. c. 19. And St. Isidore of Sevil By the command of Jesus Christ himself we call his Body and Blood that which being taken out of the Fruits of the Earth is sanctified and made a Sacrament We may also alledge upon this Subject those amongst them who have declared in the first Chapter of this second Part that Jesus Christ in instituting his Eucharist called the Bread and Wine his Body and his Blood and those who in the second affirmed that the Sacrament was Bread and Wine but to avoid repeating the same Testimonies we remit the Reader unto those two Chapters where he may consult those two Observations whilst we shall only say that this Observation being so express and positive gives very much Light and Strength unto the silence we hinted at although it appears plain enough to be understood by several but yet farther they give us notice in the second place that the Sacrament is honoured with the Name of the Body of Jesus Christ The Bread saith St. Chrysostom Chrysost ep ad Caesâ—r Theod. Dial. 1. is esteemed worthy to he called the Body of cur Lord. And Theodoret in one of his Dialogues He that called Wheat and Bread that which is his Body by Nature hath honoured the visible Symhols with the Name of his Body and of his Blood Having a long while meditated saith the Protestant upon these sorts of Testimonies of the Holy Fathers I have been forced to conclude that because one thing which is honoured with the Name of another cannot be truly that same by whose Name it is honoured or that these Holy Doctors which affirm That the Bread of the Sacrament is honoured with the Name of the Body of Jesus Christ knew not how to reason which cannot be said without slandring them or that they believed not that this Bread was really the Body of Jesus Christ He adds that he doth not examine what they should have said but what they did say and he infers that none can dispense themselves from approving what is contain'd in the second Branch of his Dilemma For my part I leave it to others to judg the Inductions which are made from the Passages of these Holy Doctors because it is properly the Interest of Roman Catholicks or Protestants whose Arguments I only alledge But this is not all which the Holy Fathers say for the clearing up of their Intentions They tell us for a third Advertisement that if the Sacrament be the Body of Jesus Christ it is but after a manner and in some sort So St. Austin doth declare Aug. Ep 23 ad Bonif. Id. in Psal 33 Conc. 2. The Sacrament saith he of the Body of Jesus Christ is the Body of Jesus Christ after a manner And elsewhere Jesus Christ accommodated himself after a certain sort when he said This is my Body I have not yet observed that these kinds of Corrections and Restrictions were used when things were spoken of which were truly what they were called but only when the Discourse was of those which were only so improperly and by reason of certain relations which they have unto the Subjects whose Names they bear and in whose consideration there 's no scruple made to say that they are the Subjects themselves not really in the strictness of the Expression but after a sort Quintil. inst Orat. l. 8.3 p. 404. so the most excellent Orators whom we may term the Masters of the Science put this Term after some sort for one of the Tempers which may be used for modifying of Metaphors and figurative Expressions which may be too bold But let us continue our design and hear the famous Theodoret who will furnish us with such pregnant and clear Lights that we shall have no difficulty to comprehend in what sense the Holy Fathers called the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament Theod. dial 1. the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ see here how he speaks The Lord saith he made a change of Names giving unto his Body the Name of the Symbol and unto the Symbol the Name of his Body which he said upon the occasion that our Saviour had called his Body Bread in the 6th Chapter of St. John and the Bread his Body in the Institution of the Sacrament So that his design is to shew that the Sacrament is the Body of Christ as the Body of Christ is Bread seeing he puts no difference in this exchange of Names and that he observes that the Name of the Body of Jesus Christ belongs no more to the Sacrament than that of Bread belongs to the Body of Jesus Christ Tertullian if I mistake not had an opinion much like this long before Theodoret when he said Tertul. conâ—r Marc. l. 3. c. 19. Chrysost iâ— c. 5. Galat. That Jesus Christ called the Bread his Body to interpret the ancient Prophecy of Jeremiah which had called the Bread his Body St. Chrysostom will not a little contribute to the clearing of what we examine for explaining these Words of the 5th to the Galatians The Flesh lusteth against the Spirit and the Spirit against the Flesh He observes that this Word Flesh hath divers improper and figurative Significations and amongst these sundry significations he puts this that sometimes it is taken for the Mysteries or for the Sacraments The Scriptures saith he is wont to call the Mysteries by the Name of Flesh and the whole Church saying that it is the Body of Jesus Christ but nothing can be seen plainer nor more intelligible than these Words of Facundus Facund l. 9. c. ult We call the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ which is in the Bread and consecrated Cup his Body and Blood not that the Bread is truly his Body nor the Cup his Blood Hitherto these Holy Fathers have not ill informed us of the Nature of this manner of Speech that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ but nevertheless they intend not to rest there they will moreover inform us wherefore it is so used in the Church They tell us then in the first place that the Bread and Wine is called the Body and Blood of our Lord by reason of their resemblance It is the Lesson St. Austin teacheth us in one of his Letters Aug. Ep. 23. ad Bonif. If the Sacraments saith he had not some resemblance unto the things whereof they be Sacraments they would be no Sacraments and it is because
of this likeness that they often take the Names of the things themselves as then the Sacrament of the Body of Jesus Christ and the Sacrament of his Blood are after some sort his Body and Blood so the Sacrament of Faith is Faith He means that the Eucharist should be the Body and Blood of Christ by reason of the resemblance which there is betwixt them as the Sacrament of Faith that is to say Baptism is called Faith and as the Fridays before Easter are called the Passion of our Lord and the representation of his Death which is made in the celebration of the Sacrament his Death it self He instanced these two Examples of this kind of Speech in what preceded that which hath been cited I will not here stand to shew that the Fathers ground this resemblance some in the composition of Bread and Wine and others in their Effects because we have done it in the first Chapter of the first part Secondly they say that they are so called because They are the Sacraments the Signs and the Figures which do contain the Mystery I find it was formerly the reason of the Learned Tertullian Tertul. contr Marc. l. 3. c. 19. God saith he hath called the Bread his Body that you might know that he whom the Prophet had anciently represented by the Bread hath now given unto Bread the Figure of his Body And I cannot see that any other meaning can be given unto these Words of St. Austin Our Saviour made no difficulty to say this is my Body August contr Adim c. 12. when he gave the Figure of his Body It is necessary to observe that this Holy Doctor having alledged the Words of Jesus Christ This is my Body at the end of the Chapter he cites these Words of the Apostle The Rock was Christ to shew that what is said in the Old Testament that the Blood is the Life of Beasts ought to be understood significatively to signify that it is the Sign as the Bread is called the Body of Christ because it is the Figure and the Rock Christ because it was the Symbol of Christ The same St. Austin speaks thus elsewhere How is the Bread his Body and the Cup Id. ad Infant apud Fulgent Bed or that which is in the Cup his Blood Brethren these things are called Sacraments because one thing is seen and another thing is understood that which is seen is of a bodily Substance that which is understood hath a spiritual Fruit. I judge it was also the sense of Theodoret when he wrote Theod. dial 1. that our Lord who called his natural Body Wheat and Bread and who also called himself a Vine hath also called the visible Symbols by the Name of his Body and Blood not by changing their Nature but adding Grace unto their Nature Fac. l. 9. â— ult It is in the same sense Facundus said The Bread is not really his Body nor the Cup his Blood but they be so called because they contain the Mystery and for this reason our Lord called them his Body and Blood This is the Explication which St. Ireneus gives unto the Names of Body and Blood wherewith Jesus Christ honoured the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament Iren. l. 5 adver haeres c. 4. It is saith he the Eucharist of the Body and Blood And I know not but St. Eloy Bishop of Noyon Eligii vit l. 2. c. 15. t. 5. Spicileg borrowed this kind of Expression from St. Iraeneus for he makes use of it in the VIIth Century Let him saith he that is sick trust in the sole Mercy of God and let him receive with Faith and Devotion the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Orig. in Matth. c. 15. Chrysost t. 5. Homil. 33. It is also in this sense that Origen calls the Bread the symbolical and typical Body Also St. Chrysostom the mystical Body and Blood Eusebius Bishop of Caesaria doth positively make a difference betwixt the Mystical Body of our Lord be it what it will and his true Body when going to explain what Jesus Christ saith in the 6th Chapter of St. John â—useb de Eccles Theol. l. 3. c. 12. Hiâ—ron in Ezech. c. 41. Bed in c. 14. Mar. 2â— Luc. of the eating his Flesh and Blood he observes That he spake not of the Flesh which he had taken but of his Mystical Body and Blood St. Jerom calls it the Mystery of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ And Venerable Bede thus explains himself The Bread and Wine do Mystically relate unto the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ In the third place they give us for a Reason of this Denomination that the Sacrament is a memorial of Jesus Christ and of his Death but for this third Reason we refer the Reader unto what we have said in the first Chapter of this second Part where we have examined the Reflection which the Holy Fathers have made upon these Words of the Institution Do this in remembrance of me We must then pass unto their fourth Reason which consists as they tell us in that the Bread and Wine are in the place and stead of the Body and Blood of Christ It is very likely Tertullian thought so when he said The Body of Jesus Christ is reputed to be in the Bread Tertul. de Orat. c. 6. This is my Body Corpus ejus in pane câ—nsetur hot est corpus meum Mr. Rigaut is not far from this Opinion when he makes this Observation upon the Words of Tertullian It appears that they may be thus explained by the Sacrament of Bread he recommends his Body as St. Austin lib. 1. quaest Evang. 43. hath said by the Sacrament of Wine he recommends his Blood But whatever Mr. Aug. in Joan. Tract 45. Rigaut's Explication may be St. Austin speaks as I think cleanly enough in one of his Treatises upon St. John where he makes this difference Id. de Civit. Dei l. 18. c. 45. betwixt the ancient People which lived under the Law and those now who live under the Gospel See how the Faith continuing the same Faith the Signs have been changed the Rock was Christ unto us what is put upon God's Table is Jesus Christ He also elsewhere establisheth this Maxim That all those things which do signify seem in some sort to hold the place of the things signified as when the Apostle saith that the Rock was Christ because without doubt it signified Jesus Christ It is in the same sense St. Cyril Hierosol Mystag 4. Cyril of Jerusalem said Let us receive these things with full assurance as the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ for in the Type of Bread the Body is given unto you and the Blood in the Type of Wine Bullinger writing against Casaubon alledges a Greek Text out of a Passage of Victor of Antioch taken out of his Commentary upon St. Mark wherein we find the same Doctrine Victor
Antio in Marc. Seeing our Saviour hath said This is my Body This is my Blood those which offer or present the Bread must esteem after Prayer and Consecration that 't is the Body of Christ and participate of it and that also the Cup is instead of his Blood But I see nothing more positive and formal hereupon than what is said by Proclus Bishop of Constantinople in one of his Orations Proclus Orat. 17. where he exhorts his Hearers to imitate the Piety and Devotion of the wise Men which went to worship the Child Jesus in the Manger at Bethlehem for after having represented unto them that instead of Bethlehem they had the Church instead of a Stable the House of God and instead of a Manger the Altar or Communion-Table he adds instead of the Child we embrace the Bread which was blessed by the Infant And it shall appear in its place that Amalarius was very near of this Opinion when he taught That the Sacrament is that which is sacrificed instead of Jesus Christ But because the Fathers which say That the Bread and Wine are the Body of Jesus Christ say also that they pass and are changed into the Body and Blood they have taken care to explain unto us these latter Expressions as they also have fully done the former for they tell us that when they say That when the Bread and Wine pass into the Body and Blood of Christ they mean that they pass into the Sacrament of his Body and Blood This is the Explication which St. Isidore Arch-bishop of Sevil gives us in these Words Isid Hispal de offic Eccles l. 1. c. 18. The Bread which we break is the Body of Jesus Christ who saith I am the true Vine but the Bread because it strengthenâ— the Body is for this Reason called the Body of Jesus Christ and the Wine because it increaseth Blood in the Body for that cause refers unto the Blood of Jesus Christ now these two things are visible yet nevertheless being sanctified by the Holy Ghost they pass into the Sacrament of the divine Body It was also the Opinion of Bede Bed Hom. deâ— Sant in Epiphan Jesus Christ saith he daily washeth us in his Blood when we renew at the Altar the remembrance of his holy Passion when the Creatures of Bread and Wine pass into the Sacrament of his Flesh and Blood by the ineffable Sanctification of the Holy Ghost Raban Bishop of Mayans was of his mind but we may not speak of him now And when these same Fathers say That the Bread and Wine are changed and converted into the Body and Blood of our Lord they also tell us that it is into the Vertue and Efficacy of his Body It is in this sense that Theodotus said Apud Clem. Alex. p. 800. Vict. in Marc. 14. Manus That the Bread is changed into a spiritual Vertue St. Cyril of Alexandria cited by Victor of Antioch speaks yet plainer God saith he taking pity of our Infirmities communicates into the things offered an enlivening Vertue and changeth them into the Efficacy of his Flesh whereunto amounts what hath been already said by Theodoret Theod. Dial. 1. That Jesus Christ hath honoured the Symbols with the Name of his Body and Blood not in changing their Nature but in adding his Grace unto their Nature It is for that Reason he adds Ibid. That the Lord made an exchange of Names giving unto his Body the Name of Bread and unto the Bread the Name of his Body to the end saith he that those which participate of the Divine Mysteries should not stop at things which are seen but that by the change of Names they should believe the change which is made by his Grace It is just what Ephraim Apud Phot. God 229. Patriarch of Antioch intended by these Words The Sacrament doth not change the outward Form but it remains inseparable from the hidden Grace as it is in Baptism Ammon cat in Joan. 3.5 For as Ammenius saith The material Water is changed into a divine Vertue I think no other sense can be given unto these words of the 338 Bishop assembled in the Council at Constantinople Anno 754 In Conc. Nicaen 2. Act. 6. against Images As the natural Body of Jesus Christ is Holy because it was Deified so also this here which is his Body by Institution he speaks of the Substance of Bread and which is his Image is Holy as being made Divine by an Institution of Grace But we will retrench having voluntarily prescribed our selves this Law to avoid Confusion therefore it shall suffice to observe That from all these Considerations of the Holy Fathers which we have alledged there results two Doctrines from their Writings both which have been their Foundation for the Vertue and Efficacy which they attribute unto the Sacsament the first is that they regard it as a Sacrament which not only barely signifies but which also exhibits and communicates unto the believing Soul the thing which it signifies I mean the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ This is it which made St. Chrysostom say explaining these Words Chrysost Hom. â—4 in 1 ad Cor. The Bread which we break is the Communion of the Body of Christ wherefore did he not say that it is the Participation because he would give something more to be understood and shew a great Union For we not only communicate in that whereof we receive and take but also in that we are united for as this Body is united unto Jesus Christ so are we also united unto him by this Bread This was also the Judgment of St. Macarius when he said Macar Hom. 27. Dionys c. 3. Hier. Eceles That in participating of this visible Bread the Flesh of Christ is spiritually eaten And also of the Author of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy who calls the Bread and Wine the venerable Symbols whereby Jesus Christ is represented and whereby we enjoy him And of Victor of Antioch Vict. Antioch in Marc. c. 14. By the Symbol of Bread saith he we are made to participate of the Body of Christ and by the Cup we partake of his Blood St. Fulgentius had no other meaning when he thus read the words of St. Paul Fulg. de Baptis Aethiop the Breads which we break are they not the participation of the Body of the Lord. And in another place which we find in the Fragments of the ten Books he wrote against Fabian the Arrian he declares himself so fully that nothing can be said more expresly unto the Subject in hand The participation it self saith he of the Body and Blood of our Lord Id. ex l. 8. Fragm 28. when we eat his Bread and drink his Cup intimates this unto us to wit that we should dye to the World from hence it is they oppose the Communion of the Body and Blood of our Lord by means of the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist unto the participation of
Devils by the eating of Meats consecrated unto Idols The Author of the Commentaries of St. Paul's Epistles in St. Jerom's Works interpreting these Words The Bread which we break c. makes this Observation Apud Hieron in c. 10.1 Cor. In like manner it appears that the Idolatrous Bread is the participation of Devils and upon these you cannot drink the Cup of the Lord and the Cup of Devils c. You cannot saith he be partakers of God and of Devils Theodoret said something of this kind upon these Words Theod in c. 10.1 Cor. t. 3. You cannot be partakers of the Lord's Table c. How saith he can it be that we should communicate of the Lord by his precious Body and Blood and that we should also communicate of Devils in eating what hath been offered unto Idols It was also the Language of Primasius an African Bishop Primas in c. 10. 1 Cor. t. 1 Bib. Patr. who makes these Reflections upon the same Words Even so the Bread of Idols is the participation of Devils you cannot have Fellowship with God and Devils Ibid. because you would participate of both Tables Sedulius speaks almost the same The second Doctrine which results from the Hypothesis of the Fathers is That considering that the Death of Christ is the cause of our Life which Life consists in the Sanctification of our Souls by means whereof we have Communion with God which is the lively Fountain of Life and therefore before Conversion we are said to be dead they have attributed unto the Sacrament the vertue of sanctifying and quickning us This is the sense of Theophilue of Alexandria Theoph. Ep. Pasch 2. saying That we break the Bread of the Lord for our Sanctification Hilary Deacon of Rome or the Author of the Commentaries upon St. Paul's Epistles under the Name of St. Ambrose be he whom it will assures us Apud Ambros in c. 11.1 Cor That altho this Mystery was celebrated at Supper yet it is not a Supper but a Spiritual Medicine which purifieth those which draw near with Devotion and which receive it with respect Gelas de duab nat Christ Pope Gelasius testifies That the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Christ render us partakers of the Divine Nature Aug. tract 27. in Joan. In Anaceph Therefore St. Austin will have us to eat and drink of it for the participation of the Holy Ghost Therefore it is St. Epiphanius saith That there is in the Bread a vertue to vivify us which is that influence of Life mentioned by St. Cyril CHAP. IV. A Continuance of the Doctrine of the Holy Fathers ALthough the Holy Fathers have hitherto sufficiently explained themselves and that they have fully declared what was their Belief touching the Nature of the Eucharist in saying That it is true Bread and true Wine and that this Bread and Wine are the Signs the Images and the Figures of the Body and Blood of our Lord but Signs accompanied if it may be so said with the Majesty of his own Person and filled with the quickning Vertue of his Divine Body broken for us called his Body and Blood by reason of the Resemblance because they are the Symbols and Sacraments the Memorials of his Person and of his Death because they are unto us instead of his Body and Blood and pass into a Sacrament of this holy Body and precious Blood and are changed into their Efficacy and Vertue nevertheless if we can discover what were the Consequences of this Doctrine I doubt not but it will yet receive greater Illustration For as it is impossisible that they should have believed the Conversion of the Substance of Bread and Wine into the Substance of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ without admitting the three following Doctrines to wit the eating of the Flesh of Christ with the Mouth of the Body the eating of this same Flesh by the Wicked as well as the Just and the Human Presence of Christ upon Earth So it is also impossible they should deny these three Positions without rejecting this substantial Conversion Therefore I suppose it is necessary to enquire exactly what they herein believed for if they have received them as Articles of their Belief it will be a great Conjecture in Favour of the substantial Conversion notwithstanding what they have already declared But if on the other hand they have rejected them or been far from admitting of them it will be a very great Conjecture to the contrary and at the same Time a strong Confirmation of what they have deposed in the precedent Chapters To begin then our Enquiry by the first of these three Points I mean by the eating of the Flesh of Jesus Christ I say if we consult Clement of Alexandria we shall find he makes a long Discourse in the first Book of his Pedagoge and that in all that Discourse he considers Jesus Christ either as the Milk of Children that is to say those which are Children in Knowledge or as the Meat of firm grown Men that is more advanced in Knowledge but always as a Spiritual Food and mystical Nourishment which requires to be eaten after the same manner as appears by what he saith of the Birth and Regeneration of the new People of the Swadling-cloths wherein he wraps them of the Growth for which he appoints them this Food and in that he makes our Hearts to be the Palace and Temple of the Son of God Hereunto particularly relates what he saith that the Lord in these Words of the Gospel of St. John Clem. Alex. Paedag. 1. c 6. Id. ibid. Eat my Flesh and drink my Blood speaks of Faith and of the Promise by an illustrious Allegory as by Meats whereby the Church which is composed of many Members is nourished and getteth growth and what he adds afterwards the Milk fit and necessary for this Child is the Body of Jesus Christ Id. ibid. which by the Word doth feed the new People whom our Lord himself hath begotten with bodily Pangs and wrapped as young Infants in his precious Blood and in fine this pious and excellent Exclamation O wonderful Mistery Id. ibid. it commands us to put off the old and carnal Corruption as also the old Nourishment to the end that leading a new Life which is that of Jesus Christ and that receiving him into us if it were possible we should lay him up in us and lodge the Saviour in our Hearts And elsewhere he saith That 't is to drink the Blood of Christ to be Partaker of the Incorruption of our Lord which he attributes to the entring of the Holy Ghost into our Hearts Tertul. de Resurrect Tertullian also speaketh yet more clearly explaining figuratively and metaphorically all that excellent Discourse which we read in the sixth of St. John where our Saviour speaks of eating his Flesh and drinking his Blood Although saith he our Saviour saith that the Flesh profiteth nothing the Meaning
them carnally profiteth nothing at all by them It is carnal to be concerned how he came down from Heaven and to account him the Son of Joseph and how he will give us his Flesh to eat These Things I say are all carnal which ought to be understood mystically and spiritually Ibid. And how should they understand what it was to eat his Flesh They should have staid a convenient Time and not have gone away have enquired and not despaired the words which I have said unto you are Spirit and Life that is they be Divine and spiritual they have nothing of the Flesh nor no natural Consequence they are exempt from all these Necessities and above the Law of all things here below When he saith the Flesh profiteth nothing he speaks it not of his true Flesh but of those which understand the Things which are spoken in a carnal Manner And what is it to understand carnally It is barely to look upon the Things which are spoken without judging any farther For Things which are seen are not so to be judged of but to consider all the Mysteries with the Eye of the Understanding And again Those that is the Jews understood carnally and with human Thoughts and these that is the Apostles spiritually and by Faith therefore Jesus Christ said The Words which I have spoken unto you are Spirit Do not think that my Doctrine is subject to the Consequence and Necessity of things spiritual things will not suffer to be subjected unto earthly Laws St. Austin is so copious and abundant upon this Subject that I should fear tiring the Reader if I should undertake to report all that he saith It shall then suffice not to weary you with a long Chain of Passages to make choice of some of the clearest and to this purpose I 'le begin with the famous Testimony which is seen in the third Book of Christian Doctrine Aug. de Doctrin Christ l. 3. c. 16. If it be a Command that forbids any Crime or Wickedness or that commands any Charity or Utility the Proposition is not figurative but if it seems to command any Crime or Wickedness or that it forbids any Utility or Good it is figurative If saith Jesus Christ you eat not the Flesh of the Son of God and drink not his Blood you have no Life in you He seems to command some Wickedness or a Crime it is therefore a Figure which commads us to communicate of the Passion of our Lord and profitably to remember that his Flesh was crucified and broken for us Id. de verb. Dâ—m Serm. 33. tr 25. in Joan. Id. in Joan. tract 26. Id. tract 1. â—n Ep. Joan. Unto this excellent Passage I 'le add these Advertisements which he gives us Prepare not the Mouth but the Heart wherefore do you prepare the Teeth and the Belly believe and you have eaten him And what he saith elsewhere to believe in him is to eat the living Bread he that believes in him eats he is invisibly fatned because he is invisibly regenerated And again Id. in Joan. tract 26. They have shed the Blood of Jesus Christ when they persecuted him and they drank it when they believed And again This is the Bread which came down from Heaven to the end that whosoever eateth thereof should not die that is to be understood as to the Vertue of the Sacrament Ibid. and not as to the visible Sacrament it is to be understood of him that eateth inwardly not outwardly which eats in his Heart and not grinds with the Teeth Again This then is to eat this Meat Id. in Psal 98. and to drink this Drink to dwell in Christ and to have Christ dwell in them And in fine upon the 98th Psalm understand spiritually what I have said unto you you shall not eat this Body which you see and shall not drink the Blood which they will shed that will crucifie me I have given you a Sacrament which being spiritually understood will quicken you and if it be necessary to be celebrated visibly yet it must be understood invisibly Fulgent Serm. de dupl Nativ This was also the Mind of St. Fulgentius younger than St. Austin but an African as well as him and moreover a great Follower of his Doctrine to the end saith he that Man might eat the Bread of Angels the Creator of Angels was made Man feeding both the one and the other and yet remaining intire O how excellent is this Bread which feedeth Angels by the Sight to the end they may be satisfied with him in his Kingdom and which feedeth us by Faith so that we should not faint by the Way Unto these two Africans we may join a third Facund l. 12. c. 1. to wit Facundus Wherefore should he have asked them if they also would forsake him if they had understood what he had said spiritually for in understanding the Mystery they could not have been offended and would not have departed from him But they were asked to the end they should answer That although they had not understood what had been said they might be kept in aw by the Authority of their good Master and that in them he might give us a wholesom Example of Humility and Piety that where Knowledg is wanting we should give place unto Authority In fine St. Peter so answers unto our Saviour's Question that he saith not that he will not depart because he understood the Mystery but because that it self which had been said by such a Master appertained doubtless unto eternal Life For he saith Lord to whom shall we go thou hast the Words of eternal Life and we have believed and known that thou art the Christ the Son of the living God Whereas if he had understood this Mystery he would rather have said Lord we have no need to depart because we believe that it is by believing in thy Body and Blood that we must be saved So that we must not wonder if Philo of Carpace or some other under his Name requires for this Manducation the Lips of Thoughts and the Teeth of Meditations if he esteems it a Divine Banquet If we were permitted to carry on this Tradition we might continue the Proofs until the Separation of the Waldenses and Albigenses Tom. 1. Eâ—â—â— Pat. p. 229. but not to infringe the Rule which we have set we will say no more now deferring to produce the other Testimonies each in the Age wherein they lived After having examined what the Holy Fathers believed of the eating the Flesh of Jesus Christ we must enquire what was their Opinion touching the Communion of the Hypocrites and the Wicked that is if they have judged that wicked Men did in reality eat the Body of Christ or its Sacrament only Origen in Matth. cap. 15. Origen first demands Audience and thus declareth himself No wicked Person saith he can eat the Word it self which was made Flesh for if it were possible for him
that continues wicked to eat the Word made Flesh which is the living Word and Bread it would not have been written whosoever eateth of this Bread shall live for ever Id. Homil. 3. in Matth. And again The Good eat the Bread which came down from Heaven but the Wicked eat a dead Bread which is Death Ratherus Bishop of Verona hath transmitted unto us a Passage of Zeno Bishop of the same Place and one of his Predecessors which some make Contemporary with Origen and Martyr of Jesus Christ Zeno Veronens apud Rath t. 2. Spiciâ—eg Dach p. 181. under the Emperor Gallienus he cites it out of Zeno's Sermon touching the Patriarch Juda and his Daughter-in-law Thamar The Sermon is indeed Printed but the Passage whereof wespeak is not now to be seen in it it shall be here inserted and the Reader may see that he was of Origen's Opinion The Devil saith he is the Father of all wicked Livers and 't is much to be feared that he in whom the Devil inhabits by these three Sins Pride Hypocrisie and Luxury doth not eat the Body of Jesus Christ nor drink his Blood although he seems to communicate with Believers Our Saviour saying He that eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood dwelleth in me and I in him which may be thus construed he that dwelleth in me and I in him eateth my Flesh and drinks my Blood for I cannot see how the Devil can reside in him in whom God liveth Hier in cap. 66. Esa and which liveth in God but he dwelleth in him that is empty and darkned by Hypocrisie or Pride and defiled by Luxury St. Jerom also speaks the same Language All those saith he which love their Pleasures more than God sanctified outwardly in Gardens and Doors but not in Body nor Mind do not eat the Body of Jesus Christ nor drink his Blood of which himself saith Whosoever eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood hath Life eternal because they cannot enter into the Mysteries of Truth and at the same time eat the Meats of Impiety It is the constant Doctrine of St. August de Civit. Dei l. 21. c. 25. Id. ibid. Augustin which he establisheth in several Places It must not be imagined saith he that a Man which doth not belong to the Body of Jesus Christ should eat the Body of Christ And again Let it not be said that those do eat the Body of Jesus Christ because they are not numbred amongst the Members of Christ For not to say any thing else they cannot at once be the Members of Jesus Christ and the Members of an Harlot And in fine himself saying Whosoever eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood dwelleth in me and I in him doth shew what it is to eat the Body of Christ and to drink his Blood not in Sacrament only but in Truth for it is to dwell in Christ and to have Christ dwell in him It is as if he had said Let not him which dwelleth not in me and in whom I do not dwell think or imagine that he eateth my Flesh or drinketh my Blood Id. Tract 26. in Joan. p. 94. 6. And elsewhere speaking of the Sacrament of the Eucharist It is received saith he at the Lord's Table by some unto Life and by some others unto Death but the thing it self whereof it is a Sacrament is Life unto all Men and is not unto Destruction unto any which participate of him Id. ibid. And a little after He that dwelleth not in Jesus Christ and in whom Christ dwelleth not eateth not spiritually his Flesh and drinketh not his Blood although he grindeth visibly with his Teeth the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ but rather he eateth and drinketh unto his Damnation the Sacrament of so great a Thing Prosper sent 339. August de verb. Apost serm 2. c. 1. by presuming to come to the Sacraments of Jesus Christ being unclean St. Prosper allegeth this Passage in stronger Terms and such that in his Time it was read without the Word spiritually for he saith only of the Wicked That he eateth not the Flesh of Jesus Christ But let us again hear the same St. Austin faying Id. Tract 27. in Joan. That the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ shall be Life unto every one if what be received visibly in Sacrament is eaten and drank spiritually in the Truth it self therefore he exhorteth Believers not to eat the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in Sacrament only as the Wicked do Philo Carp t. â—1 Bibl. Pat. p. 228. in Cant. Let us then conclude the Examination of this second Tradition by the Words of Philo of Carpace That it is only unto those which are pure of Heart that this pleasant Food this heavenly Bread that this supersubstantial Drink is given until we arrive at the Place where it shall be shewn that it was also the Belief of the Greek Church in the XIth Century What remains to be treated of in this Chapter is the Question of Jesus Christs Presence upon Earth to wit if besides the Presence of his Divinity whereby he is always present with the Church Militant he is also really and effectually present by his Humanity Having applied my self with some diligence in inquiring into the Belief of the Holy Fathers upon this Article of our Faith I have found that when they explain how our Saviour is present and absent unto his Church they always touch the presence of his Divinity but they never say any thing of the Presence of his Humanity or if they do it is but absolutely to exclude it when at the same Time they establish the other for the Comfort of Believers Origen in Mat. tract 33. according to which Origen endeavouring to reconcile the Passages of Scripture which say That Jesus Christ shall be alway with us with others which say that he will go and depart he teacheth us that he is with us and will not depart as to the Nature of his Divinity but that he will depart and retire himself from us Id. ibid. according to the Oeconomy and Dispensation of the Body which he had taken that he departeth from us as Man but that he is every where present according to the Nature of his Divinity And a little under It is not the Man that is to say the human Nature which is every where where two or three are gathered together in his Name neither is it the Man that is to say the human Nature neither which is with us until the end of the World nor it is not the human Nature that is present with Believers wheresoever they are assembled but it is the Divine Vertue which was in Jesus Christ And St. Cyril Hierosol catech illum 14. extr Cyril of Jerusalem he saith he who is sitting there above is also here present with us he beholdeth the Strength and Order of the Faith of each one for because he is now
Testimony but now alledged amongst the things whereof he fears that Truth may be endangered if the Faith of the Senses are mistrusted he mentions expresly the Wine of the Sacrament Tert. de anim Christians saith he are not permitted to call the Testimony of their Senses in question fearing least they should say that Jesus Christ tasted some other savour than that of Wine which he consecrated in remembrance of his Blood He alledges to defend the Fidelity of the Senses the Savour of the Wine of the Sacrament but say they it cannot be imagined that he could have reasoned after that manner if he had believed what the Latins now believe because according to their Hypothesis our Senses are grosly deceived in taking that to be Wine which is nothing less than Wine but another substance infinitely different Shall we then conclude say they that he indiscreetly betray'd his Cause and that he ignorantly chose for a convincing Proof that which was an unsurmountable Difficulty but should we say so we should undoubtedly draw upon us all the Learned who look'd upon him as one of the greatest Wits of his Time whose Mind being so enlightned and his Judgment so solid could not be charged with such a Mistake and not to call his great Reputation in question they had rather conclude according to all appearance that he was not of the belief of the present Latin Church which I refer unto the Reader 's Discretion but that nothing may be wanting to the clearing the question we now treat of and not to make the Holy Fathers contradict one another it must be observed that they considered two things as some say in the Sacrament of Christians I mean the sign and the thing signified As for the thing signified all the World agree that it falls not under the Senses and that so we should not expect that they should render us any Testimony It is Faith that must instruct and give us a Testimony it is of Faith to direct and apply to us the Efficacy and Vertue As to the Signs and Symbols they also say that they have therein also distinguished two things the Substance and their Nature and their Use and Employment that is to say the quality of the Sacraments wherewith they are qualified by favour of the Benediction For example in Baptism they pretend that Water which is the Symbol hath two Relations one of the bare Element of the Nature which keeps its Substance and the other of the Sacrament of Religion which Consecration gives it It is the same in the Eucharist for besides the Nature and Substance of Bread and Wine which are the Signs and Symbols they bear the quality of Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and it is Grace which God adds unto Nature Now to apply this unto our Subject they say that the Senses being Organs purely Natural they cannot lift themselves above Nature nor make us a true report of what doth not depend upon their Laws but whilst they keep within the bounds of their Nature and that they undertake nothing beyond their Strength and the Priviledges granted unto them their Testimony is infallible and their Deposition true and certain therefore when they shew us that the Water in Baptism is truly Water according to its Substance and the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist but Bread and Wine also in regard of their Substance they judge that we ought to believe them after what the Fathers have told us because then they do not pass the limits that God hath set them but when they will pass further and tell us that the Water of Baptism is but bare Water and the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament but bare Bread and Wine we should command their silence because they pass beyond their Bounds and passing beyond the Limits of Nature they take upon them to penetrate into the Mysteries of Grace which have been only given unto Faith to dispose of they also observe that 't is in these occasions that the same Fathers forbid us to hearken unto them or receive their Testimony and that 't is so must be understood the Author of the Book of them which are initiated in St. Ambrose What have you seen Ambros l. 3. de init c. 3. l. 4. saith he I have seen Water indeed but not Water only I also see the Deacons saying Service and the Bishop examining and consecrating for the Apostle hath taught you that before all things you should look not to the things seen which are temporary Ibid. but unto those which are invisible which be eternal and again believe not the Eyes of the Body only what is not seen is most seen because the one is Temporal and the other Eternal and that which is Eternal is not perceived by the Eyes but is seen by the Spirit and by the Understanding And the Author of the Book of Sacraments Apud Ambros l. 1. de Sacram. c. 3. You have seen what may be seen with the Eyes of the Body and human Perception but you have not seen the things which operate because they are invisible those which are not seen are much more considerable than those which are seen because the things which are visible are Temporal and the things invisible are Eternal And because there is this difference betwixt the Believer and the Unbeliever that the Unbeliever hath only the Eyes of the Body and of Nature whereas the Believer hath besides the Eyes of the Body and of Nature those of the Spirit and of Faith St. Chrysostom saith that the Infidel seeth only the substance of the Symbols staying at the exterior of the Sacraments but as for the Believer he understands the Excellency the Vertue and the Meaning that is to say with the Eyes of Faith when he seeth as well as the Unbeliever the matter and substance of the Symbols with the Eyes of Nature and of the Body Câ—rysost Hom. 7. in 1 ad Cor. p. 378. The Unbeliever saith he hearing mention made of Baptism thinks that it is but Water but as for me I do not only look upon what is seen I consider also the cleansing of the Soul which is done by the Holy Ghost he thinks that my Body only is washed and I do believe my Soul is also purified and sanctified for I do not judge by the bodily Eyes of what is seen but by those of the Understanding I hear the Body of Christ named I conceive it after one manner and the Unbeliever understands it after another Which he illustrates by this excellent Comparison An illiterate Person saith he receiving a Letter takes it only for Paper and Ink but a Person that understands Letters finds quite another thing he hears a Voice and speaks with a Person absent and will in his time say what he lists and will make himself to be understood by means of Letters It is the same with the Mysteries for Unbelievers understand nothing of what they hear spoken
and consider with himself with what Doctrine they best agree either with that which teacheth that what is therein seen and touched are meer Accidents or with that which holds that they are true Substances of Bread and Wine CHAP. VI. Other Proofs of the Doctrine of the Holy Fathers with the Inferences made by Protestants ALthough we have hitherto represented several Things which have been believed and practised in the Country of Ecclesiastical Antiquity yet it is not all which I observed during the Time of my residing in that Country I will then continue the History of my Travels not to conceal any Thing from the Publick of the Laws and Customs of that spacious Empire upon the Point which we have undertaken to examine For it would not be just after having had Communication of their Records and Registers wherein all that relates unto this august Sacrament is faithfully contained that I should omit any Thing that I have there found not to fail then of my Duty nor the fidelity due to the Quality which I have taken I say that besides the Things which I have already observed I find that about two hundred Years after the first Beginning of this great Empire those which had the Direction and Government of it applied their Thoughts very much in giving divers mystical Significations unto the holy Sacrament and that those which followed them applied themselves thereunto also for they thought that the Bread of the Eucharist being a Body composed of several Grains and the Wine a Liquor pressed from several Grapes they very well represented the Body of the Church composed of several Believers united into one Society It is the Doctrine of Theophilus of Antioch of St. Cyprian St. Chrysostom St. Austin St. Isidor of Sevil of Bede Wallafridus Strabo of Raban and others but he Testimony of the blessed Martyr St. Cyprian shall suffice in a Thing which is not contested Cyprian â—p 76. When saith he the Lord called his Body Bread which is made of several Grains of Wheat he would shew the faithful People which he carried in himself in as much as it is but one People and when he called his Blood Wine made of several Grapes pressed together and made one he also signified this faithful People composed of several Persons united into one Body The Foundation of this mystical Signification can be nothing else if the Protestant be believed but the Nature and the Substance of these two Symbols unto which the holy Fathers have given this Signification after the Consecration which hath rendred them fit for this Use In fine going to represent the Unity of Believers which are sundry Persons really subsisting but united into one Body by the Bonds of the same Spirit I do not see saith he but that the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament whereof the one is moulded of sundry Grains the other prest from several Grapes may be proper to represent this Unity at least that the Substance of several Grains of Wheat and of several Grapes may continue moulded and mixt together See there after what manner he understands this constant Doctrine of the holy Fathers Moreover he desires to be suffered to add that what confirms him in this Opinion is That if any other Sense be given unto this Doctrine of the ancient Fathers this Inconvenience will scarce be avoided to wit that one shall be forced to say of the true and proper Body of Jesus Christ This Bread composed of sundry Grains represents unto us the Church composed of sundry Believers which Thing truly Christian Ears would scarce be able to endure Besides we have observed in the first Chapter of the first Part that the ancient Church was wont to mingle Water with the Wine in the Celebration of the Sacrament and that in the beginning of the third Century there was a Mystery sought for in this Mixture The Reader may please to view the Place where even those of the holy Fathers are named which have so spoken it being needless here to repeat what hath been there mentioned but only to make some few Reflections which we were not there permitted to do and which nevertheless may serve very much to clear up the Intention of these holy Doctors The first is That they have given two several Significations unto the Water and the Wine saying That the Water represents the faithful People and the Wine the Blood of Jesus Christ For I cannot conceive that these two Usages could take place if both these Things did not remain distinct the one from the other because each of them hath a several Object to represent so that the one of them cannot represent the Object which the other doth signifie Secondly they have established betwixt the Wine and the Blood of Jesus Christ the same Relation which they have established betwixt the Water and the faithful People it not being to be seen that they have given any more Vertue unto the Wine to signifie the Blood of the Son of God than they have given to the Water to represent the Christian People and without giving notice that the Wine is the Blood of Jesus Christ in a more particular manner than the Water is the faithful People On the contrary they have spoken so equally of them both in regard of the two Significations which they attributed unto them that it is impossible to discover the least difference In fine the holy Fathers declare That the Wine and Water mingled together signifie the Union of Jesus Christ and Believers which they could not discern but in the Thoughts of the Union of these two Elements I speak of the Water and Wine which subsisted firm and indissoble and the Firmness of the Union of these two Things could not subsist if their Nature and the Truth of their Being did not subsist also And to say the Truth as far as I can judge these good Doctors have not made this Signification which they gave to the Wine and Water to depend barely upon their mingling only but principally of the Subsistance of this Mixture which was absolutely necessary that it might represent the Truth and Solidity of the spiritual Union of Jesus Christ and his People There is an admirable fine Passage of St. Cyprian upon this Subject but which I shall dispense my self from inserting here because 't is to be seen at large in the Place above-mention'd Whilst I shall join unto this mystical Signification two others which we have touched in the same Place in the first Part. By the one the Wine and Water mingled in the consecrated Cup were to represent the Water and Blood which run down the Side of our Lord Jesus at the time of his Passion and by the other the Union of the Eternal Word with the Humanity But all these mystical Significations are destroyed if the Nature and Substance of Things are abolished in the which they had their only Foundation After this manner the Protestant doth reason upon these Observations The Hereticks
disputing formerly against the Catholicks and Orthodox would oblige the Catholicks to prove their Doctrine and Belief in so many express Words In the Dialogue against Arrius Sabellius and Photinus under the Name of St. Athanasius Vigil l. 1. contra Arr. c. l. 1. c. 23. ult Eâ—it p. 140. but whose true Author is Vigilius of Tapsus an African Bishop The Arrian demands of the Orthodox that he will shew him in the Scriptures the Word Homousion which signifies of one Substance or that he may read it properly that is to say in so many Syllables or that he should cease making use of it It is also the Proceedings of the Arrians against the true Athanasius in his Treatise of the Synods of Arimini and Seleutia Athanas de Synod Arim. pag. 911. Id. ibid. p. 913. Id. de decret Syn. Nicaen p. 270. But the Holy Fathers laughed at this ridiculous and impertinent Method It matters not said St. Athanasius if any make use of Terms not contained in the Holy Scriptures provided his Thoughts are Orthodox And elsewhere he saith That although these Words are not found in the Scriptures it sufficeth they contain a Doctrine agreeable to the Scriptures And Vigilius Homousion Vigil ubi supra cap. 26. p. 143. That it must be collected from the Authority of Scripture by a reasonable consequence and that it is not just to quarrel about a Name which may be firmly established by a great many Testimonies It is so several other Doctors have done and indeed they did wisely for there is nothing more unreasonable than to reduce Man to the Degree of Beasts in depriving him of the Use of Reasoning whereby he draws certain Conclusions from necessary Principles No body then ought to wonder if besides the direct Doctrine of the Fathers upon the Point of the Eucharist I here insert the indirect which consists in necessary Inductions because the Part of an Historian which I assume in this Work doth oblige me faithfully to represent unto the Reader the Inductions which others are wont to draw from their Testimonies for the better understanding their Doctrine leaving it unto the Liberty of every one to judge of their Value or Weakness I will therefore continue these Sorts of Proofs already begun in this Chapter What hath been already said containing the direct Proofs of their Belief with the Consequences which are inseparable from it Athenag de Resurrect mort ad ealcem oper Just p. 46. Athenagoras in his Treatise of the Resurrection of the Dead saith something if I mistake not worthy of Consideration Neither the Blood nor Phlegm nor Choller nor Spirits that is to say as well Vital as Animal shall be raised with our Bodies in the blessed Resurrection being no longer necessary unto the Life which we shall then live If the quickned Body of Jesus Christ be the Model and Pattern of the Resurrection of Believers as all Christians Universally agree Athenagoras say they could not believe that the Bodies of Believers after the Resurrection should have no Blood but that he believed also that the glorified Body of Christ had none also and if he believed it had none how could it be thought that he believed that it should be drank in the Eucharist but figuratively because we there make a Commemoration of that Blood which he shed upon the Cross for the Expiation of our Sins A Commemoration which we could not make as St. Paul commands us unless we participate of the Fruits and Benefits of his bitter Death A Participation which as the Protestants say is the Effect of the spiritual and mystical Eating or if you will Drinking Hieron Ep. 61. c. 8 9 c. 1.2 but also at the same time a real and true Eating which is done by our Faith The same may be said by Origen as appears by St. Jerom's sixty first Letter unto Pammachius touching the Errors of John Bishop of Jerusalem and it may be he proceeded farther at least he was not only suspected but taxed with it Moreover in the fifth Century it was not fully determin'd if the Body of our Lord in the State of Glory wherein it is Aug. Epist 146. ad Cons init had Blood For we find by one of the Letters of St. Austin which one Consentius wrote unto him to be inform'd if the Body of Christ now hath Blood and Bones This Consentius was not an Ordinary Believer or common Christian he seems to be a Bishop or at least a Priest worthy of St. Austin's Respect and Friendship for in the Beginning of the Letter he gives him the Title of most dear or most beloved And elsewhere he saith unto him That he is beloved in the Bowels of Jesus Christ I freely confess Ep. 222. saith the Protestant I cannot read these Words without thinking of the Belief of the Latin Church in the Point of the Sacrament for it is not to be conceived that one of the Conducters of the Christian Churches should propose unto the great St. Austin so ridiculous and impertinent a Question if it was believed in his Time of the Sacrament as is now believed by the Roman Catholicks In fine if it was the Belief of the fifth Century I cannot see how that Man can be excus'd of Folly and Extravagance Nevertheless on the other hand St. Austin deals by him in such a manner which suffers us not to judge so disadvantagiously of him What shall we then say Continues he to excuse the Simplicity of this Man and to give some Colour to his Demand Had he never participated of the Eucharist had he never approached unto the holy Table and had he never drank of the Cup of our Redemption Wherefore then doth he ask of St. Austin to know if the glorified Body of our Lord hath Blood if it were true that the Church at that time held for an Article of Faith That it was drank really and truly every time as they communicated of the holy Cup Or wherefore doth not St. Austin refer him back unto the Sacrament the only Consideration whereof might have satisfied Consentius if the Belief of the Latins had been the Belief of that Age. Let us proceed St. Austin proves unto his Friend by the Words of the Scriptures That the Body of Jesus Christ hath yet now Flesh and Bones but because in the Scripture he cites there is no mention of Blood he leaves this Point in the Terms Consentius left it that is to say in suspense saying That because Jesus Christ only said That he had Flesh and Bones without adding Blood we should not also extend our Question any farther nor add that of his Blood unto the other of his Flesh and Bones Fearing saith he there should come some other more inquisiâ—ive Disputer which taking occasion from the Blood should press us in saying If he hath Blood why not then Spleen why not Choller and Melancholly the four Humours which compose the Nature of the Body
celebrate these Antitypes that is to say these Figures he himself having commanded us to shew forth his Death Whereupon the Protestants say That this Form of Thanksgiving doth not well agree with the Belief of the Latin Church and that it is conceived in Terms too weak if the Author which transmitted it to us had believed the real Presence which makes the Spirit of the Communicant in the heat of his Devotion to look unto Jesus Christ himself and to the Substance of his Body whereas this here speaks unto him of Antitypes and of Figures So in St. Basil's Liturgy the Priest celebrating prayeth unto God Liturg. Basil in presenting him saith he the Antitypes or the Figures of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ For although in this Prayer he desires of God that he would sanctifie and consecrate them nevertheless it doth evidently appear that he considers the Symbols of Bread and Wine as already consecrated because they could not without the Vertue of Consecration be the Figures of the Body and Blood of Christ which he look'd upon as already done which according to the Belief and Practice of the Greeks was done in that very Moment Greg. Nazian Orat. 11. p. 187. St. Gregory of Nazianzen in the Funeral-Oration of his Sister Gorgony relates amongst other things the miraculous Recovery of this Vertuous Woman and refers it unto the Sacrament in these Words She put her Head saith he near the Altar and shedding a Flood of Tears after the Example of her who washed with her Tears the Feet of Jesus Christ she declared that she would not leave that Place until she had obtained and recovered her Health her Tears were the Incense which she poured forth upon all his Body she mingled them with the Antitypes or the Figures of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ as much as her Hands could hold and instantly O Miracle she felt her self healed and retired What did St. Gregory think of will some say in relating this History if he had believed what the Latin Church believes For if that were so no body but would judge that he ought to attribute this Recovery of his Sister not to the Sign but to the Thing signified not to the Figure but to the Body it self of Jesus Christ nevertheless he doth the quite contrary 't is to the Antitype and the Figure that he attributes this wonderful Effect and thereby he shews that he was of another Opinion There is in the Works of this same Father an Oration wherein doubtless he discovered the Strength of his Wit and the Treasure of his Eloquence I mean wherein he hath omitted nothing to obtain his Desire which was to preserve the City of Nazianzen whereof his Father had been Bishop and which the Emperors Prefect threatned with Destruction and Ruin Levit. This excellent Man taking Pity of this poor City and passionately desiring to preserve it from the Storm wherewith it was threatned he earnestly beseeches the Prefect to spare it He beseeches he conjures he sets before his Eyes all that is most holy and most sacred in Religion Id. Orat. 17. p. 273. and to touch him even to the Heart he saith unto him amongst other Things I represent before your Eyes this Table where we communicate all together and the Types and Figures of my Salvation which I do consecrate with this same Mouth with the which I present my Request this Mystery I say which lifts us up unto Heaven Must it not be confessed saith the Protestant either that St. Gregory was but a very bad Orator and that he took but an ill Course to appease the Prefect to stir up his Compassion towards the Inhabitants of the City of Nazianzen in laying before him the Figures of his Salvation and instead of speaking unto him of the Body it self of Jesus Christ and of saying unto him That he conjured him by this pretious Body which he made with the same Mouth which intreated him or that he had not yet learned the Doctrine of the substantial Conversion and because to this Day no body ever denied unto Gregory Nazianzen the Quality of a good and eloquent Orator He adds That it must of necessity be concluded that he was not in all likelihood of the Belief of the Latin Church in the Point of the Sacrament In the Life of St. Eloy Bishop of Noyon who lived in the VIIth Century there is a kind of Sermon or rather a Collection of Exhortations and Remonstrances which he made unto the People that he instructed in the Faith of Jesus Christ and unto whom he preached the Doctrine of his holy Gospel and amongst several of these Instructions the Scope whereof was to incline them unto good and to divert them from Evil he directs this unto them S. Elig l. 2. vita ejus c 15. p. 217. t. 5. Spicil Daâ—h Hinder them from making Diabolical Sports and Games and from Dances and that they do not sing the Songs of Pagans that no Christian be exercised therein because that by these Songs one becomes a Pagan for it is not just that the Devils Songs should proceed out of the Mouth of a Christian wherein enters the Sacraments of Jesus Christ There 's no body but doth easily perceive that St. Eloy's Exhortation had been incomparably Stronger and more efficacious if instead of Sacraments he had spoken of the real Body of Jesus Christ For if the Hearers had been hardned to the highest Degree he must needs have moved them in shewing them that it was a shameful thing to see devilish Songs proceed out of a Christian Mouth wherein the proper Body of Christ doth enter Was it not the fit time to have said it and could he dispense himself from saying it if he had believed what the Latin Church now believes Seeing then that he said it not and that he contented himself with speaking of the Sacraments of Jesus Christ one cannot also reasonably dispense themselves from inferring that he was of another Belief it is as the Protestant saith what may be collected from this Testimony There is in the third Tome of the Councils of France which Father Sirmond hath published a Letter of the Bishops of the Provinces of Rheims and of Roüen that is to say of the Suffragan Bishops of those two Archbishopricks assembled at Cressy Anno 858. to consider of the Order of Lewis King of Germany which forcibly invaded the Kingdom of Charles the Bald his Brother In this Letter which is very long and divided into Chapters they represent several things unto this Prince and because he desired they would give him their Oaths they strongly refused alledging this Reason for their Denial That it would be an abominable thing Concil Câ—ris t. 3. Gall. p. 129. Extr. that the Hand which makes by Prayer and the Sign of the Cross Bread and Wine mingled with Water the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ should be concerned after the
Sacraments of his Body and Blood in the Species of Bread and Wine that is to say Gaud. ubi supra p. 16. in the Substance of Bread and Wine For by the Species the Ancients did not understand Accidents without their Subject because they have declared that could not be but they understood the Substance it self of things so that in their manner of Speech the Species of any thing is the thing it self As when St. Aug tract 11. in Joan. Ib. p. 14 Austin speaks of the Species of Baptism to signifie Baptism St. Gaudentius thus continues his Instruction The Creator of Natures himself and the Lord which bringeth forth Bread out of the Earth doth again make his Body of Bread because he can do it and hath promised it and he that made Wine of Water makes his Blood of Wine There was two things which hindred these Neophytes from staggering at these Words the one was That they knew as well as all other Christians that the true Body of Jesus Christ was made a great while ago which made them refer these Words unto the Sacrament The other was That their Catechiser himself obliged them to understand them so when he calls the Eucharist Ibid. 14 16. the Mystery of Bread and Wine and that he saith That the Blood of Jesus Christ is expressed or shewn by the Species of Wine that all Wine that is offered in Figure of his Death is his Blood and that in the Bread is received the Figure of the Body of Jesus Christ Ib p. 14. Ibid. Ib. p. 15 26. And to the end they should not imagine that for being the Figure of the Body of Jesus Christ it ceased to be his Body he declares positively unto them That the Figure is not the Verity but the Imitation or Symbol of the Verity From thence it is that he exhorts them to receive the Sacrament of the Body of our Lord with a Heart full of Zeal and a Mouth that is not languishing and to offer the Sacraments of his Body and Blood in the Species of Bread and Wine Ibid. p. 15. So that when he told them afterwards That Jesus Christ passeth into it that is to say the Bread and Wine they easily conceive that it is in regard of his Efficacy and Vertue wherewith he accompanies the lawful Use of his Sacrament or as he saith himself by the Fire of his Divine Spirit And when he bids them Ibid. p. 15. not to hold that for terrestial which is made celestial it is as if he had said That they should not look at what the Symbols had of earthly and common but to lift up their Souls unto what they have of Heavenly and Divine Ibid. I mean unto the Quality wherewith the Sacrament is accompanied for the Consolation of our Souls Do not boil saith he the Sacrament in the Vessel of a carnal Heart which is naturally subject unto its Passions Ibid. 15 16 this were to account it a common and earthly thing whereas you should believe that it is made by the Fire of the Divine Spirit what it is declared to be For he adds what you receive is the Body of this heavenly Bread and the Blood of this holy Wine because in giving unto his Disciples the consecrated Bread and Wine he said This is my Body this is my Blood Let us believe I beseech you in him in whom we have believed the Truth cannot lye And indeed it would be a criminal Unbelief not to believe what Jesus Christ hath said who is the Truth it self viz. That the Bread is his Body and the Wine his Blood which by the Confession of all cannot be true but in a Figurative and Metaphorical Sense and not properly according to the Letter But St. Gaudentius will not yet have done with his Neophytes he thinks there yet wants something for their Instruction because he hath not yet told them that the Eucharist is a Pledg of the Presence of our Saviour an Earnest which he hath given us to supply his Absence and to comfort us during the Time we are absent from him in setting before our Eyes the Image of the Death which he suffered for us Ibid. p. 16. It is truly saith he this Hereditary Present of the New Testament which he hath left unto you as a Pledg of his Presence in the Night wherein he was betrayed to be crucified it is that Viaticum of our Journey whereby we are nourished by the Way until we go unto him in departing this World for he would that his Benefits should remain with us he would have our Souls to be always sanctified in his precious Blood by the Image of his Passion therefore he commanded his faithful Disciples which whom he established the first Ministers of his Church conticontinually to practise these Mysteries of eternal Life which it is necessary all Priests should celebrate in all Churches throughout the World until Jesus Christ comes again from Heaven to the end that the Priests themselves and all the faithful People should always have before their Eyes the Protraiture of the Passion of Jesus Christ and that carrying him in their Hands and receiving him with the Mouth and the Heart we may have deeply engraven in our Memory the Grace of our Redemption and that we should possess against the Poison of Devils the sweet Antidote of a continual Preservative These Words are sweet and full of Light as well as of Piety but here are others of the same Catechism which made no less Impression upon the Minds of the new Converts and which no less assisted them in understanding of this Mystery In that he commanded saith he to offer the Sacraments of his Body and Blood in the Species of Bread and Wine Ibid. p. 16. it is for a two-fold Reason in the first place to the end the Lamb of God without Spot might give unto the faithful People to be celebrated a pure Sacrifice without Fire or Blood or Boiling the Flesh and that all the World might offer easily and safely then as it is necessary Bread should be made of several Grains of Wheat reduced into Flour by the help of Water and that it be baked by Fire there should reasonably be received in it the Figure of the Body of Jesus Christ who we know made one sole Body of the Multitude of all Mankind Unto these two Catechists I will add a third which was incomparably more famous August Serm. ad Infant ap Fulg. de Bapt. Aethiop it is the great St. Austin who gave this Lesson unto his Neophytes What you see is Bread and it is also what your Eyes do testifie but the Instruction which your Faith desires is That the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ and the Cup his Blood This is said in a few Words and it may be these few may suffice for your Faith but Faith requires to be instructed for the Prophet saith If you believe not
with the Hand although the Church of Rome her self practised it so formerly for several Ages From whence again could proceed this Change but from the Change of Doctrine whilst it was believed that what was received at the mystical Table was true Bread and Wine but Bread and Wine which the Consecration had separated from the common Use they had in Nature to apply them unto a holy and religious Use in Grace Communicants were permitted to receive the Sacrament in their Hands But when they taught that it was the real Body of Jesus Christ they began to put it into the Mouth of such as presented themselves at the Communion judging their Hands were not worthy to receive the Flesh it self of their Saviour and fearing that some by Neglect should let fall to the Ground this pretious Body an Inconvenience which their Forefathers never thought of or if they did think of it they did not so much fear it though otherwise they were as circumspect in the Celebration of this Divine Sacrament so far as to take Care with incomparable Exactness that none of it should fall to the Ground Let every body judge the Reason of so notable a Difference But if the Sacrament was put into the Hand of Communicants they were wont also for a long time to carry it home along with them to their Houses At present amongst the Latins it would be a criminal Action Father Petau tells us and held for a Prophanation of this Sacrament As for my part I cannot blame this Severity of the Latin Church because she believes that it is the adorable Body of the Son of God whereunto is owing Soveraign Respect What shall we then say unto the ancient Fathers which permitted it and which believed not as St. Basil tells us that this Custom was not worthy of Blame We cannot but know that their Zeal was greater than ours and their Piety more ardent than what appears in us at this time How then have they so long time tolerated this Practice in the Church and even in that of Rome as St. Jerom hath made appear From whence the Protestant concludes That one cannot reasonably forbear attributing the Reason of this Toleration to any thing but the Difference of their Doctrine and to say that their Belief upon this Point being quite contrary they made no Scruple of suffering what the Latins would not suffer at present for all the World And as they suffered Communicants to carry the Sacrament to their Houses to keep and take it when they pleased they also suffered them to carry it in their Travels and Journeys even by Sea where they made no Difficulty of celebrating and participating of it when Occasion required as the Example of Maximinian Bishop of Syracusa and his Companions do testifie for being in Danger of suffering Shipwrack they received it is said the Body and Blood of their Redeemer But in the Latin Church it is practised quite contrary at this time it not being permitted to celebrate the whole Mass neither at the Sea nor upon Rivers but only to read the Epistle and Gospel to say the Lords Prayer and give the Benediction In a Word to say that which was anciently called the Mass of the Catechumeny that is to say unto that Part called the Canon Thom Valdens Guilhelm Duranâ— apud Cassand in Liturg. c. 34. Cassand ib. Whence it is Cassander makes this Observation drawn from a Book of the Order of the Mass according to the Use of the Church of Rome This dry Mass that is to say without Consecration and Communion is also called Naval because it is judged it can only be said after that manner in an unsteady place and where there is motion as at Sea and upon Rivers in which places it is believed that an intire Mass cannot be said Pope Gregory the first nevertheless blamed not what was done by Maximinian and his Companions when he relates the History of it in his Dialogues no more than St. Ambrose doth the Action of his Brother Satyrus All which again gives Ground to believe that in all likelihood they had not then that Opinion of the Sacrament which Roman Catholicks now have for they would not have failed to have taken the same Caution Anciently in the Church the Communion was freely sent unto sick Folks by Lay-persons by Boys Men or Women which continued in the West until the IXth and Xth Centuries What Appearance is there they would so long have tolerated this Custem if the Belief of those times had been the same of that of the Latin Church at present it is thought they would have been more reserved and that they would not have so slightly entrusted the Body of Jesus Christ unto all Sorts of Persons indifferently But besides all these Customs which we have instanced and from whence we have drawn the necessary Inferences there be yet others which we already examined in the first Part the Consequences whereof we are also obliged to shew The ancient Christians made no Difficulty to imploy the Sacrament to make Plaisters as St. Austin hath assured us every body knows that to make a Plaister sometimes Drugs are used that must be bruised and pounded in a Mortar sometimes Roots are used that must be boiled and which by means of certain Liquors are reduced into the consistence of an Oyntment or thick matter and such as may conveniently be spread upon a Linen-cloth or upon Flax afterwards to apply it unto the distemper'd part which wants Ease Was there ever any Christian that believed such a Sort of Medicine could be made of the proper and natural Body of Jesus Christ that it could be beat and pounded in a Mortar or boiled with Liquor or in a Word reduced in the State which they are wont to do those Things which are requisite to make Plaisters or if any were so extravagant to believe it or so wicked and senseless to attempt it had it been possible to be done all others would they not have exclaimed against such a Person would they not have esteemed him monstrous and worthy enduring the greatest of all Punishments Nevertheless there hath been found those which made Plaisters of the Eucharist and which far from being blamed have been praised and commended by pious and devout Persons fearing God witness that Mother mentioned by St. Austin Seeing then that a Plaister cannot be made of the true Body of Jesus Christ it necessarily follows that where there was one made it was of the Substance of the Symbols and that the Christians that did so were perswaded that it was not the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ but a Substance of Bread and Wine In the ancient Church the Sacrament was buried with the Dead as there is no Christian but knows that Christ died that he was buried and rose again the third Day neither is there any but do know that he dieth no more and that he shall no more be buried Those then which heretofore buried the
any Magick or Enchantment did what he pretended to do by the help of his Sorceries in casting a Mist before the Eyes of those that were present and that by pronouncing of these Words This is my Body This is my Blood they change the Wine of the Cup into the very Blood of the God which they adore Nevertheless St. Irencus nor St. Epiphanius which have narrowly enough examined the Heresy of this Deceiver and all that he did in the celebration of the Mysteries nor any one else that I hear of have not made him this Objection to expose unto the sight of the whole World the folly of his enterprise which shews as the Protestants say that the Orthodox Christians did not then believe that what was in the consecrated Cup was the real Blood of Jesus Christ In the same Chapter of the first part we mentioned the Ascodrutes or Ascodrupites which rejected both Baptism and the Eucharist saying That invisible things should not be represented by visible things nor incorporeal things by sensible and corporal and that Images and Figures ought not to be made upon Earth How could the Holy Fathers grapple with these Hereticks or condemn as a Heresy that which they taught that the Symbols of Spiritual and Heavenly Things ought not to be sensible nor corporal if Catholicks had not in their Sacraments Symbols of this Nature For it would have been unjust to condemn that for a Heresy in others which we believe and approve our selves or how should these Hereticks have abstained from the celebration of Baptism and the Eucharist if the Orthodox had believed with them that there was nothing sensible nor corporal in the one nor the other of these two Sacraments for what made them lay aside these Sacraments was the substance of the Symbols which were corporal and visible and as the same reason which made them deny Baptism made them also reject the celebration of the Sacrament this was the reason that they did not find the Bread and Wine of this Sacrament no less visible and corporal than the Water of the other so that the Holy Fathers opposing their Heresy refute it alike both for the one and the other Sacrament and in disputing against it they own that the substance of the Symbols are sensible and visible in both for in this respect they make no distinction betwixt Baptism and the Eucharist this is the conclusion of the Protestant As touching the silence of Hereticks it is almost of the same force with that of the Gentiles because the same Truths which were the Object of the Scorn and Contempt of Pagans were also the subject of the slander and contradiction of Hereticks some whereof denied the truth of the Human Nature of Jesus Christ as Marcion and several others which attributed unto him an imaginary Body a Shadow and Figure of a Body teaching that the Son of God did not become Man and that he manifested himself unto Man only in a false shape not having a true Body but one in shew Others have denied his Divinity as Ebion Cerinthus Artemon and others which maintained that our Jesus was not God but Man only and that he did not begin to be but when he was born of the Holy Virgin two Mysteries which we have seen whereof the Jews and Pagans both made light The Cross of Christ which was the stumbling block of the Jews and the scorn of the Heathen was also contradicted by Hereticks who were not ashamed to say that Jesus Christ had not truly suffered but that he either put another Man in his stead or avoided the fury of those which crucified him by this seeming Body wherewith they say he was invested * The Resurrection of the Body which was esteemed a Story and Fable by the Gentiles also offended exceedingly some Hereticks as the Gnosticks the Marcionites and some others And to speak in a Word there was scarce any one Article of our Faith which in the first Ages of Christianity was not traversed by some Heresy or that met not with some contradiction amongst Christians themselves What likelihood then say they is there that if the Doctrine of the substantial Conversion and all the Consequences which necessarily depend of it had been taught by Christians and received into the Articles of their Faith but it would have received some attempt by Hereticks who not having disowned the use of their Senses nor of their Reason could not choose as they think but have disputed against them especially when they should have considered that they would have denied the testimony of their Senses and the clearest light of their Reason Nevertheless we cannot find in any Monument of the ancient Doctors of the Church that the Hereticks ever contested with the Catholicks and Orthodox upon the point of the Eucharist it is indeed true that some rejected the celebration of the Sacrament tho upon different Motives but that they charged the Church touching the substantial conversion of the Symbols of the Eucharist into the Body and Blood of Christ there is not one to be found especially of those which have owned the truth of the Human Nature of the Son of God at least no such thing is to be seen in their Writings nor in the divers Catalogues of Heresies that still remain nor in the Polemical Writings of the Holy Doctors against Hereticks for as for those mentioned by the Author of the Letter unto those of Smyrna under the Name of St. Ignatius of whom we have spoken in the third Chapter of the first part besides it is very uncertain if there were ever any such they denied the Mystery of the Incarnation and did not confess the truth of the humanity of Jesus Christ they rejected the Sacrament the celebration whereof is a kind of confessing and owning the truth of his Human Nature but neither they nor any others have complained against the belief of the Church upon the subject of the Sacrament they have not armed against her nor have separated from her Communion upon account of this Divine Mystery neither did the Church ever thunder out Anathema's nor Excommunications upon this Subject From whence say some proceeds so universal a Silence and so great tranquillity upon so important an Article which since Paschas his time that is to say the IXth Century hath suffered such an infinite number of Contradictions in the West for this Friar of Corby no sooner published his Opinion but there opposed against him all the Learned Men of that Age and it will appear in the course of this Treatise that ever since that time the Doctrine of the real presence hath never been without a great many Opposers and Adversaries which for that reason have been Excommunicated and esteemed Hereticks by the Latin Church When I make this reflection in my self saith the Protestant that the Minds of Men have been at all times much of one and the same Temper and been ever almost of the same Disposition and that besides the
liberty of writing and speaking against the Doctrines of the Church was never greater than in the first Ages of Christianity nor less in the West than since the Condemnation of Beranger I can find no other cause of so various and different proceeding but the difference of Doctrine which until Paschas his time was such that no Body had reason to take up Arms to dispute against it whereas ever since the establishing of his Opinion which altered the ancient Belief there hath been made continual Resistance and Opposition Now I come to the Disputes which the ancient Fathers have had against Hereticks wherein they have imployed the Mystery of the Eucharist The first which troubled the settlement of Christianity were the Saturnians the Menandrians Valentinians Marcionites and others I intend not to burden my Paper with all the Impieties of these Wretches but only to represent those against which the holy Doctors have made use of the belief of the Holy Sacrament and in what manner they have done it I find then there were three horrible Impieties held by these extravagant Persons against which they employed the Holy Sacrament by the first they taught that Jesus Christ had not a true human Body but a shadow of a Body and a meer form void of substance or solidity By the second they said that the Father of Jesus Christ was not the Creator of the World but that the World and all Creatures which we see in it are the effect of Passion of Nature and of Ignorance and not of the Father of Jesus Christ And by the third in fine they said that all these material Creatures should be wholly destroyed and that by Consequence our Bodies being of the number of these Creatures should not be raised being uncapable of receiving supernatural Incorruption nor of participating of the Grace of the Holy Spirit Flesh and Spirit not subsisting both together The Holy Fathers do alledge the Eucharist to refute the first of these Impieties but it is requisite to know how they do alledge it for if they had been in the belief of the Latin Church they would not have failed as the Protestants say to have told these Hereticks that they overthrew the Faith of the whole Church which holds that the Substance of Bread and Wine is turned into the Substance of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ which could not be if he had not a true Body They suppose this would have been the only means to have refuted them and they think the Latins would have used this course had they to do with such Hereticks They say also that the Argument would have been clear and convincing and that 't is to be believed the ancient Doctors would not have followed any other course if they had been of the same Opinions that yet nevertheless they do not argue after that manner to refute the first Error of these Instruments of Satan they only tell them that seeing the Eucharist is the Image and Figure of the Body of Jesus Christ then of necessity he hath a true Body because every Image and Figure doth presuppose the Existence and Truth of the thing that it represents and that it is the reasoning of Tertullian in his Excellent Treatise against Marcion Tertul. adyers Marc. l. 4. c. 40. Jesus Christ saith he made the Bread his Body saying This is my Body that is to say the Figure of my Body now it had not been a Figure if there had not been a true Body for a Shadow and empty Appearance such as is a Spirit is not capable of having a Figure The Author of the Dialogues against the Marcionites in Origens Works reasoneth after the same manner Author Dial contra Marc. inter Orig op Dial. 3. If Jesus Christ saith he had neither Flesh nor Blood as the Marcionites affirm of what Flesh and Blood is it that he hath given us the Images that is to say the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament when he commanded his Disciples to remember him by those things Against the second Impiety they also imply the Holy Sacrament and see here how they do it Tren contr heres l. 4. c. 34. They say The Holy Sacrament is an Acknowledgment which we make unto God under the Title of Creator in offering unto him the first Fruits of the Creatures which he hath made and that it were an injustice to the Father of Jesus Christ if he were not the Creator of the World to offer unto him things which belonged not unto him as if he coveted that which belonged to another and desired to have what was not his own That if the Creatures were the product of Passion of Nature and of Ignorance it were to wrong God instead of giving him Thanks to offer him the Fruits of Passion of Nature and of Ignorance It is after this manner St. Ireneus doth argue to confute the Adversaries which he opposed in shewing them that the Father of Jesus Christ must needs be the Creator of the World because he accepts the Oblations of Bread and Wine which is made unto him in the Eucharist for to say that it is no longer Bread and Wine after Consecration but the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and that 't was so St. Ireneus understood it the Protestants say this would have been yeilding the cause unto these Hereticks who teaching that Jesus Christ was not of the number of the Creatures of this World would not have failed to have inferred that his Father had not been the Creator because our Lord was offered unto him which was not the work of the Creator whereas in saying that there was offered unto him Creatures of this World as these Hereticks owned as well as the Orthodox that there was such offered unto him in the Eucharist he would have put them to silence all the shifts they could have made would have vanished away at the sight of this Truth because they confessed that Bread and Wine are of those Creatures whereof the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ would not have received an Oblation if he had not been the Maker of them Something of this Nature is seen in Tertullian's first Book against Marcion Chap. 14. It remains to see after what manner the Fathers have acted to refute the last Impiety of these Hereticks who denied the resurrection of the Body maintaining that all material Creatures shall be wholly destroyed and reduced to nothing Iren. advers haeres l 4. c. 34. and that the Flesh is uncapable of receiving Incorruption because Incorruption is a Grace of the Spirit which can have no Commerce nor Society with the Flesh We preach in the Eucharist saith St. Ireneus the Communion and Unity of the Flesh and Spirit for as the Bread which is of the Earth receiving the Invocation of God is no longer common Bread but is the Sacrament composed of two things the one Terrestrial the other Celestial so also our Bodies receiving the Eucharist are no more corruptible
c. 31. in Exod cap. 22. That the Bread and Wine is the undoubted Sacrament of the Body and Blood of the Lord Id. in Sentent l. 1. c. 16. Vide lib. 1. Offic cap. 37. And that it is this Sacrament which Believers offer and which they call an Oblation of Bread and Wine Agreeable unto this Doctrine he speaks elsewhere of the Flesh of Jesus Christ as of the Nourishment of Saints which preserves from Eternal Death and which maketh those that eat it to live Spiritually Id. in lib. 2. Reg. ca. 3. p. 49. and he saith That Jesus Christ ascending into Heaven is gone in regard of his Body but is present according to his Majesty Concil Hispal 2. Concil Eracar t. 4. p. 832. as he said Behold I am with you even to the end of the World And he borrows these words from St. Austin That our Saviour gave unto his Disciples the Figure of his Body and Blood The second Council of Sevil assembled Anno 619. forbids Priests to make the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ in presence of the Bishop The Council of Braga Anno 675. testifies That Jesus Christ gave the Bread apart and the Wine apart He calls that which our Lord gave his Disciples bread And the 16th of Tolledo Assembled Anno 693. Concil Tollet 16. to 5. Concil p. 430. cap. 6. Eligius Noveom in vita ejus l. 2. cap. 15. p. 216. t. 5. Spicil Dacher Ib. p. 217. declares two several times That Jesus Christ having taken a whole Loaf distributed it by parcels unto his Apostles It speaks also of what remains after the Communion as of that whereof too great a quantity may burden the Stomach of him that Eats it The true St. Eloy Bishop of Noyon gave this Precept unto those whom he instructed Let him that is Sick confide wholly in the Mercy of God and receive with Faith and Devotion the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ And forbidding them to Sing the Songs of Pagan he alledges for a reason of this Defence That it is not fit to hear Diabolical Songs proceed out of a Christian Mouth wherein enters the Sacrament of Jesus Christ He retains as may be seen the Ancient Expressions and Doctrine According to which St. Ouen Archbishop of Roan his intimate Friend and Author of his Life which he wrote at large doth observe that as he drew near his Death he said That he would be no longer absent from Jesus Christ Ibid. l. 2. c. 32. p. 264. It was thus the true St. Eloy spake and in so speaking he rejects as false and forged some Homilies that have been published in his name especially the 8th and the 15th the former of these being only a Rapsody composed by several Authors some of which are of the 8th and 9th Centuries whereas St. Eloy died towards the end of the 7th Century Neither doth he that wrote his Life make any mention of these pretended Homilies Thus several do reason CHAP. XII Wherein is examined what passed in the Eighth Century AS Anastatius a Frier of Mount Sinai had rejected the name of Sign or Figure not allowing to say that the Sacrament is only the Sign of the Body of Jesus Christ words which might receive a good Construction as hath been declared in the precedent Chapter so John Damascen surnamed Mansur another Frier of the East extraordinarily given to the worshiping of Images and therefore Anathematized by 338 Bishops Anno 754. bethought himself in the Eighth Century of condemning the terms of Image of Type and Figure but because he stopped not at Expressions but proceeded to the Doctrine it is requisite to see if he therein made any Alteration and if his Innovation favoured the Belief of the Latin Church See here then what he saith Damasc de Fide Orthod l. 4. c. 14. The Bread offered the Wine and the Water are supernaturally changed by the Invocation and coming of the Holy Ghost into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and are not two but one and the same thing Ibid. And a little after The Bread and Wine are not the Type or the Figure of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Ah God forbid but the Body it self of our Lord Deified our Lord himself saying Ibid. This is not the Figure of my Body but my Body not the Figure of my Blood but my Blood And again If some have called the Bread and Wine Figures or Signs of the Body and Blood as St. Basil they spake not after Consecration but they called them so before the Oblation was consecrated As there are two things in these words of Damascen the one regarding the Terms the other the Doctrine we are obliged to examine both to give the Reader all the Information he may expect of us in this matter I will begin with the Doctrine to see if it agreeth with that of the Latin Church If Damascen said that the substance of the Symbols were quite destroyed and that if passed into the substance it self of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ so that there remained no part of the Bread and Wine but the bare Accidents only which subsisted miraculously without their Subject it must be granted that he was of the same Opinion that Roman Catholicks are of at this time and it were very unjust to deny it But if on the other hand he so plainly expressed himself that it cannot be doubted but he believed that the substance of the Symbols remained whatever Change it was that intervened by Consecration it must of necessity be concluded that his Belief upon this Point was not the Belief of the Latin Church The better to succeed in this Enquiry it must be noted that he lays this down for a certain Maxim Id. Dialect c. 1. That the Accident cannot subsist in it self but hath its Being in another Subject Ibid. that the Soul is a Substance and Wisdom an Accident that the Soul being taken away Wisdom also perisheth Ibid. c. 28. That which subsisteth not of it self but hath its Existence in another Id. de Fide Orthod l. 1. c. 17. is an Accident He affirms again That nothing but the Divinity is infinite that Bodies have beginning and ending and a bodily place Ibid. c. 4. and that they may be held that what is invisible and impassible is not a Body All which things do not well accord with the Real Presence Ibid. no more than his restraining the Invisible Presence whereby our Saviour is with us unto the Presence of his Divinity Moreover he affirms positively that the substance of Bread remains and that it nourisheth our Body by turning into our substance Id. l. 4. c. 14. The Shew-bread saith he did represent this Bread and it is the pure and unbloody Sacrifice which our Lord foretold by the Prophet which should be offered unto him throughout the whole World to wit the Body and Blood
of Jesus Christ which passeth into the substance of our Body and Soul without being consumed corrupted or passing into the Draft Ah God forbid but passing into our Substance for our Preservation All Christians confess that this cannot be said of the true Body of Jesus Christ as neither can it be said of bare Accidents it must then be understood of the Substance of Bread which is called the Body of Christ because it is the Sacrament of it From thence it is the same Damascen compares the Change which befalls the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist unto that which happens unto the Water of Baptism As in Baptism saith he because Men are wont to wash themselves with Water Id. Ibid. and to anoint them with Oyl God hath joyned unto the Water and Oyl the Grace of the Holy Spirit and hath made it the Washing of Regeneration so also in like manner they being accustomed to eat Bread and to drink Wine and Water he hath joyned them unto his Divinity and hath made them his Body and Blood His Similitude would not be just if the substance of the Symbols did not remain in the Eucharist as well as in Baptism He useth also another which farther illustrates the nature of this Change Ibid. Esay saith he saw a Coal now a Coal is not meer Wood but it is joyned with Fire so the Bread of the Sacrament is not bare Bread but it is joyned to the Divinity and the Body united to the Divinity is not one and the same Nature but the Nature of the Body is one and that of the Divinity united unto it is another Every body may easily understand that the Coal united to the Fire keeps its substance although that by a kind of Change it becomes red and like Fire Therefore by the sense of the Comparison it must needs be that the Bread of the Eucharist doth keep its substance although it be in some sort changed by its being joyned to the Divinity and that so the Change which comes to the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament according to Damascen is quite different from that which is taught by the Latin Church and I think it cannot be any way questioned after what is above said Now if I be asked what was the Belief of Damascen for if it be not the Belief of Roman Catholicks it should in all likelihood be that of Protestants I answer sincerely that as far as I can judge it is not the Belief neither of the one or the other but a particular Opinion of this Friar who believed that the Bread and Wine by the coming of the Holy Ghost were in some sort united to the Divinity which took them unto it self for he useth the term of Assumption as it took the Humane Nature of our Saviour and that by means of this Union to the Divinity they became one and the same Body and not several as he explained himself in the first passage an Unity which depends upon this known Axiom That the things united unto a third are united amongst themselves Methinks the Author declares his meaning plainly enough when having made himself this Question How is it that the Bread is made the Body of Jesus Christ Ibid. and the Wine and Water his Blood He answers The Holy Spirit comes and changes these things in a manner that surpasseth expression and thought The Bread and Wine are taken which is just the term used by the Fathers to represent the Assumption of the Humane Nature of Jesus Christ by the Divinity The Sentiments of Damascen will appear yet plainer if we consider what he saith in his Letter unto Zachary Bishop of Doare and in the little Chapter which follows to wit That the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament are made the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ by way of Augmentation or Increase which befalls the Body of Jesus Christ Thus he establisheth the Subsistence of these two Elements and their joyning unto the natural Body of Jesus Christ but so strict an Union that they make in the shallow Conceit of this Writer but one single Body with the true Body of Jesus Christ Moreover he assures that the incorruptible Body of our Saviour that is to say his glorified Body hath no Blood a Doctrine with which it is impossible to reconcile the Belief of Transubstantiation As to what Damascen saith That the Fathers have given to the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament the names of Figures and Signs before Consecration and not after he apparently deceives himself for do but read what we have alledged in the third Chapter of this second Part where we have established this Tradition by a very great number of testimonies of this holy Doctors The Abbot of Billy a very Learned Man and well read in Ecclesiastical Antiquity could not suffer this presumption of Damascen's without reproving him Billius in Orat. 11. Greg. Naz. p. 632. by as it were giving him the lye Damascen saith he denies that the Bread and Wine are called Figures after Consecration by St. Basil which is evidently false as plainly appears by several places in the Apostolical Constitutions of St. Clement of Gregory Nazianzen and other Authors Bessar Card. de Sacram. Eucharist t. 6. Bibl. patr p. 470. Edit ult Bessareon a Greek by Nation Bishop of Nice and one of those which assisted at the Council of Florence in behalf of the Greek Nation but corrupted by the Latins who honoured him with a Cardinals Cap excuseth Damascen and endeavours to give a good sense to his words By the Figure saith he whereof he speaks in this place he means a shadow which is nothing else but a Figure simply signifying another subject having not at all any force nor power to act or operate like the Sacraments of the Old Testament which were the Figures of the Sacraments of the New But this Explication which is not wholly to be rejected doth not hinder but that the Censure of the Abbot of Billy was very Judicious In fine About the same time Damascen denied it Stephen Stylite no less zealous than him for the defence of Images confessed it when he said to the Emperour Constantine which commanded them to be taken out of Churches Will you also banish out of the Church the Signs or Figures of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Vita Stephan apud Surcum ad 28 Novem. cap. 36. seeing that is an Image and a true Figure But let us yet make some progress in the East and West to know what was the Language and Doctrine of the Church in the Eighth Century As for what concerns the West Bede in Luc. cap. 22. Id. in Psal 3. Id. in Hemil. de Sanct. in Epiph. Idem in Psal 133. t. 8. Id. de tabern l. 2. c. 2. t. 4. if we enquire of venerable Bede he will tell us That the Lord gave us the Sacrament of his Flesh and Blood in the Figure of Bread and Wine And that
our Saviour gave unto his Disciples in his Sacrament the Figure of his Body and Blood That the Creatures of Bread and Wine pass into the Sacrament of his Body and Blood by the ineffable sanctification of the Holy Ghost That our Saviour hath changed the Legal Sacrifices into Sacrifices of Bread and Wine And that whereas the Ancients celebrated the Passion of our Lord in the Flesh and Blood of Sacrifices we celebrate it in the Oblation of Bread and Wine According to which he testifies in a great many places Homil. de Sanct. in Epiph as hath been seen in the 4th Chapter That Jesus Christ is absent from us as to his Body but is present by his Divinity It is true he saith That the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ is received by the Mouth of believers for their Salvation But after what he hath spoken it is very evident say the Protestants that he speaks not of receiving them in their matter and Substance but in their Sacrament accompanied with a quickning and saving virtue and that if he be not so understood he will be made to contradict himself and to destroy with one hand what he built with the other therefore it is that he distinguisheth the Sacrament and that he declares that the wicked participate only of the Sign and not of the thing signified saying with St. Prosper in the Sentences drawn from St. Austin Id. in 1. ad Cor. 11. He that is not reconciled unto Jesus Christ neither eats his Flesh nor drinketh his Blood although he receiveth every day the Sacrament of so great a thing unto his condemnation It is also true that he often calls the Bread and Wine the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ but he declareth with St. Austin whom he exactly follows Id. in cap. 6. ad Rom. Id. in Marc. cap. 14. That it is by reason of the resemblance they have with the things whereof they are Sacraments And with St. Isidor of Sevil That it is because Bread strengthens the body and Wine increaseth Blood in the Flesh and that for this reason the Bread relates mystically unto the Body of Jesus Christ and the Wine to his Blood And because say they in the matter of Sacraments it is not so much to be consider'd what they be August contra Maxim l. 3. c. 22. saith St. Austin as what it is they signifie because that as Signs they are one thing and yet they do signifie another Venerable Bede makes no difficulty to say That the Bread and Wine being visibly offered another thing must be understood which is Invisible to wit The true Body and Blood of Christ because in effect he will have the Believer raise up his Soul and his Faith unto Jesus Christ sitting at the right Hand of his Father for as he told us before He carried by his Ascension into the Invisible Heavens Beda domui vocem Ju. Id. Hom. de Astil de temp in vigil Pasch the Humane Nature which he had taken In fine he is not afraid to speak of Sacrificing again Jesus Christ for the advancement of our Salvation but all Christians agreeing That Jesus Christ cannot any more be truly Sacrificed he doubtless speaks of offering him by the Sacrament whence it is that he acknowledgeth with St. Austin That Jesus Christ was once offered in himself Let the Reader judge then what advantage the Latins can draw from these latter words of Bedes which they mightily esteem Unto Bede may be joyned Sedulius a Scotchman or more truly an Irishman not him that composed the Easter work who was much later than the other I mean the Author of the Commentaries upon the Epistles of St. Paul which many attribute unto one Sedulius a Bishop in England but originally of Ireland who assisted with Fergust a Bishop of Scotland at a Council held at Rome under Gregory the 2d Anno Dom. 721. I find that the Author of these Commentaries expounding the 4th Verse of the 6th Chapter of the First Epistle to the Corinthians cites a long passage of the 14th Chapter and 19th Book of the Morals of Gregory the First without naming him Now this Sedulius whom we place in the VIII Century until we receive better information furnisheth us with these words which he seemeth to have taken out of Pelagius and Primasius when explaining these words of St. Sedul Comment in 1. ad Cor. C. 11. Paul Do this in remembrance of me he saith He lest us his remembrance as if one going a long Loyage left a Present with his Friend to the end that every time he saw it he should think of his Love and Friendship which he could not look upon without grief and tears if he dearly loved him Whereby he shews that Jesus Christ left us his Sacrament to be in his stead until he comes again from Heaven We read in the Life of the Abbot Leufred Vita Leufred C. 17. in Chron Insulae term about the beginning of the VIII Century that Charles Martell having desired him to obtain of God by his prayers the recovery of his young Son Gryphon he gave him the Sacrament of the Body of Christ In notis Menard in Sacram Greg. And we have seen in the second Chapter by the testimony of a Pontifical Manuscript kept in the Church of Roan that Christians then believed that what was drank in the Eucharist was a thing which might be consumed as that was indeed consumed If we pass from the West into the East German Germ. Constantinop Theor. rerum Eccles t. 12. Bibl. Patr. pa. 402. 403. Patriarch of Constantinople and a great stickler for Image Worship will present himself unto us in the beginning of this same Century and tells us that the Priest prays a second time to the end the Mystery of the Son of God may be accomplished and that the Bread and Wine should be made and changed into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ which the Latins stand upon very much but the Protestants pretend he declares very favourably for them and moreover they observe that it is not certain this piece is that German's which lived in the VIII Century others attributing it to another German that lived in the XII They indeed observe that to shew of what kind the change whereof he speaks is he saith In celebrating the Eucharist Ibid. p. 410. the Oblation is broken indeed like bread but it is distributed as the Communication of an ineffable benediction unto them which participate thereof with Faith He testifies that what is distributed at the holy Table is Bread but Bread accompanied with the Blessing of God and with a Heavenly and Divine Virtue for the Salvation and Consolation of Believers Ibid. p. 408. And in another place he saith That presently after Elevation the Division of the holy body is made but though it is divided into parts it remains indivisible and inseparable and that it is known and found whole and
make the Bread is meant the Union of the whole Church which is baked into one body by the fire of the Holy Ghost to the end the Members should be united unto their Head c. And by the Wine the Blood of the Passion of our Lord is exhibited and so when in the Sacraments the Water is mingled with the Flower and the Wine the faithful People is incorporated and joyned unto Jesus Christ He follows the steps of St. Cyprian from whence he borrowed the expression And elsewhere he disputeth against Christ's Presence upon Earth Id. in Joan. l. 5. c. 28. He was saith he to continue but a little time corporally with his Church but as for the Poor they were to remain always so that we might always give unto them Ibid. l. 6. c. 34 35. And in the same Treatise If I depart by the absence of my Body I will come by the presence of my Divinity whereby I will be with you unto the end of the World And again in the sense of venerable Bede Ibid. c. 37. It is expedient that I should remove from before your eyes the form of a Servant to the end that the love of the Divinity might sink deeper into your hearts It is necessary I should carry into Heaven this Form which is known unto you to the end you should the more ardently desire to be in that place And according to what St. Austin said in explaining the 6th Chapter of St. John Whosoever eateth my flesh Ibid. l. 3. c. 15. and drinketh my blood dwelleth in me and I in him This eating saith he his Flesh and drinking his Blood is to dwell in Jesus Christ and to have Jesus Christ dwelling in us And so he that dwelleth not in Jesus Christ and in whom Jesus Christ dwelleth not for certain eateth not spiritually the Flesh although he visibly and carnally doth eat the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ but rather he eateth and drinketh unto his Condemnation the Sacrament of so great a thing because being impure he presumed to come to the Sacraments of Jesus Christ which none receive worthily but those that are holy After all this let it be judged which side Alcuin was of Although the Book called the Roman Order is not of any certain date and that the Learned do not agree at what time it first appeared Nevertheless because there be some that judge that it was written about the time that the Books of Images were composed under the name of Charlemain but they are deceived Ord. Rom. de Offic. Miss t. 10 Bibl. Pat. ed. 4. p. 5. the Author being much younger We will make no difficulty of joyning it unto what we have alledged of those Books and of the Works of Alcuin The Sub-Deacons saith he having seen the Chalice wherein is the Blood of our Lord covered with a Linnen Cloth and having heard Deliver us from Evil depart and prepare the Cups and clean Cloaths wherein they receive the Body of the Lord fearing it should fall to the ground and be turned to dust Let it be imagined if that could befall the true Body of Jesus Christ And again Ibid. in the same place The Bishop breaketh the Oblation that is to say the Bread on the right side and leaves the piece he broke upon the Altar He speaks of a Subject that may be broken into bits and pieces Ibid p. 6. And in the following Page The Fraction or as 't is read in the Margin the Consecration being done the youngest of the Deacons taking the pattern from the Sub-Deacon carries it unto the place where the Bishop is to the end he may communicate and having communicated he delivers unto the Arch-Deacon the holy Host which he had bit See again if the Flesh of Jesus Christ could be bit and if it could be said of the real Blood of Jesus Christ what he observes in the same place Ibid. That it is made in the Cup where there is put a portion of the holy Host a mixture of the Body and Blood of our Lord. Ibid. p. 10. And in the same Treatise That the Deacon saith he holding the Cup and the Quill doth stand before the Bishop until he hath taken what he thinks fit of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ I cannot tell if one may take more or less of the true Body of Jesus Christ and whether it depends on the free Will of men to take as they list and as much as they please In fine Ibid. he will have the Deacon take care with much precaution that there be nothing left remaining in the Cup and Plate of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Is it to to be conceived say the Protestants that any drop of the Blood of our Saviour could remain in the Cup or any part of his glorified Body in the Paten In the Roman Order of those times which this Author afterward relates there is to be read what we have alledged of the Cannon of the Mass in the 8th Chapter of the first Part. Whence it is inferred that the Oblation presented unto God was after Consecration an Oblation of Bread and Wine according to the Inference which was made at the end of the 6th Chapter of this Second Part which 't is not needful to repeat again in this place CHAP. XIII Containing the History of the IX Century WHatever change hapned unto the Ancient Expressions relating to the point of the Sacrament nevertheless the Belief of the Church received no alteration during the eight first Centuries the Doctrine still continued sound as I think hath been fully justified hitherto but at last in the IX Century Paschas Radbert a Friar of Corby near Amiens yet bolder than Anastatius of Mount Sina who contented himself in giving an assault unto the ancient manner of Expressions about the year 818. attacked the Doctrine it self the Providence of God permitting that the Innovations which arose in the terms and in the belief took beginning by two Friars which being both of them inclosed in their Cloisters departed in their meditations the one from the Expressions the other from the Belief of their Ancestors I said that Paschas began to write of this matter in the year 818. because it was in that year he composed his Treatise of the Body and Blood of the Lord as may be collected from the Preface to his Scholar Placidus where speaking unto Adelard his Abbot under the name of one Arsenius an old Hermit he sufficiently shews that he wrote in the year that Bernard King of Italy and some others had their eyes put out for conspiring against Lewis the Debonaire and that some Bishops that were of the same Combination were banish'd and depos'd which hapned exactly in the year 818. the Rebellion having begun in the year 817. as the Historians of those times inform us I will not mention that Paschas appears sometimes to be disturbed at what
very Testimonies which Wicliff had borrowed out of Rabanus for the defence of his Doctrine It is then most certain that this Archbishop of Mayans taught two things of the Sacrament of the Eucharist one that by reason of its substance and matter it was subject unto the meanest accidents of our ordinary food and in so saying he followed the Opinion of Origin who said so positively six hundred years before him The other thing which he taught is That the Sacrament doth feed our body and turns it self into our substance which he learned from St. Irenaeus St. Justin Martyr St. Austin St. Isidore of Sevil and others But let us hear what he intends himself to say unto us Raba Maur. de instit Cleric l. 1. c. 31. Our Saviour saith he chose rather that believers should receive with the mouth the Sacraments of his Body and Blood and that it should be converted into their nourishment or as it is cited by Thomas Waldensis agreeable to the Manuscript Copies into part of themselves to the end that by the visible thing the invisible effect should be shewn for as material food doth nourish the body and preserve it outwardly so in like manner the Word doth inwardly strengthen and preserve the soul And again Ibid. the Sacrament is one thing and the vertue of the Sacrament is another The Sacrament is converted into the nourishment of the body but by the vertue of the Sacrament we do acquire Eternal Life As then the Sacrament is converted into us when we do eat and drink it so also are we converted into the Body of Jesus Christ when we do live in Obedience and in Holiness And building always upon this Foundation Id. in Mat. c. 26 he saith elsewhere with venerable Bede That Jesus Christ Id. in Ecclesia li. 7. c. 8. in the room of the Paschal Lamb hath substituted the Sacrament of his Body and Blood That the Creator of the World Id. de Instit Cler. c. 31. l. 1. and the Redeemer of Mankind making of the Fruits of the Earth that is to say of Wheat and Wine a convenient Mystery converted it into a Sacrament of his Body and Blood That the Unlevened Bread and Wine mixed with Water are sanctified to be the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Then he gives the reason wherefore our Lord chose Bread and Wine to be made the Sacraments of his Body and Blood and saith That it is because Melchisedek did offer Bread and Wine Ibid. and that Jesus Christ being a Priest after the Order of Melchisedek he ought to imitate his Oblation And teaching us wherefore the Sacrament takes the name of the Body and Blood of our Saviour he saith with Isidore Archbishop of Sevill Ibid. Because bread doth strengthen the body it is fitly called the Body of Jesus Christ and because Wine increaseth blood in the body it doth for this cause resemble his Blood Now both these are visible yet nevertheless Ibid. c. 33. being sanctified by the Holy Ghost they pass into a Sacrament of the Divine Body a Sacrament which he calls the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ by opposition unto his natural Body from which he distinguisheth it It must then be granted that Rabanus Archbishop of Mayans did teach quite contrary unto what Paschas did teach After Rabanus I will receive the Deposition of Amalarius Fortunatus although a little ancienter It is something difficult to know who he was and what Ecclesiastical Dignity he enjoyed And this difficulty is occasioned because some make him a Deacon others a Priest others an Abbot and in fine others a Bishop but the difficulty is not great because it is most certain he was invested with these four Dignities one after the other unto which also they added that of Archipresbyter Let the Reader see the Preface of the 7th Tome of the Collections of Dom Luke d'Achery where this learned Benedictine proves what we now say And he alledges besides the Manuscript Copies Father Sirmond which called him only Deacon and refutes him the late Monsieur Blondell who wrote that he was also Bishop he approves and of Monsieur Baluze who speaks of him as Abbot and Archipresbyâ—â—r although hitherto cannot be discovered neither the place of his Monastery nor of his Diocess Remy Archbishop of Lyons and the Church of the same place have endeavoured to eclipse his Reputation Lib. de trâ—â—us Epist because he was not of the same Opinion with them touching Predestination which Subject at that time was very hotly disputed and controverted amongst the Prelates of France Agobard Archbishop of the same place hath mightily inveighed against him in a Book which he composed against Amalarius his four Books of Ecclesiastical Offices Agoâ—ard cont Amalar. index Chronolog 〈◊〉 Pat. in autor 9. secul maâ—usc Flori. He was no better treated by Florus Deacon of the same Church in a Book which he wrote expresly against him where he denies amongst other things what Amalarius had said of the Tripartite Body of Jesus Christ de triformi Corpore Christi an expression which also escaped not the Censure of Paschas Radbert who gives this intimation at the end of his Letter to Frudegard Follow not the fooleries of the Tripartite Body of Jesus Christ De Tripartito Christi Corpore But as men are always men and that they but too much suffer themselves to be lead by their Passions it would not be just to judge of the Merits of Amalarius by the Testimony of his Enemies for not to insist upon what is said in the Manuscripts alalledged by Dom Luke d'Achery in the Preface above-mentioned he is qualified with the Title of a Man most learned And those which after him have written of Divine Offices mention him with honour and great commendation Two things may inform us in what esteem he was The first is in that he was by the Emperor Lewis the Debonair sent unto Pope Gregory to search for Antiphonaries Amalar. in Prolog Antiphon as he testifies himself in the Preface of his Book of the Order of the Antiphonary The second is That the same Emperor having assembled a Council at Aaix la Chappell Anno 816. he ordered a Rule to be made for Prebends drawn out of the Writings of the holy Fathers that the Prebends should conform unto it as the Friars did unto St. Bennet's And it was this Amalarius that by Order of this Prince composed this Book as is testified by Ademar a Friar of Angoulesm in his Chronicle Whereunto may also be added Ademar in Chron. Anno 816. In Supplem Concil Gall. p. 110. that the same Amalarius was chosen with Halitgarius by the Council of Paris assembled Anno 824. against the worshiping of Images to present into the same Emperor the Letter written unto him by this Assembly of Prelates And therefore it is that in the Memoirs that Lewis the Deboâ—ur directed unto Jeremy Archbishop of Sens
and unto Jonas Bishop of Orleans when he sent them to Rome unto Pope Eugenius upon the Subject of the Images he thus begins Tom. 2. Conc. Gall. p. 461. The Bishops Halitgarius and Amalarius are come unto me c. Let us conclude then from what hath been said that Amalarius was in his time in Esteem and great Consideration in Church and State Amalar. de Offic Eccles l. 1. c. 1. And now let us examine what he said of the Sacrament directly or indirectly After saith he that our Saviour had appeared according to his own pleasure unto his Disciples whom he would have to be Witnesses of his Resurrection he ascended up into Heaven and became invisible unto Men as he himself testifies I came forth from the Father and came into the World and now I leave the World and go unto the Father Which is plainly to say I made my self visible unto men returning unto my Father I shall be invisible Although we do not see his bodily presence yet we daily salute him in adoring of him Id. de Ordine Antiphon c. 9. And elswhere We cannot think of the absence of Jesus Christ without sadness But what he is going to tell us is yet more plain and positive Id. de Offic. l. 3. c. 29. because he testifies that Bread and Wine is consecrated and made the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ We saith he call Institution the Tradition which our Saviour left us when he made the Sacrament of his Body and Blood And to the end it should be known what he meant by the word Sacrament he gives us this Definition of it Sacrament that is a holy Sign Id. l. 1. c. 15. He saith moreover that the Sacrament is in the stead of Jesus Christ The Priest bows and recommends unto God the Father that which was offered in the place of Jesus Christ Id. l. 3. c. 23. He distinguisheth what was sacrificed from Jesus Christ himself and considers what is offered and Jesus Christ as two different Subjects whereof the one serves us instead of the other Id. l. 3. c. 25. for it cannot be conceived that a person or a thing can be instead of it self He yet goes farther and declares expresly that that which is offered instead of Jesus Christ is Bread and Wine Id. de Offic. prafat sâ—cunda and that this Bread and Wine are the Sacraments of his Body and Blood The things saith he which are done in the Celebration of Mass are done in the Sacrament that is to say in representing the Passion of our Saviour as himself commanded us saying As often as ye do this ye do it in remembrance of me Therefore the Priest which sacrificeth the Bread the Wine and Water doth it as a Sacrament of Jesus Christ that is in the place of Jesus Christ and represents him the Bread the Wine and the Water in the Sacrament of the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ The Sacraments should have some resemblance of the things whereof they be Sacraments Let the Priest then be like Jesus Christ as the Bread and the Liquor is like the Body of Jesus Christ These words are easie to be understood and need no Commentary because every body may perceive without help of others that Amalarius considers the Act of the Sacrament as a mysterious Representation where the Priest celebrating is in the place of Jesus Christ the Bread Wine and Water instead of his Body and Blood and will have a Relation of Resemblance to be betwixt these things and those whereof they be Sacraments which according to some is plainly contrary unto the Identity taught by Paschas Id. de Offic. l. 3. c. 26. The Oblation saith he again and the Cup do signifie the Body of our Saviour When Jesus Christ said This is the Cup of my Blood he signified his Blood which Blood was in the Body as the Wine is in the Cup. And in another place Id. l. 4. c. 47. Id. l. 3. c. 25. Id. l. 3. c. 24. Ibid. c. 34. Ibid. c. 31. Ibid. c. 35. The Bread set forth upon the Altar signifies the Body of our Lord upon the Cross the Wine and Water in the Cup do represent the Sacraments which flowed out of our Saviours side upon the Cross He calls the Eucharist the Sacrament of Bread and Wine and saith That Jesus Christ in the Bread recommended his Body and his Blood in the Cup. And with Bede that the Apostle recommends the Unity of the Church in the Sacrament of Bread He observes the Bread is put into the Wine Ibid. l. 1. c. 15. And in the passage which gave occasion of the Censure of Paschas and of Florus he speaks of what is received in Communicating as of a thing broken into several peices In fine he affirms that Jesus Christ did drink Wine in his Sacrament Our Saviour said I will no more drink of this Fruit of the Vine until I drink it new with you which the Lesson read the second Sunday after the Resurrection of our Lord sheweth to have been done Peter saying Unto us who eat and drank with him after he was risen from the dead He will have it that this fruit of the Vine which our Saviour drank when he celebrated his Sacrament was of the same nature with that which he drank with his Apostles after his Resurrection But besides all these Testimonies which are commonly alledged out of the Writings of Amalarius we have others for which we are beholden unto Dom Luke d'Achery a Benedictine Friar Rantgarius Bishop of Noyon demanded of him how he understood these words of the Institution of the Sacrament This is the Cup of my Blood of the New and Eternal Testament with this Addition which is in the Canon of the Mass The Mystery of Faith Amalarius answers him by Letter wherein after having spoken unto him of the Paschal Cup he passeth unto the Sacramental and having alledged what St. Luke saith Amalar. ad Rantgar t. 7. Spicile p. 166. he adds This Cup is in figure of my Body wherein is the Blood which shall flow out of my side to fulfil the old Law and after it is shed it shall be the New Covenant He sheweth that the Cup is the Figure of the Body of Jesus Christ because as the Wine of the Sacrament was contained in his Body not to be poured out until his death that he shed it on the Cross for the Salvation of Men and in the same Letter he makes the eating the Flesh of Christ to consist in the Participation of his Death The same Cup saith he is called the Mystery of Faith Ibid. because he that believes that he was redeemed by this blood and that doth imitate his passion is profited thereby unto Salvation and Eternal Life which made our Saviour himself to say If you eat not the Flesh of the Son of Man nor drink his Blood you have no life in
you that is to say if you participate not of my passion and if you believe not that I dyed for your salvation you have no life in you This is the constant Doctrine of St. Austin He also testifies in the following words that he gloried in being one of his followers The Mystery is the Faith Ibid. as St. Austin saith in his Letter unto the Bishop Boniface As then the Sacrament of the Body of Jesus Christ is after some sort the body of Jesus Christ and the Sacrament of his blood his blood so also the Sacrament of Faith is Faith so we may also say This is the Cup of my Blood of the New and Eternal Testament as if he should say This is my Blood which is given for you he could not say more plainly That the Cup that is the Wine which is in the Cup is the Blood of Jesus Christ as the Sacrament is the thing whereof it is the Sacrament And in another Letter unto one Guntard whom he calls his Son and that he was something dissatisfied because Amalarius did spit presently after having received the Sacrament he saith unto him Id. ad Guntard Ep. 6. p. 196. that he denied not but that we should venerate the Body of Jesus Christ above all other Food It is not at all likely he would have spoken after this manner if he had believed that what is received in the Sacrament is the very Body of Jesus Christ because there can be no comparison betwixt this Divine Body and our Ordinary Food but he might well say so of the Sacrament for the which we should have a more peculiar respect and veneration than for our other meats He explains himself and sheweth that he speaks not of the real Body of Jesus Christ but of his Typical Body when he saith That it belongs to our Lord to pour out his Body by the Members and Veins for our Eternal Salvation Ibid. p. 171. That it is the Body of Jesus Christ which may be cast out in spitting after having received it and whereof some part may be cast out of the mouth Unto all which he adds Having so received the Body of Christ with a good intention I don't intend to argue whether it be invisibly lifted up unto Heaven or whether it remains in our bodies until the day of our Death or whether it be exhaled into the Air or whether it departs out of the body with the blood or whether it goes out at the pores our Saviour saying Ibid. p. 172. Whatsoever enters in at the Mouth goes into the Belly and from thence into the draft only care is to be taken not to receive it with a heart of Judas not to misprise it but to distinguish it savingly from ordinary Food Thence it is that he requires That during Lent all Believers Id. de observatione Quadrages p. 174. excepting such as are Excommunicated should receive the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Jesâ— Christ and that the people should be warned not to draw near the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ irreverently I know not saith the Protestant if after all these Declarations it can be doubted that Amalarius was far from the Opinion of Paschas Id. de offic l. 3. c. 24. Ibid. c. 25. and that when he saith We believe that the plain Nature of Bread and Wine mixed is changed into a reasonable Nature of the body and blood of Jesus Christ That the Church believes it is the body and blood of our Saviour and that by this Morsel the Souls of Communicants are filled with a heavenly Benediction which are passages alledged by the Latins to support their Doctrine He meant not that they passed or as Rabanus told us that they are converted into a Sacrament of his Body and Blood And to say the truth adds he I find he hath so fully explained and cleared his intention that it must be concluded that he believed the Sacrament is not the Flesh it self born of the Virgin as Paschas taught but the Sacrament of this holy Flesh the Bread and Wine by sanctification passing into this Divine Sacrament as he said of the Oyl the People offered Ibid. l. 1. c. 12. That by benediction it is converted into a Sacrament Therefore he gives us to understand that this Sacrament which we receive and that he calls the Body of Jesus Christ because of some likeness as he explained himself by the words of St. Austin is subject unto divers accidents whereto the real Body of Jesus Christ cannot be expos'd particularly of going into the place of Excrements like other Meats Let the Reader judge if he please of this Dispute and Controversie Unto Rabanus and Amalarius I will joyn Wallafridus Strabo who in all probability wrote his Book of Ecclesiastical matters betwixt the years 840. and 849. In Poemate which was the time of his Decease In that he calls Rabanus his Father and Master it may give cause to conceive that he was of one Judgment with him but because meer surmises are not sufficient proof nor convincing Arguments Walafri Strabo lib. de Reb. Eccles c. 16. Bibl. p. 7. t. 10. let us learn from his own mouth what he believed of the Mystery which we examine Jesus Christ saith he gave to his Disciples the Sacraments of his body and blood in the substance of Bread and Wine teaching them to celebrate it in Commemoration of his most holy passion because there could nothing be found more fitting then these species to signifie the Unity of the head and his members for as the Bread is made of several Grains and is reduced into one body by means of Water and as the Wine is pressed from several Grapes so also the body of Jesus Christ is made of the Union of a multitude of believers And a little after he declares That Jesus Christ hath chosen for us a reasonable Sacrifice for the Mystery of his body and of his blood in that Melchisedek having offered Bread and Wine he gave unto believers the same kind of sacrifice And again That as for that great number of legal sacrifices Id. cap. 18. Jesus Christ gave us the Word of his Gospel so also for that great diversity of sacrifices believers should rest satisfied with the Oblation of Bread and Wine As all these passages are exceeding clear so it is very just and reasonable they should serve for a Commentary unto others if it had hapned that Wallafridus had spoken less clear any where else for then should that judicious rule of Tertullians be practised That the plainest things should prevail Tertull. de Resurrect carn c. 19. 21. and that the most certaine should prescribe against the uncertain things which are doubtful should be judged by those things which are certain and those which are obscure by those which are clear and manifest Let us apply this unto what Wallafridus saith in another place which the Latins forget
not that is to say Id. cap. 17. That the Mysteries of our Redemption are truly the body and blood of our Saviour And we shall find say the Protestants that he so explained himself in regard to their Efficacy and their Vertue and of the real and effectual communication of this Body and Blood in the lawful use of this Sacrament and not to say that they are substantially this Body and Blood because that is inconsistent with the Declaration he made just before That the Sacraments of the body and blood of Jesus Christ is the substance of Bread and Wine whereas these things accord very well with saying that although the Sacraments are Bread and Wine in substance yet they are for all that truly the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in Efficacy and in Vertue because they are indeed accompanied with the Vertue and Efficacy of his Divine Body and of his precious Blood the term of truly being opposed not unto figuratively or sacramentally for that would be a contradiction seeing he speaks of Mysteries but it is opposed unto untruth as if the Sacrament were not at all the Body of Jesus Christ unto vainly as if it had only the bare name and nefficaciously as if it had not the virtue And that this is the true sense of the words of Wallafridus it appears by the title of the Chapter entituled Of the vertue of the Sacraments in which Chapter the more to advance the efficacy he with many of the Ancients particularly with Rabanus his Master and with Ratramn his Contemporary interprets the 6th of St. John not of the Flesh and Blood it self of Jesus Christ but of the Sacraments of his Body and Blood or to speak with St. Fulgentius Of the Mysteries of the Truth Fulgent de Bapt. Aethiop and not of the Truth of the Mysteries This is the Reasoning of Protestants At the same time time that Wallafridus wrote his Book Heribald or Heribold Bishop of Auxerr was in great Reputation but because we have that to say of this Prelate as will give a very great weight unto his Testimony we will reserve him for a Chapter unto himself and in the mean while we will say something of Loup Abbot of Ferriers in Gastinais who in that he speaks horably of Heribold as shall be related hereafter may intimate that they were both of one Judgment But these sorts of Inferences are too weak to be insisted upon therefore I will seek for something in his Writings that is more material as in one of his Letters unto Amulus or Amulo Archbishop of Lyons in behalf of Guenilo Archbishop of Sans and of Count Gerrard in speaking of Jesus Christ Lupus Ferratiâ—n Ep. 81. Id. Ep. 40. he said That he raised his Humanity unto Heaven to be always present with him by his Divinity This that he calls Rabanus his Tutor and rendred him thanks for that he took care of instructing him doth no less confirm what he said and gives cause to think that in all likelihood Rabanus had instilled his Opinions into him because most commonly we embrace their Opinions whose Disciples we have been in our Youth especially when they are Opinions received by the Major part of the World Unto which may be added what he saith in the Book of three Questions Id. de tribus quaest p. 208 209. ult edit which Monsieur Baluze proves to be his to wit That God hath subjected spiritual Creatures unto time only but as for bodily things he hath subjected them unto time and unto place and that it cannot be questioned if it be considered that all bodies that have length breadth and depth and which are called solid are never contained but in one place It is evident that he means of being contained circumscriptively otherwise his Opposition would be insignificant being certain that Spirits for instance Angels also fill a place so that whilst they are here they are not there and this is termed to be in a place definitively But to be there circumscriptively appertains only unto Bodies which being made up of several parts are in such manner scituated in the place which they fill that each part of the Body answers unto each part of the place St. Fulgent ad Pet. Diac. c. 3. It not being given unto Bodies to exist after the manner of Spirits to use the terms of St. Fulgentius Seeing then that the Abbot de Ferriers speaks after this manner of the existing of Bodies and that he believes it inseparable from every Corporal Creature without excepting the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist it follows that he believed not this Existence after the manner of a Spirit which is attributed unto him in the Latin Church nor by consequence the real Presence whereupon it depends as one of its necessary Consequences This is what several do infer from this passage The Emperor Charles the Bald being informed that his Subjects were not all of one Opinion touching the Doctrine of the Sacrament thought it necessary to consult some of the most Learned of his Kingdom and such as were of greatest Credit and Esteem Amongst others which he made choice of to write on this Subject he chose two persons whom he esteemed very much the one was Bertram or as he is called by the Writers of that Age Ratramn which is his true name and the other was John Surnamed Erigenius of Scotland that is to say of Ireland according to the Language of our times Their Writings have not had the same fate for those of Ratramn have been preserved unto us but as for those of John they were condemned and burnt two hundred years after at the Council of Verceill And as they were two several Writers so we must also distinguish them in this History and that we speak of each of them severally To begin with Ratramn Priest of the Monastery of Corby and afterwards Abbot of Orbais I say he was a Man so esteemed in his time that all the Bishops of France made choice of him to defend the Latin Church against the Greeks and by the industry of Dom Luke d'Achery a Benedictine Friar we have in our hands the four Books which he composed and are such that when I compare them with that written by Eneas Bishop of Paris in the same Century and in defence of the same Cause I find as great difference betwixt them as betwixt Light and Darkness or at least betwixt the weak Essay of some illiterate person and the accomplished Work of an exquisite Artist because in truth the Work of Eneas is extreamly weak in comparison of that of Ratramn I say of that Ratramn unto whom the Abbot Trithemius ascribes such great Commendations in the XV Century and whom the Disciples of St. Austin Defenders of the free Grace of Jesus Christ so much admired when they made use of what he wrote touching the Doctrine of Predestination Therefore the President Mauguin speaking of him said Mauguin dissertat Hist
time of Charles the Bald by whose Command he wrote it Father Cellot the Jesuit never made any difficulty of this matter freely attributing unto Ratramn the little Treatise whereof we speak and proving by a long Dispute that he was the Fore-runner of Berengarius and of Calvin and that he openly taught that the Eucharist is not the real Body of Jesus Christ which he confirms by the Authority of persons most learned in the Communion of the Latins Allain Despans de Saints du Perron Clement the Eighth which all have had this same Opinion of Bertram and of his Book He observes that Cardinal Bellarmin doth rank him amongst those which have disputed whether the Eucharist is the real Body of Jesus Christ and that it was justly put in the Index of prohibited Books according to the intention of the Council of Trent As for Sixtus de Sienna he found it so contrary unto the Belief of the Latin Church that he took it to be some of the Works of Oecolompadius which the Protestants published in the name of Ratramn It is commonly said that second thoughts are better than the first but Monsieur de Marca seems to go about to give the Lie unto this Maxim by his Conduct for in this French Treatise of the Eucharist a little before mentioned and which he had composed before what we but now examined of his he very judiciously attributes unto Bertram this little Treatise of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and saith That he was consulted on this matter by Charles the Bald This is that whereto he should have held and not to change his Opinion without any solid Ground And it ought not to be said with some that Bertram who was a Friar in an Abby whereof Paschas was Abbot durst not therefore write against him for in the first place who told those persons that Bertram was yet a Friar in the Monastery of Gorby when he wrote against Paschas when probably he was Abbot of Orbais and no way depending upon Paschas And for my part I find much more likelihood of the last than of the former In the second place Wherefore is it that Ratramn should not dare to write against what Paschas writ touching the Sacrament of the Eucharist seeing he feared not in other things directly to oppose one of the necessary Consequences of Paschas his Opinion and plainly to call it Heresie as we have fully made it appear in the 13th Chapter of the second Part of this History It may then boldly and without danger be affirmed after the testimony of so many Learned Men of the Communion of Rome that Ratramn was an Adversary unto Paschas But to make this truth appear in its full lustre it is requisite to alledge some passages of this small Treatise after having shewed that all therein amounted to prove two things one is That the Mystery of the Eucharist is a Figure and not the thing it self and the other That 't is not the same Body which is born of the Virgin Mary as Paschas did teach it was In fine having first of all said unto Charles the Bald Bertram de corp sanguin Dom. That there being nothing better becoming his Royal Wisdom then to have a Catholick Opinion of the sacred Mysteries and not to suffer that his Subjects should be of different Judgments touching the Body of Jesus Christ wherein we know is the Abridgment of Christian Religion he proposed two questions wherein the King desired to be resolved 1. Whether the body and blood of Jesus Christ which Christians do receive with the mouth be made in mystery or in reality And 2. Whether it be the same Body which was born of the Virgin that suffered dyed rose again ascended into Heaven and is set down at the right hand of God the Father Paschas taught That it was the same Flesh as was born of the holy Virgin and his Adversaries on the contrary That it was the Figure and the Sacrament and not the real Flesh If then Ratramn taught That the Eucharist is the Figure and the Sacrament of the Body of Jesus Christ and not the very Flesh it self of necessity it must be concluded that he directly opposed the Opinion of Paschas according to the Declaration made us by the Anonymous Author Id. Ibid. As to what regards the first question see here how it is resolved I demand saith he of those that will not here admit of a Figure and that will have all to be taken simply and in reality I say I would ask of them to what purpose was the change made that it should no longer be Bread and Wine as it was before but the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ for according to the bodily appearance and the visible form of things the Bread and Wine have no change in them and if they have suffered no change then they be nothing else but what they were before And a little after Ibid. there offers here a question which is made by several saying That these things are made in Figure and not in reality and so saying they shew themselves contrary to the Writings of the Holy Fathers And after having alledged two passages of St. Austin one of the third Book of Christian Doctrine and the other of the Epistle unto Boniface he concludes We find that St. Austin saith Ibid. That the Sacraments are other things than that whereof they be Sacraments the Body wherein Jesus Christ suffered and the Blood which flowed out of his Side are the things but the Mysteries of these things are the Sacraments of this Body and of this Blood which are celebrated in remembrance of the Death of our Saviour not only once a year at the Solemnity of Easter but also every day And although there is but one Body wherein our Saviour suffered and one Blood which he shed for the sins of the World nevertheless the Sacraments take the name of the things whereof they be Sacraments and are called the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ by reason of the resemblance they have with the things which they represent as the Death and Resurrection of our Lord which are celebrated yearly on certain days although he suffered and rose but once in himself Those days cannot be brought back again seeing they are past but the days whereon the Commemoration of the Passion and Resurrection of our Saviour is made are called by their names because of the resemblance they have with those whereon our Saviour suffered and rose again In like manner we say our Saviour is sacrificed when the Sacraments of his Passion is celebrated although he suffered but once in himself for the Salvation of the World He saith moreover Ibid. that those which believe the reality make a true confession when they say That it is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ but that they deny what they seem to affirm and that they themselves destroy what they believe for when they
say so saith he they acknowledge that it is not what it was before Ibid. and that the Bread and the Wine have been changed Now we see there is no corporal change passed they must then of necessity confess the change is passed in some other regard than in respect of the Bodies from whence he concludes That they must be constrained to deny Ibid. either that it is the Body or Blood of Jesus Christ which is not to be permitted to say nor even to think or if they confess that it is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ seeing that cannot be without there was a change for the better that this change is passed Corporally Then it follows that it is passed Spiritually that is to say Ibid. Figuratively inasmuch as the Spiritual body and the Spiritual blood of Jesus Christ is under the Vail of bodily Bread and corporal Wine And to inform us clearly of his intention he adds It is not that two several things exist in the Sacrament one whereof is Corporal and the other Spiritual no but it is one and the same thing that in one regard is the Element of Bread and Wine and in another regard is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Ibid. for in regard of what we touch Corporally they be the Elements or bodily Creatures but in regard of what they were made Spiritually they be the Mysteries of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ He also affirms That what we receive outwardly in the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ is proper to nourish the Body And from thence passing to the Examination of the second Question to wit Ibid. whether that which Believers do receive with the mouth daily in the Church by the Mystery of the Sacraments be the same Body that was born of the Virgin Mary that suffered and was buried and which sitteth on the Right Hand of God He thus explains himself These Creatures in regard of their substance Ibid. are after Consecration the same they were before they were Bread and Wine and it is visible that they remain in the same kind although they be consecrated The Change then which passes here by the power of the Holy Ghost is internal what Faith beholds doth nourish the Soul and communicates unto it the substance of Life eternal And again Ibid. The Flesh of Jesus Christ which was crucified was made of the Flesh of the Virgin Mary composed of Bones and Sinews divided by the Lineaments of Members furnished with a reasonable Soul from which it received life and motion But as for the spiritual Flesh which spiritually feedeth the faithful people it is made according to what it is outwardly of Grains of Wheat by the hands of the Baker without Bones and Nerves without diversity of Members without a reasonable Soul or exercising any Life or Motion for all that is in it which communicates Life unto us proceeds from a spiritual Vertue from an invisible Efficacy and from a divine Benediction Therefore it is quite another thing in regard of what appears outwardly from what is believed of the Mystery whereas the Flesh of Jesus Christ which was crucified is not inwardly what it appears to be outwardly because it is the Flesh of a real Man and by consequence a true Body existing in the form of a true Body It must also be considered that the Body of Jesus Christ is not alone represented in this Bread but that the Body of the faithful people is therein figured also Therefore it is that the Bread is made of divers Grains because the Body of the people is composed of many Believers and as the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ mystically the numbers of the people which believe in Jesus Christ are therein also represented mystically and as this Bread is the Body of Believers not corporally but spiritually it is also necessary to understand the Body of Jesus Christ not corporally but spiritually So also it is commanded to mingle Water with the Wine which is called the Blood of Jesus Christ and it is not permitted to offer the one without the other because the People cannot be without Jesus Christ nor Jesus Christ without the People as the Head cannot subsist without the Members nor the Members without the Head and the Water in this Sacrament bears the Image of the People If this Wine sanctified by the Ministry of Priests were corporally changed into the Blood of Christ it would be necessary that the Water which is therein also mingled should be corporally changed into the Blood of faithful Believers for where there is one and the same Sanctification there must be also of necessity one Operation and where this is one and the same reason there will also be one and the same Mystery Now we see there is no Change made in the Water according to the Body therefore by consequence it must follow that there is no bodily Change made in the Wine All that is signified by the Water in regard of the Body of the People is taken spiritually all then that is signified by the Wine in reference to the Blood of Jesus Christ ought necessarily to be understood spiritually Besides the things which do differ in themselves are not one and the same things The Body of Jesus Christ which suffered and is risen again was made immortal and dieth no more Death hath no more Dominion over him he is eternal and cannot die Now this Body which is celebrated in the Church is temporal and not eternal corruptible and not incorruptible it is in the way and not in the Country they do then differ therefore they be not the same then if they be not the same how is it that they call them the real Body of Jesus Christ and his real Blood For if it be the Body of Jesus Christ and that one may truly say so the Body of Jesus Christ being incorruptible impassible and by consequence eternal It must necessarily follow that this Body of Jesus Christ which is made in the Church should be incorruptible and eternal but it cannot be denied but that it is corruptible because being broken in pieces it is divided unto Believers which receive it and being eaten with the Teeth it is swallowed down and goeth into the Belly What we do exteriorly is then another thing from what we believe by Faith what regards the sense of the Body is corruptible but what is believed by Faith is incorruptible What appears outwardly is not the thing it self but the Image of the thing and what the heart feeleth and understandeth is the reality of the thing In fine for the whole Book must be transcribed if all should be alledged that makes directly contrary unto the Doctrine of Paschas Ibid. he thus concludes the whole Treatise Let your Wisdom consider illustrious Prince that we have very clearly proved by the Testimony of the holy Scripture and by Passages of the holy Fathers
Church That it was a Leaden Age an Iron and unhappy Age an Age of Darkness Ignorance Superstition and Obscurity whereas his Adversary esteems it to be an Age of Light an Age of Grace and Benediction For my particular although I know that he which esteems it an Age of Darkness is supported by the Authority of all or at least the greatest number of Historians which have written of it especially of Baronius Gennebrard and Bellarmine and that so far he hath not said any thing of his own And that the reasons of his Adversary which represents it as an Age of Learning and Benediction do not appear unto me of sufficient force to invalidate what he hath established upon the report of Historians I will however make a third party in this rencounter and hold the mean betwixt these two extreams I say that I will not absolutely follow the Historians which represent it wholly dark and ignorant nor the Author of the Perpetuity which represents it all light and glorious For if I do not make it an Age wholly Light neither will I esteem it to be wholly Darkness If I judge it not to be an Age of Grace neither do I conceive it to be one altogether unfortunate If it appear not unto me to be wholly an Age of Benediction neither doth it appear to be only an Age of Malediction In a word if I look not upon it to be an Age of Hillary's of Athanasius's of Basills of Gregory's and of Ambroses or as an Age of Chrisostoms of Jeromes and of Austins yet I do not regard it as an Age of Bareletes of Maillards and of Menots I do not liken it unto a fair Summers day when the Heavens being free from Clouds the Sun shineth in its full force and communicates unto us without any Obstruction his Light and Heat but unto a Winters day which being dark and the Air full of thick Clouds deprives us of the sight of the Sun yet not totally of its Light so that we have still left us sufficient to direct us although it may not be always enough to hinder us from stumbling In like manner say some during the X. Century the Sins of Men having made a thick Cloud betwixt the Sun of Righteousness and them he communicated not unto them fully the Light of his healthful Beams although he imparted unto them sufficient to avoid the Errors which cannot be believed without Ruin and to embrace the Truth the knowledge whereof is necessary to Salvation What likelihood say some is there that having shed forth so much Light upon the IX Century for the defence of the Truth that Men should on a suddain be plunged into Darkness But what likelihood is there also that the same Craces with the same freedom should be continued to be dispensed unto Men when it was seen that they began to abuse them and that the Flesh gaining by little and little the Victory over the Spirit they degenerated insensibly from the truth of their Belief and the purity of their Devotion Nevertheless as God is infinitely good and that he never leaves himself without witness of doing good unto Men however unthankful and ungrateful they be so if he dispensed not sufficient Knowledge unto the Men of the X. Century to oppose the Opinion of Paschas with the same vigour as it was opposed in the IX yet he dispensed them so much as to hinder it from being established all that Age as shall be shewed in the progress of this History But in the first place it will be necessary to relate what is said by William of Malmesbury De gestis Pontific Anglor 〈◊〉 of Odo Arch-bishop of Canterbury who lived in this Age He so confirmed saith he several persons which doubted of the truth of the Body of our Lord that he shewed them the Bread of the Altar changed into Flesh and the Wine of the Cup changed into Blood and afterwards he made them return unto their natural form and rendred them proper for the life of Men. This is the only Author of the X. Century that is come to our knowledge which publickly declared himself for the Opinion of Paschas whereas the Historian's Relation sheweth that there were several that were of a contrary Judgment and who had no small inclination to profess it openly besides the method of this Prelate to make them receive his Opinion seems unto many to be but a story made at random either by Odo himself or by the Friar which wrote the History of it and they heartily wish that Christians would not use these kind of Prodigies to prove the truth of the Doctrines of their Religion saying that Unbelievers are dis-satisfied and those which believe and are enlightned and that are pious can receive no Edification thereby And they make no question but that Paschas rendred his Doctrine suspicious unto most persons by the pretended Miracles that he made use of to establish it because this kind of proceeding shewed plainly that he found neither in the Scriptures nor Traditions Reasons strong enough to defend it seeing he had recourse unto these prodigious Apparitions But whatever this Arch-Bishop of Canterbury could do for the promoting the Doctrine of Paschas in England his endeavours had not all the success he could have wished the contrary Doctrine which had been so well planted in this Kingdom until the Year 883. by John Erigenius one of the greatest Adversaries of Paschas there continuing still and being publickly preached In fine Alfric which some also esteem to be Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and others Bishop of Cride after having been Abbot of Malmesbury a Man learned according to those times in a Sermon under the name of Wulfin Bishop of Salisbury thus spake of the Sacrament In notis Vheloci in histor Bedae Anglo-Sax l. 4. c. 24. about the Year 940. The Eucharist is not the Body of Jesus Christ corporally but spiritually not the Body wherein he suffered but the Body whereof he spake when consecrating the Bread and Wine he said This is my Body This is my Blood He adds That the Bread is his Body as the Manna and the Wine his Blood as the Water of the Desert was If this Sermon was one of Wulfin's according to the Title the Year 840. as we have computed it doth not ill agree with it But if it be Alfric's we must descend lower towards the end of the X. Century Apud Usser de dhristian Eccles success statu c. 2. p. 54. There is another which some cite under the name of Wulfin Bishop of Salisbury and others attribute unto Alfric wherein the Author useth the same Language This Sacrifice saith he is not the Body wherein Jesus Christ suffered for us nor his Blood which he shed but it is made spiritually his Body and Blood as the Manna which fell from Heaven and the Water which flowed from the Rock If these two Sermons are of two several Authors we have already two Witnesses directly
to be guilty of some great neglect Secondly It was the custom in this Monastery not to keep any part of the Communion until the next day but they caused to be eaten at the same time all that remained which say some would not have been done if they had believed that it had been the real Body of Jesus Christ because they just before received it in Communicating which makes them easily believe that the abolishing of this Custom Ibid. l. â—â— 13. p. 58. which was not observed when the Friar Ulrick wrote did follow the change of belief Formerly saith he there was such care taken that after all had Communicated the very Priests and Priors which had brought whereof to Communicate did with a great deal of respect and caution Eat all that remained of the Eucharist without keeping any part of it until next day of which Custom nevertheless little heed is taken here at present but all is kept that remains after the Communion In the third place we therein find that the day before the Preparation that is to say on Holy Thursday Ibid. p. 58. There was so much of the Sacrament kept as needed for to Communicate them all Ibid. l. 2. c. 30 p. 140. that it was broken and distributed as they could conveniently take it And elsewhere The Cup is carefully rubbed without fearing there should remain any part of the Wine and of the Water and being Consecrated that it might be lost They believed then that the Wine and Water did still subsist after Consecration Ibid. p. 141. for the true Body of Jesus Christ cannot be lost And again The Priest divides the Host and puts part of it into the Blood of one half he Communicates himself and with the rest he Communicates the Deacon Ibid. p. 145. Many think it cannot be so spoken of the glorious Body and Blood of Jesus Christ And then again When the Priest hath broken the Host he puts part of it into the Cup according to the custom and two parts upon the Patten and he covers both with the Corporal but first of all he carefully rubs the outside of the Challice and shakes it with the same Fingers wherewith he touched it fearing lest that in performing the fraction there might not remain some part of the Body of our Lord which cannot be spoken of the real Body of the Son of God And in another place Ibid. p. 148. it is prescribed what ought to be done If it so happens that there remains ever so little of the Body of Christ which is expounded to be a very little crum and as it may be said indivisible part like to an Atom In fine treating of the Communicating sick Folks Ibid. l. 3. c. 28. it is observed That the Body of our Lord is brought from the Church that it is broken and that the Priest holds upon the Cup the portion that he should bring Now let any body judge if a part of the real Body of Christ can be separated from the whole and be carried into some other place and that after all that hath been alledged of these Ancient Customs it ought not to be concluded that this famous Congregation was not always of the belief it is at this time in the point of the Sacrament and that during the X. Century they embraced not the Opinion of Paschas This is the Inference which persons draw from these Customs But it is not yet time to have done with this Age we must first take a view of Italy and of Rome it self to be informed of Ratherius Bishop of Verona who departed this Life in the year 974. what the belief of the Church was in Italy in his time touching the Eucharist I do not intend here to write the History of this Prelate nor the Vicissitudes which happened him during his life for of a Friar that he was in the Monastery of Lobes he became Bishop of Verona from whence some time after he was expell'd and made Bishop of Liege but for three years only and then he lost this Dignity Those which desire to be particularly informed of his Adventures and of the Reputation which he had acquired by his Learning although it may be he cannot be wholly excused of inconstancy in his conduct may read the Preface of the Second Tome of the Collection of Dom Luke d'Achery from whom we take what shall be alledged I will not insist upon his speaking Ratherius Veron Serm. 2 de Pasch p. 314 315. t. 2. Spicil Serm. 3. p. 317. alibi Id. Serm. 1. de quadrag p. 282 of giving the holy Bread of presenting the morsel of receiving the holy things and the gift of so great a Sacrament although these expressions are not much after the practise of the present Latin Church no more than when he saith That he which observeth the Fast of Holy Thursday suppeth with our Saviour that is to say that he receives the Sacraments of his Body and Blood which were instituted on that day I will insist upon one part of his works wherein he plainly sheweth as is pretended that the Doctrine of the real Presence was not yet received in his time in the Church that is to say after his promotion unto the Diocess of Verona whereof he had been twice dispossessed for he wrote what we are about to alledge whilst he was Bishop This Ratherius having cited a passage of Zeno of Verona which restrains the eating of the Flesh of Christ unto believers only Id. de contempt canon part â— p. 181. as hath been shewed he adds As to the Corporal Substance which the Communicant doth receive seeing that it is I that do now state the question I must therefore answer and I thereunto willingly agree for because unto him that receiveth worthily it is true Flesh although it is seen that the Bread is the same it was before and also true Blood although the Wine is seen to be what it was I confess I cannot think nor say what it is unto him which receiveth unworthily that is to say unto him which dwelleth not in God By the Doctrine of the real Presence what is received at the Holy Table is the real Body of Jesus Christ unto the good and to the wicked there is no examining if the proper Body of the Son of God be received worthily or unworthily they only say that if this Doctrine had been in vogue in Ratherius his time he would not have been to seek to know what it was the wicked did receive in the Communion because he could not but have known that it is the real Body of Jesus Christ nevertheless he declares positively that he is throughly persuaded that the Corporal substance which is received in the Sacrament is unto Believers the true Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and truly with great reason because then the Sacrament is accompanied with all the Vertue and Efficacy of this holy Flesh and of this precious
Blood which is inseparable from their Vertue and Efficacy But as to him which Communicates unworthily he cannot say nor so much as imagine what it is He knew very well it was the substance of Bread and Wine for he saith That it is seen that the Bread and Wine are the same they were before But because the Consecration makes them to be the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Sacraments which become unto Believers after the manner as we have shewed this Body and this Blood He cannot conceive what they become unto the wicked that is to say How one and the same Sacrament is unto some the Body and Blood of Christ and unto others a bare Sacrament only Nevertheless had it then been believed in Italy as it is now believed he could not have doubted but that it was both unto the one and the others the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ although it produced not in all the same effect by reason of the variety of dispositions Ratherius was settled as it were at the Gates of Rome as it may be said It is not likely then that the Church of Rome had as yet embraced the Opinion of Paschas who taught that the Sacrament was no other Flesh but that which was born of the Virgin Mary for Ratherius could not then be ignorant of it and not being ignorant he would not have put himself the question which he did and had not yielded in answering of it And as to what is said by the same Ratherius in reproving the Excess and Debauchery of some of his Priests Id. Synodica ad Presbyt p. 259. That there are some that spewed before the Altar of our Lord upon the Flesh and Blood it self of the Lamb. It may easily be seen that it is an earnest expression to aggravate the sin of those of whom he speaks and that the Body of our Lord being secured from these indignities by the Confession of all Christians it must necessarily be understood of the Sacrament which takes the name of the thing which it signifies and the violation whereof reflects upon him which instituted it This is what several infer from the words of Ratherius I will not fear to joyn unto Ratherius another Witness which was also a Bishop in Italy and which is lately given unto the publick It is Atto the second of that name Bishop of Verceil Atto in capir c. 7 8 9. t. 8. Spicileg p. 4 5 Anno 945. I will not stand upon his prohibiting his Priests from saying private Masses nor in that he commands to handle decently the Bread the Wine and Water without which Masses cannot be said I will only observe what he requires Ib. c. 86. p. 31. That he which honoureth not by Fasting and Abstinence the day of the Passion of our Lord that is to say Good Friday may be deprived of the Joy of Easter and that he may not receive the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Lord. The occasion say some required That he should not have said the Sacrament but the Body and Blood if he had believed that the Eucharist was the real Body of Jesus Christ for the punishment had been the greater and by consequence the fitter to have retained the others in their Dury And in one of his Letters unto the Priests of his Diocess going about to disswade them from Fornication and to invite them unto Chastity and Continence he represents unto them amongst other things what they do in the Celebration of the Eucharist There 's no body add they but may easily understand but that it was the proper place to alledge the priviledge they had of making and giving unto Communicants the real Body of Jesus Christ and that there is no Bishop in the Latin Church but would have done so in such an occasion But as for Atto he speaks only of the Sacrament because in all likelihood he believed not as the Latins do at this time for then he would not have failed to have spoken as they do Id. Epist ad Presby t. p. 126 What saith he is this wicked presumption that he which knoweth that he is still wallowing in his sins should undertake to make or to give unto others the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Of all that I have hither to spoken of the X. Century it is concluded that the Opinion of Paschas had not obtained a full Victory in that Age. But that of his Adversaries the marks whereof was found in England Apud Usserium de success statu Eccles Christian c. 3. p. 79 80. in France in the Country of Liege and in Italy which was doubtless the meaning of Wickliff when he assured That there was practised in the Church a thousand years together the true Doctrine of the Sacrament and that they began to err in this point in the year 1000. which I refer to the judgment of the Readers CHAP. XVII Of what passed in the XI Century THe Opinion of Paschas not making the progress it desired in the IX and X. Centuries it found more favour in the XI and spread farther therefore it was established by publick Authority but not without difficulty and opposition For I do not believe that the Author of the Life of St. Genulph who lived in all likelihood at the beginning of the XI Century and which was published by John a Bosco a Cellestin Friar was of this Opinion Lib. 1. c. 6. when he wrote of St. Genulph That from the day of his Ordination he passed the rest of his Life without drinking any Wine excepting that which he took in the Celebration of the Divine Sacrament It cannot be so spoke and believe that what is contained in the Challice is the real Blood of Jesus Christ Lutherick Arch-Bishop of Sans who died in the Year 1032. as the Friar Clarius in his Chronicle of St. Peter of Sans Tom. 2. Spicil d'Ach. p. 742. hath observed could not possibly be of Paschas his Opinion because we read this of him in the Life of Pope John the Seventeenth or according unto others the Nineteenth In the time of this Pope Concil t. 7. p. 206. Leutherius Arch-bishop of Sans sowed the Seed and beginning of the Heresies of Berengarius Whence it is that Helgald in the Life of King Robert writes That his Doctrien increased in the World In epitome vitae Roberti regis Crescebat saith he in seculo notwithstanding the Threats this Prince made of deposing him from his Dignity if he should continue to teach it All those which were contrary to the Opinion of Paschas joyning together to defend their Faith Fulbert Bishop of Chartres who had been consecrated by Lutherick had a great kindness for him as he testifies in one of his Letters The Question is to know what his Opinion was touching the Eucharist If what he saith of the eating of the Flesh of Christ be considered which he
the Friar Clarius that lived much about this time observes in the Chronicle of St. Peter of Sans that Fulbert Bishop of Chartres died Anno 1027. but he saith never a word of what is related by the English Historian although a Circumstance of this nature was too considerable to be passed over in silence And as it is evident that Berengarius did not change his Opinion in the time that William of Malmesbury doth assign it is no less plain as I think that he retained it until the last moment of his life Apud Guillâ—â—m Malmsb. ubi supra which he ended by a natural death Anno 1088. And after his death he was honoured with Epitaphs both by Hildebert Bishop of Mentz who speaks of him as advantagiously as one could do of a man exceedingly recommendable for his Vertue and Learning for the splendour of his Parts and for the purity of his Conversation and by Baldrick Abbot of Bourgueil Tom. 4. hist Franc. Quercetani and afterwards Bishop or rather Arch-Bishop of Doll for he and his Successors also enjoyed the Privileges of Arch-Bishop until Innocent the Third as their Predecessors had done since the middle of the IX Century to the prejudice of the Arch-Bishop of Tours neither the one nor the other speaking one word of his Conversion no more than the Friar Clarius who wrote his Chronicle of St. Peter of Sans about the time of the death of Berengarius of whom he speaketh very honourably upon the Year 1083. as if he died in that year Berengarius saith he Doctor of Tours Tom. 2. Spicil p. 747. an admirable Philosopher and Lover of the Poor flourished He composed the Prayer which begins O Jesus Christ just Judge and afterwards he ended his days faithful and truly Catholick This Epitaph is read on his Tomb it is the Epitaph of Hildebert of Mentz whereof he cites the two first Verses which contain in substance That the World shall always admire him that it admires at present and that Berengarius dies without dying to wit by the great Reputation which he had acquired In the same Century which the name of Berengarius had made so famous the Author of the Chronicle of St. Maixant speaking of De Cormarecensi Caenobio saith Tom. 2. Bibl. l'Abbe p. 212. That he saw a certain Friar of this Monastery called Literius a man of a wonderful Abstinence who for the space of ten years drank neither Wine nor Water but what he received in the Sacrifice that is to say in the Eucharist Judge Reader what was the Belief of this Writer who declares that they drank Wine and Water in the Participation of the Sacrament But having examined what passed in the West during the XI Century touching the Subject of the Sacrament we must endeavour to find what was believed concerning it in the Greek Church we will begin this Enquiry by Theophilact Arch-Bishop of Bulgaria who lived in this Century under the Dukes and under the Commenes Emperors of the East the Roman Catholicks and Protestants do both make pretensions unto him and think that he favours either of them Theophylact. in Matt. c. 26. The former ground themselves upon his declaring That our Saviour saying This is my Body sheweth that the Bread which is sanctified at the Altar is his real Body and not the Anti-type c. and that it is changed by an ineffable Operation although it appear unto us to be Bread for because that we are weak and that we have an aversion unto eating raw flesh and especially Man's flesh it seems to us to be but bread but it is really flesh Whereunto they add another passage of the same Author upon St Id. in Mar. c. 14 Mark where he saith almost the same thing observing That the Bread is changed into the Body of Jesus Christ and that our Lord said not of the Bread This is the Figure of my Body but my Body Id. in Joan. 6. And a third upon the Gospel of St. John which amounts unto the same thing not to mention what he saith again upon St Id. in Mar. c. 14 Mark That the Body of Jesus Christ is properly what is in the Golden Patten and the Blood that which is in the Cup. But the others that is to say the Protestants alledge that Theophilact hath explained himself very well in making this positive Declaration Id. in Mar. c. 14 God condescending unto our infirmities preserves the Species of Bread and Wine and doth change them into the vertue of his Body and Blood Which is exactly the Doctrine of St. Cyril of Alexandria who said 1 Apud Victorem in Marc. 14. manus That the Bread and Wine are changed into the efficacy of his Flesh or as Theodotus said before him 2 Apud Clement Alexan. p. 800. Into a spiritual Vertue So that when Theophilact said That the Sacrament is not the Antitype of the Body of Jesus Christ but his true Body and his Flesh it self they say that he understood that it was not a vain and empty Figure without any efficacy and vertue but not that he had any thoughts of absolutely denying that the Eucharist was an Antitype and Figure of the Body and Blood of our Saviour because then he should deny what his Predecessors had unanimously affirmed and that so indeed the Sacrament is truly the Body of Jesus Christ according to Theophilact not in substance but in vertue and efficacy because he declares that the Bread and Wine are changed into the vertue of the Flesh and Blood of our Lord and that although our Lord said not of the Bread This is the Figure of my Body but my Body nevertheless his meaning was that his words should so be understood according to the Explication of Tertullian St. Austin Facundus and others who declare formally that these words This is my Body do signifie This is the Figure the Sign and the Sacrament of my Body But that the Reader may the better judge of what side to range Theophilact either on the Protestants or the Roman Catholicks it will be necessary to consider what the Belief of the Greek Church was touching the Sacrament in the XI Century for if the Belief of the Greeks was not conformable with that of the Latins in that Age Theophilact cannot reasonably be interpreted to favour the Real Presence unless that he differed absolutely from the Opinion generally received by all those of his Country in which sense his Testimony would not be very considerable Now I observe that at that time the Greeks believed for certain that the Communion broke the Fast and that what is received in the Eucharist goes down into the Belly and passeth into the Draft as to its matter which sheweth plainly that they believed it was true Bread It is what Cardinal Humbert who was sent unto them by Pope Leo the IX chargeth upon Nicetas Pectoratus Humb. tom 4. Bibl Pat. Edit ult pag. 245.
should be read 1106. because Bruno was not made Archbishop of Treves till after the year 1100. Bishop Usher makes mention of the Author of the Acts of Bruno who was present and is a Manuscript to be seen in England and he saith that this Author speaks of Assemblies which were made in the Diocess of Treves by those which denied the change of the substance of Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Waldens t. 2. c. 90. It is about this time that Honorius Priest and Theologal of the Church of Autun is said to flourish which Thomas Waldensis alledges against Wickliff as a Disciple and follower of the Heresie of Berengarius which he himself confesseth to agree with the Doctrine of Rabanus Archbishop of Mayance and great Adversary unto Paschas when he saith that Honorius est de secta panitarum Rabani that is to say of the Sect of those which believe with Rabanus That the Eucharist is bread in substance fit to nourish the body but the body of Jesus Christ in efficacy It is true Waldensis doth not particularly name Honorius but he means him so clearly by the entrance of his Treatise and by the passages he alledgeth and which is therein now to be seen that no body can doubt but that 't was of Honorius he spake Neither do I find that any are at variance hereupon The first testimony produced by Waldensis and which Wickliff alledged for the defence of his Opinion Honorius Augustod in gemma animae l. 1. c. â—6 is set down in these terms It is said that formerly the Priests received Flower from each House or Family which the Greeks do still practice and that of this Flower they made the Bread of our Lord which they offered for the People and after having consecrated it they distributed it unto them The second mentioned by Waldensis is borrowed of Rabanus Id. l. 1. c. 111. and is thus read The Sacrament which is received by the mouth is turned into the nourishment of the body but the vertue of the Sacrament is that whereby the inward Man is satisfied and by this vertue is acquired Eternal Life The same Author saith again Id. ib. c. 63. that the Host is broken Because the bread of Angels was broken for us upon the Cross that the Bishop bites part of it that he divides it into three parts Id. c. 64. that it is not received whole but broke into three bits Ibid. c. 85. and that when the Bread is put into the Wine it is represented that the Soul of our Lord returned into his body And he calls it Ibid. c. 63. to break the Body of our Lord when he observes That the Sub-Deacon receives from the Deacon the body of our Lord and that he carries it to the Priests to break it unto the People All Men do confess that the glorified Body of Jesus Christ cannot be broken and divided into parts of necessity he must then speak of the Sacrament which is called the Body of Jesus Christ not by reason of the accidents which is never qualified with this name by the Ancients but in regard of its substance therefore Honorius declareth plainly that it is Bread when he saith That the Consecrated bread is distributed unto the People and that the bread is put into the Wine And so far he favours the cause of the Protestants in following the Judgment of Berengarius and of Rabanus as is testified by Thomas Waldensis an Enemy both of the one and the other and by consequence of Honorius Nevertheless there be other places in the Treatise of this Author from whence the Roman Catholicks strive to draw advantage for example from these words The name of Mystery is used Ibid. c. 106. when one thing is seen and another thing is understood the Species of Bread and Wine is seen but it is believed to be the body and blood of Jesus Christ It is true that all Christians confess that the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament after Consecration are the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and the Author not specifying if it be in substance as the Church of Rome doth teach or in vertue as the Protestants which are called Calvinists do say I do not think that either the one or the other can draw any advantage from these words But besides these there be yet others which seem to be more favourable unto the Hypothesis of the Latins we may put in this order what he saith Ibid. c. 34. That the bread is changed into Flesh and that the Wine turns into blood and elsewhere That as the World was made of nothing by the word of God Ibid. c. 105. so by the words of our Lord the Species of these things he means the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament is truly changed into the body of Jesus Christ It must be confessed that had we only these two last passages of Honorius the Latin Church would undoubtedly have cause to boast over those which reject her belief but that which hinders that she cannot draw all the advantage from it she desires is that the Protestants rely in the first place upon the declaration of Thomas Waldensis who highly condemning the Opinion of Rabanus and of Berengarius as contrary unto the belief of the Latins doth nevertheless ingenuously confess that Honorius of Autun followed the Opinion of these two men whose Doctrine he condemns In the second place inasmuch as the first testimonies instanced in could receive no favourable interpretation for the Hypothesis of Roman Catholicks whereas the later whereof they pretend to take hold may conveniently be explained in a way which might no way prejudice the Doctrine of those called Calvinists who say that the conversion and the change spoken of by Honorius is not a change of substance but a change of efficacy and vertue inasmuch as the Bread and Wine do become by Sanctification the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of our Lord but Sacraments in their lawful Celebration accompanied with all the vertue and with all the efficacy of the Body and Blood so that for that reason it is said that they be changed into this efficacy and into this vertue according to the language of Theodotus of St. Cyril of Alexandria of Theophilact c. alledging to confirm their Interpretation Ibid. c. 106. what is said by the same Honorius That Jesus Christ changed the Bread and Wine into the Sacrament of his Body and Blood which St. Isidore Arch-bishop of Sevil venerable Bede and Rabanus Arch-bishop of Mayans had said before him as hath been mentioned in some part of this History And that in speaking of dividing the Host into three parts Ibid. c. 64. he declares That that which is put into the Cup is the glorified Body of our Lord and that which the Priest eats is the Body of Jesus Christ that is to say the Church which yet is militant here on Earth
prolog Chron. in the Eccleâ—iastical Histoâ—â— of Nicholas Vignier upon the Year 1â—â—6 Cap 4. That they were so respected that they were not made to watch nor to pay Taxes and that when any military person travelled with them he needed not to fear being injured by his Enemies William Paradin in his Annals of Burgundy saith That he had read some Histories which cleared the Albigensis from all the crimes which had been laid to their charge affirming that they had not been guilty of them and that they never did any thing but reprove the Vices and Abuses of the Clergy With this Doctrine and Conversation the Albigensis and Waldensis spread abroad into all parts which made Reynerus their Eenemy say That of all the Sects which is or hath been there is none more dangerous unto the Church than that of the Leonists or Lyonists for so they were called from the City of Lyons from whence Waldo went out because it is the ancientest for some say it hath been ever since the days of Sylvester and others from the days of the Apostles and because also it is of the largest extent there being scarce any place but that they are to be found But it must not be imagined that they were suffered to live long in peace in the places of their habitation In fine the Waldensis were expelled out of Lyons whereupon they were constrained to seek for refuge some of them in the Valleys of Dauphin and Piedmont and others in Picardy from whence they passed afterwards into Bohemia in which places they subsisted for several Ages notwithstanding the violence of sundry Persecutions Fol. 2. as is fully represented by Dubravius and Claud de Cecil Bishop of Turin There is saith the latter above two hundred years that this Heresie hath subsisted in this Diocess particularly in the farthest parts of it and near the Straits of the Alps which divide France and Italy as well in the King of France his Dominions as in the Territories of the Duke of Savoy And the former upon the Year 1160. It was saith he at this time that the Heresie of the Piccards began to flourish under an ill Planet to the end that none should think that that which of late hath made so great a progress in Bohemia is any new thing He calls the Waldensis Piccards because after having been driven away from Lyons several of them and Waldo himself as some do report retired themselves into Picardy from whence they were called Picards as they had been called Albigensis from the Country of Albi where they remained and subsisted until the latter end of the XIII Century notwithstanding the furious attempts made by Princes and Prelates against them as appears by Paul Perrin's History of the Albigensis Lib. 2. c 11. which proves it by authentical Evidences one of which amongst the rest is dated in the Year 1281. as it is found in several other Authors who make mention of several Croisada's raised against the Albigensis and the Waldensis during the greatest part of the XIII Century But as we write the History of the XII Century we may not forget two considerable circumstances First That in that Age Stephen Bishop of Autun began to use the word Transubstantiation and because there were two Bishops of Autun of this name in the same Age the first of which was advanced unto this Dignity in the Year 1112. and the other in the Year 1160. or thereabouts it is not exactly known which of the two it was that began to make use of this term In fine one or the other of them said De Sacram. Altaric c. 13. That the Oblation of Bread and Wine is transubstantiated into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Yet nevertheless Lombard Master of the Sentences his Contemporary and of the same Opinion in the main of the Doctrine L. 4. dist c. 11. dared not to determine of what nature this Conversion is either formal or substantial or of some other kind The other circumstance which deserves to be considered is that at the end of that Century Hubbert Arch-Bishop of Canterbury in England and Legat of Pope Celestine caused a Synod to be held at York where amongst other things he commanded that when any sick persons were to be communicated that the Priest himself should carry the Host Rog. de Hoved. in Rich. II. cloathed with Priestly Habits suitable unto so great a Sacrament with Lights born before it unless there were some cause to the contrary and it is whereof we shall have further occasion to speak in the last part of this History Now let us examine what passed in the XIII Century at the first beginning whereof Stat. Synod c. 5. t. 6. Bibl. Pat. Odo Bishop of Paris made in one of his Synods certain Constitutions concerning the Sacrament as Of the manner of carrying it unto the Sick Of the Adoration of those which met it Of keeping of it in the best part of the Altar Of locking it up safe with several precautions in case it happened that any part of the Body or Blood of Jesus Christ should fall to the Ground Ibid. in praeceptis communibus praecepâ—o 23 24. or if any Fly or Spider should fall into the Blood But because most of these things do relate unto the Worship we will omit speaking of it until we come to consider wherein Christians made their Worship and Devotion in regard of the Sacrament chiefly to consist I shall only say that it was with Odo as it happened unto several others after the Condemnation of Berengarius I mean that they retained several ancient expressions although the Doctrine was changed and that since this Change happened which is pretended to be at the beginning of the IX Century by Paschas and to have been established by publick Authority in the XI by some Popes in their Councils these kinds of expressions do not very well agree as many say with the Belief of the Latins For example this precaution of Odo If there falls to the Ground any part of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ because say the Protestants the Fathers might very well say so seeing they believed that the Eucharist was Bread and Wine in substance and the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in Sacrament and in vertue But as for the Latins since Berengarius they believe that it is the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ therefore they cannot reasonably say that any part of it falls to the ground because the substance it self of the Body and Blood of the Son of God is not subject unto any such accident Some Years after that is to say in the Year 1207. Amalarick or Amaury of Chartres was in great esteem for his Learning as Gaguinus reports in his sixth Book of the History of France and he teacheth amongst other things That the Body of Jesus Christ was not any more in the Bread of the Altar than in any other Bread or in any
thing else denying Transubstantiation as Bernard of Luxemburg Lib. 4. ad Ann. 1215. Prateolus and Alphonso de Castro have observed and after them Gennebrard in his Chronology It is true he was accused of denying the Resurrection of the Dead Heaven and Hell and of believing several other things which were not justifiable but because these Accusations are brought by those which approved not his Judgment touching the holy Sacrament the Reader may judge what credit they ought to have against the memory of this Man whilst I shall observe that Pope Innocent the Third in his Council of Lateran in the Year 1145. condemned Amalarick even after he was dead and if we believe Gaguinus he died of grief for having been forced to retract but upon another Subject than that of the Sacrament whereof this Historian maketh no mention neither doth Innocent the Third declare for what Error it was that he condemned him Cap. 2. We reject also saith he and do condemn the most pernitious Tenent of the wicked Amaury of whom the Father of Lies hath so blinded the Understanding that his Doctrine ought rather to be accounted an Extravagance than a Heresie After which they fell upon the Ashes of this Man for his Body Gaguin ubi sapra which had been buried behind St. Martin's Church in Paris was dis-interred and burnt The same Innocent the Third in the same Council approving the word Transubstantiation which Stephen Bishop of Autun had invented and the thing designed by the word made this Decree Cap. 1. The Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are really contained under the Species of Bread and Wine in the Sacrament of the Altar the Bread being transubstantiated into the Body and the Wine into the Blood I say Innocent made this Decree because in effect that was practised in this Council which was not usually practised in Councils before I mean that the Prelates of the Assembly had not the liberty of giving their Voices and Consent seeing they neither proposed nor deliberated nor gave their Opinion nor made any Constitutions which are there in great numbers but they were presented unto the Council ready cut and dry it not appearing that the Advice of the Assembly was taken upon each of them as is usually done in all free and lawful Councils Matthew Paris an English Historian speaks in these terms Ad Ann. 1115. Every body being assembled at the place abovesaid and each one according to the custom of general Councils having taken his place the Pope having first made a Speech of Exhortation there were sixty Articles read in open Council which seemed tolerable unto some and burthensome unto others Godfrey a Friar of St. Pantaleon at Cologne said That there was nothing worthy of memory acted in this Council if it were not that the Eastern Church submitted it self unto the Church of Rome which had not been heard of before Nauclerius and Platina in the Life of Innocent the Third say the same seeing they write Ad Ann. 1115. That several things were there put into deliberation but yet nevertheless nothing was clearly nor openly determined After all the Decree of Innocent in favour of the Real Presence regarded not only Amaury of Chartres who taught the contrary but also the Albigensis as Binnius doth confess in his Notes upon this Council and as I do infer from a Conference which the Legats of Innocent the Third had nine years before with some of the Pastors of the Albigensis in the City of Montreal near Carcassona where Arnold Hot which spoke in behalf of the Albigensis History of Al 〈◊〉 by Paul Perâ—in l. 1. c. 2. proposed this Thesis That the Mass and Transubstantiation were the inventions of men and not the Command of Jesus Christ and his Apostles The Acts of this Conference were seen and in his possession that wrote the History But in fine Innocent the Third seeing he could not prevail over those people by Dispute and Argument he had recourse unto more violent Remedies I mean publick and downright Persecutions even so far as to grant unto all such as would take Arms against them and destroy them the same Indulgences which were granted unto those which crossed themselves for the recovering of the Holy Land from the Turks Concil Lateran sub Innocen 〈◊〉 c. 3. That the Catholicks saith he that cross themselves for the exterminating of Hereticks shall enjoy the same privileges and Indulgences which is given unto those which go to the Recovery of the Holy Land Tom. 7. Spicil p. 210. And Dom Luke d'Achery in one of the Tomes of his Collections hath given us the Sentence of the Council of Lateran or rather of Innocent by advice as he saith of the Council wherein he granteth unto the Count de Mountford all the Lands which the Crusado had taken from the Count of Tholouse Tom 2. Spicil p. 610. 612. 619. and from the Albigensis especially the Cities of Tholouse and Montauban as being most infected with this Heresie according unto which he assembled and held a Council at Avignon in the Year 1209. by Hugh Bishop of Ries in Provence his Legat where it was concluded that the Hereticks should be expelled according to the Oath which he caused the Consuls of Montpellier to take the same year Ibid. p. 611 c. p. 63â— c. the which was again renewed in a Council held at Tholouse Anno 1228. and in another at Albi Anno 1254. Which sheweth plainly that Languedock was still full of Waldensis and Albigensis as well as several other parts of Gascoygne I pass over at this time the Ordinances of Honorius the Third Successor unto Innocent and of Gregory the Ninth which took Honorius his Chair touching the Adoration of the Host nor of the Institution of the Feast of the Sacrament by Urban the Fourth because we shall be obliged to speak of it in the Third Part of this Work But I will insist upon the consideration of one thing which I cannot pass over in silence without prejudicing this History it regards Guy le Gross Arch-Bishop of Narbonna who going to visit Pope Clement the Fourth formerly his intimate friend being at his Court and there discoursing with a man of Learning could not forbear declaring unto him his Opinion touching the Eucharist which was directly contrary unto Transubstantiation whicy Pope Clement having understood after his Return wrote unto him and represented that he was of an ill persuasion and that he must recant it And it appears by this Pope's Letter that the Arch-bishop maintained that this Opinion was very common amongst the Doctors of Paris The Letter was taken from the Register of Manuscript Letters of Clement the Fourth about fourteen years ago Aubertin a Protestant Minister inserted it in the third Book of his Latin Treatise of the Sacrament it being communicated unto him by one of his friends and I having been informed of late by a person of good
Reputation who saw it before it was published by Aubertin that it is for certain in the Register I will make no scruple of representing it here in our Language that the Reader might judge of what consequence it is in regard of the matter which we examine See here then what Pope Clement wrote unto this Arch-Bishop In Registr mâ—nuscript Epâ—â—â— Clement â—â— The more sincere our love is unto you the more we have been touched in hearing certain things of you which agree not with the gravity of your Office considering especially that they endanger your Dignity and your Honour I write unto you familiarly and unknown unto any body excepting him that writes the Letter to let you know that I am informed whilst you were in our Court and discoursed with a certain Doctor touching the Sacrament of the Altar you said unto him that the Body of our Lord Jesus Christ was not essentially in the Eucharist no otherwise than the thing signified is in the Sign And that you said moreover that this Opinion is in great esteem at Paris This discourse being secretly whispered amongst some persons and being at last come to our knowledge I was much troubled at it and I could scarce believe that you would have spoken things which contain manifest Heresie and which are contrary to the truth of this Sacrament wherein Faith doth operate with so much the more benefit as it surpasseth Sense captivates the Understanding and subjects Reason under its Laws Therefore I counsel you not to be wiser than you should and not to impute to the Doctors of Paris Opinions which they believe not but that you humbly confess and firmly believe what the Church believeth and what the Saints preach and teach viz. That the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ although he be locally in Heaven is truly really and essentially under the Species of Bread and Wine after the Priest hath pronounced the sacred words according to the usage of the Church And if by hazard you remember him or them unto whom you have said it revoke it either verbally or by writing to the end that those which suppose that you believe what ought not to be believed of this great Mystery might harbour no ill Opinion of you At Viterba the 5th of the Calends of November Anno the 3d. that is of his Popedom which answers unto the Year of our Lord 1268. This Prelate being disheartned at the reading of this Letter and fearing the loss of his Office and Honour denies having spoken what the Pope taxed him with and under obscure and intricate terms made profession of believing what the Church of Rome believed concerning this Mystery yet in such a manner that he saith certain things which agree not very well with this Doctrine In Registro Epist Clemen supra cit Ep. 519. and which seem to testifie that this Archbishop of Narbona dared not freely to declare his thoughts The Body of Jesus Christ saith he is understood four several ways 1. It is so called in regard of the resemblance as the Species of Bread and Wine and that improperly 2. It is taken for the material Flesh of Jesus Christ which was crucified and pierced with a Lance and which was first taken from the blessed Virgin and this signification is proper 3. For the Church or for its mystical Unity 4. For the spiritual Flesh of Jesus Christ which is Meat indeed And it is said of those which eat this Flesh spiritually that they do receive the truth of the Flesh and Blood of our Saviour This Prelate maketh a difference of the spiritual Flesh of Jesus Christ which he proposeth as the Food of Believers from the Flesh of our Lord taken properly and in its true signification I cannot tell if his Opinion and Judgment may not thereby be determined which I leave unto others to do Whereas it is read in the Pope's Letter unto this Arch-Bishop that he said that his Opinion contrary to the Doctrine of the Real Presence was famous and frequent at Paris it is not without great probability if it be considered that two years after that is to say Anno 1270. which was the year of the death of St. Lewis Stephen Bishop of Paris condemned by advice of the Doctors of Divinity those which held 1. That God doth not make the Accident to subsist without its Subject Tom 4. Bibl. Pat. p. 924. because it is of his Essence that it should be actually in its subject 2. That the Accident without a Subject is not an Accident unless it be equivocal 3. That to make the Accident be without the Subject as we believe it is in the Sacrament is a thing impossible and implies a Contradiction 4. That God cannot make the Accident to be without the Subject nor that there should be several dimensions together Maxims which being inconsistent with Transubstantiation declare if I mistake not that those which held them were far from believing it which I refer to the judgment of the Reader contenting my self in warning him Tom. 2. Spicil p. 795. anno 1236. that instead of the Year 1227. which is marked at the beginning of this Anathema it should be the Year 1270. that about thirty years before to wit the Year 1236. there were taken in divers parts of France Flanders Champaigne Burgundy and other Provinces great numbers of Waldensis under the names of Bulgarians and Pifles and that all those which would not renounce their Faith were burnt alive and their Goods confiscated as the Chronicle of St. Medard of Soissons doth testifie where it is observed that before that time it was so practised for three whole years together and that the same course was held the five years following without intermission to wit until the Year 1241. What I have now said of the Letter of Clement the Fourth unto the Arch-bishop of Narban and that of this Prelate unto the Pope and of the Condemnation of certain Maxims which were condemned by Stephen Bishop of Paris will receive much light from the History of what passed in the University of Paris in the Year of our Lord 1304. And see here what it is John of Paris of the Order of Preaching Friars that is of Dominicans taught a manner of existing of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament of the Altar different from that which was commonly received in the Latin Church He does not indeed condemn the manner of existing of the Conversion of Bread into the Body of Jesus Christ which was the Opinion generally received amongst the Latins but he pretends that it is no Article of Faith not having been determined by the Church no more than that which he meant to establish and that therefore it was at every bodies free choice to embrace either the one or the other although he judged his safest and subject unto less inconveniences And he makes it consist in the Assumption of the Bread by the Divinity and in that the substance of
imputed unto them because there is not the least sign of it to be found Cap. 10 11 12 13. â—bi supra neither in the Confessions of Faith made by the Waldensis inserted by Paul Perrin in their History nor in that of the Taborites Which by the testimony of Eneas Sylvius had embraced the impious and wicked Sect of the Waldensis Of necessity then their Belief must be the same with the Protestants because that of the Waldensis did agree with it as may be judged by all that hath been hitherto spoken But in fine the Question is to know the Belief of the Taborites touching the holy Sacrament but what can better inform us than their own Confession of Faith drawn up in the Year 1431. by John Lukavitz wherein they declare Confess Tabor Joan. Lukavits that their Belief touching the Eucharist is That the Bread remains in its nature true Bread and that it is the Body of Jesus Christ not by a material Identity but Sacramentally really and truly Then they reject the Opinion of those which say That the same Body of Jesus Christ which is in Heaven is also in the Sacrament Ibid. with all its essential and accidental Proprieties Because say they this would be a means to presuppose that the substance of Bread should cease to be and that it should be converted substantially into the Body of Jesus Christ Moreover they formally deny the Adoration of the Eucharist If John Hus was of the same Opinion of those which were called Taborites it must be owned after so express a Declaration as they made that he opposed the Doctrine of Transubstantion If we give credit unto what is reported in the Acts of the Council of Constance we cannot question but that he was contrary unto this Doctrine In fine The Council doth condemn thirty Articles of John Hus in the 1 Concil Constant sess 15. twenty fifth whereof they make him say that he doth approve of forty Articles of Wickliff's the 2 Ibid. sess 8. three first whereof are directly contrary unto Transubstantiation Moreover there is to be found in the Proceedings made against him that he had preached and taught 3 Ibid. sess 15. That after consecrating the Host at the Altar the material Bread did remain that the substance of Bread remains after Consecration and that the Opinion which the Church holdeth of the Sacrament of the Body of Jesus Christ is erronious Therefore Pope Martin the Fifth Ad finem Concil Constant in his Bull of Approbation of the Council doth not fail of representing John Hus as approving the Articles of Wickliff before spoken of Ibid. He declares also that Jerom of Prague was of the same Judgment that is to say in an Opinion contrary unto the Church of Rome which the Council doth also observe in the twenty first 1 Ibid. sess 21. Session And Gobellin Persona Official of the Diocess of 2 Cosmodrom a tat 6. c. 95. Peterborough who lived at that time thought that he ought not to say the contrary after the Declaration of the Pope and of the Council But if we consult the Works of John Hus printed at Noremberg Anno 1558. with his Martyrdom and that of Jerom of Prague for so it is that their death is therein styled we shall find that he always believed the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and that of Concomitance and the reading of Wickliff's Works for whom he had an extraordinary kindness calling him always Evangelical Doctor could never make him alter his mind nor work upon his spirit the same effects which it wrought upon the Taborites In fine in his Treatise Of the Blood of Jesus Christ against the false Apparisions of it which at that time was frequently published in all parts he said Tom. 1. fol. 155 That the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ is in the Sacrament truly and really after what manner soever it ought to be here below in the Church that is to say as appears by the scope of the whole Discourse invisibly and not visibly as the Autors of these miraculous Apparations would have it be believed And in the same Treatise Ibid. he accuseth of Incredulity those which believed not what he said of the presence of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament He supposed Ibid. That Accidents do subsist without their subject in the Sacrament confesseth that there is no contradiction in saying That the Body of Jesus Christ is here sacramentally Ibid. p. 156. Ibid. p. 158. Ibid. fol. 161. and at the same time in Heaven locally He affirms for truth that his Blood is truly and really in the Sacramen confesseth That Jesus Christ is hidden in the Sacrament And amongst many Inconveniences which he fears these feigned Apparitions of the Blood of Christ might produce Ibid. fol. 162. he puts this down as the fifth That it may be there are some which question whether the Blood of Jesus Christ be in the venerable Sacrament because it doth not visibly appear unto them And a little after he saith That we adore the Body and Blood of of Jesus Christ which is at the right hand of his Father and in the venerable Sacrament made by the Priests The same man writeth in his Treatise of the Body of Jesus Christ Id. t. 1. fol. 164. That the Doctrine of Berengarius is a great Heresie He receiveth for a true testimony of St. Austin's a passage of Lanfranc a sworn Enemy of Berengarius which the Canonist Gratian cites in his Decree under the name of St. Austin In a word in this little Treatise he embraceth and follows all that the Latins believe of the Sacrament of the Altar And that it should not be imagined that he changed his Opinion it is to be observed that amongst several little Treatises which he composed during his Imprisonment at Constance Cap. 2. p. 32. t. 1 there is one Of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ written Anno 1415. wherein he teacheth the same Doctrine Ibid. declaring moreover That all that the Church of Rome believes of the venerable Sacrament ought to be believed That he had preached this Doctrine from the beginning unto that day And in fine Ibid. fol. 49. Ibid. fol. 40. c. 3 That he believed Transubstantiation And saith he I never taught that the substance of material Bread remained in the Sacrament of the Altar He adds a little after That the Body and Blood of our Saviour remains in the Sacrament as long as the Species of Bread and Wine do subsist In another little Treatise wherein he examines whether Lay-persons should receive under both kinds he lays it down for a truth That the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ is under both species of the Sacrament that is to say that he is entirely under the species of Bread and entirely under that of Wine He that writ the History of John Hus particularly the conflicts he was to suffer at
Constance and at the which he saith he was present Tom. 1. fol. 9. reports a publick Testimony of the University of Prague touching the purity of the Belief of this man wherein is declared that Hus had denied the things whereof he had been accused unto the Pope especially that he had ever taught That the material substance of Bread remained in the Sacrament of the Altar The Author also reporteth Ibid. fol. 12. that John Hus was heard in open Council the 7th of June and that he confessed That the Bread is transubstantiated and that the Body of Jesus Christ which was born of the Virgin Mary which suffered and was crucified c. is truly really and wholly in the Sacrament And as a certain English Man said that Hus disguised his Opinion just as Wickliff had formerly done in England he answered That he spake sincerely and from his heart Which need not much be questioned when it must be observ'd Tom. 2. so 344. that Hus was a man full of candor and sincerity It is related in the acts of his Passion for that 's the Title given them in his Works that these things but now mentioned and others of the like Nature are reported of him But besides these proofs there is also found amongst John Hus his Letters Num. 65. Tom. 1. fol. 8. a very favourable testimony given by the University of Prague unto him and Jerom after their Death that is to say the 23d of May Anno 1416. and in Num. 66. a Summary of the belief of the Comminalty of Prague composed of the followers of John Hus wherein they formally establish the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and the Concomitants saying That Jesus Christ gave unto his Disciples his Body and Blood miraculously hid under the Species of Bread and Wine Ib. num 66. And alledging a passage under the name of Leo which imports That the Blood is received with the Body under the species of Bread and the Body with the Blood under the species of Wine that nevertheless the Blood is not eaten under the species of Bread as the Bread is not drank under that of Wine I will add to conclude unto all these considerations two other circumstances In the first place that the Taborites which had a great Veneration for John Hus although they were of a contrary Judgment unto him upon the point of the Sacrament mention him often in their Confession of Faith upon the Articles which he either held or favoured but upon the point of Transubstantiation they alledge nothing of his In the second place that in regard of Wickliff who was much esteemed by Hus he declares positively in his Writings against Stephen Palets his greatest Enemy Tom. 1. p. 264. A. that he did imbrace what there was of truth in the Writings of John Wickliff Doctor in Divinity not because he said it but because it was agreeable unto the Holy Scriptures and unto Reason but if he taught any Error he intended not to follow him nor any one else therein And in full Council Ibid. fol. 13. being charged with the 40 Articles of Wickliff condemned by the Fathers of Constance he said that he adhered not unto Wickliffs Errors confessing nevertheless that he could have wished the Archbishop of Prague had not condemned them after the manner that he had condemned them declares Ibid. fol. 13. B. that he never obstinately defended them although he approved not that they should be condemned before that the Justice of their condemnation was shewed by reasons taken from the Holy Scriptures In fine he defends himself particularly upon each of these Articles limiting explaining or distinguishing them without any heed being thereunto given by the Council and what there is besides very strange in the business that answering in his Writings unto the Objections of his Adversaries which had been before of his side but were become his Enemies Tom. 1. so 255. 265. p. 292. unto fol. 321. he never toucheth the Article of Transubstantiation yet it is not likely that having been his Friends they could be ignorant of his Opinion upon this weighty point nor that they could have been silent if John's belief had been contrary unto that of the Church of Rome As for Jerom of Prague besides the intimate friendship which was betwixt him and John Hus which continued until their Death as it had been carefully improved in their life especially by the conformity of their Faith and Manners there is to be seen in the same Works a Discourse wherein the Author saith the same of Jerom Tom. 2. so 356. which he had done of Hus for he writes that one of his Adversaries having said there was a report That he believed that the substance of Bread remained upon the Altar he made this answer I believe the Bread is at the Bakers and not in the Sacrament of the Altar Poggius Florent ad Leonard Aretin in fascicul rerum expeton fugiend fol. 152. Which agrees very well with what is written by Pogge the Florentine unto his Friend Leonard Aretin Jerom saith he being examined what he believed touching the Sacrament answered That by Nature it was Bread but at the instant of Consecration and afterwards it was the true Body of Jesus Christ that he believed it to be so and all the rest according as the Church believed And some body having replyed it is reported that thou teachest that the Bread remaineth after Consecration he answered the Bread remaineth at the Bakers house This is the sum of the belief of John Hus and of Jerom of Prague touching the subject of the Sacrament Nevertheless the Council of Constance caused them to be burnt alive they endured this punishment with wonderful patience according to the relation of Pogge the Florentine an Eye witness and of Eneas Sylvius which speaks thus They both dyed very contentedly and drew near unto the Stake as cheerfully as if they were going unto a Banquet without letting fall a word as might express any thing of grief or sorrow when the Flames began to seize them they sang a Hymn the sound whereof could scarce be stopped by the noise of the Fire It is said That never any Philosopher suffered Death so constantly as these Men endured the punishment of the Flames The Death of these two Men served only to confirm the Taborites in their Opinions and inspired them with Zeal for its defence and of making publick and open profession thereof in Bohemia not but there was found in other parts those which professed the same Doctrine for Baleus reports upon the relation of Thomas Gasconius and of Leland that in the year 1457. Reginald Peacock Bishop of Chichester in England Had ill Opinions touching the Sacrament and that he maintained the Doctrine of Wickliff Centur. 8. Auth. 19. but that he was compelled to renounce and moreover was deprived of his Bishoprick It is very probable he had followers in his Diocess yet
in the XIII that it was not then given in the Latin Church but amongst persons of the same Sex I say that Men kissed each other and also Women the like And because all these dispositions are not the fruits of Nature but Gifts of the Grace and Mercy of God the ancient Christians addressed themselves unto him by devout Prayers to the end he would be pleased to bestow upon them what they wanted that is the preparations necessary to communicate savingly and worthily Cassander hath collected several of these Prayers but they being penned variously according to the motions of the Devotion of the Communicants we forbear inserting them in this place to endeavour to discover in prosecuting our design whether the holy Fathers which have required these dispositions before drawing near unto the holy Table have also required that the Communicants should adore the Sacrament in the Act of communicating CHAP. IV. Wherein the Question of the Adoration of the Sacrament is examined WEll to explain a matter and to give it the full demonstration which it requires the nature of the question must first of all be plainly stated because it is thereupon most commonly that the clearing of it doth chiefly depend Being therefore to treat of so weighty a Subject as that which now offers it self the first thing we should do is carefully to put a difference betwixt Jesus Christ himself and his Sacrament for the question is not whether Jesus Christ ought to be worshipped all Christians are agreed upon this point But whether the Sacrament should be adored that is to say that which the Priest holds in his hands and which is commonly called the Hostie and the Sacrament for it appears to me that the Council of Trent hath agreed this to be the true state of the Question Sess 13. c. 5. when it defined That there is no doubt to be made but all the Servants of Jesus Christ should render unto the holy Sacrament in the act of Veneration the worship of Latry which is due unto the true God It must then in the first place be acknowledged as an unquestionable Truth that Jesus Christ is an Object truly adorable and that his Flesh it self deserves that we should render it the highest Religious Worship by reason of the privilege it hath of being united into one person with his eternal Divinity When therefore the holy Fathers speak of adoring Jesus Christ in the participation of the Sacrament they say nothing whereunto the Protestants do not acquiesce as well as the Roman Catholicks for say they in coming unto the holy Table one cannot meditate of the infinite love he had for us send our thoughts unto Mount Calvary to consider the precious blood which he there shed make reflection upon the Throne of Glory where he is sitting with his Father nor ever so little cast an Eye upon that ineffable goodness which inclines him to communicate himself unto us by means of the Sacrament but that the Soul of the faithful Communicant humbles it self in his presence and doth truly adore him An adoration unto which may be referred what is said by Origen or at least the Author of some Homilies that are in his Works What we read saith he in the Gospel Hom. 5. in divers t. 2. p. 285. ought not to be passed over by us as a thing of small importance That the Genturion said unto Jesus Christ I am not worthy that thou shouldst enter under my Roof for at this time Jesus Christ doth yet enter under the Roof of Believers by two Figures or after two manner of ways viz. When holy men beloved of God which govern the Churches enter under your Roof then our Lord doth enter by them and you should believe that you receive our Saviour When also you receive the holy and incorruptible Food the Bread of Life I say and the Cup you do eat and drink the Body and Blood of our Saviour and then our Lord doth enter under your Roof Humble your selves therefore and in imitation of the Centurion say Lord I am not worthy that thou shouldst enter under my Roof for wheresoever he enters unworthily he there enters for the condemnation of him which receiveth him He saith That our Saviour enters under our Roof by his Sacrament after the same manner as he there enters by his Ministers and that we should humble our selves in receiving as well his Servants as his Sacrament to the end this act of humility may be a mark of the adoration which we give unto him which hath instituted the one and which sendeth unto us the others confessing that we are not worthy of this favour St. Ambrose and St. Austin express themselves so fully that the Reader will find no difficulty to penetrate into their meaning for see here what is said by the first Ambros de Spir. S. l. 3. c. 12 We adore the Flesh of Jesus Christ in the Mysteries He puts a difference betwixt the Mysteries and the Flesh of Jesus Christ which he makes to be the Object of our Worship in the act of communicating I will not now insist upon the manner of Jesus Christs being present in the Sacrament because that hath been treated of at large in the Second Part I only produce the testimonies of Ancient Doctors which speak of adoring our Saviour when we communicate to the end not to divert the Examination we are to make of the Adoration of the Sacrament Therefore we will joyn unto St. Ambrose St. Austin who saith Let no body eat the Flesh of Jesus Christ In Psal 98. until he hath first adored him How say some is it possible St. Austin should teach that the Sacrament should be adored seeing he so formally denies it in one of his Letters for speaking of things sensible and corporeal I mean of Creatures whereof the Scripture makes use to represent things Spiritual and Heavenly he saith That they ought not to be adored although we should draw Images and Resemblances of the Mysteries of our Salvation and he puts in the rank of these signs which we should not adore Ep. 119. ad Januar cap. 6. The Water and Oyle of Baptism the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament without saying any thing more particularly for the one than the other It is unto Jesus Christ that he desires we should address our Adoration without speaking one word of the Sacrament by means whereof he communicates unto us his Flesh I know not whether any other Interpretation can be given unto the words of S. Chrysostom Homil. 24. in 1. ad Corinth You do not only see the same Body which was seen by the Wise man but you also know the vertue and all the dispensation of it and are not ignorant of the things which he did and accomplished Being well informed of all these Mysteries let us then stir up our selves let us be seized with astonishment and let us testifie yet greater respect then was shewed by the Wise men
in the time of Persecution and being assisted by the Recommendations of Martyrs would needs communicate before they had accomplished the time of their Penance doth all he can to exaggerate the crime of these over-hasty persons and to justifie his severity and his rigour yet nevertheless he doth not touch far or near the point of Adoration which however would have vindicated the justice of his Conduct and the temerity of those insolent persons But besides we are so far from finding any thing in the Writings of these ancient Doctors above-named that doth in the least favour the Adoration which we examine that on the contrary they therein deliver certain things which have been already cited elsewhere as do absolutely alienate from the Spirit of Communicants all thoughts of Adoration as when St. Ireneus represents the Oblation of the New Testament by an Oblation of Bread and Wine of the first Gifts of God which gives us Food of the first of his Creatures Clement of Alexandria That what Jesus Christ gave his Disciples to drink was Wine that the Eucharist is divided into several parts that each Communicant takes a part and that one eats sufficiently of the Bread of the Lord. Tertullian That the Eucharist is a figure of the Body of Jesus Christ St. Cyprian That what our Saviour did call his Blood was Wine And Origen that the Eucharist is Bread in substance that according unto what it hath of matter it descends into the Belly and from thence into the place of Excrements The Adoration now in question doth not appear in the Liturgies which go under the names of St. Peter St. James and St. Mark nor in that which is in the Book of the Apostolical Constitutions nor in the Writings of the pretended Dennis the Arcopagite which hath treated expresly of the Celebration of the Sacrament It must be confessed that it is a wonderful thing if this religious Adoration had been in use that neither one nor another should say any thing of it the action being of moment sufficient not to be forgotten in such ample and exact descriptions as those be which are contained in these Liturgies for as for that Apostrophe which is read in the Liturgy of the forged Dennis the Arcopagite Hierarc Eccl. c. 3. p. 245. O most divine and holy Sacrament unfolding the Vails of Mysteries wherewith thou art symbollically environed discover thy self clearly unto us and fill the eyes of our Understanding with thy marvellous and always resplendent Light This Apostrophe I say if we believe the Protestants makes nothing for the Adoration of the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament no more than doth this other of St. Ambrose unto Baptism the first Sacrament of the new Covenant Tom. 3. in Luc. lib. 10. c. 22. O Water which hast washed the Earth sprinkled with humane Blood that the figure of Sacraments should precede O Water which hast had this honour to be the Sacrament of Jesus Christ Establish the Adoration of this Symbol of our spiritual Regeneration Nor this which is made unto the Chrism in the Roman Pontifical the Adoration of this Ointment or Liquor Part. 3. de offic fer 5. in coen Domin I salute thee O holy Chrism These are Apostrophes and discourses addressed unto inanimate things as if they had life and unto signs as if they were the things themselves which they signifie and which they represent and instead whereof they are in a manner set as they communicate unto us all their vertue and all their efficacy It is just so Pachymeres understood the Apostrophe of the pretended Arcopagite in his Paraphrase of his Writings even alledging to make good his Interpretation the like Apostrophe of Gregory Nazianzen unto the Christians Easter In locum Dionysii p. 268. He speaks saith he unto it as if it were alive and that very properly As also the great Divine Gregory But thou O great and holy Easter And he gives this reason for it that as well Easter as the Sacrament do represent and are Jesus Christ sacramentally For adds he our Easter and this holy Mystery is our Lord Jesus Christ himself unto whom the Saint directs his discourse to the end that he should open the Vails and that we might be filled with his excellent Light In fine Pachymeres had reason to back is Interpretation with the example of Gregory Nazianzen who speaks unto Easter as if it were endowed with sense and reason O Easter saith he great and holy Easter Orat. 42. p. 696 the Purifier of all the World I speak unto thee as if thou wert alive according to the Translation of Billius very agreeable unto the Original and that is the reason that his Commentator Nicetas makes this Observation These words O great Easter have reference unto the Feast it self as if it were alive Which is so much the easier done because in these sorts of occasions he that speaks lifteth up his thoughts unto the Object signified after the same manner as he directs his speech unto the sign which represents it and unto which he attributes things which do not agree properly but unto him which is represented as in this place where Gregory Nazianzen applies unto the Feast that which is due but unto Jesus Christ only I mean the washing away the sins of the World but he attributes it unto the Feast as unto the day whereon the thing was done even as when the Latins say unto the Crucifix That it hath reconciled them unto God although they confess That it is unto the Crucified alone that they are obliged for these benefits St. Cyril of Jerusalem and St. Catech. Myst 5 Serm. 83. de divers Austin have been careful very exactly to explain unto their Neophites or new Baptized the principal things which were practised in this divine Service And they observe that after Consecration of the Symbols the Lord's Prayer was said and the Priest cried Sancta sanctis Holy things be for the Holy the Believers gave unto each other the Kiss of Peace and they were invited unto the Communion by these words which were sung Taste and see how good the Lord is As soon as the Consecration is ended saith St. Austin we say the Lord's Prayer which you have learned and said after this Prayer is said Peace be with you and Christians give each other the holy Kiss They were also told of Sursum Corda Lift up your hearts of Gracias agamus Domino Deo nostro Let us give thanks unto the Lord our God and of the washing of hands but amongst all these Instructions I do not find any one touching the Adoration of the Sacrament It is true St. Cyril will have his Communicant approach unto the holy Table not with hands stretched out nor his fingers open but in supporting the right hand with the left that he should receive the Body of Jesus Christ in the hollow of his hand or as he speaks some lines before The Antitype of the Body of
confessed that they very ill instructed the people which God had committed unto their charge if the Sacrament is a Subject to be adored because all these plain and formal expressions served only to estrange the Mind from the Idea of this Soveraign Worship of Religion in making them conclude it was nothing but Bread and Wine in regard of their nature but otherwise the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ And what confirmed them the more in this thought is that the Fathers never warned them to take their words figuratively when they say that the Eucharist is Bread and Wine but when they call it the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ they use many precautions as hath been shewed in the third Chapter saying that almost all do call the Sacrament his Body that our Saviour hath honoured the Symbols with the names of his Body and Blood that they be his Body and Blood not simply and absolutely but after some sort being so called by reason of the resemblance because they be the Sacraments the Signs the Figures the Memorials of his Person and Death and that they are in the stead of his Body and Blood What need all these Limitations and Illustrations if their design had been that the people should have adored the Eucharist for you would say that they seem to be afraid that they should take it for an Object worthy of this Worship and Homage so much care is taken by them to make them comprehend what sense they should give unto their words when they say that it is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ a precaution absolutely inconsistent with the intention and thought of inspiring unto them the Doctrine of Adoration This is the reasoning of those which admit not of the Adoration of the Sacrament But if from the consideration of the words of the holy Fathers we pass unto that of several things which were practised by the ancient Church in regard of the holy Sacrament and which hath been examined by us in the first Part we may draw Inferences by the help whereof we shall the easier discover the truth of what we do examine For example the Christians for several Ages made use of Glass Chalices in the Celebration of the Sacrament They gave the Sacrament for a long time unto young Children although very uncapable of the act of Adoration They obliged Communicants to receive it in their hands they permitted them to carry it home along with them unto their houses and to keep it as long as they pleased even to carry it along with them in their Travels without ever finding that they gave it any particular Worship whilst they kept it locked in their Chests or Closets They sent it unto the Absent and unto the Sick without any Ceremony not only by Priests and Deacons but even by Lay-persons by Men Women and young Boys Bishops for above three Centuries sent it unto each other in token of Love and Communion without any noise or giving it any homage or honour by the way and without the peoples assembling in the ways by which it passed to receive it as an Object of their Service and Adoration They also sometimes communicated without any scruple of Conscience after Dinner or Supper and so mingled the Eucharist with their other food Were not this to answer very ill unto the soveraign respect which one should have for a Divinity one adores to mingle it in the same Stomach with ordinary food and to communicate standing as they did But besides all these Customs observed in the Ancient Church see here others also observed by them and which have been considered by us in treating of the exteriour form of Celebration In some places what was left of the Eucharist after Consecration was burnt in the Fire in other places it was eaten by little Children which were sent for from School The Sacrament was employed to make Plaisters it was buried with the Dead and sometimes Ink was mingled with the Consecrated Wine and then they dipt their Pens in these two mixed Liquors Can it be imagined say the Protestants that Christians so zealous as they were should Adore the Sacrament seeing it was employed by them unto uses so far distant from this Adoration and so contrary unto the Worship which is due unto God All these Customs could they consist with a Worship of this Nature and with this Soveraign respect which is due only unto the sole object of our Devotion and of our Religion let the Reader judge And the better to judge hereof let him compare the conduct of the Ancient Church in this particular with that of the Latin Church since the XI Century for these kinds of oppositions do not a little contribute unto the Illustrating the matters now in question practices so different upon the same subject not proceeding but from divers principles nor such various effects but from as different causes I ought not to pass in silence the custom of this same Church in turning out of the Assembly all those that could not or would not Communicate I speak of the Catechumeny the Energumeny and the Penitents which could not be admitted unto the participation of this Divine Sacrament and of those amongst Believers which voluntarily deprived themselves of it for it is most certain that all those which remained in the Assembly did communicate both great and small as hath been shewed in the first Part of this Book And nevertheless if besides the use of the Communion for which they confessed the Eucharist had been instituted they believed that the Sacrament was an object of Adoration What did they mean in forbidding those People which were not in a state of communicating the acts of Piety and Christian Humility A thing so much the more strange that the Holy Fathers believed for certain that prayers made unto God at the time of celebrating the Sacrament were more efficacious then those made unto him at other times by reason of the Commemoration which is there made of the Death of Jesus Christ in whose Name and for whose Merits we pray unto him By what principle and motive were they deprived of the fruit and comfort which they might receive from the homage which they would have given unto God at that blessed moment The sinner addressing himself unto the object of this Worship and Adoration I mean unto the Sacrament would have prayed unto it with a flood of tears and with sincere marks of his Repentance and Contrition to grant him pardon of his sins and to seal the Absolution of them unto his Soul The Energumeny would have implored the assistance of his holy Spirit for his deliverance from the slavery of the Devil The Catechumeny would have presented unto him his prayers for the augmentation of his knowledge and to be e're long honoured by being Baptized into his Church and then afterwards to be admitted unto the holy Sacrament And in fine the Believer in the sense of his unworthiness would
consecrated Id. 42 The Eucharist celebrated but once a day in each Church which is also still observed amongst the Greeks Muscovites and Abyssins Id. 49 The matter of the Vessels employed in this Ceremony considered Id. 50 The Celebration and generally all the Divine Service was said in a Language understood by the People A. Ch. 6. 55 Consecration was made by Prayers Blessing and giving of Thanks A. Ch. 7. 65 The time and place of Celebration and of the Communion A. Ch. 10. 110 The Communion was received standing Id. 116 The Greeks and Abyssins do communicate standing Id. 118 The Communion standing Id. ibid. There have been always in the West that did and do communicate so Id. ibid. Certain Customs practised in the ancient Church in the act of communicating Id. ibid. The Communion under both kinds practised in all Christian Churches and also in the Latin Church for above 1000 years A. Ch. 12. 131 The Introduction of the Communion with the steeped Eucharist Id. 135 The Communion under one Kind established at Constans Anno 1415. and confirmed at Trent Anno 1562. Id. 143 144 All Christians except those of the Roman Church communicate under both Kinds Idem 146 The Remainders of the Sacrament burnt in some Churches and eaten by little Children in others A. Ch. 16. 170 Preparations requisite for him that celebrates C. Ch. 1. 521 The Original Use of the Sign of the Cross and of Material Crosses in the Worship of Religion Id. 538 Preparations required of the Receiver in respect of God and Jesus Christ C. Ch. 2. 542 Auricular Confession before receiving the Sacrament was not practised for above eight hundred years C. Ch. 3. 549 D. WHat Doctrines should be retained in the Church A. p. 1 Corruption of Doctrine is commonly the Consequence of the Corruption of Manners A. Ch. 2. 7 The Doctrine of the Council of Constantinople in the Year 754. touching the Sacrament B. Ch. 12. 365 The Doctrine of the second Council of Nice although it censures the Expressions of that of Constantinople yet it condemns not its Doctrine Id. 375 E. BRead and Wine have ever been the Matter of the Eucharist A. Ch. 1. p. 2 Wherefore Jesus Christ chose Bread and Wine and wherein the Ancients placed the resemblance they have unto his Body and Blood Id. 3 The mixing of Water with the Wine and its mystical signification Id. 4 Other mystical Significations in the composition of the Bread Id. 5 The Dispute touching Levened or Unlevened Bread A. Ch. 3. 28 Whence the Bread of the Eucharist came the Form of it with the Changes which happened unto it and at what time A. Ch. 4. 30 c. Who they were that distributed the Sacrament and what they said A. Ch. 11. 121 c. Who they were that had Right to communicate and their Words Id. 123 Women sometimes distributed the Sacrament in Italy and France Id. ibid. The Sacrament never celebrated without Communicants Id. 126 The Eucharist received by the hand of the Communicants A. Ch. 13. 150 This Custom ever practised in the West Id. 154 Communicant permitted to carry the Eucharist home and along with them in Voyages A. Ch. 14. 160 The Eucharist sent unto the Absent and the Sick and by whom A. Ch. 15. 164. Plaisters made of the Eucharist A. Ch. 16. 169 The Eucharist interred with the Dead Id. ibid. The Wine of the Eucharist mingled with Ink. Id. 171 172 The Greeks mix it with warm Water at the Instant of Communicating Id. 172 The Eucharist called Bread and Wine by the Fathers in the act of Communicating B. Ch. 2. 199 The Fathers affirm it is Bread and Wine Bread which is broken Corn Wheat the Fruit of the Vine c. Bread and Wine wherewith our Bodies are nourished Bread the matter whereof passeth the same fate of our common Food Bread which is consumed in the Distribution of the Sacrament things Inanimate Idem 200 201 c. They testifie that the Bread and Wine lose not their substance by Consecration Id. 206 The Participation of the Eucharist breaks the Fast Id. 210 The Eucharist is a Subject whereof one receives a little a bit a piece a morsel Id. 211 The Eucharist is the Sacrament the Sign Figure Type Antitype Symbol Image the Similitude and Resemblance of the Body of Jesus Christ by opposition of the Truth absent B. Ch. 3. 213 The Eucharist is not barely the Sacrament the Sign c. but a Sacrament in the lawful use of it accompanied with all the vertue and efficacy of this divine Body and this precious Blood Id. 220 When the Fathers say 't is Bread and Wine they never mince their words Id. 221 When they say it is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ they use several Modifications unto their Expressions Id. 223 Alterations happened to the ancient Expressions by whom and how B. Ch. 11. 361 When the use of Incense was introduced in the Celebration of the Eucharist C. Ch. 1. 523 The Proof and Trial the Communicant should make of himself before Receiving C. Ch. 3. 542 This Proof comprehends all the Dispositions of the believing Soul in regard of the Sacrament Id. ibid. F. HIm which maketh a thing is before that which is made B. Ch. 5. p. 250 Institution of the Feast of the Sacrament by Urban the Fourth Anno 1264 C. Ch. 4. 579 This Feast for the Novelty of it was not received at first but by the Church of Idem 580 When the Feast of the Procession of the Eucharist was instituted Id. ibid. Several desired that this Feast might be abolished Id. 582 G. AT what time they began to keep the Sacrament for the Sick A. Ch. 15. 165 William of Malmesbury is deceived in speaking of the Conversion of Berengarius B. Ch. 17. 460 H. NO body can dwell in himself B. Ch. 5. 262 History of the VII Century B. Ch. 11. 361 The state of the VIII Century B. Ch. 12. 365 History of the IX Century B. Ch. 13. 385 Continuation of the History of the IX Century B. Ch. 14. 425 The Dignities and Creation of Herribold Bishop of Auxerr Id. ibid. Continuation of the History of the IX Century B. Ch. 15. 430 c. History of the X. Century which was an Age neither of Light nor Darkness but made up of both B. Ch. 16. 439 History of the XI Century B. Ch. 17. 450 History of the XII and XIII Centuries B. Ch. 18. 465 History of the XIV and XV. Centuries B. Ch. 19. 497 I. WE should hold by what was done by Jesus Christ at first A. Ch. 1. p. 1 The Image and Figure cannot be the same thing whereof they are the Image and Figure B. Ch. 3. 218 Jesus Christ is absent from us as to his Humanity and present only by his Divinity B. Ch. 4. 233 The Ancients have only acknowledged two Comings of Jesus Christ Id. 240 The spiritual Presence of Jesus Christ is common with him and the Father Id. ibid. Jesus
figuratively and on the contrary that they spake literally and properly when they affirmed that it is Bread and Wine Now the Reader will perceive in perusing this Treatise what manner of speaking these Holy Doctors have used herein for it is enough for me here to propose unto him the means of right understanding them The fourth rule to be observed for the right understanding their testimonies is not to make them clash one against another nor to imbroil them in contradictions for it must be supposed that they were prudent and judicious enough not to contradict themselves and to keep themselves from a reproach which would have been cast on them had that befaln them There are two things in their works relating to the matter we treat of which should be carefully distinguished but in such sort as to take them always in good Sense I mean the ground of their Doctrine and its consequences And indeed the Doctrine of the Holy Fathers having had its consequences as the greatest number of Doctrines have had it is evident that of two explications which may be given unto it there is but one that is true that which shall make a contradiction betwixt the Doctrine and its consequences and the consequences and the Doctrine is false and contrary to their Intention whereas that that reconciles both is lawful and genuine for their Doctrine must be considered with its consequences as a Body whereof all the parts should have a dependance the one to the other and all tend to the same end as so many lines to the center I have examined a great many of these consequences in this History to the end that those who read it may judge if they agree with the foundation of the Doctrine and if the Doctrine and its consequences do favour the substantial change for if the consequences favour this change it will be a great presumption that the Doctrine doth not disfavour it although it should not so positively establish it as the Latins have done But also if all these consequences are directly opposite unto the Doctrine of Transubstantiation it will be a manifest proof that the ground of the Doctrine is no less opposite unto it and that the Antients have not received this Doctrine into the Object of their Faith and that they made it not an Article of their Belief This fourth rule shall be strengthened with a fifth which appears no less important unto me and which only demands that doubtful and uncertain passages ought to be explained by certain passages and the obscure by the clear and manifest ones This is a Maxim of Tertullian's which I 'll not alledge in this place because it is alledged in the Body of the Work but after all there 's nothing more just and reasonable It often befals most Authors to deliver themselves more happily at one time than at another though they treat of the same Subject it happens unto some through neglect or not having well digested their thoughts it being impossible to express themselves clearly on a Subject if the mind have only confused notions of it others do so for reason which may here be said particularly of the Fathers of the Church when they treat of the Sacraments principally of that of the Eucharist for there were certain Times and Places when they explained not themselves so clearly as at other times although they never said any thing contrary to their Sentiments the discipline of their times not suffering them to do otherwise But however the matter hapned it seems very just and equal when the mind of an Author would be known upon a matter which he hath treated in divers Places in some places clearer than at others to have recourse unto those Places wherein he hath most clearly explained himself and by those to interpret the others wherein he expressed himself more obscurely either through inadvertency or for reason more darkly and ambiguously this kind of proceeding is natural unto all Mankind and reason shews 't is the safest way can be taken in these occasions I will not fear to say that 't is the only means to terminate the Disputes and Controversies of Religion because they all arising from the several interpretations given unto passages of the Holy Scriptures and of those of the antient Doctors of the Church they might be easily reconciled if Men would agree that the most clear and intelligible should serve as a Commentary unto the more difficult and obscure Unto all these rules I will add a sixth which shall be the last The Fathers being on this occasion to be considered as witnesses examin'd to learn of them what was the belief of the antient Church touching the Sacrament there 's no question to be made but that the greater number ought to be preferr'd before the less and that the lesser number ought to submit unto the greater things being otherwise alike I mean both the one and the other being of equal Authority and their Testimony alike worthy of belief for instance if eight or ten amongst them should unanimously depose that the substance of the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament is abolished by the Consecration and that there remain only the accidents and appearance which subsist miraculously without any Subject and that there was but one that said to the contrary It is not to be doubted but the testimony of the Ten ought to be preferr'd before one single Person because every one of the Ten is as credible in his particular as he that is alone of his own Opinion and that there is much more likelihood that one single Person may be mistaken in relating the belief of the Church than ten Persons that agree in their Testimonies But by the same reason if Ten be found that testifie that the substance of Bread and Wine remains after Consecration and that on the contrary one single Person shall say it is changed into the substance of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ we are obliged to confess that the belief for the which the ten Persons do declare hath been the true Belief of the antient Church and that the sentiments of this single Person is a particular Opinion which ought to be rejected or at the least if possible endeavour to recover him unto the general Opinion believed amongst the Christians of his time by giving unto his words a more mild Explication and the most favourable Construction that may be I think no Body can reasonably condemn the Means which I have proposed the practice whereof may conduce very much to the right understanding of the Holy Fathers provided we observe them sincerely and no other end be proposed in explaining their Testimonies but what I have had in reporting them in this Treatise that is a love of the Truth Tertul. de Virgin veland c. 1. Against which no prescription can be made neither by length of time by the credit of Persons nor by the Priviledges of Countreys To conclude the Reader may be pleased
that our Saviour having finished the solemnity of the antient Passover and intending to proceed unto the institution of the New I mean of the Eucharist to leave unto the Church an Illustrious Monument of his great Love and Charity he took Bread and having given thanks unto his Father over the Bread that is to say having blessed and consecrated it he brake it into morsels and gave it unto his Disciples saying Take eat also he took the Cup wherein was Wine and having blessed it as he had done the Bread he gave it unto them saying these words Drink ye all of it that in distributing the Bread he said unto them That it was his Body giveâ— or broken for them and giving them the Cup he said That iâ— waâ— his Blood or the New Testament in his Blood shed for many for the remission of Sins and that he would drink no more of that fruit of the Vine until he drank it new in the Kingdom of his Father commanding them expresly to celebrate this Divine Sacrament until his coming from Heaven to shew in the Celebration of it the remembrance of his Person and sufferings whereunto St. Paul doth add the preparations which Communicants ought to bring unto the Holy Table for fear lest this mystery which is intended unto the Salvation and consolation of Men should turn unto their judgment and condemnation if they partake thereof unworthily But because the actions of Jesus Christ do prescribe unto us if I may so speak the manner how we should celebrate this holy Mystery that his words instruct us what we ought to believe and that the preparations which St. Paul requires of us contain in effect all the motions of a faithful Soul that disposes it self to partake thereof motions which as I conceive are again contained either in whole or in part in the commemoration which our Saviour hath recommended to us we have thought fit to follow this Divine pattern and thereupon to erect the platform and Oeconomy of our work For besides that in so doing we shall imitate as much as possible may be the Example of our Saviour Jesus Christ which ought to be our Law and guide we shall also ease the memory of the Readers we shall facilitate the understanding of those things we have to say and we shall lead them safely by the way which in all likelihood is best and plainest unto the clear and distinct knowledge of the constant and universal tradition of the Christian Church upon this Article of our Faith To this purpose we will divide our Treatise into three Parts the first shall treat of the exteriour Worship of the Sacrament and generally of what concerns it and of what is founded as well on the actions of Jesus Christ celebrating as of the blessed Apostles communicating The second shall contain the Doctrine of the holy Fathers the true tradition of the Church which derives its Original and Authority of what our Saviour said unto his Disciples that the Bread which he gave them was his Body broken and the Cup his Blood shed and in that he commanded them to celebrate this Sacrament in remembrance of him and of his death And lastly the third shall examine the Worship I mean the dispositions which ought to precede the Communion the motions of the Soul of the Communicant whether it be in regard of God and of Jesus Christ or in regard of the Sacrament in a word all things which do relate unto it And in each of these three Parts we will observe with the help of our blessed Saviour all the exactness and sincerity that can be in shewing the Innovations and changes that have thereupon ensued THE LIFE OF Monsieur L'ARROQUE IT is with very great displeasure that I insert in my first Essay of this nature an Elogie which nevertheless will render it very acceptable I had much rather have wanted so good a Subject of Recommendation to my first undertaking than to have obtain'd it by suffering so great a loss But seeing Death will not be subject unto our desires let us acquit our selves according to the various conjunctures whether they be pleasing or not Monsieur L'ARROQVE departed this Life at Roven the 31 of January 1684 Aged 65 years born at Lairac a Town not far from Agen in Guien his Father and Mother dying almost at the same time left him very young under the Conduct of his Relations and which is the common Fate of Scholars without much Wealth but his great love for Learning comforted him in the midst of all his Troubles Having made some progress therein under several Masters he advanced the same considerably in the Academy of Montauban and having applyed himself unto the study of Divinity under Messieurs Charles and Garrisoles eminent Professors who also had at the same time the famous Monsieur Claud to be their Pupil in a short time he there made so great a progress in his studies that he was judged worthy of the Ministry He was accordingly admitted betimes and by the Synod of Guyen sent unto a little Church called Poujols He had scarce been there one year but the Gentlemen of the Church of Rome opposed his Ministry which obliged him to make a Journey to Paris He there became accquainted with Messieurs Le Faucheur and Mestrezat who from that very time prophesi'd very advantagiously of him He preached at Charanton with great Success and was so well approved by the late lady Dutchess of Tremouile that she desired he might be setl'd at the Church of Vitry in Britany where she commonly made her residence For several reasons he consented unto the demands of this Princess and went to Vitry where he liv'd 26 years so confin'd unto his Closet that he therein spent 14 or 15 hours each day The world soon became sensible of his great industry by a Treatise which Monsieur L'ARROQVE published against a Minister who having chang'd his Religion caused to be Printed the motives which induced him thereunto By this Answer it was seen the Author had already attained great knowledge in Antiquity joyned with a very solid and clear way of reasoning which was ever the character of the late Monsieur L'ARROQVES Genius Some years after scil in the year 1665 he made a very learned Answer unto the Book of the Office of the holy Sacrament written by the Gentlmen of Port Royal wherein he shewed unto those Illustrious Friars that they had alledged and translated the passages of Antient Fathers either very negligently or very falsly His History of the EVCHARIST which may well be term'd his Master-piece appeared four years after and did fully manifest the merits of this Excellent Person Having compos'd so many Learn'd Volums the Protestants of Paris looked upon him as a Subject very worthy of their choice and resolved to establish him in the midst of them this honest design had been accomplish'd had not his credit and adhering unto the Interests of two Illustrious Persons whose names are
pieces to make them serve as abominable Food under a pretence of Mysteries celebrated amongst them that is amongst the Montanists therefore during the late persecutions the Gentiles imagined we did the same things because the Montanists assumed the name of Christians but falsly Apparently nothing can be said more formal nor more positively on this Subject nevertheless I find S. Austin comes nothing short of S. Cyrill and that he speaks as full as he only saving that he doth not expresly mention the killing of a young Child these are his words It is reported that they have pernicious Sacraments August de haeres 26. for it is said they make their Sacrament with the blood of a little Infant of a year old which they make to issue from all parts of the Body by pricking it all over and mingling this Blood with Flower they make Bread of it and if the Child dye they esteem it a Martyr but if it recover and live it is esteemed amongst them as a great Priest or Sacrificer Then distinguishing the Pepusians from the Cavaphrygians and Montanists he saith they do like the others in their Eucharist so that after so many witnesses should not one absolutely acquiesce in all likelihood one should be reputed a self-will'd person Nevertheless I would desire the Reader a little to suspend his Judgment for if I mistake not Theodoret doth not fully agree to this matter at least he observes that when the Montanists were taxed with the thing they deny'd it and lookt on this accusation as an imposture and grievous calumny and I cannot tell but in such like occasions the Declaration of the Party ought to be believed rather than the Accusations which many times have no other ground but a popular Report and Fame which every one knows relate things false as well as true Theodoreâ— haeret sab â— 3. c. 2. As to their mysteries saith Theodoret some do relate things which they do not own which they deny and agree not unto but they call this accusaetion a false calumny and to say the truth not one of the Antients which was contemporary with Montanus not one of those which opposed his Heresie when it first appeared in the World with the predictions of his Prophetesses having imputed any such thing unto this Sect I cannot easily imagine they were guilty of the abominations of the Gnosticks which were laid to their charge especially when I consider that Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History making mention of many that were filled with a zeal for the glory of God writ very earnestly against the extravagancies of this pretended Paraclete and of his Prophetesses and hath preseved some fragments of their Works Apud Euseb hist l. 5. c. 18. without any mention therein of these abominable Mysteries there is no great likelihood that Apollonius who in Eusebius reproacheth this Montanus That he established Laws touching Fasts and for dissolving of Marriages would have spared him on a matter which alone would have rendred him odious and execrable unto all the World nor that Tertullian whom a too ridgid piety precipitated into the Sect of this false Paraclete would have imbraced such a Sect wherein such execrable Mysteries were celebrated nor lastly that the Antients which lamented his misfortune and his contending for the defence of the Discipline of his Montanus would have passed over in silence so considerable a circumstance which was able to startle and cover with eternal Infamy all the Followers of this hypocritical Impostor Yet I would not be thought to reject or despise the testimony of the Antients whose testimonies we have heard I would only follow the distinction which S. Epiphanius hath made of the Montanists and Cataphrygians from the Quintilians Epiph. haer 48. Extr. the Priscillianists and the Pepusians unto whom he seems to joyn the Tascodrugites for he acquits the former from the crime of Infant-killing and only imputes unto the others the celebrating of the Sacrament with the blood of a little Child for by this means it appears that they may be compared both together or we at least the better judge of the matter in question But the Devil rested not there for having declared a mortal hatred against Mankind especially against Christians because the establishing of the Kingdom of Jesus Christ whom they adore is the utter subversion of his he useth his greatest force and cunning skill and power to effect the wicked devices which he plotteth against them laying many snares and traps at once to the end that if he fail in the one he may not in the other By the Gnosticks and the Pepusians he indeavoured to disgrace the holiness of their Discipline and to vilify their most sacred and Religious Mysteries other stratagems he made Use of to oppose their Utility and to destroy the necessity of their use and Celebration There were Hereticks called Ascodrutes or Ascodrupites who pretending to greater degrees of purity and to calumniate the Creator of the World taught that all visible things were the production of Ignorance and Passion and that Divine Mysteries which are the Symbols and Images of invisible things ought not to be celebrated by things visible nor incorporeal by things visible and corporeal and that there is nothing in the whole compass of the Redemption but is purely Spiritual therefore they did neither celebrate Baptism nor the Lords Supper the two Sacraments which our Saviour instituted to convey his Blessings unto us But let us hear Theodoret who plainly describes them unto us These Persons say Theoder haret fab l. 1. c. 10. The Divine Mysteries ought not to be celebrated which are the Symbols of invisible things with things visible nor to represent incorcoporeal things by things which are corporeal and sensible that the compleat redemption is nothing else but a true apprehension and knowledge of what it is that all visible things which are the effect of ignorance and passion are made void by Knowledge therefore the redemption must be also Spiritual He also adds That they did not baptize those which turned unto their Sect and that the Sacrament of Baptism was not celebrated amongst them for they termed Redemption the knowledge of all things Some think that these Ascodrupites are the same with those which S. Epiphanius calls Tascodrugites Epiph. haer 48. giving also the meaning of this name which was given them because praying they put the forefinger in their Nose as a mark of sadness and voluntary equity and that in their Language Tascus signified a perch and Drugus the Nose but in that behalf they are to be accquitted of the crime which was imputed unto the Pepusians with whom Epiphanius was wont to joyn them that is of celebrating the Eucharist with the blood of an Infant S. Epiphanius doth not positively affirm it of them he only saith that this cruelty was committed either amongst them or amongst the Pepusians so that this wickedness is not likely to have been acted amongst the
Tascodrugites if it be true that they were the same with Theodoret's Ascodrupites seeing they rejected the Celebration of the Eucharist And whereas S. Epiphanius seems to make them all one with the Pepusians that makes nothing against what Theodoret relates unto us of his Ascodrupites the rather because exactly considering the words of Epiphanius there is nothing which obliges us to joyn the Tascodrugites with the Pepusians in the execrable Subject now in hand seeing he speaks of them severally although in effect he reports not of the Tascodrugites what Theodoret saith of the Ascodrupites But what induceth me to think that the Tascodrugites and Ascodrupites were but one Sect wherein the Sacraments were not celebrated is a certain kind of Dialogue of Timothy Priest or Bishop of Constantinople for this is not the place of clearing a question which makes nothing to our Subject In the little Treatise which Father Combefis a Dominican hath left us in Greek and Latin much larger than it is in the Library of the Fathers but in Latin only he treats of the manner of receiving Hereticks into the Catholick Church and reducing them into three Orders he will have the former to be admitted by Baptizing them those of the Second by Anointing them and those of the Third sort by making them only to Anathematise their Heresie In the first sort he ranges the Tascodrugites unto whom in effect he imputes part of what Theodoret relates unto us of the Ascodrupites as the laying aside Baptism Apud combef Auct Bib. Par. t. 2. p. 450. one of the Symbols which they condemned saying That there ought not to be made upon Earth Images and Figures of things Heavenly and Invisible nor may we represent Spiritual things by corporeal things I only observe that this Timothy who wrote after Theodoret is in all likelihood mistaken when he saith that the Tascodrugites rejected all Divine Knowledge for on the contrary they made our intire Redemption to consist by the report of Theodoret in the Knowledge of all things As of all the Emissaries the Devil makes use of and of all the Agents he imploys to do his work in seducing Mankind there are scarce any more at his beck nor more ready to execute his commands than Sorcerers South-sayers Inchanters and such as use Witchcrafts and Magick so it is not to be wondred if to disturb the Church in its Infancy in the celebrating its Sacraments he made use of these kinds of Instruments and wicked Agents for he made use of one Mark whereof the Ascodrupites were as it were a Limb and Branch this wretch amongst many other impieties which he spued out exercised the Magick Art and by means of his Delusions and Witchcrafts he seduced many ignorant Persons which suffered themselves to be blinded by his Inchantments Tertullian relates it in his Book of Prescriptions against Hereticks Philastrius in his Catologue of Heresies also S. Austin and Theodoret This latter hath also recited some of his Inchantments and Witchcrafts S. Epiphanius treats at large of the Heresy of the Marcosians or Marcites which were so called after his Name but because our design doth not require that we should examine all the Impieties and Dreams of these Hereticks but only what they did in celebrating the Eucharist and that S. Epiphanius hath taken from S. Irenaeus what he reports let us inform our selves of this latter which was so famous in our France as well for his Piety and Learning as also for having written so vigorously against all those Enemies of growing Christianity This Doctor having said that this Mark was well skill'd in Magick by means whereof he seduced much people both Men and Women he instances in several proofs of his delusions and particularly what he did in celebrating the Sacrament Iren. adv Haereâ—â— l. 1. c. 9. He made shew saith he of consecrating Cups full of Wine and inlarging on the words of Consecration and Prayer he made them appear red and of a Purple colour to the end to make them believe that Grace it was one of the Divinities which he had invented or borrowed from the Schole of Valentine made to come down from the highest Heaven his blood into the Cup by means of invocation and that those present earnestly desiring to drink of the Cup to the end that the same Grace which this Sorcerer invoked might also come into them then giving unto the Women of those Cups full of Wine he commanded them to give thanks in his presence and when they had done he himself presents another Cup much larger than that which was presented by the simple Woman which he seduced he pours out of the lesser Cup which the Woman had consecrated into that brought by himself and which is much larger saying these words That Grace which is before all things and that is not to be expressed nor conceived may fill your inward Man and increase his knowledge in you sowing the grain of Mustard-seed in good ground and in saying these things S. Irenaeus addeth troubling the Spirit of this poor Creature he seemeth to do things that are miraculous when he so filleth the greater Cup with what is in the lesser Cup that the liquor raiseth it self above the brims in doing whereof he destroyed sundry Persons by seducing of them Therefore the same S. Irenaeus supposed he had some familiar Spirit by whose inspirations he seemed to prophesie and caused all those Women to prophesie which he thought worthy to participate of his Grace But that nothing may be wanting unto the History of what these miserable wretches practised in celebrating their Mysteries we will call to our aid S. Epiphanius who although he borrows from S. Irenaeus most part of what he saith yet marks one particular circumstance worthy of consideration which is that in this Sect of Marcites Epiph. haeres 34. init or Marcosians there were prepared three Chalices of Crystal glass which were filled with White Wine and that after Mark 's inchantment which was esteemed a Prayer or giving Thanks they were presently changed the one became red as Blood the second of a Purple colour and the third Blue And it is very probable he made use of Glass Chalices which was a thing frequent amongst the Catholicks of his time and that he filled them with White Wine to give the greater likelihood and probability unto his Impostures and Witchcrafts which only tended to the deluding those miserable Women which he seduced and with whom he satisfy'd the disorder'd passions of his filthy lusts for as our S. Hilary hath excellently well observed It often is seen Hilar. in frag 23. Iren 〈◊〉 1. Cap. 18. Epiph. haeres 34. that after a multitude of vices hath prevailed over the love of God there evidently springs up the folly of corrupt knowledge And as to what S. Irenaeus and after him Epiphanius hath written that the Followers of Mark were of the same Sentiment which Theodoret attributes unto the Ascodrupites it must
Encratites which are descended as the Antients believe from one Tatian who was Disciple unto Justin Martyr this man during the life of his excellent Master continued in the right way of the truth of the Gospel but after his death he departed from the simplicity which is in Jesus Christ being deceived by the wiles of the Devil And although Epiphanius makes a difference betwixt the Tatianites and the Encratites yet he owneth that these latter derived their Original from Tatian as well as the former only he thinks they added something unto the Heresie of the Tatianites but in fine these Encratites had an aversion against Marriage the flesh of Beasts and Wine as if they were things evil in themselves and in their Nature and from thence it was that they were called Encratites But because upon this principle of hating Wine as an evil thing they made use of fair Water in the Celebration of the Sacrament they were called by the name of Aquarians or Hydroparastates in fine all the Antients which have treated of this Heresie witness with one accord that they offered Water instead of Wine in their Mysteries and that it was with Water that they celebrated them which made Epiphanius say That their Mysteries were not Mysteries Epiph. haeres 47. but that they were made falsly in imitation of true ones and that our Saviour would reprove them for it at the last day because he said I will drink no more of the fruit of the Vine and a long time before him Clem. Alex. Paedag. l. 2. cap. 2. Clement of Alexandria opposed these same Hereticks by the example of Jesus Christ which used Wine both at his common meals and in his Eucharist and having proved both the one and the other he adds Let these things be firmly rooted in our minds against those which are called Encratites Chrysost hom 83. in Matth. S. Chrysostom also presseth this example of Jesus Christ against the same Hereticks and saith that in as much as our Saviour used Wine both in the Celebration of his Sacrament and after his Resurrection at a common Table It was to pluck up by the roots this pernicious Heresie As for S. Cyprian Bishop of Carthage and glorious Martyr of Jesus Christ he disputeth in his small Treatise of the Sacrament of the Cup which is his 63. Epistle unto Cecilius against some Christians of his time which used only Water in the celebrating of the Eucharist and for that reason may be called Aquarians But methinks it is evident enough in all his Treatise that these latter Aquarians were very different from the former for the former were wretched and wicked Hereticks which detested and abominated Wine as a wicked Creature and an evil production but as for those spoken of by S. Cyprian they had doubtless other sentiments and indeed he neither calls them Enemies nor Hereticks the former did celebrate their Mystery with Water because they abominated Wine but these did so for two reasons much different from the Encratites Cyprian Ep. â— 3. the first proceeded from the ignorance and simplicity of some of their Teachers Some saith S. Cyprian in the beginning of his Treatise either through ignorance or simplicity do not what Christ did when they consecrate the Cup of our Lord and distribute it unto the people and towards the end If any of our Predecessors have not observed or practised either through ignorance or folly what the Lord commanded us to do both by his precepts and example Id. ibid. the Lord by his goodness may pardon his ignorance but as for us we cannot be pardoned being informed and taught as we have been by the Lord to offer a Cup with Wine as our blessed Saviour offered Therefore in another part of his Epistle he saith that he cannot sufficiently admire whence the custom should come Id. ibid. That in some places was offered Water in the Cup of our Lord contrary to the Evangelical and Apostolical discipline forasmuch as Water alone cannot represent the blood of Christ The second motive which caused those Christians to do so was the fear of persecution they feared that in their Assemblies which they made early in the morning should they have used Wine in the Eucharist the smell of the liquor might discover them and thereby might have exposed them unto the persecutions which Heathens made against Christians All the discipline saith S. Cyprian of Religion and of the truth is wholly overthrown Id. ibid. if what was commanded spiritually and faithfully be not observed if haply some be not afraid that it should be known that they participated of the blood of Jesus Christ by the scent of the Wine which they received in the Morning-Oblations and to the end it should not be thought that in these Morning-Assemblies they abstained offering Wine or drinking it through aversion as if it were an evil and abominable thing they made use of it in the Evening-Assemblies because not being obliged at that season to be present amongst the Unbelievers they feared not to be discovered by that means to be Christians and for persons that came from receiving the Sacrament as they thought they might have cause to believe if they had employed Wine in the celebration of the Sacrament in the Assemblies which met before day besides that there were none Fasting at night so that the scent of Wine could not so particularly be discerned at that season Id. ibid. Thus much St. Cyprian would intimate by these words Is it that any one can deceive himself with this thought that is that he shall imitate the example of Jesus Christ if he celebrate the Sacrament at Supper-time with the Cup mingled with Wine though in the morning he offers but Water only This holy Doctor condemns this practice and with great reason seeing it was from a fleshly and carnal motion which fearing the Cross and Sufferings suggested such thoughts and counsels into weak and timorous Christians which considered not that in acting after that manner they followed the Inspirations of the Devil which commonly sets on men in their weakest part and never slips any occasion to seize their hearts and to destroy them to render them companions of his pains and torments See here another instance to the same purpose The Devil not content to stir up the Eucratites in the second Century to change the Essence of the Sacrament by using of Water instead of Wine which they had in aversion and not content in the third with the simplicity timidity and weakness of some Catholick Christians and Orthodox in the main to give some attempt against this Sacrament of our Salvation he began anew in the fifth Century to surprise others through a pretext of sobriety for as sometimes men pass to vice by the way of virtue so it fell out that this pretext was made use of to deceive men and to plunge them in Error This also he did in respect of those of whom Gennadius Priest
and not Bishop of Marsellis as Pope Adrian stiles him doth speak for he makes mention of certain persons Gennaâ— l de Dogm Eccles c. 75. That under pretence of sobriety would not celebrate the Eucharist with Wine but with Water only All the attempts of this Enemy of the Salvation of Mankind have proved vain in this regard God hath not suffered him to prevail in this matter over his Church for all Christian Communions have faithfully retained the use of Bread and Wine in the Celebration of the Sacrament insomuch as even in those Countreys where Wine doth not grow they endeavour to imitate the best they can the other Christians who live in those Climates which abound with it For instance the Christians of St. Thomas in the Indies where there is no Wine use dry Grapes brought from Mecha and Ormus and steep them a whole night in Water next day they press them and with the Liquor that comes out they celebrate the Eucharist instead of Wine Ramusio vol. 1. p. 313. aâ—d several others also The Abassins also do in like manner as Francis Alvarez in his Voyage into Ethiopia doth testifie But upon this matter of the Wine of the Eucharist it may not be altogether needless to consider what was the Sentiment of Antiquity touching the two Cups mentioned by St. Luke which were distributed by our Saviour unto his Disciples as is alledged by St. Luke in his Gospel observing also that it was in giving the former that he said I will drink no more of the Fruit of the Vine which he mentions not to be spoken by our Saviour in distributing the latter Now seeing that St. Fulgentius Bishop of Rusp in Africa hath collected the several judgments of those which preceded or were his contemporaries what we find in his Writings shall suffice and I hope the Reader will not be displeas'd to satisfie his curiosity on this matter Fulgent ad â—â—rrand Diacon de quinque quast c â—5 Some persons saith he would have this passage of the Gospel understood viz. That the Lord gave not two Cups but rather they affirm that he said so by way of anticipation and that there was indeed but one sole Cup of which first there is mention made that it should be divided and then that it should be given to the Disciples to drink of it Others there be that affirm That there were two Cups distributed but which opinion soever of them is followed the sense of the one and the other is no way contrary to the true Faith Those which think our Saviour gave two Cups say that it was done mystically and that by the former Cup he would prefigure his Passion and by the second that of his followers Others again have said that the two Cups did represent what had been commanded under the old Testament viz. that whosoever had not celebrated the Passover of the first Month in eating a Lamb should do it the second Month in eating a Kid. As for me adds St. Fulgentius it seems there is here discovered another Mystery which accords very well with the Christian Faith viz. that both in the one and the other Cup ought to be understood both the Old and New Testaments especially seeing the Truth it self hath so plainly declared it unto us that there remains no doubt of it unto those which search the truth For the Lord himself called the New Testament the Cup which he gave us to drink and afterwards Ibid. c. 38. in this part of the Gospel whereof we now dispute we are not permitted to understand any thing else but what we are taught by our Saviours own words who saith This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood and according to this rule whereby the Cup is termed the New Testament is very justly to be understood the Old Testament in the Cup which he gave first The same Lord then which gave unto his Disciples both Testaments gave also both Cups therefore at the same Supper he eat of the Jewish Passover which was to be offer'd and distributed the Sacrament of his Body and Blood which was to be instituted for the Salvation of Believers he eat the Passover of the Jews whereby Jesus Christ was promised to come unto our Passover which he became when sacrificed himself In fine consider what the Evangelist St. Luke relates that he said unto his Disciples for he saith thus When the hour was come he sate down at the Table and the twelve Apostles with him and he said unto them With desire have I desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer he eat therefore the Passover by which he was represented to suffer before he suffered voluntarily for us there is also in the words of our Saviour something which ought diligently to be considered by Believers and wherein may be perceived a difference betwixt both Testaments for St. Luke thus speaketh of the Cup which he first mentioned And having taken the Cup he gave Thanks and said Take ye it and divide it amongst you but speaking afterwards of the Bread and the Cup he saith And having taken the Bread he gave Thanks and broke it and gave it unto them saying This is my Body which is given for you do this in remembrance of me Also he gave them the Cup after Supper saying This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood which is shed for you Of all the opinions or divers Interpretations cited by St. Fulgentius I find his own the most reasonable because in effect St. Luke hath mentioned two several Cups the Paschal Cup and the Eucharistical Cup the former being a Sign and Seal of the first Covenant and the latter the Sign and Seal of the new Covenant If this Evangelist hath not taken notice of our Saviours saying of the Eucharistical Cup I will drink no more of the Fruit of the Vine but only in speaking of the Paschal Cup it is in the first place because he considered our Saviours whole action to be but one Supper at the end whereof he instituted the Sacrament of the Eucharist so that 't is as if he should have made our Saviour say After this Supper and my now sitting at Table with you I will drink no more of the Fruit of the Vine Secondly That although Jesus Christ might have said so of the two Cups the Paschal and Eucharistical yet nevertheless S. Luke seeing the two other Evangelists had not observed it of the Paschal he contented himself to observe it of the Paschal and not of the Eucharistick the Evangelists being accustomed to supply in this manner the omissions one of another I mean that the one observes some things the others had omitted that it might not be thought they had all written of design and by consent CHAP. III. Continuation of the considerations of the matter of the Eucharist wherein is examined what S. Ignatius saith of certain Hereticks which rejected the Sacrament the Heresie of one named Tanchelin who also
being taken from the Offerings which Christians offered upon the Table in the Church at the usual times that they assembled unto the Communion as we shall make appear in the Fourth Chapter which will plainly evidence That these Offerings were of the very same kind of Bread as that which was used in the ordinary actions of Life and if in process of time there ensued any alteration it was not in respect of the nature or quality of Bread as if that of common use was leavened and that of the Eucharist unleavened seeing it was but one and the same sort of Bread all the difference consisted first in that the Bread of the Eucharist was to be of a round form secondly about the seventh Century they began to prepare it expresly and on purpose for the celebrating of the Sacrament as appears by the sixth Canon of the sixteenth Council of Toledo assembled Anno 693. which we will cite at large in the following Chapter by some words of Cardinal Humbert T. 4. Bibl. paâ— part 2. p. 212. l. 3 c. 33. t. 4. Spicil which wrote in the Eleventh Century and of the ancient customs of the Monastry of Cluny written in the same Century whereto there were many Ceremonies multiplied for the preparing the Bread of the Sacrament whereas there was none at all at first because it was not made of set purpose but with the common Bread and even when it was begun to be made of purpose we do not find there was any great Ceremony used about it In fine it was thought good in process of time to make upon the Bread the sign of the Cross unto which Custom Father Sirmond doth apply the third Canon of the second Council of Tours Sirmond de Azymo c. 4 assembled Anno 567. and the first of the fifth Council of Arles held in the year 554. although to my seeming there is nothing very clear in these two Canons for authorising this Custom Also the same Sirmond doth confess in the same place That the Interpretation which he giveth unto the Council of Tours which is the plainest of the two alledged by him is not allowed by all and indeed it is not very likely that the Christians of the West which began not to prepare the Bread of the Sacrament separately from ordinary Bread until about the seventh or eighth Century should have marked it before that time with the sign of the Cross But so it is for certain that the use of leavened Bread in the Eucharist continued still in the Latin Church in the time of Gregory the first Vit. Greg. l. 2. c. 41. as the History of that Woman doth import who admired that this Pope should call the Body of the Lord a Loaf which she knew very well she had made with her own hands And this custom continued not only in Gregory's time but also a good part of the Ninth Century at which time a great difference having broke out betwixt the Greek and Latin Churches we do not find that amongst sundry reproaches and some of them either very light or it may be unjust made by the Greeks against the Latins that they have in any manner touched the question of leavened or unleavened Bread which they would not have omitted if the Latins had used unleavened Bread in their Eucharist as they failed not to condemn this practice in the Eleventh Century at which time this contention was managed with greater heat on both sides a manifest sign that the Latin Church did not begin to use unleavened Bread in the celebration of her Sacrament but in that space of time which passed betwixt the Ninth and the Eleventh Century Sirmond de Azymo Father Sirmond hath at large justified this truth and after his manner confirmed it with such clear and strong reasons and particularly those above-mentioned that nothing can be added unto what he hath said having very solidly refuted what Cardinal Baronius alledged against it and shewn that Hugo Tuscus and Rupert de Duitz were deceived when they imagined as well as Baronius that the Latin Church had always used unleavened Bread in the Eucharist Hist Concil Florent Sguropuli Sect. 10. c. 1. p. 278. In the Council of Florance held under Pope Eugenius the Fourth where was made by Interest of State and Policy a seeming accord betwixt the Greek and Latin Churches it was concluded as to what concerned leavened or unleavened Bread That each Church should retain its own custom viz. That the Eastern Church should make their Eucharist with leavened Bread and the Western with unleavened Bread so that the one should not be obliged to follow the use and custom of the other Raban de instit Cleric l. 1. c. 14. Nevertheless I cannot pass by what Rabanus Archbishop of Mayence wrote in the Ninth Century That unleavened Bread should be sanctified and Wine mingled with Water to make the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ which he proves by the authority of the Book of Leviticus and by the Example of Jesus Christ which used unleavened Bread in the Institution of his Sacrament But it must either be said That this Opinion was a particular Opinion of his own or that he intended only it should be so used the Thursday before Easter exactly to imitate the practice of our Saviour or in fine what I believe to be more probable That this custom began to be introduced into the Diocese of that Prelate if it were not safer to say That this long Observation of unleavened Bread was added unto Rabanus his works which I dare not affirm not being on the place to compare the Printed Copies with the Manuscripts CHAP. IV. Wherein is shewed from whence were taken the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist and what was the form of the Bread with the innovations and changes which ensued thereupon IT is not sufficient to shew that Bread and Wine have always been the matter of the Sacrament of the Eucharist amongst Christians excepting some few Hereticks which had changed it others that had miserably altered and corrupted the Celebration and in fine others which had wholly rejected it though upon several motives and different Principles Neither is it sufficient to have hinted at the reproaches which were made against Christians upon account of the Bread and Wine in this Divine Sacrament and to have examined the great controversy which armed if it may be so said the Greek Church against the Latin Church in the XI Century touching the Nature and quality of the Bread of the Sacrament to know whether it should be Leavened or Unleavened To the end nothing should be wanting unto this consideration we must endeavour to find out from whence was taken the Bread and Wine imployed by Christians in the celebration of their Sacrament I make no question but they proceeded from the liberality of Believers who being inflamed in those happy times with the divine fire of Charity which the Antients
greater value was chosen to make their Chalices but of greater and less price according to the substance and stock of each Church but at first in sundry places they were made of Glass or of Wood as will appear and to speak the truth if at Rome in the beginning of the III. Century they used Glass Chalices it is very probable they did so in many other places Now that they used such at Rome at that time may be gathered from some passages of Tertullian for answering an argument which the Catholicks drew from a picture they had in their Chalices and which represented the good Shepherd carying the lost Sheep upon his back Put in practice saith he the very Pictures of your Chalices Tertul. de pudic c. 7. Ibid. c. 10 and to mark that these Chalices were Glass he opposeth unto this Painting The writing of the Shepherd which cannot be blotted out Exuperius Bishop of Tholouse towards the end of the IV. Century and at the beginning of the V. made use of no other Chalices but of Glass S. Jerom who presseth him very much Hieron ep 4. extr saith amongst other things of him That nothing is richer than him which carries the Body of our Lord in a little wicker Basket and his blood in a Glass In the VI. Century Cyprian not the famous Bishop of Carthage which was dead three hundred years before but another Cyprian a French Man Vi◠〈◊〉 Arel Author of the life of Caesarius Bishop of Arles who died towards the middle of the VI. Century observing as an action worthy of commendation that he redeemed a great many Slaves with the Gold and Silver of the Church saying that a great many praised him for so doing but would not follow his example he adds The blood of Christ is it not in a Glass And although this Author saith there were many who would not imitate him in an Action which they could not but commend yet I cannot be perswaded but that there were to be found other good Bishops who considering as Exuperius of Tholouse and S. Caesarius of Arles that the riches of the Church are the Patrimony of the Poor did in suffering and calamitous times imploy all the Gold and Silver of their Churches either to sustain their Poor or redeem Captives and that they had rather make use of Chalices of Glass as those did than to be wanting in this necessary duty of Christian charity Greg. 1. dialog l. 1. c. 7. In the Dialogues of Gregory the first there is mention of one Donatus who by his Prayers mended a Glass Chalice which had been broke but let us hear what Cardinal Baronius saith upon this Subject Baron Martyr Rom. 7. Agust The Chalices of Glass and Plates or Patins of Glass were antiently made use of in Livine Service there is mention made of Plates of Glass in the Pontifical in the life of Pope Zephyrin of a Glass Chalice in the 4th Epistle of S. Jerom to Rusticus speaking of S. Exuperius Bishop of Tholouse and also our French Cyprian in the life of Caesarius Bishop of Arles who flourished in the time of Theodorick King of Italy Is not saith he the Blood of Christ kept in a Glass for it seemeth that Glass Chalices have been used ever since the Apostles days whence 't is that Mark the Heretick who lived presently after their days to imitate the Catholick Church using a Glass Chalice in his divine Service betwitched the people with certain impostures and by Sorcery making the Wine which looked white in the Glass to turn Red by his slights so that the Wine seemed to be changed into Blood but in the Council of Rheems held under Charles the great Glass Chalices were forbidden and that very reasonably because of the danger there was in that brittle stuff you have thereupon the Canon ut Calix de Consecrat distinct 1. as also the Chalices of wood are forbidden in the Canon Vasa in quibus in the same distinction Binius relates almost the very same thing upon the life of Pope Zephyrin What Baronius saith of the prohibiting of Glass Chalices in the Reign of Charlemain T. 1. Concil p. 96. in one of the Councils of Rheems he takes from the Canonist Gratian whose authority is not always to be allowed no more than the other Collectors of Canons for as Monsieur de Launoy a Doctor of Sorbon hath judiciously observed in his Treatise of the times antiently appointed for administring holy Baptism Cap. 9. p. 184. The Antient Collectors do change and cut off from the Canons of Councils what things they suppose either to be abolished and useless or different from the customs of their times They have saith he fitted the Antient Canons to the discipline of their own times Ibid. And Cardinal Bellarmine in his Treatise of Ecclesiastical Writers In Grat. ad an 1145. saith in particular of Gratian That he had not well chosen the Authors from whence he had gathered his Decrees and he instances in some examples which he pretends to be so many mistakes in the Author and indeed to return to the prohibition of Glass Chalicesby a Council of Rheems we find no such matter if my memory fail not in any of the Councils held under Charlemain although we have a great number of them as for Wooden Chalices we have at this time the Canon whence Gratian took it it is the 18. of the council of Trybur assembled Anno 895. Tom. 7. Concil p. 151. That for the future no Priest dare presume in any wise to consecrate in Chalices of Wood the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Lord. But the Council doth observe in the same Canon that Boniface Bishop of Mayence being asked if it were lawful to consecrate the Sacraments in Vessels of Wood he made this answer Heretofore Golden Priests made use of Wooden Chalices and now on the contrary Wooden Priests do use Golden Chalices But it is plainly evident by what hath been said that Chalices of Glass and of Wood were used in the Church for the space of eight or nine hundred years and what is said of Chalices may also be said of Plates or Patins whereupon we have said was put the Bread of the Sacrament they were at least broad round Vessels a little hollow which cannot be resembled to any thing better than Dishes which were greater or less according to the number of Communicants The Latin Church doth not suffer Consecration to be made in any thing but a Gold or Silver Chalice or at least of Pewter and a Council of Albi assembled Anno. 1254 commanded all Churches whose Rents amounted yearly unto fifteen livres French Money to have a Silver Chalice T. 2. Spâ—cil c. 12. p. 638. I deny not but in the four first Ages of Christianity several Churches had Silver Chalices and it may be also of Gold such as whereof in all likelihood those were spoken of by Optatus Bishop of
is so inconsiderable and of little moment that it deserves not our pains to examine It will be necessary to consider that in that which bears the name of St. James although it cannot be his the Priest makes this Prayer at the time the Elements are set upon the Altar or the Holy Table Liturg. St. Jacob. to be blessed and consecrated O Lord our God which hast sent the Bread from Heaven the food of all the World Jesus our Lord Saviour Redeemer and Benefactor to bless and sanctifie us bless we beseech thee this Oblation and receive it upon thy Heavenly Altar remember O Lord thou which art full of love towards mankind those who offer and for whom they have offered and keep us pure and immaculate in this Holy Celebration of thy divine Mysteries because thy great and glorious name O Father Son and Holy Ghost is glorified and praised now and for ever Amen And in that attributed unto St. Mark but not his the Priest praying in the same time but in terms something different Liturg. St. Marc. O Lord Holy Almighty and terrible which dwellest in the Holy Places sanctifie us and make us worthy of this Holy Priesthood and grant that we may minister at thy holy Altar with a good conscience cleanse our hearts from all impurity drive out of us all reprobate sense sanctifie our Souls and Spirit and give us grace with fear to practise the Worship of our Fathers to give us the light of thy countenance at all times for 't is thou which sanctifiest and blessest all things and we offer unto thee Praise and Thanksgiving As for the Greeks they carried the Elements that is to say the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament from the Table of Proposition as they call it unto the Altar or unto the Communion Table where they are to be consecrated with so great Pomp Solemnity and Ceremony that the ignorant people dazled with the Ceremonies forbear not to give unto these Elements before they are consecrated such an honour as doth not belong unto them Cabasil in Liturg. expos c. 24. Cabasilas Archbishop of Thessalonica who wrote in the XIV Century complains of it in the Explication which he makes of their Liturgy and saith those which unadvisedly do so do confound the Elements which are sanctified with those which are not and that from this confusion proceeds the honour which they give unto the Bread and Wine before Consecration which this Archbishop doth condemn But in fine the Elements being so brought and laid upon the Holy Table to be consecrated these same Liturgies inform us that he that officiates after having recited all the History of the Institution of the Sacrament desires of God that he would send upon this Bread and Wine which were offered unto him his Holy Spirit to make them the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and because the Author of the Apostolical Constitutions which were not written until the end of the third Century or the beginning of the fourth doth very clearly represent the manner of this Consecration we will begin with him to shew how this consecrating Liturgy was couched for after having ended the recital of the History of the Eucharist by these words Constitut Apostol l. 8. cap. 12. Do this in remembrance of me for as often as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup ye shew the Lords death till he come He goes on Therefore setting before us his Passion his Death and Resurrection his ascension into Heaven and his second coming which will be when he comes with power and glory to judge the quick and the dead and to reward everyone after their works We effer unto thee O our King and our God according so thy Commandment this Bread and this Cup in giving thee thanks by him because thou hast made us worthy to stand in thy presence to execute this Ministry and we beseech thee O God who standest in need of nothing that thou wouldest favourably behold these gifts which are presented before thee and that thou wouldest therein do thy good pleasure for the honour of thy Christ and that thou wouldest send thy Holy Spirit upon this Sacrifice the witness of the passion of the Lord Jesus to make this Bread the Body of thy Christ and this Cup his Blood to the end that those which partake of them may be confirmed in piety obtain remission of sins may be delivered from the temptations of the Devil filled with the Holy Ghost made worthy of thy Christ and of everlasting life when thou O Lord most mighty shalt be reconciled unto them In the Liturgy of St. James it is said O Lord send thine Holy Spirit upon us Liturg Jacob and upon these sacred Elements which are offered to the end that coming upon them he may sanctifie this Bread and this Cup by his Holy good and glorious presence and that he would make the Bread the sacred Body of thy Christ and the Cup his precious Blood In that of S. Mark We beseech thee O God lover of mankind Liturg. Marc. to send down thy Holy Spirit upon us and upon these Loaves and these Chalices to sanctifie and to consecrate them and to make this Bread the Body of Christ and this Cup the Blood of the New Testament of Jesus Christ our Lord our God our Saviour and our Sovereign King And so in those of St. Basil St. Chrysostome and generally in all excepting the Latin Liturgy at this time used I say in that of the present time for I cannot deny but that it was otherwise antiently and that in all appearance they cut off from this Liturgy I mean from the Canon of the Mass the Prayers which followed as in the other Liturgies the words of Institution by the which Prayers Christians were wont to consecrate the Divine Symbols even in the West during the space of a thousand years And to the end this truth should be made manifest this question must be throughly examined to wit whether the Antients did consecrate by Prayers and Invocations and by thanksgivings or otherwise Jesus Christ the absolute Master of the Christian Religion did consecrate his Sacrament by Prayers Blessing and Thanksgiving as the Divine Writers do testifie making use of two expressions the one of which signifying giving of Thanks and the other to Bless as to their Etymology but as to their sence and meaning they signifie one and the same thing The reason whereof may be that it was the manner of the Jews to conceive their Prayers in terms of Praise and Blessing the first Christians which made the example of Christ their Law and Rule intended not to consecrate any otherwise than he himself had done therefore Justin Martyr speaks of Prayers which the Pastour made after having received the Bread and Wine mingled with Water which was presented unto him Just Martyr Apolog. 2. he calls the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist in the Act of Communion The Bread
and Wine whereon Prayers were made and saith expresly That this food is consecrated by Prayer Iren. l. 4. c. 34. St. Irenaeus saith the same for he also calls it The Bread upon which Prayers have been made the Bread which hath received invocation and that by this means ceaseth to be common Bread and saith that we sanctifie the Creature This is also the Language of Tertullian writing against Marcion Tertul. advers Marc. l. 1. c. 23. for he observes that if Jesus Christ had not been the Son of the Creatour as this Heretick deny'd he would not have given thanks unto another God upon a Creature that had been none of his Strom. l. 1. paedag l. 2. c. 2 It is unto Prayer and Thanksgiving that Clemens of Alexandria refers the Consecration of the Eucharist of our Lord Origen contr Cels l. 8. in Matth. c. 15. therefore Origen calls the Bread of the Sacrament the Symbol of Prayer and that he saith that it is made a sacred and sanctified Body by Prayer St. Cyrill of Jerusalem in his Mystagogical Catechisms The Bread and Wine of the Eucharist before the Invocation of the adorable Trinity is but common Bread and common Wine but Prayer being ended the Bread is the Body of Christ and the Wine the Blood of Christ Lib. 4. Juvencus a Priest of Spain in his Evangelical History which he compos'd in Latin verse Having saith he devoutly prayed Basil de Sp. Sancto c. 27. t. 2. p. 351. The great St. Basil in his Treatise of the Holy Ghost Which of the Saints hath left unto us in writing the words of Invocation for consecrating the Bread of the Sacrament and the Cup of blessing Gregory of Nyssen his Brother In Baptism Christ p. 8 22. Orat. Catech. c. 37. p. 536. The mystical Oyl as also the Wine are of no great moment before Consecration but after the Sanctification of the Holy Spirit they operate excellently both the one and the other And elsewhere The Bread is sanctified by the word of God and by Prayer And elsewhere Ibid. The nature of visible things is transelemented by the virtue of the benediction St. Ambrose Bishop of Milan L. 4. de side c. 5. t. 4. As often as we take the Sacraments which by the mystery of holy Prayer are transfigured into his flesh and blood we do shew the Lords death Optatus Bishop of Milevis in Numidia describing the cruelties and rage of the Donatists against Catholicks and marking particularly against what they shew'd it What saith he is more sacrilegious than to break tear Lib. 6. and destroy the Altars of God whereon you your selves have sometimes offered c. where the Almighty God hath been invoked where the Holy Ghost drawn down by Prayers hath descended Paschal 1. Bibl. Patr. t. 3. p. 87. Theophilus of Alexandria speaking of Origen He doth not consider saith he that the Bread of our Lord and the Holy Cup are consecrated by Prayer and by the coming of the Holy Ghost St. Gaudentius Bishop of Bress in Italy In Exod. tract 2. When our Saviour presented unto the Disciples the consecrated Bread and Wine he said This is my Body in speaking after this manner he shewed that the Bread was consecrated before the pronouncing of these words This is my Body Ephrem of Edessa if the Books published in his name were his The Lord taking Bread into his hands blessed and brake it De natura Dei curiose nonscrutandâ— in type of his immaculate Body and blessed the Cup in figure of his pretious Blood St. Chrysostom in his Homilies upon St. Matthew The Lord gave thanks shewing us how we should celebrate this Sacrament Hom. 82. Graec. And upon the first Epistle to the Corinthians Hom. 24. in 1 ad Corinth The Apostle said the Cup of Blessing because holding it in our hands we offer unto God Hymns and Praises and do praise him S. Jerom in his Letter unto Evagrius reproving the pride and vanity of the Deacons which rashly advanced themselves above the Priests Who can endure saith he Epist 83. that the Ministers of Tables and of Widows should raise themselves being swelled with pride above thofe which by prayers do make the Body and blood of Jesus Christ And elsewhere he saith That prayer is thereunto necessary St. Austin in his Letter unto Paulinus In Sophon â—3 Epist 59. We mean by prayers those which we make in celebrating the Sacraments before we begin to bless what is upon the Lords Table and by Benedictions those which are made when they are blessed and sanctified and broke in pieces to be distributed And in the Books of the Trinity We call that only the Body and blood of Jesus Christ Lib. 3. c. 4. which being taken from the fruits of the Earth is consecrated by prayer And elsewhere writing against the Donatists which rejected the Sacraments consecrated and administred by Sinners What then saith he De Baptism l. 5. c. 20. doth God hear an homicide praying either on the Water of Baptism or on the Oyl or upon the Eucharist And in fine in another place Serm. 87. de divers it is not all sorts of Bread that is made the Body of Christ but that which receives the blessing of Jesus Christ S. Cyrill of Alexandria doth very frequently call the Eucharist Glaphir in Genes Exod. Levit. in Joan. Eulogy that is Blessing because there 's no doubt but that 't is consecrated by Blessing and Prayers And that blessing is all one in St. Cyril's sense with Sanctification and Consecration he shews plainly Contra Anthropomopth c. 12. when he saith elsewhere We believe that the Oblations made in the Churches are sanctified blessed and consecrated by Jesus Christ Theodoret who was not always of St. Cyril's mind yet agrees with him fully in this matter Dialog 2. What do you call the Oblation which is offered before the Invocation of the Priest A Food made of such Seeds And what do you call it after Consecration The body of Jesus Christ St. Prosper or some body else in his name in his Treatise of Promises and Predictions Part. 2. c. 2. He affirms at his Table that the Bread is his sacred Body A fragment of a Liturgy attributed unto Proclus Bishop of Constantinople speaking of the Apostles and their Successors praying over the Bread and Wine By these Prayers saith he they looked for the coming of the Holy Ghost to make and consecrate by his Divine presence the bread offered and the Wine mingled with Water into the Body it self or to be the Body of Jesus Christ our Saviour Victor of Antioch in his Commentary upon St. Mark according to the Greek In cap. 14. It was necessary that those which presented the Bread should believe that after Consecration and Prayers it was his Body The supposed Eusebius of Emessa or rather Caesarius Bishop of Aâ—â—â—s or some other for
't is very uncertain whose the Sermon is the words whereof we intend to cite They are consecrated by the invocation of Almighty God De Pasch Hom. 5. Lib. 9. p. 405. and in the same Sermon he attributes it unto sanctification The Sanctification saith he being pronounced he saith Take and drink Facundus of Hermiane The Lord called his Body and Blood the Bread which he had blessed and the Cup which he gave unto his Disciples Gregory the first Bishop of Rome Epist l. 7. What we say of the Lords Prayer presently after invocation it is because the Apostles were wont to consecrate the host of the Oblation Epist 63. by that Prayer only Which some have observed after him that have written of Ecclesiastical Offices as Amalarius Lib. 4. Cap. 26. Walafridus Strabo cap. 20 and Berno cap. 1. Isidore of Sevill De Eccles offic l. 1. c. 15. St. Peter first of all instituted the order of Prayers by the which are consecrated the Sacrifices offered unto God And elsewhere it is called a Sacrifice as a holy action because it is consecrated by mystical Prayer in remembrance of the passion which our Lord suffered for us The Books of Charlemain touching Images The Sacrament of the Body and blood of our Lord c. is consecrated by the Priest by the invocation of the name of God De Instit Cler. l. 1. c. 32. Rabanus Maurus The Lord first of all consecrated by Prayers and Thanksgiving the Sacraments of his Body and Blood and gave them unto his Disciples which his Apostles imitating practised afterwards and taught their Successors to do so likewise which the whole Church doth now practise all the World over Ibid. c. 33. And again As the Body of Jesus Christ was embalmed with sweet Spices was duely put into a new Sepulchre so in like manner in his Church his mystical Body being prepared with the perfumes of Holy Prayer it is administred in sacred Vessels by the Ministry of Priests Serm. 11 t. 4. Bibl. Patr. part 2. to the end Believers might receive it Egberâ— against the Cathari in the XII Century seems also to refer the Consecration unto the Benediction although his Doctrine is quite different from that of Rabanus Had we no other testimonies but these above-mentioned and which are frequently alledged they were doubtless sufficient to prove that in the Primitive Church the Consecration of the Symbols of the Eucharist was performed by Prayers and giving of Thanks but because the thing is of great importance the Reader will not be displeased if I joyn the following testimonies unto the former To begin with St. Fulgentius who in the Fragments of his Books against Fabian saith Ex libro 8. p. 202. You have imagined touching the Prayer by the which at the time of Sacrifice the Descent of the Holy Ghost is implored that it would seem to imply that he is locally present and a little after The Holy Spirit doth sanctifie the Sacrifice and Baptism by his Divine Vertue Macarius Bishop of Antioch in the eighth Act of the VI. general Council We saith he Tom. 5. Concil p. 99. E. draw near unto the mystical Blessings and are sanctified being made partakers of the holy Body and of the precious blood of Jesus Christ the Saviour of all The XVI Council of Toledo assembled Anno. 693. saith Can. 6. t. 5. Concil p. 430. C. That the Apostle taught us to take a whole loaf and to put it upon the Table or Altar to be blessed And again Our assembly hath appointed by a general consent that there should be presented at the Lords Table an intire and good loaf to be consecrated by the Ministerial benediction A Council of Constantinople composed of 338. Bishops assembled Anno. 754. said That the Lord would that the Bread of the Eucharist Act 6. Concil 2. Niceni t. 5. Concil p. 756. as a true figure or image of his natural Body being sanctified by the coming of the Holy Ghost did become his Divine Body and would you know how The Priest which makes the Oblation say the Fathers interposing to make it Holy whereas it was common to wit by his Prayers whereby he begs of God the presence of the Holy Ghost George Pachimer In Epist 9. t. 1. p. 290. Paraphraser of the pretended Denys the Areopagite declares That the mysteries are consecrated upon the Holy Table by Blessing the Bread and the Holy Cup. In the antient Formularies of an uncertain Author published by the late Monsieur Bignon C. 8. p. 121. ult edit the Author whereof lived in the days of Louis the Debonnair we find that this Prince to honour the Church ordered that all those should be set free and at liberty that were admitted into holy Orders and saith he who consecrate by the intervention of their Prayers De ordine baptism tit 18. the Body and Blood of our Lord. Theodulph Bishop of Orleans by the invisible Consecration of the Holy Ghost Pope Nicolas the first writing unto the Emperor of Constantinople Tom. 6. Concil p. 489. attributes the Consecration unto the benediction and Sanctification of the Holy Ghost Which words are found cited in the IV. Act of the Council assembled against Photius Ibid. p 738. which the Latins call the VIII Oecumenical Council The Council of Cressy assembled Anno. 858. saith Tom. 3. Conc. Gall. p. 129. That Consecratton is made by Prayer and by the sign of the Cross Charles the Bald King of France and Emperour of the West writing unto Pope Adrian the second complaining of some sharp and bitter words which this Pope used against him writes unto him amongst other things We cannot think that such words can proceed out of your mouth Supplem Conc. Gal. p. 265. as make the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ by devout and holy Prayer Hugh Maynard a Benedictine Frier alledges in his notes upon the Books of the Sacraments of Gregory the first two Manuscripts of the Library of Corby viz an old explication of the Canon of the Mass and an ancient Treatise of the Mass in both which the Consecration is attributed unto Prayers In the former of these Manuscripts are found these words by Maynard's relation The Sacrifices are those which are consecrated with Prayers P. 12. P. 13. and in the other Sacrifices that is things made holy because they are consecrated by mistical Prayer Which words as is observed by this learned Frier were upon a matter taken out of S. Isidore lib. 6. Orig. c. 19. Ratherius Bishop of Verona in Italy in the tenth Century in his Treatise of the contempt of Canons Tom. 2. Spicil p. 183. first Part. The Oblation saith he which is to be presented and distributed unto the People is consecrated chiefly by the Prayer wherein we say unto God Our Father which art in Heaven Which in all likelihood he borrowed from Gregory the first In fine the whole Greek Church
which is of a vast extent hath constantly unto this day observed and retained this practice James Goar of the Order of Preaching Friers who hath left us the Euchology or Ritual of the Greeks with Notes of a very sound judgment takes much pains in explaining the manner of Consecration practised by the Greek Church endeavouring to give it a sense which may not be contrary to the Latin Church he cites these words of the Liturgy which goes under St. Chrysostom's name 〈◊〉 p â—7 We also offer unto thee this reasonable and unbloody Sacrifice and we beseech thee that thou wouldest send thy holy Spirit upon us and upon the Gifts offered make this Bread the precious Body of thy Christ Upon these words and particularly upon the last Goar makes a very long observation Not. in Euchol p. 140 141. num 138 139. in the first place he observes upon these words send thy holy Spirit That there is a very great difference betwixt the new Editions of this Liturgy of St. Chrysostom's and the antient Manuscripts That some of the late Greeks have from hence drawn some kind of shew of support for their ill opinion touching Consecration Secondly upon these words make this Bread the precious Body of thy Christ That Chrysostom who is the Author of the Liturgy could not believe that Consecration was made by Prayers as some Greeks have vainly supposed seeing saith he he attributes elsewhere unto the words of Christ the vertue of changing the Elements that is the Bread and Wine into his Body and Blood That nevertheless these Prayers used by the Greeks were a Stone of stumbling and 't was by these Prayers not rightly understood that Cabasilas Simeon of Thessalonica Mark of Ephesus Gabriel of Philadelphia and some others have been deceived and have cast the ignorant into Error and 't is not to be denied but the most part of the Greeks have written darkly and dubiously and that gave way unto Error in minds that were unstedfast And in fine hath commended Arcudius and Bessarion both Greeks Latinized the latter of which was present at the Council of Florence under Eugenius the Fourth and was gained by the Latins and the other wrote a great while afterwards of the agreement betwixt the Latins and the Greeks touching the matter of the Sacraments Goar then having praised them as two persons who by their skill and pains removed all the difficulties which were found about the words and form of Consecration adds That to the end we should not labour in doing what was already done what remains is that if any farther light can be given unto other mens labours we should endeavour to do it by new inventions But that it self shews plainly that the Greeks did consecrate otherwise than the Latins Besides the Reader may easily perceive both by what we have said and by the proceeding of Bessarion Arcudius and Goar what is the manner of the Consecration of the Symboles amongst the Greeks it is true that Arcudius used all his endeavours to conform the opinion of the Greeks unto that of the Latins giving for this purpose unto the Liturgies which go in the name of St. Mark St. Clement St. James St. Basil and St. Chrysostom L. 3. de concord cap. 25. ad 33. the most favourable construction he could contrive because they attribute all the Consecration unto Prayers and doth blame Cabasilas Mark of Ephesus Simeon of Thessalonica Gabriel of Philadelphia Samonas Jeremy Patriarch of Constantinople because they taught that the Consecration of Symboles was made by Prayers But this proceeding sufficiently doth shew that the Greek Church never owned any other form of Consecration But to return unto James Goar In Euchol p. 140 141. he saith one thing which ought not to be past over in silence which is That the Greeks which assisted at the Council of Florence agreed that it was unto the words of Jesus Christ that the force and vertue of Consecration ought to be attributed and to confirm what he saith he alledges the Answer they made unto Pope Eugenius which stuck in suspense because they added unto the words of Jesus Christ certain Prayers to demand the Consecration as if it had not been otherwise compleat the Answer I say which was made him in the behalf of the whole Nation by the Bishops of Russia of Nice of Trebizond and of Mitylene as we read in the eighth Tome and 25th Session of the Council of Florence in which Answer Goar still finds some difficulty But if the learned Goar had seen before publishing his Euchology the true History of the Council of Florence by Sylvester Sguropulus great Ecclesiastick of the Church of Constantinople and one of the five Counsellors of the Patriarch and by consequence of the chiefest of the Assembly of the Greeks he would not have said that the four Bishops above-mentioned had answered Pope Eugenius in behalf of the whole Nation Hist Conc. Florent sect 10. c. 1. p. 278. for the truth is the Greek Emperor having at last agreed with the Latins upon four Articles without the knowledge and consent of those of his Nation except it were some few that had been gained by the Court of Rome the Latins demanded of the Greeks they should expunge out of their Rituals and Books of Divine Service this third Benediction in celebrating of the unbloody Sacrifice or in the invocating of the Holy Ghost which the Priest is wont to pronounce saying That these words Take eat this is my Body and drink you all did consecrate the Bread and the Cup and that the Greeks erred very much in using of Prayers and invoking the Holy Ghost after pronouncing the words of our Lord. Whereupon there were several contests between the Emperor of Constantinople and the Latins Ibid. p. 278 279. who said unto them If you would believe as the great St. Basil and the great St. Chrysostom taught thus to consecrate and sanctifie the Divine Oblations you would find in all the Eastern Churches above two thousand Liturgies which thus decide the matter After which the Historian observes That soon after by order of the Pope and the Emperor all the Greeks met at the Popes Palace excepting Mark of Ephesus the most zealous of the whole Nation and that the Question being again re-assum'd there were several debates upon it the Latins using all their endeavours to make the Greeks embrace their Opinions and that the Bishops of Russia and of Nice in behalf of the latter proposed a middle opinion which pleased neither Party which obliged the Emperor to command Mark of Ephesus to set down something in writing touching this Question which he did and he therein shewed that the Holy Fathers taught to consecrate the Divine Oblations Ibid. as saith he all our Priests do consecrate In the Eighth Chapter of the same Section the same Historian who was always present writes That after the signing of the Decree of the union the Emperor sent several
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
he by the Churches the which as the more sacred are said to be inhabited by the presence of some Divinity having received into the Temples at their first Dedication or Consecration such Devils by curious invocations and Witchcrafts Arnobius brings in the Pagan answering the Christian after this manner You err and are deceived L. 6. advers Gent. for we do not believe that the Brass nor the Mass of Gold or Silver nor the other matter whereof Images are made are of themselves Gods and religious Deities but we serve and worship these Gods in them which holy Consecration doth introduce De vanitat Idolor and which it makes to inhabit in the Images which we caused to be made And did not St. Cyprian say in his time That these sorts of Spirits do lie hid under the Statues and consecrated Images In fine Lactantius speaking of this kind of Gods of the Gentiles Instit l. 2. c. 4. saith That when they were made they felt it not nor when they are worshiped they know it not for they became not sensible by Consecration But as for the Sanctification and Consecration of Christians it consisted only in retrieving things from a profane and common use and by applying them unto a holy use by desiring of God by their Prayers That he would sanctifie their use and Employment for his Glory and the Salvation of those who used them lawfully so that there being any Question for instance of the Water of Baptism or of the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament their Consecration tended only to give them a quality which they had not before to employ them unto a Divine and Religious use and by praying God to make them Sacraments of his Religion and that he would render them efficacious by his holy Spirit in the lawful using of them out of which use they were no more but common Bread Wine and Water as they were before all the virtue they have in quality of Signs and Sacraments either to sanctifie our Souls or to nourish them depending upon the Holy and Religious use unto which they are apply'd and on the efficacy of the Spirit acting at the same time to the end that they should not only signifie but also that they should seal in our Souls and that they should exhibit and communicate when they are administred the things which they signifie and represent Now let us see if this were the belief of the Holy Fathers of the Church In Levit. Hom. 11. p. 100. Origen upon Levitiecus There is born in my house saith he the Firstling of a Cow I am not permitted to put it unto any common use for it is holy unto the Lord and therefore it is called Holy We know then by this dumb Beast Ibid. how the Law appoints that what it will have to be Holy must be set apart for God only And in the same place to sanctifie any thing is to devote it unto God The great St. Regul brevior q 53. p. 642. D. t. 2. Basil Sanctification consists in adhering locally and inseparably unto God at all times in studying and following what is well pleasing in his fight for also in the things offered and consecrated unto God deficient things are not accepted and without impiety and sin what hath been once consecrated unto God cannot be converted unto common and human use St. Austin in his questions upon Leviticus testifies that he was of the same Opinion when he saith thus When he saith the things which the Children of Israel sanctified L. 3. q. 85. t. 4. p. 98. it must be understood in offering them unto the Priests and by them unto the Lord and this kind of sanctification must be observed which is made by vow and by the Devotion of him who offers S. Cyrill of Alexandria in his Commentaries upon Esay L. 1. Orat. 6. p. 178. What is said to be sanctified shall not always partake of sanctification but rather it signifies to be consecrated unto the glory of God as what he saith unto Moses Sanctifie unto me all the first-born which open the Matrix all the Males unto the Lord L. 7. 8. in c. 10.34 Dial. 6. t. 5. part 1. p. 595. and in those places sanctifie imports to consecrate And upon St. John What is consecrated unto God is said to be sanctified And in his Dialogues of the Trinity What then Friend will not reason constrain us to confess that what is said to be sanctified was not before Holy for I judge that is called unto sanctification which is alter'd from what it was not Hom. 14. t. 5. part 2. p. 187. In Levit. l. 7. c. 27. when it is sanctified And in his Paschal Homilies To sanctifie is to consecrate and offer some excellent Oblation unto the God of the whole Vniverse Hesychius of Jerusalem That which is sanctified and offered begins to be sanctified even by being offered it was not then Holy before The Frier Jovius in the Library of the Patriarch Photius Codic 222. ex lib. 24 25. We say that the place or the Bread or the Wine are sanctified when they are set apart for God and that they are not imploy'd about any common use Even Thomas Aquinas himself who although he lived in an Age wherein the Doctrine of the Eucharist received an alteration and change yet acknowledged this kind of Consecration who nevertheless happily would not have that of the Eucharist to depend on it T. 2. q. 81. art 8. num 70. Not only Men but also the Churches Vessels and all other things of this kind are said to be sanctified from the very time that they be applyed unto the service of God I should here end the examination of the question of Consecration were I not obliged to say something of the manner of pronouncing the words of Consecration It cannot be doubted but Jesus Christ pronounced with an audible voice the words whereby the Latins pretend that he did consecrate seeing the Evangelists nor S. Paul do neither of them remark that there was any difference betwixt the pronouncing of these words This is my Body This is my Blood and that of all the rest The Amen which the People answered in the following Ages after the Consecration was made as it appears by Justin Martyr by Denys of Alexandria in Eusebius by Tentullian by St. Ambrose by St. Leo and by others This Amen I say doth clearly shew that they consecrated with a loud voice this also is justified by most of the Liturgies which remain unto us where it is expresly observed that the pronouncing of these words was done with a loud voice as in those attributed unto St. Peter St. Mark De Observ can t. 10. Bibl. Patr. Not. in Gregor Sar. page 389. Not. 131. in Miss Chrysost Euchol St. Basil and St. Chrysostom Raoul de Tongres writes that it was so practised even in the Church of Millan conformable unto the Liturgy of St. Ambrose
which this Church retained very punctually almost unto these last times Hugh Maynard and James Goar do make almost the same observation by reason of a passage of the Book of them which are initiated which is in S. Ambrose We have upon this Subject a constitution of the Emperour Justinian who reigned in the V. Century viz. the 123 wherein he ordains to make the Divine Oblation that is to say as Photius explains it in his Nomocanon Tit. 3. Can. 1. The Prayers of the holy Communion not with a low voice but after such a manner that the faithful People might understand what is said a custom which was still observed in the Latin Church in the IX Century for Paschas Radbert in his Letter unto Frudegard and Ratran in his Treatise of the Body and blood of Christ do observe that the People answered Amen unto the Prayers of the Canon Moreover those which in that Age wrote of Divine and Ecclesiastical offices as Amalarius Rabanus Walafridus have very exactly observed all that was practised in their times in the Celebration of the Eucharist But they say not a word of the manner of pronouncing the Sacramental words which the Latins follow at this time an evident proof that it was not then received Miss Rom. tit Rit Celeb. Miss c. 8. §. 5. as it hath been some Ages past For the Missal commands to pronounce the consecrating words with a low voice that is to say in such a manner that no body may hear them The original of so considerable a change had not as many conceive a sufficient foundation for the Author of Divine Offices who cloakt himself under the name of Alcuin who was dead about two hundred years before this Treatise was composed Alcuin de Div. off tlt de Celebr Miss t. 10. Bibl. patr seeing the learned do not judge it was written before the XI Century or at least until the end of the X. Century this Author I say writes that this custom of pronouncing with a low voice the words of Consecration proceeded from a report That God had punished with sudden death certain Shepherds that sang them in the fields those that have spoke since followed the same steps as Hugh of St. Victor a writer of the XII Age John Belet who lived as 't is said in the same time Innocent the third Honorius of Autun and Durandus de Mende who wrote in the XII and XIII and Gabriel Biel who composed the Lessons in the XV. with this difference that some amongst them have added that the Bread upon which the Shepherds pronounced the Sacramental words was converted into flesh and as for them they were destroyed by fire from Heaven Nevertheless they own as well as Cassander in his Treatise of Liturgies that before that time these words were pronounced with a loud voice Now let the Reader judge if the Latins had reason for a motive of this Nature to abolish the antient custome contrary to what is even unto this day practised amongst the Greeks the Syrians the Ethiopians the Armenians the Muscovites or Russians which do all consecrate with a loud voice I know there have been some Doctors of the Latin Church who to render more antient the custom of consecrating with a low voice have had recourse unto the spiritual Meadow of John Moschus who lived in the VII Century It s true he relates two different Histories at least if they may be called Histories which being joyned together contain some circumstances which have a resemblance with what the forged Alcuin hath written and after him several others But in the main there is such notable differences betwixt what the pretended Alcuin has written and what Moschus doth relate that it is easiy to perceive that the Latins have grounded their Decree upon the relation of the former rather than upon that of the latter although neither the one nor the other appears unto judicious persons to be worthy of much credit CHAP. VIII Of the Oblation or of the manner of the Sacrifice IF Christians had done no more in the Celebration of their Sacrament than Jesus Christ had done in his the Consecration of Symbols had immediately been followed with the breaking of Bread and so we should have been obliged to have treated of the breaking of Bread after having examined the form of Consecration but because betwixt the Consecration and the breaking Bread which immediately followed they have in process of time brought in the Oblation and Elevation before we treat of the Fraction we must consider these two other things the former in this Chapter and the other in that which next follows As our Saviour after Prayer and giving Thanks whereby he consecrated the Sacrament proceeded unto the breaking of Bread and distribution there appearing nothing in the History of the Institution of any Oblation or Elevation betwixt the Consecration and the breaking of the Bread so the Apostles who exactly followed his Example and Precepts certainly failed not to do what he had done I mean to proceed unto the breaking the Bread and the distribution of it immediately after having blessed and sanctified it which simplicity was very pleasing unto those who lived in the following Age. For Justin Martyr doth testifie that the Consecration of the Symbols was followed by the Communion of Believers which necessarily presupposed the breaking the Bread therefore he forbore expressing it at large But their Successors thinking they ought to raise and advance the dignity of this Mystery and to elevate the simplicity of it with divers Ceremonies to render it the more pleasing unto the Jews and Pagans which they earnestly desired to draw unto the Communion of the Gospel and of the knowledge of Jesus Christ joyned unto the Consecration of Symbols the Oblation which they made unto God after they had been blessed and sanctified Oblation which was a kind of Sacrifice taking the word in a large sense and by consequence an improper sense they judged of very great importance to work upon the Jews and Gentiles because both the one and the other being accustomed unto outward Sacrifices were exceedingly scandalized that the Christians made use of none in their Religion This appears by the calumnies which they cast upon those who first undertook to defend the innocency of Christianity against their reproaches But the better to understand the nature of this Oblation it is to be observed there are three several sorts to be seen in the Liturgies of Christians the first the most antient and that which was only in use in Justin Martyr's time and afterwards is the Oblation of Bread and Wine which the faithful made in the Celebration of the Eucharist and which the Minister offered unto God by Prayers as may be seen in all the Liturgies That attributed unto St. James shall serve at this time because the same in substance is to be found in all the rest there the Pastor makes this Prayer unto God Liturg. S. Jacob. Cast thine Eyes
unto Abraham Bread and Wine And therefore it is that the Author of the imperfect work upon S. Matthew Hom. 19. amongst his works defines the Christian man by him which offers the Sacrifice of Bread and Wine Hieron Ep. 126. S. Jerome in one of his Letters touching Melchisedeck follows the Opinion of several ancient Doctors who preceded him and who had said That Melchisedeck did not offer Sacrifices of flesh and blood but that he consecrated the Sacrament of Jesus Christ with Bread and Wine Id. advers Jovin l. 2. which is a pure and spotless Sacrifice And elsewhere he saith That our Saviour offered in type of his Blood not Water but Wine S. Austin was of no other mind when he taught in divers parts of his Writings August Ep. 95. Id. l. de 83. q. q. 61. t. 4. Id de Civit. Dei l. 16. c 22. for example when he said That Melchisedeck foreshewed the Sacrament of our Lord to represent his eternal Priesthood that we now see offered throughout the whole World in the Church of Jesus Christ that which Mechisedeck offered unto God That when Abraham was blessed by Melchisedeck the Sacrifice now offered unto God by Christians throughout the whole World was first of all shewn that to eat Bread in the New Testament is the Sacrifice of Christians and that in all places is offered the Priesthood of Jesus Christ which Melchisedeck brought when he blessed Abraham let those who read Ib. l. 17 c. 5. Ib. c. 17. Id contr advers leg l. 1. c. 20. Isid Pelus l. 1. Ep. 431. Arnob. in Psal 109. know what Melchisedeck brought when he blessed Abraham and that if they be already partakers of it they may see that such a Sacrifice is now offered unto God throughout the World It is in substance what is said by S. Isidore of Damietta That Melchisedeck executing the Priesthood with Bread and Wine by them signified the type of Divine Mysteries And Arnobius the younger That our Saviour by the Mystery of Bread and Wine was made a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedeck who alone amongst the Priests offered Bread and Wine Hesyc in Levit l. 6. c. 23. Cassiod in Psal 109. And Hesychius Priest of Jerusalem That the oblation of the Mystical Melchisedeck is accomplished in Bread and Wine And Cassiodorus That the Institution of Melchisedeck who offered Bread and Wine is celebrated throughout the World in the distribution of the Sacraments And the supposed Eusebius of Emissa in one of his Easter Sermons That Melchisedeck did foreshew by the oblation of Bread and Wine the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ It is also the opinion of the Author of the Commentary of the Epistle to the Hebrews in the Works of S. Ambrose In cap. 5. ad Hebr. and which some have imagined to be of Remy of Auxerr but which indeed are of Anselm Archbishop of Canterbury who lived at the end of the Eleventh and beginning of the Twelfth Century of Theophylact in the Eleventh Century of Oecumenius about the same time both of them upon the fifth Chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews and in fine of Nicetas who said in the Twelfth Century in the Confession of Faith made for those which were converted from Mahometism unto the Religion of Jesus Christ T. 12. Bibl. Patr. p. 532. That it is Bread and Wine which is spiritually sacrified by Christians and which they do receive in the Divine Sacraments See then three several Oblations practised by several of the ancient Christians in the Celebration of their Sacrament and which have all three given unto this Sacrament the name of Sacrifice and which the Holy Fathers have called a Sacrifice of Bread and Wine considering particularly that Oblation which is made unto God of the Symbols after their Consecration and after the change which may thereunto happen after the sanctification and this Tradition hath been so constant so uniform and so universal that it may be said That it hath been believed by all at all times and in all places which be the three signs that Vincentius Lerinensis desired may be admitted in receiving all Catholick and Orthodox Doctrine But besides the reasons which moved the holy Fathers to call the Sacrament a Sacrifice there be several others which it is necessary to examine that it might evidently appear what was the nature and form of this Sacrifice amongst them And first I find that they considered the Eucharist as a memorial of the Sacrifice of the Cross and because for the most part memorials do take their name from the thing whereof they be memorials they have made no difficulty to call it a Sacrifice as indeed this name may very fitly be given unto it and not only the name of a Sacrifice but even of a true Propitiatory Sacrifice because it is the memorial of one that is truly such It is in this prospect they have called it the Passion Cyprian Ep. 63. the Sacrifice which we offer saith S. Cyprian is the passion of our Lord But this is to be observed that we make mention of the Passion of our Lord in all the Sacrifices Thereby in a manner confounding the death of our Lord with the commemoration which we make of it in the Sacrament by reason of the near relation which there is betwixt the Memorial and the thing whereof the remembrance is renewed Accordingly Eusebius said speaking of the Institution of the Sacrament Euseb l. 1. Dem. c. 10. That Jesus Christ commanded us to offer unto God instead of the Sacrifice the memorial of his Sacrifice And S. Chrysostome having said in speaking of the Oblation of the Sacrament Chrys Hom. 17. ad Heb. We alwayes make the same Sacrifice adds presently by way of correction But rather we make the commemoration of the Sacrifice August l. 83. quaest q. 61. which S. Austin saith is to celebrate the type of his Sacrifice in remembrance of his passion * Id. contr Faust l. 20. c. 21. To celebrate the Sacrifice of our Lord by a Sacrament of commemoration †L. 3. de Trin. c. 4. And to receive the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist in remembrance of the death which he suffered for us Therefore he observes elsewhere that although Jesus Christ was but once offered up yet nevertheless it may be said that he is every day offered when in the Sacrament there is made a commemoration of this Sacrifice Id. Ep. 23. Jesus Christ saith he was once offered in his body and yet he is offered unto the people in the Sacrament not only in the solemnities of Easter but also on other daies and he lied not who being asked answers that he is sacrificed Theodoret was of the same mind as the others Theodor. in Ep ad Heb. c. 8.4 for making himself this Objection Wherefore was it that the Priests of the New Testament make the Mystical Liturgy that is to say the Eucharist
unto the blessing communication 1 Peter 2. and praises of God St. Peter considers good works as spiritual sacrifices agreeable unto God through Jesus Christ Rom. 12. Rom. 15. Philip. 2. and St. Paul the sanctification of a faithful Christian as a sacrifice of his Body The preaching of the Doctrine of our Lord Jesus Christ as the sacrifice of the Gospel to offer the Gentiles And elsewhere he fears not to say that our Faith is a Sacrifice 2 Timoth. 4. And the blood which he was to shed for his blessed Master a sprinkling which was to be made upon this Sacrifice Therefore 't is that St. Peter and S. 1 Peter 2. Rev. 1. 5. John call all Believers in general Sacrificers according to what had been prophesied under the Old Testament The Holy Fathers being accustomed unto the stile of the Scriptures have also termed Sacrifices all the works of Piety Devotion Charity Alms-deeds Prayer giving Thanks and in a word all things which any way related unto the Worship and Service of Religion so far as St. Cyprian saith to sacrifice a Child Cypr. Ep. 59. in making it to communicate after Baptism And in another place He gives the name of Sacrifice unto a Present that was sent unto him in his banishment because it proceeded from a motive of Charity and that it was a kind of contributing towards his maintenance so Justin Martyr saith Just Mart. contr Tryph. p. 345. Strom. l. 7. p. 717. That Prayers and Thanksgivings are the only perfect and agreeable sacrifices well-pleasing unto God Clement of Alexandria speaketh of Prayer as of a very good and holy Sacrifice and saith That the Sacrifice of the Church is the words which proceed from devout Souls as by exaltation And Tertullian doth not he assure Ad Scap. c. 2. That the Christians sacrifice unto God for the safety of the Emperor by pure prayer only and that prayer-made by chast flesh of an innocent Soul and of a holy mind is the fattest and most excellent Sacrifice that God hath required Doth not he also explain the pure Oblation of Malachy Apol. c. 30. of Glorification of Benediction Praise Hymns Contr. Marc. l. 3. c. 22. 4. c. 1. De pat c. 13. de jejun c. 26. de usur c. 8. Minut. in Oct. and of Prayer proceeding from a pure heart and in fine doth he not reckon amongst the propitiatory Sacrifices and Oblations Mortifications Humiliations Contritions Fastings and strictness of life Minutius Felix makes the Sacrifices of the Christian Church to consist in good works and in the works of sanctification and holiness in an upright heart in a pure conscience and in faith unfeigned It is whereof Origen gives us several instances in one of his Homilies upon Levitious and I do not see what other interpretation can be given unto what is said by the Divine of the antient Church Greg. Naz. orat 20. I mean Gregory of Naziunzen when he saith That S. Basil is in Heaven offering Sacrifices and Praying explaining the Sacrifices to be Prayers which the Saints offer unto God in Heaven and that he saith of himself Id. orat 42. That he sacrificeth his discourse of Easter and that when he is in Heaven he will there sacrifice unto God upon his Altar Chrysost in Gen. hom 9. Sacrifices well pleasing in his sight It was also the Language of Chrysostom who looks upon Prayer as a very great Sacrifice and a perfect Oblation Id. in Mart. hom 16. And in one of his Homilies upon St. Matthew he saith that those who are not yet initiated do offer an Oblation and Sacrifice which is prayer and Alms-deeds And St. Ambrose Ambros de fug saec c. 8. t. 1. That wisdom is a very good Sacrifice and Faith and Vertue a good Oblation that Prayer it self is a Sacrifice Id. Ep. 59. Aurel. c. 29. c. 3. collect Mart. Bracar Conc. Carth. 3. c. 29. in cod 41. Aug. de civit l. 10. c. 4. Ep. 95. Id. Hom. 50. de poenit t. 10. Also we find in some Canons of Councils that the Prayers and Service of Morning and Evening are called Morning and Evening Sacrifices and that 't is commanded That if a dead Person is to be recommended in the afternoon it is to be by Prayers only if it be found that those who do it have dined According to which St. Austin speaks of Sacrificing unto God a Sacrifice of Praise and Humility and saith That we offer unto him Bloody Sacrifices when we suffer unto Blood for his Truth And in one of his Letters he opposeth the Sacrifice of Prayer offered by Christians unto the Sacrifices of the Law which were offered for the sins of Men. And elsewhere he requires That every one as he is able do not cease to offer for the Sins which he commits every day the Sacrifice of Alms-deeds Fasting Prayers and Supplications wherefore he gives us this definition of the true Sacrifice having regard not to its Essence but to its end and effect which is to direct us unto the enjoyment of Blessedness and Felicity The true Sacrifice saith he is every work which we do Id. de Civit. l. 10. c. 6. to be nearer united unto God by a holy Fellowship viz. by referring him unto the end of that good which may render us truly happy It cannot then be thought strange that the antient Doctors of the Church having given the name of Sacrifice unto all the Acts of Piety unto all the Works of Sanctification and unto all that we do for the Glory of God and for his Service should also qualifie the holy Eucharist with the same Title seeing that it makes one of the essential parts of the Worship of Christian Religion and that it even comprehends in substance the greatest part of the things relating thereunto and whereof it is composed as Prayers giving of Thanks the offering up of our Goods and our Persons Repentance Compunction Faith Hope and Charity and to speak in a word all the Holy and Divine Dispositions which we should bring unto the holy Table and without which one cannot worthily partake of this adorable Mystery of our Salvation But because these things which we have touched and which the Holy Fathers frequently call Sacrifices are not nevertheless Sacrifices properly so called to take Sacrifice in its proper and true signification I observe that these same Fathers in answering the Jews and Pagans who found fault that there were not in the Christian Religion any true external Sacrifices as there were in theirs agreed with them That in very truth they had none but that instead of those outward and external Sacrifices which were as it were the Soul and Essence of the Jews Religion and of all the Pagans they had a worship wholly spiritual a service Heavenly and wholly Divine without touching in this place the silence of all those who in the first Ages of Christianity undertook the defence of
said by Arnobius in the beginning of the Fourth Century this Christian Orator having related at the end of his Sixth Book that the Pagans were wont to make grievous reproaches against the Christians and to call them Atheists because they did not sacrifice He thus begins his Seventh Book What then will some say Arnob. contr gent. lib. 7. init think you that no Sacrifice at all ought to be made There ought indeed none to be made saith he to the end to give you the opinion of your Varro and not ours only Lactantius his Contemporary and of the same profession Lactant. instit l. 6. c. 25. having undertaken to treat of a Sacrifice therein considers two things The Gift and the Sacrifice it self And he saith That the one and the other ought to be incorporeal that is Spiritual to be offered unto God that the integrity of the soul is the Oblation that the Praise and Hymn is the Sacrifice That if God is invisible he must then be served with invisible things He approves the Maxime of Trismegistus That the Benediction only is the Sacrifice of the true God And thence he concludes That the highest manner of serving God is the praise offered unto him by the mouth of a just man And elsewhere he saith That he will shew what is the orue Sacrifice of God and the truest manner of serving him And see here how he doth it He saith first That God doth not require of us either Sacrifices or perfumes or other the like presents that for incorporeal that is Spiritual Natures there must be an incorporeal Sacrifice that is to say Spiritual And afterwards What is it then Id. Epitemâ— c. 2. saith he that God requires of man but the service of the understanding which is pure and holy for as for the things done with the Fingers or that are without the man they are not a true Sacrifice the true Sacrifice is what proceeds out of the heart and not what is taken out of the Coffer â— it is what 's offered not with the hand but with the heart it is the agreeable Sacrifice which the soul offers of it self In fine he concludes that righteousness is the only thing which God requires of us and that it is therein the service and Sacrifice consists which God desires Cyril Alex. l. 10. contr Julian t. 6 p. 343. It will not be unnecessary to join unto these Witnesses S. Cyril Bishop of Alexandria who refutes the Writing published against the Christians by Julian the Apostate about seventy years before in which Writing this foul Deserter of the Truth taxed them amongst other things that they approached not unto the Sacrifices and Oblations of the Altars and that they did not sacrifice yet this wicked wretch was not ignorant of what was practised in the Worship and Service of the Church and therefore this reproach must needs have some shew of truth otherwise he had exposed himself unto the scorn and contempt of all the World And S. Cyril answering in order unto all that this Apostate had spewed out against the Religion of Jesus Christ would not have failed to have cried O the Impostor if the Christians of his time that is of the Fifth Century had truly sacrificed and if they had amongst them real Sacrifices Let us then see and without prejudice exactly examine what S. Cyril replyed unto this Wretch's reproach Ibid. p. 344. B. He freely confesseth that Christians do not sacrifice any more Because the types and figures having given place unto the truth we are commanded to consecrate unto God Almighty a pure and spiritual service Ibid. p. 345. B. Vnto fire which formerly came down from Heaven upon the Sacrifices and which we have not now he opposeth the Holy Ghost Ibid. C. which proceeding from the Father by the Son comes and illuminates the Church Vnto Oxen Sheep Pidgeons Doves unto the Fruits Meal and Oyl of the Israelites be opposeth our spiritual and reasonable Oblations And explaining unto us wherein they consist and their nature and quality We offer unto God saith he an Odour of a sweet savour all manner of vertue or truth Faith Hope Charity Justice Temperance Obedience Humility a continual Praise and Thanksgiving of the Lord and his works and all the other vertues for this Sacrifice purely Spiritual agrees well with God whose Nature is purely simple and immaterial the life and actions of a truly good man are the perfumes of a reasonable service And having alledged some passages of the holy Scriptures to confirm this Doctrine He concludes as he began Ibid. p. 346. C. We sacrifice unto God saith he Spiritual things and instead of material fire we are filled with the Holy Ghost From this same Fountain proceeds another Doctrine of these first Conducters of the Christian Churches which consists in instructing Believers and teaching them what had succeeded unto the Sacrifices of the Law I do not find after an exact scrutiny that they alledge or insist upon the Sacrament but they are contented to oppose unto the Mosaical Sacrifices either the Spiritutal Sacrifices which we offer unto God under the Gospel or the truly propitiatory Sacrifice of the Cross or both of them together In regard of the former the Author of the Apostolical Constitutions Const Apost l. 2. c. 25. said That unto the Sacrifices of the Law succeeded prayers vows and giving of thanks and that the First fruits Tythes and portions and gifts of those times are now changed into the Oblations which the Bishops offer unto God through Jesus Christ who died for all He means the Oblations of Bread and Wine which Believers made and generally all things presented by them unto God in behalf of the Christian people Thence it is that he saith also elsewhere Id. l. 6. c. 23. That instead of Sacrifices which were made by shedding of blood Jesus Christ hath given to us a reasonable Sacrifice Mystical and unbloody which is celebrated in remembrance of his death by the Symbols of his Body and Blood In which words indeed he makes mention of the Eucharist but as of a Mystical and Spiritual Sacrifice and in the same sense which he said That our Sacrifices at present are prayers and giving of thanks Origen in all his Homilies upon Leviticus doth very exactly after his manner seek for all the mystical significations of the ancient Sacrifices but I do not find that he doth once speak of a propitiatory Sacrifice offered every day unto God by Christians Origen Hom. 2. in Levit. In the second Homily he mentions at large the means which we have under the Gospel besides that of holy Baptism to obtain the remission of our sins Ib. Hom. 5. but amongst all those means I do not find the Sacrifice of the Eucharist In the fifth he shews how the Ministers of the Gospel do make propitiation for the sins of the people but he only alledges for that the instructions and
is not needful to be done again any more In one of the Homilies of Easter which many attribute unto Caesarius Bishop of Arles the Authour be he who it will there maketh this reflection Caesar Hom. 5. de Pasch speaking of Jesus Christ Because he intended to remove from our sight the Body which he had taken and so place it in Heaven It was necessary that in that day he should consecrate for us the Sacrament of his Body and Blood to the end that we should honour by the type that which had been once offered for the price of our Salvation But S. Basil or at least the Author of the Commentaries upon Isaiah in his Works hath joined both these regards together in Interpreting these words of the first Chapter What have I to do with the multitude of your Sacrifices God saith he rejected the multitude of Sacrifices Basil in c. 1. Es and desires but one which is That every one should present himself to God a living Sacrifice which may be well pleasing unto him offering by a reasonable Sacrifice the Sacrifice of Praise for when the multitude of Legal Sacrifices were rejected as useless he accepted in the last times one only Sacrifice which was offered for the expiation of sin because the Lamb of God took away the sins of the World offering himself an Oblation and Sacrifice of a sweet savour And a little after Having declared that the Sacrifices of the Law are no longer in force Id. ibid. he adds There is one only Sacrifice which is Christ and the mortification of Saints for love of him one only sprinkling that is to say the washing of Regeneration one Expiation of sin to wit the Blood which was shed for the Redemption of the World It was also in the same sense that S. Austin expounding what is said in the Fiftieth Psalm and according to the Hebrews the Fifty first August in Ps 50. Hadst thou desired Sacrifices I would have given them said That David lived in the time when Sacrifices and Beasts and burnt Offerings were presented unto God and he beheld the times which were for to come Do not we behold our selves in those words those Sacrifices were Figures which foreshewed the only saving Sacrifice neither have we been left destitute of a Sacrifice which we may offer unto God which he expounds to be of praises and a contrite heart Now of this constant Doctrine of the Fathers proceeded certain uses which were Religiously observed in the ancient Church as to have but one Only Altar or Eucharistical Table in each Temple of celebrating the Sacrament but once a day unless extraordinary necessity required it as hath been shewed of obliging Believers to Communicate as often as the Sacrament was celebrated as shall be hereafter declared of never celebrating the Sacrament without Communicants as all Liturgies do testifie he that celebrates speaking almost ever in the Plural number And that Oblations were received only of those that were admitted unto the holy Sacrament so that the liberty of presenting his gift was alwaies followed by Communicating Concil Eliberit c. 28. Carthag 4. c. 93 94. Constit Apostol l. 4. c. 5. l. 3. c. 8. Epiphan in Panar extr Ambros Ep. 59 alibi as appears by a great many Canons which are not necessary to be alledged upon a matter which is not contested and which is known unto all that have any knowledge of Ecclesiastical Antiquity which proceeding makes me think those holy Doctors looked upon the Eucharist as a Sacrament of Communion only But 't is time to proceed to the Consideration and Examination of the other parts of the outward Celebration of the Sacrament CHAP. IX Of the Elevation and breaking the Bread WE have Observed in the beginning of the foregoing Chapter that although Jesus Christ had broke the Bread presently after having Blessed and Consecrated it without any other Ceremony intervening betwixt the Consecration and Fraction nevertheless the ancient Christians in process of time introduced some other Ceremonies betwixt these two actions which were not used at the beginning I mean the Oblation of the Symbols and the Elevation Having then treated of the former which is of the Oblation and discovered by that means all the Motives and Reasons which obliged the holy Fathers to give unto the Eucharist the name of Sacrifice and how they explained themselves upon the quality and nature of this Sacrifice Now we must consider the Elevation which followed the Oblation but not very suddainly It is most certain that our Saviour made no Elevation when he Instituted and Celebrated his first Sacrament for none of the Evangelists have made any mention of it the Christians which followed in the next immediate Age practised no such thing as appears by the relation made unto us by S. Justin Martyr of all that was practised in that time in celebrating this August Sacrament the Liturgies of this Divine Mystery which may be seen in the Constitutions which pass in the Apostles name in the Writings of the pretended Denys the Areopagite and in S. Cyril of Jerusalem's Mystagogicks do make no mention of this Elevation So that for four or five Ages of Christianity we do not find that this Ceremony was practised But if we do not find the Elevation of the Eucharist mentioned in the Liturgies of the four or five first Ages of the Church we do therein find another practice very conformable unto the state of the Gospel and unto the nature of the Sacrament I mean the lifting up the mind and heart as S. Cyprian doth expresly teach us The Priest saith he before reciting the Lords Prayer by a Preface doth prepare the Spirits of the Faithful saying Lift up your hearts Cyprian de Orat Dom. that the people being warned in answering Vnto thee O Lord should think only of Jesus Christ An Advertisement found in all the Liturgies which have been since made and also even in that of the Latin Church As for the Elevation of the Sacrament there is some mention made of it in the Liturgy which goes in the name of S. Chrysostome Tab. Chronolog p. 536 537. but cannot be his as the Learned of both Communions acknowledge Therefore those who composed the Office of the holy Sacrament attribute it unto John the Second who was also Bishop of Constantinople but near 200. years after Saint Chrysostome that is towards the end of the VI. Century And I do not conceive that this Elevation appeared before that time so that if it be to be found in any Liturgy which bears the name of any ancienter Authour for instance in that attributed unto S. James I scarce make any doubt but it was forged or at least altered or corrupted But it is nothing to know that after the four or five first Ages of Christianity they begun in some Churches to use the Elevation of the Sacrament if we do not also consider for what end they did elevate
it that is either to oblige the people to adore it or for some other reason The first that I can find who explained the cause and reason of this Elevation was German Patriarch of Constantinople in his Theory of Ecclesiastical things where he very curiously inquires the mystical reasons of what was practised in the Church and particularly in the celebration of Divine Mysteries a Treatise which most Authors attribute unto German who lived in the VIII Century and some unto another of the same name who was Patriarch in the XII After all the Author of this Theory being come unto the Inquiry of this Elevation crept into the Church about the VI. Century doth sufficiently give to understand that it intended not the adoration of the Sacrament but only to represent the Elevation of our Saviour upon the Cross Germ. Constantinop in Theor. t. 12. Bibl. Patr. p. 407. and that was its lawful and genuine use and end The Elevation of the pretious body saith he represents unto us the Elevation on the Cross the Death of our Lord upon the Cross and his Resurrection also As for the Latins the first that I remember who bethought himself of finding out a Mystery in the same Elevation was Ives of Chartres at the end of the XI Century but all the Mystery that he therein found was no more than had been found by this Patriarch of Constantinople near 300. years before him When the Bread and the Cup saith he are lifted up by the Ministry of the Deacon Ivo Carnens Ep. de Sacrif Miss t. 2. Bibl. Patr. p. 602. there is Commemoration made of the lifting up of the Body of Christ upon the Cross And as this is the first among the Latins who in the Elevation of the Sacrament hath discovered the Mystery of the Elevation of our Lord upon the Cross so also is he the first of the Latin Church if I mistake not who hath writ of this Elevation for there is no mention of it neither in S. Gregory nor in S. Isidore of Sevil who both flourished in the beginning of the VII Century nor in Amalarius Fortunatus nor in Rabunus Archbishop of Mayence nor in Walafridus Strabo nor in the pretended Alcuin Authors partly of the IX and partly of the X. Century although they all of them wrote of Divine Offices and indeavoured to discover the Mystical significations of all things practised in Religion in their times and especially in the Sacrament unless it were Gregrory the first who only left a Liturgy for the Celebration of the Sacrament It s true that at the end of Rabanus his first Book of the Institution of Clerks there is seen a Fragment by way of supplement wherein mention is made of the Elevation whereof we treat but against the truth of the Manuscripts wherein this Fragment is not to be found besides what the thing it self evidently declares that this Famous Prelate was not the Author of it Moreover the Author whosoever he was with German and Ives of Chartres refers the Elevation he mentions unto the Elevation of the Body of Jesus Christ upon the Cross The Elevation of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ by the Priest Adject ad Raban l. 1. de offic Bibl. patr t. 10. p. 586. Hug. de St. Victor l. 2. c. 28. de Miss observat Bibl. Patr. t. 10. p. 1408. and by the Deacon imports saith he his Elevation on the Cross for the salvation of the World Hugh of St. Victor an Author of the XII Century discourseth no other wise of this Mystery The Priest saith he after the sign of the Cross lifts with both hands the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and a little after lays it down which signifies the Elevation of Jesus Christ on the Cross and his laying down into the Grave The Learned of the Communion of Rome agree in all this with the Protestants and James Goar of the Order of preaching Fryers in his Notes upon the Ritual of the Greek Church observes Goar in Eucholog p. 146. n. 158. That it is not certainly known when the lifting up the Host was joyned unto the Consecration in the Latin Church and rejects the Opinion of Durandus who maintained it had never been separated from it and he proves his by the silence of the Writers above mentioned unto whom he joyns the Author of the Micrologue who lived by every bodies confession in the XI Century and the Roman Order which some suppose was writ at the same time And he saith that both these speak of the Elevation of the Oblation Ord. Rom. t. 10. Bibl. patr p. 15. which is true as to the Micrologue but as for the Roman Order it indeed makes mention of the Elevation of the Cup by the Deacon for as for the Elevation of the Host that is to say the consecrated Bread by the Bishop Goar ubi supra I find no mention thereof in the whole Book howsoever Goar gives to be understood that the Elevation spoken of by these two Authors tended not unto Adoration when he observes that it was not joyned unto Consecration but that it was made at the end of the Canon very near the Lords Prayer Hugh Maynard Hug. Menard in Sacram. Greg. p. 373 374 375. a Benedictine Fryer explains himself so fully in his Notes upon Gregory the first in his Book of Sacraments that nothing more can be said than what he hath written Now saith he in the Latin Church as soon as the Bread and Wine is consecrated they are lifted up that the people there present might adore them which practice I do not judge to be antient seeing there is no mention thereof to be found in our Books of the Sacraments Printed nor Written nor in Pamelius nor in the Roman Order nor in Alcuin Amalarius Walafridus Rabanus who have fully explained the Order of the Mass nor in the Micrologue who hath also very exactly laboured in the same Subject Afterwards this learned Fryer observes that it is clearer than the Sun at Noon day if the XV. Chapter of the Author of the Micrologue be considered who would not have failed to have writ of this Ceremony had it been used in his time that is in the XI Century because he makes mention of lifting up the Bread and the Cup together before the Lords Prayer which also appears more at large in the twenty third Chapter of the same Treatise Nevertheless he excepts the Mozarabick Office wherein mention is made of two Elevations of the Host one of which is made presently after Consecration and the other after these words Let us declare with the Mouth what we believe with the Heart but at the same time he saith by Parenthesis if nothing hath been added and to say the truth there is great likelyhood that it is an addition made since the introducing into the Latin Church the custom of lifting up the Host immediately after Consecration that it might be
adored by the people seeing there is no mention of lifting up the Sacrament in the Western Church before the XI Century as for the Eastern Church he confesseth that they elevated the Sacrament but after the Lords Prayer and some other Prayers at the very instant of Communicating and he proves it by the Liturgies of St. James St. Chrysostom by Anastasius the Sinaite by George Codin and by the Author of the life of St. Basil attributed unto Amphilochius but which in all likelihood was not his and he observes that the Christians of Ethiopia practise the same Ceremony which is quite different from the Elevation of the Latin Church it being only done to call the People to the Communion in saying Holy things are for the Saints and not to have them adore the Eucharist as amongst the Latins Therefore it is that whereas the Elevation of the Latin Church is joyned immediately after Consecration which according to their belief changing the Bread and Wine into the substance of the Body and blood of Christ renders that which that he celebrates holds in his hands an Object of Sovereign Adoration whereunto those which be present are invited by the elevating the Host presently after it is consecrated That of the Greek Church was not done till a good while after Consecration and as they were ready to communicate so that the intent of it was only to call Believers to the participation of the Sacrament But Maynard rests not there he answers as Goar doth those which wrest some words of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy under the name of Denys the Areopagite to prove that in his time there was an Elevation of the Sacrament joined unto Consecration in the Greek Church and he very judiciously observes that this pretended Denys speaks only of a Ceremony observed amongst the Greeks which is that they kept the Divine Symboles hid and covered until the very instant of communicating and that then they were uncovered to be shewed to the people to have them come to the holy Table in shewing them and although the Author but now mentioned speaks of this action yet there is not to be found any Elevation of the Host presently after Consecration in any of the Greek Liturgies I will add unto all this one thing very considerable which is That it appears by the antient customs of the Monastery of Cluny written about the end of the eleventh Century That even to that time the Elevation was not practised in the extent of the Latin Church not so much as that at first mentioned by Ives of Chartres Antiq. consue Cluniac Monast t. 4. Spicil Dach l. 2. c. 30. which tended only to represent the Elevation of the Body of Jesus Christ upon the Cross For in the thirtieth Chapter of the second Book of these customs of the Congregation of Cluny is exactly not to say scrupulously shewn all that was then practised in this famous Monastery nevertheless there is not one word said of the Elevation of the Eucharist only that 't is observed in one place That when he that celebrates saith throughout all Ages Ibid. p. 143. c. the Deacon lifteth up the Cup alittle it may easily be seen this little raising the Cup is nothing like the Elevation which we examine and that it was a little Ceremony quite different from what is at present called Elevation But if any ask me at what time they began in the Latin Church to turn the Elevation made in several parts of the West to represent the Elevation of our Lord on the Cross unto the adoration of the Sacrament practised after the Eleventh Century I affirm That William Durand towards the end of the Thirteenth Century was the first as far as I can discover who referred Adoration to the Elevation of the Host in his Rational of Divine Offices for amongst several reasons of this Elevation he alledges this last Duran Rat. Divin Oâ—lic l. 4. de pâ—rt can fol. 169. n. 51. contrary to the constant Doctrine of antient Interpreters of the Liturgy we have spoken of In the fifth place saith he the Host is lifted up that the people might not anticipate the Consecration but knowing thereby it is made and that Christ is come on the Altar they should how down to the ground with reverence It was also in this Thirteenth Century that Honorius the Third and Gregory the Ninth made their Constitutions for adoring the Sacrament after Elevation as shall be shewn in the third part of this Treatise where we are to discourse of the Worship and by consequence examine the question of Adoration In the mean time it is not amiss to observe that before any Elevation of the Sacrament was practised in the West Berengarius was spoken of in the World and his followers were dispersed into all parts in great abundance and the Albigenses and Waldenses which soon followed him had separated themselves from the Communion of the Latin Church a great while before the Adoration of the Host and the Elevation therewith enjoyned and by consequence there have always been Christians in the West who never practised Elevation nor Adoration in their Eucharist not to instance Christian Communions in the East and elsewhere which likewise never practised it After Elevation comes the fraction which in the Sacrament of Jesus Christ and in that of the primitive Christians immediately followed For the holy Writers testifie That the Lord had no sooner blessed the Bread but he brake it to distribute it and because the Hebrews Loaves were flat and spread round and something long like our Cakes and Biskets and for that reason were easily broken without any need of a Knife to cut them therefore the holy Scripture still mentions the breaking of Bread and not cutting Bread it is therefore not to be questioned but the Lord in celebrating his Supper made use of that sort of Bread and broke it after the manner of the Jews to distribute it to his Disciples Nevertheless seeing the Apostle St. Paul expresly observes of the Bread of the Eucharist that we break it The Bread which we break and that the Lord explaining this Mystery saith positively of the Bread That it is his Body broken for us he would teach us that this fraction of Bread is neither superfluous nor useless but that it makes part of the Sacrament and that it therein represents unto us the sufferings of Jesus Christ particularly those of his Cross it was the signification which Theodoret searched therein in his Dialogues Theod. Dial. 3. p. 147. when he saith O. Remember what the Lord took and broke and by what name he called that which he had taken E. I will speak mystically by reason of those which are not initiated he means that he will not name the Bread After that he had taken and broke it and distributed it to his Disciples he said This is my Body which is given for you or which is broken according to the Apostle and again
This is my Blood of the New Testament which is shed for many O. He makes no mention then of the Divinity in shewing the Type of that Passion E. Not any O. But of the Body and Blood E. It is true O The body then was Crucified And venerable Bede Bede in Marc. c. 14. He himself broke the Bread which he presented unto his Disciples that he might shew the fraction of his Body Also it is without all doubt that Christians carefully observed this Ceremony for they consecrated a Loaf greater or less according to the number of Communicants which was divided into several Morsels to be distributed unto each Communicant all the Liturgies that are extant true or false testifie this fraction and all the holy Fathers confirm it Accordingly we read in the life of Pope Sergius who held the Chair towards the end of the Seventh Century That he ordained that at the breaking the Bread of the Lord T. 5. Concil p. 407. Extr. the people and Clergy should sing Lamb of God that takest away the sins of the World Have mercy upon us Hugh Maynard whom we mentioned before hath caused to be Printed at the end of the Book of Sacraments of St. Gregory some antient Manuscripts which contain several Liturgies for the Celebration of the Eucharist and in all these Liturgies which are of the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries the Fraction which we speak of is therein found In that of Ratold Abbot of Corby who lived at the end of the Tenth Century this Prayer is made when the Body is broken O Lord vouchsafe to send if it be thy Will Apperd ad lib. Sacram. Greg. p. 265. thy holy Angel upon this holy and immortal Mystery to wit upon thy Body and Blood for O Lord we break it and be pleased to bless it and vouchsafe to make us fit to handle it with pure hands and senses and to receive it worthily In another of these Manuscripts towards the year 1079. Ibid. p. 276. there is also mention made of the division of the Body of our Lord into several parts and in fine in a third of the year 1032. or thereabouts it is observed That whil'st the Bishop is making the Fraction In Notis p 24. he saith Lamb of God c. and that the Bread being broken he bites in Communicating in part of the Oblation There is frequent mention made of this Fraction in those antient customs of the Monastery of Cluny above-mentioned L. 1. c. 13. p. 58. l. 2. c. 30. p. 141. alibi The Interpreter of the Roman Order who lived towards the end of the Eleventh Century observes what we have already alledged of Pope Sergius And because there were some who were scrupulous because the Roman Order commanded to break the Bread of our Lord he reproaches them by the Authority of the Scriptures and of the Fathers Apud Cassan in litur c. 29. We are informed saith he that some persons of late times do find and think strange that the Roman Order enjoyns the Bread of our Lord to be broken as if they had not read or that they had forgot what is written in the Gospel That Jesus Christ took Bread That he blessed it and broke it and gave it to his Disciples saying Take eat c. and what is read in the Acts of the Apostles That the Primitive Church continued with one accord in the Doctrine and Fellowship of the Apostles and in breaking of Bread and watched in the Exercise of Prayer As for the holy Fathers he saith That forbearing at this time to speak of all others who celebrated the Divine Mysteries as they had been taught by the Apostles and the Evangelists he contents himself to instance in the example of that Woman mentioned by Gregory the First in his Dialogues who smiled when she heard Gregory call that Loaf of Bread which she her self had made the Body of Christ It is upon this custom of the breaking the Bread of the Sacrament that Humbert Cardinal of Blanch-Selva grounds the slander he makes against the Greeks in this same Eleventh Century in that they used Oblations which had been before consecrated during the Lent because that obliged them to separate the Benediction and breaking the Bread from the distribution of it And indeed during Lent they did not fully celebrate the Eucharist but on Saturday and Sunday and on that day they kept some of the consecrated Symboles to Communicate the other days of the Week and so they were constrained to do that at several times which our Saviour did at once when he celebrated his Sacrament Thereupon Humbert presseth his Enemy Nicetas Humbert contr Nicet t. 4. Bibl. Pat. part 2. p. 246. â—id p. 216. B. by the Example of the Son of God We read saith he that the Lord himself gave unto his Disciples not an imperfect but a perfect commemoration in giving unto them the Bread which he had broken and at the same Instant broken and distributed for he not only blessed it deferring till next day to break it neither contented he himself to break it but he distributed it presently after having broke it whence it is that the blessed Martyr Pope Alexander the Fifth after St Peter inserting the Passion of our Lord in the Canon of the Mass saith not as oft as ye do this but as often as ye do these things that is to say that ye bless that ye break and that ye distribute ye do it in remembrance of him because each of these three things the Blessing without the Distribution doth not perfectly represent the Commemoration of Jesus Christ no more than the distribution doth without the Benediction and the Breaking I say nothing here of the Decretal of Pope Alexander which is a forged and a counterfeit piece as are all the Decretals of the first Popes until Siricius it sufficeth that until the days of Humbert and also before it was owned to be true that so its authority might serve to prove the Ceremony of breaking the Bread as a thing essential in the Celebration of the Sacrament also we see that most Christian Communions observe it at this time not distributing the holy Bread unto the Communicants until it be broken in parcels to give a piece or morsel unto each one So it is practised by the Greeks the Moscovites the Russians and the Abassins for they make a Loaf of Bread greater or less either in breadth or thickness according to the number of Communicants so that having blessed and consecrated it they break it into little bits to distribute it unto those who approach unto the holy Table to participate of this Holy and Divine Sacrament From thence it is as St. Austin hath observed that in some places they called the Sacrament the Parcels that is to say the Pieces amongst the Greeks the Fragments that is to say the Portions and Pieces of the Eucharist broken and the holy parcels As for the Latin
Sacrament It suffers only the Ministers of the Altar he means all the Clergy to draw near and enter into the place where the Altar was and there to Communicate Concil Tol. â— c. 18. The fourth Council of Toledo assembled Anno. 633. hath left us this Canon After the Lords Prayer and the joining of the Bread and the Cup the blessing shall be given unto the people and then in this manner they shall participate of the Body and Blood of our Lord the Priest and the Deacon shall communicate before the Altar the Clergy in the Quire and the people without the Quire And thence it is if I mistake not proceed all the prohibitions that Women and other Lay People should not enter into the close where the Altar Herard in cap. t. c. 24. and the Sacramental Table was as when Herard Archbishop of Tours ordered Anno 858. That the Women and Lay Persons should not approach the Altar it was probably what Pope Leo the fourth intended when he made this Decree as is seen in his life That whilst the solemnities of the Masses were celebrated no Lay Person should presume to stand in the Presbytery that is to say Vit. Leon. 4. t. 6. Concil p. 416. D. in the Quire or sit or enter therein but only such as are consecrated and appointed to perform Divine Service The Council in Trullo Anno 691. doth except the Emperour whom it permits to enter into the Sanctuary when he would offer his Oblation unto God Concil in Trullo c. 69. That it is not permitted say the Fathers unto any Lay Person to enter into the Sanctuary yet we do not pretend by virtue of a very antient Tradition to include the Emperors Majesty in this prohibition when hâ— desires to present his Oblations unto the Creator Balsamon Patriarch of Antioch and one of the most famous Canonists amongst the Greeks doth extend much farther this priviledge granted unto the Emperor he refutes their Opinion who restrain this liberty unto the time that the Emperor made his offering at the Holy Table as if he had not liberty to enter therein to offer unto God other acts of Adoration Balsam in can 69. Trullan For my part saith he I am not of that Opinion for the Orthodox Emperours who do make Patriarchs by Invocation of the Holy Trinity and which are the Lords anointed do without any opposition enter when they please into the Sanctuary and approach unto the Altar as often as they will But the Greeks having no Emperour of their Religion groaning for a long time under the Tyranny of the Turks there is none amongst the Lay people which partake of the priviledge which their Monarch and Sovereign enjoyed formerly therefore after the Clergy have participated of the Sacrament to wit him that celebrates either Bishop or Priest in the midst of the Altar the other Priests round the Altar and the Deacon behind but all generally within the rail of the Sanctuary the Lay people communicate without for the doors of that place being open the Deacons go out to distribute the Sacrament unto the People and the place where the Celebration is made is a little higher than the rest of the Quire as James Goar hath observed an Eye witness Goar in Encholog p. 150. n. 171. who also observes that the same was practised amongst the Latins in S. Jerom's days and proves it by these words of this holy Doctor writing against the â—uciferians Id. p. 151. n. 179. It pertains unto the Bishop to handle the Body of our Lord and from a higher place to distribute it unto the people It is very probable that all those who make profession of the Religion of the Greeks as the Muscovites and the Russians do observe the same custom it is also very near the same manner which is observed in communicating the people in Prester John's Country according to the report of Francis Alvarez a Portugueze that had travelled in those Countreys many years for he writes that the Seculars and Lay folks Alvar. de Aethiop c. 11. are near the chief door of the place where the Clergy is and it is there that both Men and Women receive the Communion As for the Posture and Gesture of the Communicant which is the last circumstance we intend to examine in this Chapter it is certain that when the Lord distributed his Eucharist unto his Disciples they were almost lying along that is leaning a little one upon another because that was the manner of eating at that time amongst the Jews and other Eastern Nations and that the Disciples changed not their posture in receiving the Sacrament but continued in the same posture they were in during the Supper of the Passover And because St. John the beloved Disciple leaned on the Body of our Lord Jesus Christ the Scripture mentions that he lay on his breast at the Table or leaned on his bosom the Christians of the following Age drew near and approached unto the holy Table presently after Consecration there to receive the sacred Symbols of their redemption as may be gathered from Justin Martyr's Liturgy where we do not see any Ceremony nor any kneeling practised by the Communicants in participating of this Divine Mystery only that going before unto the Communion they gave unto each other the kiss of Charity in token of their Love and Union whereof this venerable Sacrament was to be a more strict tye and from hence it is that in all the Liturgies the faithful are warned to kiss each other before they appear at the Lords Table although this warning is given in some sooner in others later but in all it is before the Communion in those very Liturgies which we have remaining we do not find any alteration to have hapned in the posture of the Communicant For after having shewed the Sacrament unto the people and invited them unto the Communion by these words Holy things are for the Holy each Believer draws near with the motions and desires of Piety and Devotion which he ought to have to partake worthily of this Divine Sacrament Denys Bishop of Alexandria gives sufficiently to understand Apud Euseb hist l. 7. c. 9. that in his time that is in the third Century the Communion was received at the holy Table standing and not kneeling when speaking of a certain Believer which often appeared at the Lords Table to partake of the Eucharist for he useth a term that properly signifies to present himself and to be there standing Vales in Euseb hist l. 7. c. 9. p. 145. which gave occasion unto this observation of Mounsier de Valois The Believers which were to communicate drew near the Altar and there they received from the Priests hand the Body of Jesus Christ standing and not kneeling as is at this day practised Tertullian had spoke before Denys of this custom of Communicating standing in his Book of Prayer Tertul. de Orat. c. ult wherein he speaks of
understood the sub-Deacons which shews that the Deacons were not comprised in the prohibition which was made unto these Ministers Also the IV. Council of Carthage suffers the Deacons to administer unto the people in case of necessity Concil Carthag 4. c. 38. Ambros de offic l. 1. c. 41. the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Lord even in the presence of the Priest but by his order St. Ambrose speaking of the Deacon and Martyr St. Lawrence saith that he distributed the Cup and St. Leo in a Sermon where he treats of his Martyrdom Serm. infestiv Laurent and of his Triumph advanceth his Dignity by administring of the Sacraments and elsewhere making the Panegyrick of St. Vincent who was also a Deacon and Levite In nativit Vincent c. 2. he saith that he administred the Cup of our Lord Jesus unto Believers for their Salvation George Cassander alledgeth in his Liturgies these words of a certain Book which treated of all the Divine Offices Apud Cassandr in liturg c. 31. The Deacons are those unto whom it belongs to set in order upon the Holy Table the offerings of the people which are to be consecrated and after the Consecration to distribute the Mysteries of the Body and Blood of our Lord unto the people And in the Dialogues of Gregory the First there is mention made of a certain Deacon who being affrighted at the cruelty of the Pagans Gregor l. in dial l. 1. c. 7. as he was administring the Cup unto the people let it fall to the ground whereby it was broken In Spain they administred the Bread and Wine in the VI. Century as appears by the first Canon of the Council of Ilerda assembled Anno 524. In the Greek Church it is the Deacons which administer the Sacrament unto the people and amongst the Abassins the Deacon gives the Bread in little bits and the sub-Deacon the other Symbol in a spoon of Gold Silver or of Wood. But it is needless to insist any longer on a matter so clear and besides which is not of the greatest moment therefore 't is sufficient to know that at the beginning of Christianity the Deacons gave both Symbols unto the Communicants that afterwards they administred but the Cup only he which celebrated giving the Bread although this custom was not so soon admitted in all parts there being some places where the Deacons in the IV. Century distributed the whole Sacrament unto the faithful people and if in some Churches they were disturbed in the possession of their Rights yet nevertheless they have commonly injoyed the priviledge of administring the Cup of our Lord unto Christians after he that consecrated had distributed the holy Bread and it is they who amongst the Greeks distribute the Communion unto the people In the Kingdom of Prester John the Deacon giveth the Bread and the sub-Deacon the Wine as well unto the Clergy as unto the People But this is worth the considering that in divers parts of the West Women were permitted to administer the Sacrament unto the people and forasmuch as this abuse as far as I remember began in Italy Gelas Ep. â— ad Episc â—ucan t. 3. Concil p. 636. Pope Gelasius was also the first if I am not mistaken who indeavoured to prevent it grievously censuring the Bishops of Lucania for giving this liberty to Women and suffering them to serve at the Altar Men being only called unto this Office But it seems that this censure of Gelasius had not all the success as could have been wished seeing that about 500. Years afterwards to wit about the end of the X. Century Ratherius Bishop of Verona in Italy T. 6. Concil p. 431. T. 2. Spicil p. 261. in his Synodal Letters unto the Priests of his Diocese which have passed until our daies for a Sermon of Pope Leo the Fourth was forced to forbid Women to come near the Altar or touch the Cup of our Lord because in all likelihood they administred it unto Communicants And it was not only in Italy this permission was given unto Women but also in divers Provinces of France whence it is That the VI. Council Assembled at Paris under Lewis the Debonair Anno 829. Concil Paris 6. l. 1. c. 15. forbids it in one of its Canons which is yet to be seen in the seventh Book Cap. 134. of the Capitularies of Charles the Great and of Lewis the Debonair his Son a Prohibition which Isaac Bishop of Langres Isaac Ling. can tit 5. c. 7. 11. c. 23. was constrained to renew some time after As for the persons admitted unto the Communion they were Believers therefore the Deacons made the Catechumeni the Energoumeni the penitents and generally all such as were not initiated in the Mysteries of Christian Religion to go out and those people were not only not suffered to participate of the Sacrament but they were not suffered to stay in the Assembly when it was celebrated Indeed that they were not suffered to assist at the Celebration of the Sacrament was not alwaies practis'd amongst Christians seeing that it is most certain that in the two first Centuries and probably a good part of the third they hid not their Mysteries and did not celebrate with the Doors shut as appears by the Works of Justin Martyr which shews plainly that the Liturgies which go in the name of S. James and S. Mark are forgeries for therein is mention of excluding these sorts of persons above mentioned the Deacon making them go out before the beginning of Consecrating the Divine Symbols which is also to be read in all the other Liturgies and I shall not stand to prove this matter being indisputable and owned by all the World the truth whereof is easily to be seen by such as please to read the Liturgies which we have remaining and which by the care taken therein by the Deacons to shut out the Catechumeni the Energoumeni the penitents and the uninitiated do manifestly shew that they have been made since the third Century whatever care the Authors of some of them have taken to shroud themselves under the name of some Apostle or Disciple of the Apostles And if only Belivers were obliged to Communicate this obligation regarded them all in general for the Penitents were not thought to be Believers during the time of their penance the sins they had committed and for which they had been censured to undergo the burden of this penance having made them fall from this priviledge and happy state when I speak of Believers I do not mean only such as were grown up and such as were of years of discretion but also Children Therefore we are necessarily ingaged to make two Considerations of the persons of Communicants the first shall treat of the Communion of Adults the second that of Children As for the Communion of persons of Age and years of discretion there is no question to be made but they were all obliged to Communicate when
Christ where the Reader may observe if he please that the case is by way of permission and farther of a permission grounded not upon the authority of a Council but upon the necessity that is alledged of the fear or danger of effusion something of like nature is to be found in the antient customs of the Monastery of Cluny which were written after the death of the Abbot Odilon who dyed about the middle of the XI Century but in such a manner as appears that this custom was peculiar to the Congregation of Cluny the other Churches distributing both Symbols severally L. 2. c. 30. p. 146. t. 4. spicil Vuto all those unto whom he gives the holy Body say these antient customs he first wets or steeps it in the Blood but in the Margent they make this observation Another Manuscript adds Although this be contrary to the practice of other Churches because some of our Novices are such slovens that should they receive the Blood by it self they would not fail of being guilty of some great neglect Non remaneret Which words Cassander alledged in his Treatise of the Communion under both kinds for he saw the Manuscripts before the customs were Printed as they have been within this six or seven years past but it appears by the words above alledged that in most Churches the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament were given apart and distinct from one another In the year 1095. Vrban the Second held a Council at Clermont in Auvergna that made a Decree which is variously reported Cardinal Baronius in his Ecclesiastical Annals gives it us in these terms T. 11. ad an 1095. That no Body presume to Communicate at the Altar without receiving the Body apart and also the Blood by it self unless it be by necessity and with precaution This necessity regards the sick above-mentioned and this care or precaution refers in all likelihood to the danger of spilling which might happen more especially at great and festival Communions by reason of the great number of people that comunicates and doubtless it was upon such occasions that John Bishop of Auranch intended it should be permitted to give the Sacrament steeped unto the people if it were not better to refer unto the same subject that is to say unto sick bed-rid Persons both the necessity and precaution of the Canon in Baronius In a word Oderic Vital in his ninth Book of his Ecclesiastical History upon the year 1095. upon the relation of Maynard in his Notes upon the same Book of Sacraments of Gregory thus represents unto us the Canon Page 379. That the Body of the Lord be received separately and also the Blood of the Lord he speaks neither of necessity nor precaution and without that the Canon is clear and intelligible and without any difficulty it is no easiy matter to judge in what manner the Council exprest it self it only can be said that it seems to express it self as Oderic Vital saith if it be considered in the first place that 't was in this Council of Clermont the Croysade was granted for recovering the Holy Land Secondly that it appears by a Letter written from Antioch by the Adventurers four years after the Council that is to say in the year 1099. and directed unto Manasses Archbishop of Rheims that the Christians resolving to make a sally upon those which held them closely besieged in Antioch did first Communicate but under both Symbols distinctly These things being heard T. 7. Spicil p. 195. the Christians being purified by cenfessing their sins and strongly armed by receiving the Body and Blood of the Lord and being prepared for the combat they marched out of the gate Unto which may be added that a little before the Council of Clermont most Churches did Communicate as we have been informed by the antient customs of Cluny under both kinds distinctly But Paschal the Second who succeeded unto Vrban Anno 1099. commands both Symbols to be distributed separately Pascal 2. Ep. 32. t. 7. part 1. p. 130. except it be unto young Children and such as are at the point of death for unto such he gives liberty they should be communicated with the holy Wine only because they cannot swallow down the Bread And about the same time the Micrologue observes that the Communion with the steeped Sacrament Cardinal Humbert against the Greeks t. 4. Bibl. patr part 2. p. 217. A. Microlog c. 18. is no lawful Communion and proves it by the authority of the Roman Order It appears also that about fifty years before this Council of Clermont the steeped Sacrament was not always given unto Persons ready to depart this life but the holy Bread and the sanctified Cup apart at least nothing hinders but it may so be gathered from the Chronicle of Fontanella otherwise St. Wandrill in Normandy for speaking of Gradulph one of its Abbots who dyed in the year 1047. C. 8. t. 3. Spicil p. 268. it saith That being at the point of death and having received the Communion of the Body and Blood of the Lord he dyed Nevertheless the best and most holy things absolutely degenerate from their institution let us see the manner that the Communion with the steeped Eucharist was introduced and established in several places but not universally We have a Letter of Ernulph or Arnulph or if you please of Arnold at first a Monk at S. Lueiens of Beauvais then at Canterbury in Lanfranck's time afterwards made a Prior by Anselm a little after Abbot of Burk and at last by Radulph Bishop of Rose now Rochester in England he died Anno 1124. T. 2. Spicil p. 432. in this Letter which he writes unto one Lambert who demanded wherefore the Sacrament was then given steept seeing our Saviour gave the Bread and Wine distinctly he approves this new manner of giving the Sacrament although he owns that Jesus Christ distributed it otherwise and he likes it for the danger of shedding especially upon Festival daies because of the great numbers of persons that then use to communicate also he touches the inconvenience might happen by reason of men that have long and great Beards representing that if at their Meals they wet their Whiskars in the Liquor before they receive it in their mouth it may be feared they do the same in the Consecrated Wine if they are admitted unto the Sacramental Cup which he accounts a great crime which he chargeth upon the Communicant and also him that celebrates besides to strengthen what he saith of the danger of effusion upon solemn Festival daies when great numbers of Men and Women must be communicated of all sorts and conditions he observes that he that officiates will be still in danger of spilling something out of the Sacred Cup let him take never so much care and caution in distributing it because he often runs the hazard of this effusion when he is about to drink of it himself which cannot be done as he
tells us without falling into a great sin whereof he must be obliged to make great repentance From all which he concludes in favour of the steeped Sacrament and praiseth the wisdom of those who first established this manner of Communicating with the Bread steept in Wine saying That pious men had prudently directed that the little portion of the Body should not be given dry as our Lord had done but that it should be distributed unto Believers steeped in the Blood of our Lord and that by this means it should happen that according to the precept of our Saviour we should eat his Flesh and drink his Blood and that he that feared to sin in so great a matter might avoid the danger And he gives for a reason of this conduct That we eat dry and drink liquid what goes down the throat after having received it in the mouth either together or separately And because some considering that Jesus Christ had given the steept morsel unto Judas did not approve this manner of distributing the Sacrament he saith there 's a great deal of difference betwixt the Eucharist steeped and the Morsel which our Lord gave the Disciple that betray'd him because the actions which have a different occasion cannot agree well together Afterwards taking with many others the Decree of the Council of Braga of the year 675. against the steeped Sacrament for a Decree of Pope Julius he saith this Decree is no longer of force with modern persons and that the customs of the Church which surpasse all others as well in reason as in authority hath overcome this ancient Constitution that it should not be thought strange because the Decrees of other Popes are changed for the like and sometimes upon smaller occasions But although this Author of the XII Century of whom Cardinal Cusa cites something in Cassander in his Liturgies gives us this form of administring the Sacrament with steept Bread as establish'd in his time in the West it cannot be said that it was universally received in all Churches without exception In fine besides what we alledged out of the Micrologue and of Pope Paschal who made his Decree in the XII Century Arnold of Bonneval contemporary with S. Bernard in his Sermon of the Supper of the Lord in S. Cyprian's Works sheweth us sufficiently that in the same XII Century wherein he lived the use of the Cup was not forbidden the people when he saith Apud Cypr. p. 329. ult edit vid. p. 330. It was under the Doctor Christ Jesus that this Discipline first of all appeared in the World that Christians should drink Blood whereof the use was so strictly prohibited by the Authority of the ancient Law for the Law forbids eating of Blood and the Gospel commands to drink it And again We drink Blood Jesus Christ himself commanding it being partakers by and with him of everlasting life And at the conclusion of the Treatise he with several other Doctors of the Church who lived before him in that Believers are partakers of one Bread and of one Cup doth search a type of their union Ibid. p. 33â— or rather of their Spiritual unity in Christ Jesus who is the head of this Divine Body We also saith he being made his Body are tied and bound unto our head both by the Sacrament and by the matter of the Sacrament and being members one of another we mutually render each other the duties of love we communicate by charity we participate with eating one and the same meat and drink one and the same drink which flows and springs from the Spiritual Rock which meat and drink is our Lord Jesus Christ I believe we may join unto Arnold of Bonneval Peter de Celles Abbot of S. Remy of Rheims who lived at the end of the XII Century for in his Treatise of Cloister Discipline which is come to light but within these seven or eight years he speaks in this manner The communication of the Body of Christ T. 3. Spicil p. 99. and of the Blood of Christ poured forth to wit of the Lamb without spot purifieth us from all guilt and from all sin Let us say something more formal Peter of Tarantes Apud Cassand de Commun sub utraque specie p. 1043. afterwards Pope under the name of Innocent IV. writes That the most considerable as the Priests and Ministers of the Altar do receive the Sacrament under both kinds William of Montelaudana in sundry places saith he They communicate with the Bread and Wine that is to say with the whole Sacrament And Peter de Palude testifies that in his time It was the practice in several Churches to communicate under the one and the other species Richard de Mediavilla was of the same Judgement with Innocent IV. the one and the other giving for a reason that those unto whom they administer the Communion under both kinds Know very well how to yield thereunto the greater reverence and caution All these saith Cassander lived about the 1300. year of our Lord. Wherefore the same Cassander observes in the same place that Thomas Aquinas who defends the use of communicating under one kind doth not say that this custom was universally received but in some Churches only And to say the truth Christians found so much consolation and benefit in participating of the Cup of their Lord that when in latter times they began to tell them of the danger of effusion to dispose them to the use of communicating under one kind there were several Churches that rather than they would be deprived of the participation of the sacred Cup invented certain little Quills which were fastened unto the Chalices by means whereof they drank the Mystical Blood of our Lord as Beatus Rhenanus p. 438. testifies in his Notes upon Tertullian's Book De Corona Militis and Cassander in his Treatise of the Communion under both kinds p. 1036. both of them in their time having seen of these Quills or little Pipes which were used for communicating the Laity Let us descend yet lower and we shall find about 35. years before the Council of Constance an example of the Communion under both kinds in Rome it self not indeed of the People but of all the Cardinal Deacons for Vrban VI. who began the great Schism which lasted from the year 1378. until 1428. being Elected Pope at Rome Anno 1378. in the place of Gregory XI He solemnly celebrated Mass upon S. Peter 's Altar in his Pontifical Habit wherein all things were performed according to the order of the Rubrick and in fine he with his own hands gave the Communion unto all the Cardinal Deacons with the pretious Body and Blood of Christ as it was alwaies the manner of Popes to do T. 4. p. 306. Thus it was written unto Lewis Earl of Flanders Anno 1378. by Pileiâ—de Prata Archbishop of Ravenna and Cardinal in one of the Tomes of the collection of Dom Luke de Achery But as from the
c. 31. Some saith he having divided the Eucharist according to the usual manner suffered each one of the people to take part of it Cardinal Cajetan was of opinion that Jesus Christ did after the same manner and that the Primitive Church Religiously followed his example and it is at this time the manner of Communicating amongst the Protestants in Holland yet this is still receiving the Sacrament with the hand which was observed in S. Cyprians time Cyprian Ep. 56. that is to say in the Third Century as appears by these words Let us arm the right hand with the Spiritual Sword that it may couragiously reject wicked Sacrifices being mindful of the Eucharist and that which receives the Body of the Lord might afterwards imbrace Christ himself that hand which is to receive the price of immortal Crowns So it is that Mr. Rigaut hath in his Notes corrected this passage by the Manuscript Copies of the Vatican And again Id. de laps p. 175. He that is fallen threatens those which stand those which are wounded them which are not and the sacrilegious Person is offended at the Priests because he doth not presently receive the Body of Christ with defiled hands or that he drinks not the Blood of the Lord with an impure mouth And in another Treatise where he teacheth that the works of the flesh are overcome by means of patience Id. de bono patient p. 226. Let patience saith he be strong and well rooted in the heart that the sanctified Body and Temple of God defile not it self by Adultery and that the hand after having received the Eucharist defile not it self with the Sword and Blood-shedding Cornelius Bishop of Rome contemporary with St. Cyprian also sheweth plainly that it was so practised in the Church of Rome when writing unto Fabius Bishop of Antioch he tells him that Novatian the Heretick made those who came unto him to receive the Communion to swear that they would be of his party Apud Euseb hist l. 6. c. 43. Vales After he had made the Oblations saith he and that he had distributed and given unto every one part of the Sacrament he constrained these wretches to swear unto him instead of the benediction and Prayers taking with both his hands the hands of him who received and letting them not loose till they had ingaged unto him by Oath We have again in the same Eusebius another example of this use and custom about the same time which Cornelius wrote for we there find that Denys Bishop of Alexandria writing unto Sixtus Bishop of Rome speaks unto him of a Brother that is to say a Believer who had lived a great while in the Church after he had entred into its Communion and forsaken the Hereticks amongst whom he had been Baptized and amongst many things which he saith he observes this circumstance That he presented himself at the holy Table Ibid. l. 7. c. 3. that he had stretched out his hands to receive this holy nourishment that he had received it and that he had been a great while partaker of the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ It was unto this custom doubtless that Gregory Nazianzen had respect when he said of Julian the Apostate Greg. Nazian orat 1. in Jul. p. 70. He pollutes his hands to the end there should remain nothing of the unbloody Sacrifice whereby we communicate of Jesus Christ of his sufferings and of his Divinity The Abbot of Billy one of the Scholiasticks of Gregory subscribes thereunto and observes upon the place That almost all the Antients after Turtullian testifie that antiently the Eucharist was given into the peoples hand And in the funeral Oration of Gorgonia his Sister he sufficiently teacheth the same when he saith That her hand had hid some of the Antitypes of the Body and Blood of Id. orat 11. p. 187. Jesus Christ St. Basil his intimate friend deposeth in favour of this same practice about the end of the V. Century Basil Ep. 289. t. 3. In the Church saith he the Priest gives one part that is of the Sacrament and he which receiveth it keeps it with all freedom and so bears it with his own hand to his mouth St. Cyril of Jerusalem suffers us not to make any question of it when he speaks of receiving the Body of Jesus Christ in the hollow of the hand and that he warns the Communicant Cyril Hieros Mystag 5. Ambros Hex l. 6. p. 103. t. 1. id de el. jejun c. 10. Chrysost ad Pop. Antioch Hom. 21. t. 1. p. 266. That he take care that he lose none of it and that not a crum of it fall or be lost And St. Ambrose doth he not say That the hand is that whereby we receive the heavenly Sacraments And elsewhere he declares that we receive the Sacraments at the Altar St. Chrysostom who dyed the in beginning of the V. Century gives us several proofs of this antient custom Consider saith he what you receive with the hand and be not so inconsiderate as to strike any Body and after having honoured it with so great a gift do not dishonour it in imploying it to strike consider what 't is you receive with the hand and keep it free from all covetousness c. Think that not only you receive it with the hand but also that you put it unto the mouth Id. Hom. de simult p. 285. And in the same Tome See here I preach I conjure I warn with a loud voice that he who hath an Enemy should not approach unto the Holy Table and that he should not receive the Body of Jesus Christ Id. in Seraph p. 891. And in the third Tome The Seraphin durst not touch it with his hand but with the Tongs and you you receive him with the hand It is unto this time must be referred what Sozomâ—n the Historian hath left us upon Record of the Woman which being of the Sect of Macedonius who denyed the Divinity of the holy Ghost went through complaisance to her Husband who had quitted this Sect by the powerful Sermons of St Chrysostom Sozom. hist l. 8. c. 5. unto the Church of the Catholicks and disposed her self to communicate with them but he saith That retaining what she had received she bowed her self as if she would have prayed and that at the same instant her maid who was there with her gave her privately what she had in her hand and that she had brought along with her but she had it no sooner between her teeth but it became a stone Unto the same purpose may be applyed what St. Apud Theodoret Hist l. 5. c. 17. Isid Pelus l. 5. Ep. ult Ambrose said unto the great Theodosius after the severe vengeance which he used against the inhabitants of Thessalonica and St. Isidore of Damiette reproacheth a Priest called Zosimus that Believers rather chose to abstain from the Communion than receive it from his
that example should inviolably be kept now it declares two several times That Jesus Christ having taken a whole Leaf and broken it in blessing it gave it by parcels unto each of his Disciples Yet I will not deny but that I have observed in the Seventh Century examples of the Sacrament being put into the mouth of Communicants but upon occasions that as I suppose are not to be insisted upon In the Appendix of the fifth Tome of de Achery's Collection is seen the life of S. Magnobode Bishop of Anger 's which is supposed to be written by one that lived at that time and as these sorts of Lives are full of Miracles which those should have done whose actions are to be written amongst several attributed unto S. Magnobode there is mention first made of a certain blind person that being drawn by the great reputation of this Bishop came unto him as he was celebrating Divine Service desiring him earnestly and with a loud voice to restore him his sight this Prelate being touched with his complaints prayed for his recovery and having ended the office of the Mass He put saith the Author into his mouth with the Benediction Vita Magnob c. 9. Append. t. 5. Spicileg p. 137. the perception of the holy Body Secondly there is mention of a young Maid of Quality at Rome who being for three years space exceedingly afflicted with a most grievous Feaver which all men thought incurable she with tears desired to be carried to the man of God Magnobode whose Miracles had already been noised abroad which her Parents resolved to do and carried her to Anger 's where they found him at the same Exercise that the blind man above mentioned had done whom he restored to sight so that understanding the cause of so great a Journey Ibid. c. 5. p. 141. He received them courteously and put into the little Maids mouth the Mystery or the Sacrament of the Body of the Lord which he handled with his holy hands It is evident if I mistake not that these two occasions were extraordinary either if the persons be considered on whom these two Miraculous Recoveries were made or if the exercise wherein they found this Prelate be considered so that there can no consequence be drawn for the practice of putting the Sacrament in the mouth of Communicants In the Life of S. Eloy Bishop of Noyon which is in the same Tome of Dom Luke de Achery's Collection and who lived also in the Seventh Century it appears that this Bishop forbids amongst other things to sing the Songs of Pagans and he gives this reason T. 7. Spiâ—â— 217. That it is not just they should proceed out of the mouth of Christians wherein is put the Sacrament of Christ But the Sacrament being there put either by him that celebrates or him that communicates and moreover the custom confirmed by the Decree of an universal Council in the year 691. requiring Communicants to receive it with the hand and that they should themselves put it in their mouth it cannot be reasonably thought these words of S. Eloy make any thing against the commonly received practice In fine at the end of the Seventh Century it was received with the hand in England which then related unto the Latin State wherein we travel for venerable Bede tells us of a certain man called Caedmon who having passed most of his life as a Secular and without holy Orders at last became a Frier at the request of an Abbess This man falling sick Bed Hist Angl. l. 4. c. 24. and finding his death at hand desired the Sacrament might be brought And having received it in his hand saith the Historian he asked if they were all in Charity with him Since that time there began to appear in the West but not suddenly some alteration in this antient custom but without abolishing it quite for in the Book of the Roman Order written as some imagine in the Ninth or the end of the Eighth Century or as others suppose in the Eleventh which I conceive to be the most likely in the Chapter of the Order of Procession if sometimes the Bishop please to celebrate Mass on Holy daies there it may be seen that the Priests and Deacons receive the Communion with the hand and the sub-Deacons with the mouth Ordo Rom. Bibl. Pat. t. 10. p. 10. ult edit That the Priests and Deacons in kissing the Bishop receive of him with their hands the Body of Christ but the sub-Deacons in kissing the Bishops hand let them receive from him the Body of Christ in their mouth And Hugh Maynard in his Notes upon the Book of Sacraments of Gregory the Great alledges something of this Nature touching the Priests and Deacons relating to the Mass of Illyrica Pag. 383. written as Maynard conjectures a little before the beginning of the Eleventh Century that is towards the end of the Tenth he calls it the Mass of Illyria because it was taken out of the Palatinate Library Pag. 380. and published by Matthias Illyricus a Protestant Lutheran Of this Mass this Benedictine Frier cites these words Pag. 390. Then the Priests and Deacons receiving the Body in their hands it is said unto each of the Communicants Peace be with you But it must not be imagined that this manner of Communicating was peculiar unto Priests and Deacons to the utter exclusion of other Communicants at least in the Ninth Century for we have been informed by Reginon's Chronicle that in the year 869. Pope Adrian the Second at Rome it self gave the Communion unto King Lothair and that this Prince received in his hands the Body and Blood of our Lord Regin in Chron. ad an 869. which is also to be concluded of all those which attended him unto whom the Pope administred the Sacrament I shall then make no difficulty to believe that what the Roman Order speaks of sub-Deacons communicating with the mouth was done by reason of the solemnity of the day on these occasions to distinguish betwixt the sub-Deacons and the Priests and Deacons who are superiour unto them besides that this distinction began not to be made until before the Eleventh Century But in fine if we enter in the Tenth Century we shall find it something divided concerning this custom Ratherius Bishop of Verona died in the year 974. in what we have resting of his works there may be seen the two wayes of receiving the Sacrament with the hand and with the mouth in the second Sermon of Easter he speaks thus But O sadness T. 2. Spicileg p. 314. I have seen some sleight this Council and would to God it were not such as ought to give example unto others that they continually lay snares to destroy even him who puts the consecrated Bread in their mouths saying The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ profit you unto eternal life But in the following page see here what he saith Ibid. p. 315. If they had
along with him the Eucharist according to the usual custom Gregory of Nazianzen speaking of a great Sickness of Gorgonia Greg. Nazian orat 11. p. 187. his Sister If her hand saith he had not hid some part of the Antitypes of the precious Body and Blood S. Basil his intimate friend tells us that was first begun during the time of persecution and that this custom which still continued in the Desarts amongst the Friers and all over Egypt amongst the People was innocent and deserved no reproof They were constrained saith he during the times of persecution Basil Ep. 289. t. 3. there being no Priest or 〈◊〉 inister that is to say Deacon to take the Communion with their own hands and it would be superfluous to shew that it was not a thing intolerable because it was a thing which had been effectually confirmed by a long custom for all those who lead a Monastick life in the Woods where there is no Priest having the Eucharist in their House do receive it themselves At Alexandria also and over all Egypt each one of the people hath most commonly the Sacrament in their Houses for the Priest making at once the Sacrifice and distributing it he who receives it whole and intire at once and who takes of it daily ought to believe that he participates thereof as effectually as if he received it from the Priest's hand for also in the Church the Priest gives one Portion and he that receives it keeps it with free liberty and so with his hand puts it to his mouth it is then the same thing as to the vertue of it if there be received from the hands of the Priest one Portion or several Portions at once It is collected out of S. Jerom to have been so practised at Rome in his time for in his Apology unto Pammachius Hieron Ep. 50. c. 6. for the Books which he had writ against Jovinian he speaks in this manner I know at Rome they have this custom that Believers should daily receive the Body of Christ which I neither approve nor condemn for let every one judge as be pleases but I arraign the Consciences of those who Communicate the same day that they have defiled themselves with Women and who according to Persius wash themselves at night in the River wherefore do they not dare to go towards the Martyrs why do they not go into the Churches Is Christ one thing in private and another in publick What is not permitted in the Church is not permitted at home I also refer unto this custom what S. Austin saith of a believing Woman Aug. oper imperf cont Jul. l. 3. c. 164. That she mada a Plaister of the Eucharist to put upon her Son's Eyes who was naturally blind It was in all likelihood of the Sacrament which she had kept There is in the Tomes of the Councils a Council of Sarragossa in Spain of the 380th year of our Lord Ad An. 57. n. 150. but which Cardinal Baronius thinks was assembled in the days of Pope Hormisda that is in the beginning of the Sixth Century In this Council there is a Canon found against those who having received the Sacrament in the Church did not there eat it T. 4. Conc. p. 684. ult edit If it be proved that any one hath not eaten the Sacrament which he received in the Church let him be Anathematized for ever or as Garsias Loaysa hath it those who receive the Sarrament in the Church and do not there eat it let them be Anathema yet I would not assure that this Canon was made to abolish the custom of carrying home the Sacrament and keeping it for I find that the Eleventh Canon of the Council of Toledo assembled Anno 675. explaining the Fourteenth Canon of the First Council of the same place which had ordered the same which that of Sarragosa had I find I say that this Council speaks against those who having received the Eucharist threw it away through Infidelity After all the custom of keeping the Sacrament continued till the end of the Sixth Century and haply to the beginning of the Seventh for John Moschus who 't is thought lived about that time C. 79. Bibl. Pat. t. 13. p. 1089. Continuat Sigeberti relates in his Spiritual Field That a certain believing Servant having received the Sacrament on Holy-Thursday wrapped it in a clean Cloth and laid it up in his Cupboard I know not whether what we have already said of the Inhabitants of Antwerp may not be referred hereunto where that numerous people did in the Twelfth Century hide the Eucharist in Chests and Holes for several years together And as Christians kept the Sacrament so they also carried it with them in their Voyages as appears by the History of Satyrus Ambros de obitu Satyr t. 4. p. 315. Brother to St. Ambrose for being in great danger in a Storm at Sea and being not yet Baptized he desired one of the Company who was Baptized and who had the Sacrament along with him to give him part of it which he giving unto him Satyrus took and bound what the Christian had given him of the Sacrament Greg. I. Dialog l. 3. c. 36. in a Cloth and tying it about his Neck he cast himself into the Sea Gregory the First in his Dialogues testifies almost the same of Maximian Bishop of Syracusa and of his Companions Sailing in the Adriatick Sea that is to say that being in danger of Shipwrack they received saith he the Body and Blood of the Redeemer They must needs then carry along with them the Eucharist and it must be noted that Maximian was not as yet Bishop but Abbot of S. Gregory's Monastery Cardinal Baronius in his Church-Annals produceth an Example of the same custom in the Twelfth Century in the time of Alexander the Third and sheweth that it was practised in some places He takes what he reports from the Acts of the life of S. Lawrence Bishop of Dublin Baron ad an 57. n. 151. whence he cites these words They discovered that four Priests went along with a great company of Men who publickly carried the Eucharist with them for a Viaticum and for a certain Guide of the way as was then the manner of many to do I will not here stand to examine if those Acts of the life of S. Lawrence Bishop of Dublin are in their purity I will only say That Surius from whom this famous Annalist hath borrowed what he relates in his Annals is not wont to represent unto us without alterations those many things which he hath taken the pains to collect although there is no Forgery in the matter now mentioned Arcud de concord l. 3. c. 59. Arcudius a Greek Romanized testifies That the Monks among the Greeks carry the Eucharist with them in their Voyages At this time in the Communion of Rome to carry home the Eucharist De la penit publ part 1. l. 1.
this reconciliation and peace in permitting them to participate of this Divine Mystery But if I am demanded Whether this practice of administring the Sacrament unto bed-rid Penitents and after the third Century unto other sick Folks at the time of death doth not presuppose that the Eucharist was kept to the end it might be apply'd in these hasty necessities to speak sincerely I do not see there was any necessary consequence of one of these things unto the other but that also I find no directions thereupon in the first Ages of Christianity which makes me believe they contented themselves then in preparing I mean in Blessing and Consecrating the Bread and Wine to make them the Body and Blood of the Lord at such time as there was occasion to communicate any Bed-rid dying persons To alledge for refutation of the keeping the Sacrament what is written in the XI Century by Cardinal Humbert of Blanch-Selva against the Greeks who reserved the gifts presanctified in Lent were not in my Opinion to argue but trifle because it is certain that a long time before Humbert wrote against Nicetas the Sacrament was kept in the Latin Church it might with more reason be urged against keeping the acrament that the remainder of the Sacrament was in some Churches burnt and in others it was eaten by little Children but although this last custom continued a long time in our France as shall appear in the following Chapter nevertheless I find from the time of Charelemain that is to say in the VIII Century formal directions for keeping the Sacrament Capitul l. 1. c. 161. That the Priests saith this Prince in his Capitularies have always the Sacrament ready to communicate the Sick whether Old or Young to the end they should not dye without the Sacrament Since which time several Ordinances are seen upon the same Subject but before that time I do not remember to have met with any which nevertheless I do not say to assure positively that there were none before the time which I assign but only to declare that I have not observed nor found any on the contrary in the Second decretal Epistle which is attributed unto St. Clement Disciple of the Apostles about the same time it is expresly forbidden Ep. 2. Pseudo-Clem To keep till the next day any part of the Sacrament But in fine seeing it ought to be confessed that in the three first Centuries the Sacrament was sent unto Bed-rid dying Penitents and afterwards unto Believers in the same condition It is requisite to inquire by whom it was sent there is no doubt but for the most part they were Clergymen that carried it unto these sorts of Persons yet nevertheless in such a manner that they made no difficulty to ease themselves sometimes of this care and to imploy Lay Persons young Boys Men and Women to carry it in fine Denys Bishop of Alexandria relates in Eusebius the History of a certain Old Man called Serapion who having Apostatized in the time of persecution was excluded from the Communion of the Church whereunto he could not be restored notwithstanding his earnest entreaties to that purpose but some time after being seized with a violent sickness whereof he dyed he sent one of his Daughters Sons for a Priest who being sick sent him the Sacrament by the Child He gave unto this Youth saith Denys some Apud Euseb hist Eccles l. 6. c. 44. or a little of the Sacrament commanding that it should be moistned and to put it in the Old Mans mouth that he might the easier swallow it down his grand Child being returned steeped it and poured it into the sick Mans mouth who having by little and little let it down presently gave up the Ghost So the Martyrology of Ado Bishop of Vienna that of Bede and the Roman Ad. d. 15 Aug. Apud Baron ad an 260. §. 5. as also the Acts of the life of Pope Stephen the First testifie that during the Persecution of the Emperors Gallian and Valerian Tharsitius Acolyth of the Church of Rome did carry the Sacraments of the Lords Body and this custom need not seem strange unto us if we consider the liberty which was for a long time given unto Christians to carry the Sacrament home with them unto their houses and keep it In the life of Luke the younger Anchoret Combef auct Bibl Pat t. 2. Grac. l. p 986. cum 1014. who lived in the X. Century and which Father Combefis a Dominican hath published at least some Copies part of it we find this Hermit having demanded of the Bishop of Corinth how such Persons as he was that lived solitarily in the Desarts might participate of the Sacrament having no Priest nor Assemblies made in those places I say we find he suffered him and such as he was to communicate themselves although they were Lay Persons and also prescribed after what manner they should do it And Father Combefis in his Notes observes Ib. p. 1014. that the Bishop of Corinth was then in the Bishop of Rome's Diocese is it to be thought any difficulty would have been made of intrusting the Sacrament unto Women in those places where they were permitted to distribute the Sacraments in the Churches unto the people as hath been before recited There is in the VI. Tome of the Councils a Homily in the name of Pope Leo the Fourth T. 6. Concil p. 431. who lived in the middle of the IX Century where Priests are forbidden to give the Sacrament unto Lay Persons Men or Women to be carried unto the sick It cannot then be questioned but the thing was practised to that time and afterwards also for 't is certain this Sermon is neither Leo the Fourth's nor St. Vlrick's as Gretser imagined it is nothing else but a Synodical Letter of Ratherius Bishop of Verona unto his Priests now this Ratherius died towards the end of the X. Century Mr. de Valois in his Notes upon Eusebius P. 138. saith That he hath lately been so informed and we cannot doubt of it because we have the Book it self by the care and industry of Dom Luke d'Achery wherein we find this Decree That no Body presume to give the Sacrament unto a Lay Person T. 2. Spicileg p. 261. Man or Woman to carry it unto the Sick It must then be necessarily concluded that it was so practised in sundry places even in Italy and near Rome until the end of the X. Century The same Mr. de Valois observes upon the words of Denys Bishop of Alexandria above mentioned P. 138. That it was so practised a long time after And he proves it by the Prohibition which Ratherius was obliged to give unto his Priests who without scruple committed the Eucharist into Lay Persons hands to be carried unto sick Folks but because Ratherius was but a private Bishop and that his power reached not beyond his Diocese nothing hinders but it may be believed it was also
d'Achery hath given us those are the antient customs of the Monastry of Cluny written at the end of the Eleventh Century although that Congregation was founded at the beginning of the Tenth It appears by these customs that there were times wherein they caused to be eaten at the very instant in this famous Congregation all that remained after Communion which its true was not practised when these customs were written that is to say towards the end of the Eleventh Century although the Author doth confess that it was generally practised in all other Churches Antiq. consuetud Cluniac monast l. 1. c. 13. t. 4. Spicil Dach p. 58. Heretofore saith he so much care was taken that after all had Communicated the Priests themselves or as 't is in the Margent the Priors who had brought whereof to communicate did with a great deal of precaution and respect eat all that did remain without keeping any part of it till next day And I do not know that any other custom is used generally in all other Churches the which is not much here regarded at present but what remains after the Communion is kept We might it may be have referred unto this custom what is said in the Eighth Book of Apostolical Constitution chap. 13. and what is mentioned by Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria in his Canonical Letter in the Seventh Canon but because these two places may admit of another interpretation we forbear citing them the custom now in question being already sufficiently confirmed In the Fourth place the Antients made no difficulty sometimes to take consecrated Wine and mingle it with Ink afterwards dip their Pens in these two mingled Liquors the more authentically to sign what they intended to sign thus it was done by Pope Theodorus in the VII Century to sign the condemnation and deposition of Pyrrhus a Monothelite as is testified by Theophanes in Baronius Pyrrhus saith he having left Rome Apud Baron an 648. §. 15. and being arrived at Ravenna returned like the Dog unto his Vomit which Pope Theodorus understanding he assembled the whole Church and went unto the Sepulcher of the chief of the Apostles and asking for the holy Cup he poured the quickning Blood into the Ink and so with his own hand signed the deposition of Pyrrhus who had been excommunicated So it was also done by the eighth Council of Constantinople assembled against Photius In anteact Synod t. 6. Concil p. 896. in the year 869. For the Bishops subscribed the deposition of Photius with Pens dipt not in Ink only but in the Blood of Christ it self See here two remarkable instances which were usually produced to prove this fourth Observation but beside these two we have a third which is no less considerable we are obliged for it to Monsieur de Baluze and he unto Monsieur de Masnau Counsellor in the Parliament of Tholouse because he furnished it him having taken it out of an Historian called Odo Aribert who relating the Voyage of Charles the Bald unto Tholouse in the year 844 observes amongst other things that being there he sent for Bernard Count of Barcelona under a pretence of receiving him into his favour but indeed with a design to kill him which he did but Bernard did not proceed on his Journey till there was a treaty betwixt Charles and him Odo Aribert edit in not Baluz ad Agobard p. 129. And after the peace had been confirmed and interchangeably signed by the King and the Count with the Blood of the Sacrament To conclude there may be added unto all these customs the practice of the Greek Church which mingles hot Water with the Wine of the Sacrament after Consecration and just at the instant of Communicating as we find by their Ritual by German Patriarch of Constantinople Cabasilas Simon of Thessalonica Balsamon Patriarch of Antioch and several others and those who desire to see the Mystical reasons of this mixture Goar in Eucholog p. 148. n. 166 167. may only read what James Goar hath written in his Notes upon the Enchology of the Nation for we may finish this first part having exactly inquired if I mistake not into all things which relate unto the exteriour worship of the Sacrament But because as the actions of Jesus Celebrating and those of his Disciples Communicating have served as a Model unto this Celebration although in process of time inricht with sundry Ceremonies which were not practised at the beginning So also his words being the foundation of the Doctrine of the Holy Fathers having given the first part of this work unto the outward form of Celebration we shall employ the Second in the examination of the Doctrine and 't is what we shall set about with Gods permission The end of the first Part. THE HISTORY OF THE EUCHARIST PART II. Containing the Doctrine of the Holy Fathers THOSE which travel into strange Countries if they are any thing curious fail not taking notice of the Things which they judg most considerable and worthy their Observation It is true all are not alike disposed some regard only their own private Satisfaction and look no farther but there be others which undertaking these long and painful Voyages make as it were a kind of Journal wherein they exactly set down all things which deserve to be known and being return'd home they digest and communicate them unto others who without stirring out of their Closet or running any Danger see what is most curious and remarkable in all Countries and Parts of the World And certainly all Men are oblig'd unto those Persons which are so good and charitable as to expose themselves unto a thousand Dangers and Inconveniences to inform and instruct us This is in some sort the case of those which undertake to travel into the Countries of Ecclesiastical Antiquity which is of a vast extent having no other Limits than those of the whole Vniverse as well as the Kingdom of Jesus Christ unto whom the heavenly Father hath given all Nations for his Heritage and the Earth for his Possession there are in this Country a multitude of different Climates very many considerable Rarities worthy the Curiosity of Christians but all which ingage in these Voyages are not of a humour to take pains for the Publick they keep themselves close and private and aiming only at their own particular Satisfaction they trouble themselves not much for others so that were there only such Persons which lanched forth to visit this large Empire we should neither be more learned nor better instructed But the Providence of God which is always vigilant for the good of Mankind puts it into the Heart of several to undertake this great Voyage with a Resolution and Design of communicating what they have observed unto the Publick that it may serve for the Instruction and Consolation of Christians It 's true some indeed discharge their Duty better than others thereafter as God is pleased to distribute his Gifts and Graces but
the reading of Ecclesiastical Antiquity have doubtless found by Experience that sometimes one must travel very far and search many large Volumes before one finds what he looks for and I look upon these dry and barren Places to be like Wildernesses and sad unpleasant Deserts which Travellers are sometimes forc'd to pass over with much difficulty and trouble but they have also observed that sometimes are found without difficulty in the Works of the Ancient Fathers places so rich and abundant that I use to liken them unto those fat and fertile Soils which always answer the Husbandman's expectation and which with Interest restore the pains he with some little cost bestowed upon them We may in the number of these latter sort place those Passages where they have pleased themselves in meditating of the Mystery of the holy Sacrament for not content to have told us that its divine Author called the Bread and Wine his Body and Blood I find them ready to tell us that they were his Body broken and his Blood poured out and that as for them they always considered him at that moment not as sitting upon his Throne in Heaven but as hanging upon the Cross on Mount Calvary expiating the Sins of Mankind and for the Redemption of the World This was in all likelihood what St. Cyprian intended when he said Cypr. ep 63. That the Sacrifice which we offer is the Death of our Lord. And what St. Gregory of Nyss when he testifies That the Body of the Sacrifice is not fit to be eat if it be animated Greg Nys in Resur Dom. Orat. 1. August Psal 11. Hom. 2. Id. Quaest super Evang. l. 2. § 38. pag. 152. tom 4. Id. in Psal 110. that i◠if it be living Thence it is that St. Austin speaking of the Disciples of Jesus Christ saith That they suffered the same which those things did which they eat and he gives this Reason that the Lord gave them his Supper he gave them his Passion And again That now the Gentiles all the World over do very religiously receive the sweetness of the Sufferings of our Lord in the Sacraments of his Body and Blood and that we are fed with the Cross of our Lord because we eat his Body Id. de Doctr. Christ l 3 c. 16 He also makes the eating of the Lord's Body consist in communicating of his Death and in profitably representing unto our Memories that his Flesh was broken and crucified for us St. Chrysostom always represents Christ as dead in the Sacrament * Chrysost◠Hom. 51. in Math. Jesus Christ represented himself sacrificed †Homil. 83. The Mystery that is to say the Sacrament is the Passion and the Cross And upon the Acts of the holy Apostles ‖ Hom. 2. Whilst saith he this Death is celebrated c. then is declared a tremendous Sacrament which is that God hath given himself for the World And upon the Epistle to the Romans Hom. 8. Adore upon this Table whereof we are all Partakers Jesus Christ which was crucified for us And upon the Epistle to the Ephesians Hom. 3. Whilest the Sacrifice is carnied out and that the Lamb Christ Jesus our Lord is slain Hom. 14. And upon the Epistle to the Hebrews Our Lord Jesus Christ is stretched out stain And unto the People of Antioch What do you O Man Tom. 1. Hom. 15. you swear by the holy Table where Jesus Christ lieth slain And in the third Book of Priesthood When you see our Lord sacrificed and dead Tom. 4. l. 3. de Sacerdot the Priest sacrificing and praying and all those which are present died red with this precious Blood And in the Homily of the Treason of Judas Tom. 5. p. 464. Have respect for the matter or subject of the Oblation to Jesus Christ who is held forth slain And upon the Name of Church-yard Ida. 5. p 486. C We shall towards Evening see him which like a Lamb was crucified kill'd slain And again You forsake him seeing him put to death And in fine in the Homily touching the Eucharist Id t. 5 pag. 569 A B. in the Dedication or of Penance O wonderful you are not afraid the Mystical Table being made ready the Lamb of God being slain for you c. and the pure Blood being powred out of the Side into the Cup for your Sanctification We will add unto all this Hesychius Priest of Jerusalem who speak after this manner Hes ch in Le l. 1 c. 2. God made the Flesh of Jesus Christ which was not fit to be eaten before his Death I say he made it fit to be our Food after his Death for who is it that desired to eat the Flesh of God if he had not been crucified we should not eat the Sacrifice of his Body but now we eat the Flesh in taking the Memorial of his Passion Id l. 2. c. 6. And again The Cross hath made eatable by Men the Flesh of our Lord which was nailed upon it for if it had not been set upon the Cross we should not have communicated of the Body of Christ This was also Theodor. t. 3. ep 130. I suppose Theodoret's Meaning when he said Our Lord himself promised to give for the Ransom of the World not an invisible Nature but his Body The Bread saith he which I will give is my Flesh which I will give for the Life of the World And in the Distribution of the divine Mysteries in taking the Symbol he said This is my Body which is given for you or as the Apostle saith which is broken And also in giving the divine Mysteries after he had broken the Symbol and that he had divided it he adds This is my Body which is broken for you in Remission of Sins And again This is my Blood which is shed for many for the Remission of Sins Id. ep 145. p. 1026. A Tom 4. Dial. 1. Cyril Hierof Myslag 5. And elsewhere he calls the Eucharist The Type of the Passion of our Saviour St. Cyril of Jerusalem considering before him what was done in his Time in the Celebration of the Sacrament saith among other Things that we therein offer unto God Jesus Christ dead for our Sins that is to say in as much as we pray him to accept in our discharge the Death which he suffered for us and in our room and stead And St. Fulgentius some time after Theodoret in one of the Fragments of the ten Books he wrote against Fabian the Arrian having repeated the Words of Institution of the Sacrament as St. Paul relates them he adds That the Sacrifice is offered to shew the Lord's Death ex lib 8. Fragm 28 and to make a Commemoration of him which laid down his Life for us Amalarius Fortunatus spake the same Language in the IX Century as shall be shew'd in its place In the mean while it is necessary to observe that all Christians confess that
of the Canons of the Church of Africa and it is there inserted something different but yet in such a manner as doth not alter the Sense Aug. de Civit. Dei l. 17. c. 5. St. Austin is no less positive when he declares That to eat the Bread is under the New Testament the Sacrifice of Christians Cyril in Joan. l. 4. c. 14 l. 12. Hesych in Levit. l. 6. c. 2â— And St. Cyril of Alexandria saith That in the Eucharist Jesus Christ distributed and gave Bread unto his Disciples For the same Reason Hesychius assures us that The Oblation of Jesus Christ is performed in Bread and Wine Eudox. Bibl. Patr. t. 14. p. 130. The Princess Eudoxia Wife unto the Emperour Theodosius the younger may take place amongst all these Witnesses which we have alledged her Deposition being of no less moment than the rest seeing she speaks according to the Instructions given her in the Church when she saith That our Lord having broke Bread gave it unto his Friends Apud Phot. Bibl. Cod. 115. that is to say unto his Disciples An Anonymous Author in Photius his Library assures That Jesus Christ in his Mystical Supper gave unto his Disciples Bread and Wine The sixteenth Council of Toledo Concil Tolet. 16. c. 6. held in the Year 693 saith twice That the Lord breaking a whole Loaf gave it to be taken in parcels by his Disciples And the Council in Trullo Anno 691 Council in Trul. c. 32. take and apply unto themselves the 24th Canon of the Council of Carthage where it is forbidden to offer any thing but what Jesus Christ gave to wit Bread and Wine mingled with Water Secondly The same Fathers testify that the Bread of the Sacrament is Bread which is broken I will not here make use of the Testimonies of those which positively affirm that our Lord did break Bread in his Sacrament as Clement of Alexandria Origen Juvencus St. Hilary St. Austin St. Cyril of Alexandria the Empress Eudoxia the XVI Council of Toledo c. I will restrain my self at present unto those which say that we therein break Bread as the Author of the Epistles under the Name of St. Ignatius for he speaks of breaking one Bread and saith Ignat. ep ad Ephes ad Philad Recognit l. 6. ad sin Pasch 1. there is one Bread broken unto all And the Author of Recognitions observes of St. Peter that he broke the Eucharist Theophilus of Alexandria saith that we break the Bread for our own Sanctification St. Chrysostome that was the object of his Persecution and Harred was of the same Mind when he said Wherefore did the Apostle when he spake of Bread Chrysost hom 24. in 1 ad Cor. say which we break for that is seen to be done in the Sacrament This is also what St. Austin testifies when he saith Aust ep 86. ep 59. Id. Serm. 140. de Temp. c. 2. Fulg. de Bapt. Aeâ—hiop Isid Hispal de Off. Eccl. l. 1. cap. 18. Act. 2. 20. That the Bread is broken in the Sacrament of the Body of Jesus Christ and that what is upon the Lord's Table is divided into little Bits to be distributed And elsewhere that the breaking of the Bread should comfort us St. Fulgentius thus reads the Words of St. Paul The Loaves which we break And St. Isidore of Sevil The Bread saith he which we break is the Body of Jesus Christ. We see also that St. Luke means the Sacrament of the Eucharist by the breaking of Bread which the Syriac Interpreter hath expressed by the breaking of the Sacrament and where St. Luke saith that the Disciples were met together to break Bread he hath render'd it We were met together to break the Eucharist Therefore 't is that the holy Fathers which speak of breaking Bread speak also of dividing it in pieces As when Clement of Alexandria observes Clem. Alex. Strom. l. 1. pag. 271. Aug. cont Don post Col. c. 6. Cypr. de laps Cyril Aleâ— in Joan. l. 4. c. 14. that the Eucharist being divided each of the People took part of it And St. Austin that Judas and Peter received each of them a Piece And St. Cyprian speaks of a Woman which had lockt in her Chest a Portion of the Eucharist There 's nothing more common in their Writings whence came the Terms of Parts Morsels Portions which were common so long time in the Church and which made them say that Jesus Christ gave Morsels of Bread unto his Disciples And that but a little is taken witness what Eusebius saith of a Priest of Alexandria that he sent by a young Boy unto Serapion a little Euseb Hist l. 6. c. 441 Aug. Serm. 35. de verb. Dom. cap. 5. or part of the Eucharist And St. Austin that we receive but a little and are fatned by it inwardly in the Heart Unto this Consideration may be added the constant Tradition of the Church whereon we have largely insisted in the VIII Chapter of the first Part where we have shewn that the holy Fathers have unanimously deposed that the Sacrifice of Christians is a Sacrifice of Bread and Wine In the third place speaking of the Eucharist they say That it is a Aug. serm 34 de divers c. 28. Corn b Eudox. in § 36. Arnob in p. 4. Wheat c Theod. dial 1 Fruit of the Vine d Sedul in op Pasch c. 14. l. 4 the Fruit of the Harvest and the Joy of the Vine e Isid Hisp l. 6. orig c. 19. the Fruits of the Earth f Tertul. cont Marc. l. 1. c. 14. the Blessings of the Creator g Iren. l. 4. c. 34 l. 5. c. 4 8. Creatures of this World h Clem. Alex. Paedag. l. z c. 2. the Blood of the Vine the Liquor of Joy i Cypr. ep 76. 63. Bread made of several Grains Wine pressed out of several Grapes k Orig. contra Cels l. 8. Breads or Loaves in the plural number l Just Mart. contra Tryph. wet ard dry Food They say moreover That it is the Bread of the Eucharist as St. Basil m Basil de Sp. S. c. 27. the Mystery of Bread and Wine as St. Gaudentius Bishop of Bresscia n Gaud. tract 2. in Exod. 14. the Sacrament of Bread and Wine St. Austin o Aug. contra Faust l. 20. c. 13 the Sacrament of Bread and of the Cup as St. Fulgentius p Fulg. ad Monum c. 11. the Sacrament of Bread as Bede q Bed Hom. 2. Fer. de pasch that it is not common Bread as Justin Martyr in his second Apology Ireneus l. 4. c. 34. Cyril of Jerusalem Mystag 3. and Gregory of Nysse in Baptism Christ pag. 802. tom 2. The Fathers rest not there they positively affirm that it is Bread and Wine Clement of Alexandria r Clem. Alex. Paedag l. 2. c. 2. What our Saviour blessed saith he was Wine
in some sort they may bear the Name of a divine Substance whereas before Consecration they had only a Substance whose Qualities seemed but to nourish the Body and they find nothing therein more harsh than what is said by Ratran Bertram de corp fang Dom. Aug. annot in Job t. 4 ex c. 5. p. 394. Prosper ad Demetr That our Saviour did formerly in the Wilderness change the Manna and the Water of the Rock into his Flesh and Blood And St. Austin that Jesus Christ changeth us into his Body And in fine St. Prosper his Disciple speaking of our Lord Jesus Christ that the Body of Sin is converted or changed into his Body Caesarius himself say they deserves that Right and invites us thus to understand him for in the first place he teacheth in the same Sermon that Jesus Christ intending to transport his Body into Heaven left us his Sacrament to have always his holy Sacrifice in Remembrance who suffered Death for the Expiation of our Sins Because saith he Id. ibid. he was to remove from our Sight the Body which he had taken and place it in Heaven it was requisite he should in that Day consecrate the Sacrament of his Body and Blood to the end that by the Mystery that is by the Sacrament should be honoured what was once offered for the price of our Redemption and that because the Redemption for the Salvation of Man-kind had a continual Progress the Oblation also of the Redemption should be perpetual and that this everlasting Sacrifice should always live and be remembred in the State of Grace Secondly he compares the Change which comes to the Sacramental Symbols unto that which befalls Men in Baptism to shew us that both the one and the other being of the same nature it can be only a change of Vertue and Quality The Man renewed saith he by the saving Mysteries Id. ibid. passeth into the Body of the Church by the Water of Baptism and by the Fire of the Holy Ghost he is made the Bread of the Eternal Body After which he adds Let no Body then doubt but the Original Creatures may pass into the Nature of the Body of our Lord seeing he perceives Man by the Art of heavenly Mercy is made the Body of Jesus Christ As they say the honour of Caesarius is no way to be faved nor any good sense be given his Words but in saying that he intends to shew that as Man regenerated by Baptism is not made the Body of Christ but Mystically and Morally so also the Bread of the Sacrament doth not pass into the Nature of his Body but Sacramentally and Virtually using also the Word Nature for Quality In the same sense as St. Macarius used it Macar Hom. 44. Greg. Nyss in Cant. Hom. 9. Id. Orat. 1. in Christ Resur Id. de Virgin c. ult when he said That the truly Faithful Soul must be changed from this vile Nature unto a Divine Nature to intimate a Divine Quality Gregory of Nyss That we are changed into a spiritual Nature that is to say into a spiritual Quality And again That the Humanity of Jesus Christ is passed into the Divine Nature to signify that it hath been made to participate of the virtue of the Divinity And in fine That we may pass from the Nature and Dignity of Men into the Nature and Dignity of Angels There 's nothing more frequent than these kind of Expressions in all the Monuments of Antiquity I will add unto all these Considerations that I could not find the Homily of Easter now in question amongst many Homilies of Caesarius In Mr. Colbets And St. Victors which I have lately seen in two Libraries which may make it be suspected that it is of some Author much younger than Caesarius In the sixt place the holy Fathers teach that Church Fasts are broken Tertul. de Orat. c. 14. by participating of the Eucharist as Tertullian teacheth Many do think saith he that on Station-days they stay'd there till three a Clock without eating we should not attend Prayers and Sacrifices that is to say the celebration of the Eucharist because that in receiving the Lord's Body the Fast of the Station should be broke I cannot conceive saith the Protestant that those who believed that this Body whereof they speak and which is received at the holy Table was the true and natural Body of Jesus Christ could have this strange Fancy that the Fast should be broken in taking into their Mouths and Stomacks the holy and incorruptible Body of our Lord and Saviour And I cannot imagine those People could be so ignorant to believe it nor Tertullian so patient to suffer such an Indignity without sharply reproving it as it deserved he was too vehement not to do it and if one were much less so than him it would be very hard not to be concerned that People that made Profession of Christian Religion should so outragiously treat the glorify'd Body of Jesus Christ Id. ibid. Let the Reader judg with an unbyassed Mind if he please and he must agree with me that the Latins act very well according to their Hypothesis when they say that they believe the true Body of Christ doth not break the Fast What we say of these first Christians will appear yet more plainly if we consider the Council given them by Tertullian in the same place which is to receive the Sacrament and keep it to take it at Evening when the Station is ended In receiving saith he the Body of the Lord and keeping it you will save both you will partake of the Sacrifice and do the Duty of the Day I conceive I have discovered Marks of this Belief in our France in the VIth Century and to the end those which read this Work may the better judg if I am deceived I 'le here insert the Passage at large it is taken out of the Life of St. Melain Bishop of Phemes and is also found in the Supplement of the Councils of France where we have an Account of an Assembly of Bishops held at Anger 's Anno 530. In supplem Concil Gallic p. 49 50. Almost at the same time saith the Author the Man of God St. Milain and the Elect of God Albin and St. Victor Launus and St. Marsus assembled in the City of Anger 's in the Basilisk of St. Mary Mother of God St. Milain by common consent of the rest celebrated Mass at the beginning of the Fast of Lent and having ended before they went away the blessed Priest gave them in Charity the holy Eucharist with God's Grace and his Benediction But Marsus preferring the Fast of the Day before his Charity and neglecting the Eucharist whereof he should have communicated let fall the Portion he had received of St. Milain into his Bosom Being then permitted to return to their Church and having saluted each other they by the Grace of God began their Journey they had sâ—â—â—â—ce gone ten
conformable unto the Principles which they have set down Nevertheless because there be several others which we have not touched we find our selves absolutely obliged to handle them in this Chapter the better to clear the Truth which we seek for and if in what remains to be examined they have said any thing which might favour the Hypothesis of the real Conversion which the Latins have made an Article of their Faith it is certain that what they have said hitherto will not be of so much moment and will lose of its worth and vertue whereas if nothing can be found in what is yet to be seen contrary unto what hath been already examined it must then be necessarily concluded say the Protestants that there is nothing in all their Writings that agrees with the Hypothesis of the Latin Church In fine if these Holy Doctors have believed the change of the Substance of Bread and Wine into the Substance of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ then they must also have admitted of these following Maxims First That a Body may be in several Places at once but far from admitting this Maxim to be true they directly oppose it Tertullian disputing against the Heretick Hermogenes which made the Creature co-eternal unto God Tertul. advers Hermog c. 38. If it be in a place saith he it is then within the place if it be within the place it is then bounded by the place within which it is if it be bounded it hath a remote Line and being a Painter as you are your own Profession must needs inform you that the furthest Line is the end of any thing whereof it is the remotest Line And elsewhere Id. de anim c. 9 he establisheth the same Doctrine when he places the Extent and the three Dimensions that is the length breadth and heighth amongst the most essential Properties of a Body and which necessarily and absolutely belong to their Bulk and Mass Arnobius was so strongly of Tertullian's Opinion that he uses it as a Principle universally received to refute the Evasion of Pagans who taught that their Gods were in all the Images which were consecrated unto them Arnob. l. 6. p. 89. ult edit It is not possible saith he that one God should be at one and the same time in several different Images suppose that Vulcan hath ten thousand Statues consecrated unto him in all the World can he be present as I have said in all the ten thousand at one time I think not Why not Because that which is of a particular and singular Nature cannot multiply it self into several Subjects and yet preserve its singleness intire and whole From whence he concludes a little after That it must be said or confessed that there must be an infinite number of Vulcans if there be one in each of these Images or that he is in neither of them if there be but one Vulcan because being but one Nature cannot admit that he should be divided to be in several If the Christians of those times had believed that the Body of Jesus Christ their Saviour and God had been in a Million of places at once without being therefore multiplyed nor divided it must indeed be granted that they had chosen a miserable Advocate to defend their cause because instead of defending he betray'd it and exposed it to the scorn of Infidels in reproaching them with that to be impossible which they themselves held to be possible and which said happened daily unto the Body of their God but we intend not to do this Injury unto the memory of this Christian Orator that would be Injustice and Ingratitude so to serve him seeing he hath said nothing but what is conformable unto the Opinions of other Doctors of the Church For when a Man saith St. Hilar. de Trin. l 8. p. 41. l. in Psal â—24 p. 211. â— Hilary or his Resemblance is in a place he cannot be elsewhere at the same instant because that which is is contained where it is the Nature of him which is in any place where he is sustained being infirm and incapable of being every where Hence it is that the Fathers commonly prove the Divinity of the Holy Ghost by his being present in sundry places at once in opposition unto Creatures which can be but in one place at a time I will not here alledg all their Testimonies it shall suffice to produce some upon a matter that admits of no difficulty Amb de spirit l. 1. c. 7. t. 4. Seeing that every Creature saith St. Ambrose is circumscribed by its Nature by certain bounds and limits and that the Creatures even invisible Creatures are limited by the Propriety of their Substance who dares call the Holy Spirit a Creature which hath not a limited and bounded Power for he is over all and in all which is certainly the property of the Deity Didymus who flourished at Alexandria at the same time when Ephrem did at Edessa Didym de Spir. S. l. 1. If the Holy Ghost saith he were a Creature he should have a circumscribed Substance as all things which have been created for altho the invisible Creatures are not circumscribed by place and bounds yet they are bounded by the propriety of their Substance but as for the Holy Ghost seeing he is in many places he hath not a limited Nature And a little under he saith The Angel which was present with the Apostle when he prayed in Asia could not be present at the same time with others which were in other parts of the World Pasch de Spir. S. l. 1. c. 12. â— 9 Bibl. Patr. Paschas Deacon of the Church of Rome As all Creatures saith he are subject unto the beginning of time it is known also that they be local and bounded by certain Limits and Spaces but as for the Holy Ghost he is not inclosed within Bounds or Limits like a Creature I could add unto all these Witnesses the Depositions of several others but because it is a matter the Truth whereof is known unto those which are any thing verst in the Writings of the Ancients it is needless to insist any longer upon it but only to observe that the Holy Fathers do never except the Body of Jesus Christ from these general Maxims as if his Glorification had acquired him the propriety of being in several places at once their silence upon occasions of such weight and where they could not possibly dispense with themselves from making this Exception if their belief had admitted of it doth evidently prove that they constantly believed that when the Body of Christ was in one place it could not be in another no more than other Creatures his Glorification having indeed given him a Glory which he had not before but without taking away from him the qualities or properties of a true Body besides they are not content to inform us of their Belief by their Silence they also inform us by their Words for
as the Science of Physick it self doth testifie Let the Reader be pleased to consider the Demand of Consentius and the modest Answer of St. Austin to infer what he shall judge convenient For methinks saith the Protestant that there is but two Sides to hold the one is to say That the Question of Consentius was extravagant and the Answer wholly unworthy the great St. Austin which cannot be said without want of Charity towards the one and abusing the Memory of the other The other is to own That neither St. Austin nor Consentius could have spoken as they did and believe what is now believed by the Latin Church There is scatter'd here and there in the Writings of the Ancients several Things of this Nature from whence may be drawn Evidences for the Knowledge of what they believed In this Rank may be placed the Reproach made against the Orthodox in St. Austin August contra Faust l. 20. c. 13. which we touched in Chap. III. Part 1. That they served Ceres and Bacchus under a Pretext of the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament but because the Accusations of Enemies are not always certain Proofs of the Truth of what they charge Ignorance and Malice having for the most part a great Share in these Sorts of Reproaches and Accusations I would lay no great Stress upon this Reproach but now mentioned if St. Austin's Answer did not thereunto ingage me For instead of returning back this Accusation as a bitter Slander and Calumny and to say unto these Enemies of Catholicks that they were deceived in thinking that their Eucharist was Bread and Wine and in building this erroneous Opinion on this wrong Foundation that they served these false Gods of the Heathens He contents himself with telling them that it is true that the Catholicks did celebrate their Eucharist with Bread and Wine Id. ibid. but that this Bread and Wine did not regard nor relate unto Ceres and Bacchus Although saith he it is Bread and Wine yet they have no Relation unto those Heathen Idols I add unto this Reproach the Accusation of Rabbi Benjamin in St. Isidor of Damieta mentioned by us in the same Place Isid Pelus l. 1. Ep. 401. for he accuseth the Christians to have invented a new and strange Oblation in consecrating Bread unto God whereas the Law commanded bloody Sacrifices Some think St. Isidore ought to have answered this Accusation with the Lye in plainly denying the Thing If the Oblation of the Church had been not an Oblation of Bread but an Oblation of the real Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ that it was the only Way this ancient Doctor could take to stop the Mouth of this insolent Jew if the Belief of Christians of his Time had been truly so there needs only common Sense to conclude thus But St. Isidore very far from so doing he agrees with Rabbi Benjamin Id. ibid. that the Oblation of Christians is an Oblation of Bread He only tells him That he doth ill to call it New because it was practised even under the Dispensation of the Law during which they offered the Shew-bread and he reproaches him of not knowing That the Law it self did consecrate the Shew-bread Hieron Ep. 22. ad Eustoch cap. 5. St. Jerom relates of several religious Persons of his Time in that they excused themselves for drinking Wine and with the more plausible Pretext to cloke this Liberty of drinking many Times unto excess they were wont to say in adding Sacriledge to their Drunkenness Ah! God forbid that I should abstain from the Blood of Jesus Christ This Excuse is as they think as weak and ridiculous as could be if these religious Persons and the Christians of that Time had not believed that what was contained in the Holy Cup and which they called the Blood of Jesus Christ was truly Wine For to what purpose say they was it to insist upon what the Communicants drank at the Holy Table to authorise the Liberty they took of drinking Wine if it had not been Wine in effect So that they believed no other Explication could be given to these Words which I submit to the Judgment of those which shall read this History Moreover the Protestants say That the same St. Jerom furnisheth them again in his Dispute against Jovinian with a Proof of the Belief of the ancient Church It was about Wine Hi. ron advers Jâ—vin l. 2. c. 4. which St. Jerom would have forbidden especially unto Maids and young People Jovinian on the contrary proves That we should use it and one of the Reasons he alledges is That Jesus Christ offered Wine and not Water in the Type and Figure of his Blood This Reason of Jovinian's is of no Force if it be not supposed that what is in the Chalice is Wine it may be Jovinian was mistaken some may say and not knowing the Belief of the Church in his Time he reasoned on a wrong Ground But what appearance is there that although he was not so Eminent as his Adversary yet he had his Talents and Gifts How could he be ignorant of what was not hidden from the most Simple and Ignorant amongst the People Besides St. Jerom's Answer gives us sufficiently to understand that Jovinian's Reasoning was well and solidly grounded and that he supposed a Principle universally received by all Christians In fine however considerable a Man St. Jerom was and whatever Respect we owe unto his Memory yet we may say without wronging him that he had his Failings seeing there 's no Man without his Faults and happy is he that hath fewest as saith the Poet. The most remarkable Fault in St. Jerom was his Passion against his Adversaries and too great Earnestness in disputing which sometimes transporting him beyond the Bounds of Reason inspired him with very injurious and outragious Expressions Id. ibid c. 11. It is then very likely he would not have spared Jovinian if his Opinion had been contrary unto that of the Church and but that he would presently have cried Ah the Heretick Nevertheless he doth not do so On the contrary he answers after a manner which plainly shews that in this Point he was of the same Opinion with Jovinian Although that Jesus Christ saith he was hungry and thirsty and that he was many times at Feasts yet it is not written that he pleased his Mouth nor his Belly if you except the Mystery which he shewed in Type of his Passion We have spoken in the second Chapter of our first Part of two sorts of Christians which used only Water in the Eucharist besides the Encratites of whom we will say nothing in this Place The former in the Morning Assemblies abstained from the Use of Wine in the Celebration of the Sacrament because they feared least the Smell of it should discover them to be Christians and People which came from participating of the Eucharist and that discovering them to be such Cyprian Ep. 63. it might expose them
to the Persecution of the Heathens It may be saith St. Cyprian that some may fear at the Morning Oblation to make known by the Scent of the Wine that he hath participated of the Blood of Jesus Christ Was ever any Fear so ill grounded or any pannick Fear like this If it had then been believed that what was drank in communicating was the real Blood of Christ where was the Sense of those People to be afraid of a Shadow and to tremble where there was no Cause of Danger Seeing it could not be said that the Blood of Jesus Christ had the same Smell that Wine had and that moreover it is expresly spoken of the Smell of Wine and not of the Odour of the Blood of Christ And what surpriseth them yet more is that those of whom we speak were not private ordinary Persons but Conducters also for St. Cyprian designs such at the Beginning of his Treatise by those which consecrate the Cup of the Lord and distribute it unto the People To say that the Smell of Wine should rest in the Sacrament although there had been no Wine that could not be because the Holy Fathers before declared That Accidents could not exist without their Subjects without ever excepting the Sacrament Moreover when St. Cyprian condemned this Abuse as doubtless he had reason to condemn it wherefore had he not said That those People were the most to blame that could be to take for Wine the proper Blood of Jesus Christ and to think that the Sacrament had the Scent of Wine seeing there was no Wine in it Wherefore had he not alledged against them the Belief of the Universal Church if it held for an Article of Faith that what is contained in the mystical Cup is not Wine after Consecration but the very Substance of the Blood of the Son of God It was say they the only Means that could have been used to have made them ashamed and to have reclaimed them from their Error yet nevertheless St. Cyprian doth not make use of it He contents himself to pity their Ignorance and their Timidity and to blame them that they had not followed the Example of Jesus Christ who had not used Water alone in his Eucharist nor Wine alone but of both The other Christians which celebrated the Sacrament with Water did it by another Motive as Gennadius hath informed us when he told us De dogm Eccles c. 75. That they did so under a Pretext of Sobriety Is it possble that this Thought could ever come into the Mind of a Christian that to drink the Blood of the Lord Jesus was to want Sobriety What were Men made of in those Times say the Protestants Had they common Sense and Reason as we have For we cannot conceive their Proceedings it must be freely confessed if participating of the Holy Cup they believe they drink the pure Blood of the Son of God and not Wine how they could think that under a Pretext of Sobriety that they ought to use only Water therein But wherefore had not the Holy Fathers taken Care better to instruct and inform them herein it had been their Duty and Charity to have cured these Souls from this mistaken Niceness which caused them to err they also did it for they were too zealous and charitable to let themly in Error But how have they done it was it in saying unto them That the holy Liquor in the Sacramental Cup is no longer Wine but the proper Blood of Jesus Christ no at least no such Thing is seen in their Writings to think so On the contrary you would think they take Delight in shewing that it is Wine Id. ibid. For see here all the Answer that Gennadius makes to combate this Abuse There was Wine in the Mystery of our Redemption our Saviour having said I will drink no more of this Fruit of the Vine Prudence is very necessary in the Conduct of Life but I think it is more in matters of Religion especially unto Pastors and Conducters which lead the Way unto others they should take care not to make any wrong Steps I mean not to teach any thing either by Preaching or Writing but what they carefully digest particularly not to urge any Thing against Unbelievers or Hereticks that may reflect upon any of the Mysteries of our holy Religion No body that I know hath accused St. Chrysostom of want of Prudence and to say the Truth for what is known of him great heed ought to be taken of laying any such thing to his Charge Nevertheless it is observed in one Part of his excellent Works one thnig which would certainly be ill relished had he been in the Opinion of the Latins It is a Reproach which he makes unto Laban upon his complaining that he was robbed of his Gods Chrysost Homil 57. in Gen. ad c. 30 31. t 2. O Excess of Folly saith he unto him thy Gods saith he are they capable of being stoln Art thou not ashamed to say Wherefore have ye stolen away my Gods For if this holy Doctor believed that the Bread of the Sacrament after Consecration were no longer Bread but the true Body of Jesus Christ his Saviour and his God it may be said that the Reproach he made unto Laban was neither prudent nor judicious because he might have been answered That the same might befal his God And indeed others before me have observed Alex. Gerald. itiner Romae I dit extr that Alexander Geraldin Bishop of St. Domingo in that Spanish Island complained formerly unto the Emperor Charles the fifth That the Temple of his Bishoprick not being well covered all therein was exposed unto Thieves insomuch saith he that the Body of God it self is not there secure against Robbers against Witches and Sorcerers nor against the Rage of wicked Men. But when we should not have the Complaint of this Bishop all the World knows that what St. Chrysostom saith of the Gods of Laban may befal the consecrated Host One cannot then forbear either to accuse this holy Doctor of want of Wisdom or to say that he did not believe the substantial Conversion of the Latin Church which I will refer to the Readers Judgment whilst I say Theodoret. in Genes Quest 55. that Theodoret a great Admirer of St. Chrysostom should not avoid the same Censure however discreet he was otherwise If he had believed that the proper Body of Jesus Christ which all Christians adore and unto whom they address the Soveraign Worship of their Religion were truly and properly eaten with the Mouth of the Body Id. in Levit. Quest 11. p. 124. For if that were so say they with what Face could he say That it is the highest Folly to adore what we eat And again when he asks this Question Where is there any Man of good Sense that can call that his God which he eateth himself after having offered it unto the true God Had it not been to have exposed himself
to the Scorn of the Enemies of Christianity and have given them Occasion to have derided the Holiness of our Mysteries I could add unto all that we have said in the first place the Simplicity with which the primitive Christians celebrated the Sacrament as we shall perceive by Justin Martyr and the Liturgy of the pretended Dennis the Areopagite for it is very like if they had believed that the Sacrament is the real Body of Jesus Christ they would have used more Ceremony in the Celebration Secondly The Form of Consecration used in the ancient Church as well in the East as the West by Prayers Invocations and giving Thanks as hath been shewn in the seventh Chapter of the first Part doth shew in all likelihood that the Doctrine of the substantial Conversion was not believed because this Conversion could not be made without the abolishing the Substances of Bread and Wine and that Prayers and Benedictions never destroy the Creatures Moreover if what was consecrated were not Holy before Consecration as the Holy Fathers informed us in the same Chapter this Consecration could not happen unto Jesus Christ neither as God nor as Man not as God for in this regard he is Holiness it self not as Man because in this Regard he was ever Holy Besides if this Consecration only retired the Elements of Bread and Wine from their common natural Use to employ them in a religious and holy Use as they have also declared unto us it cannot be seen that this Effect of Consecration can subsist with the Ruin and Abolishment of these Elements For the Use of any Thing be it Prophane or Holy doth always presuppose its Truth and Existency otherwise it were useless in Religion and Nature The Latin Church hath also laid aside this Form of Consecration which she attributed some Ages past unto these Words This is my Body wisely foreseeing that whilst Consecration was made to depend upon Prayers and giving Thanks the substantial Conversion would scarcely be believed I will end this Chapter by another Consideration drawn from the Reasons and Motives which obliged the Holy Fathers to give unto the Sacrament the Name of Sacrifice according to the Enquiry we made in Chap. VIII of the first Part where we have at large proved by their proper Testimonies that they have given it this Title by reason of the Bread and Wine which Communicants presented upon the Holy Table of the Church for the Celebration of the Sacrament and by reason of the Oblation which was made unto God of this Bread and Wine at the instant of Consecration and afterwards Moreover they also called it so because we there render Thanks unto God for bestowing upon us his well beloved Son so that it is an Act of our Thankfulness unto the Father and the Son for the admirable and ineffable benefit of his Death because the Sacrament serves us now instead of the Legal Sacrifices being our external Worship under the Dispensation of the Gospel as Sacrifices was that of the Jews under the Oeconomy of the Law And in sine because it is the Memorial of the truly Propitiatory Sacrifice of the Cross These are the Reasons and Motives of this Name of Sacrifice which the ancient Doctors have given to the Sacrament and which we have largely insisted upon in the before-mentioned Chapter The Protestants hence infer two Things first That all these Reasons and Motives remove from the Minds of Christians the Idea of a real Sacrifice and makes them conceive that of a Sacrifice improperly so called Thence it is that when the Jews and Pagans reproached them that they had neither Altars nor Sacrifices they freely confessed it shewing thereby that if they had given unto the Eucharist the Name of Sacrifice and unto the Holy Table the Name of Altar it was but improperly and by abuse of Language Thence also it is that when they instruct those within and that they teach them what hath succeeded unto the Sacrifices of the Law they contented themselves to oppose unto the Mosaical Sacrifices either the Spiritual Sacrifices which we offer unto God under the Gospel or the Sacrifice of the Cross or both of them together and that there should rest no Scruple in the Minds of the People which they instructed touching the Nature and Quality of the Sacrifice of the Christian Church they unanimously depose at all Times and in all Places that it is an Oblation of Bread and Wine It is also what they were induced to believe because there was but one Altar or one Eucharistical Table in each Church and that the Sacrament was celebrated but once a Day For had they considered the Sacrament as a real Sacrifice they could not have had too many Altars nor too often offer the Sacrifice because in the often doing it there came the greater Benefit and Comfort unto their Souls It is also the Instruction which they drew from Believers being obliged to communicate and that those were made to depart out of the Church which did not communicate in that they never celebrated the Eucharist without Communicants and that Oblations were not received but from those which were admitted unto the holy Sacrament Why should that be if it had been a real Sacrifice seeing one might have assisted with Profit although one communicated not as is now practised in the Latin Church The second thing they infer is That seeing they have not looked upon the Eucharist as a Propitiatory Sacrifice for the Sins of the Quick and the Dead they have looked upon it as a Sacrament of Communion only and a Sacrament which is the Memorial of Jesus Christ and of his Death and where there is distributed unto the Communicants Bread and Wine for a Pledge of their Salvation For therein is distributed what is there offered unto God after Consecration Now the Holy Fathers testifie That there is offered unto God Bread and Wine Gifts and Fruits of the Earth the first Fruits of his Creatures Food which he bestows upon us the same things which Melchizedeck offered the Symbols and Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. So it is they have formally expressed themselves in this eighth Chapter which I desire the Reader to peruse over again to see if these two Inductions are lawful and natural CHAP. VII Continuation of the Doctrine of the Holy Fathers and the Inferences of Protestants BEsides what hath been hitherto said it is observ'd that there be certain Occasions wherein the Holy Fathers should have omitted the Names of Figure Antitype Sacrament if they had believed that it had been the real Body of Christ himself nevertheless they have done the quite contrary For instance The Author of Apostolical Constitutions Constit Apost l. 7. c. 26. gives us a Form of Prayer and Thanksgiving for the Communion where he makes the Communicants say We give thee Thanks O Father for the precious Blood of Jesus Christ which was shed for us and for his precious Body whereof we
Promotion to the Episcopacy with any secular Oath whatever it did before Ordination In the first place I advertise the Reader there is in the Text Conficit corpus Christi sanguinis Sacramentum but it may plainly be seen it should be read Corporis Christi sanguinis Sacramentum and translated as we have done The Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ otherwise it would be Nonsense for what signifies make the Body and the Sacrament of the Blood of Christ From all which they conclude That the Fathers of the Council should have spoken in much stronger Terms if that instead of saying that they made the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ they had said that they made the Body and Blood They think that the Occasion also required it and that their Denial would have been better grounded and they affirm that if an Assembly of Prelates of the Latin Church were in the like Conjuncture they would make no mention and that justly of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ they would speak directly of the Glorious Priviledge of making the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Whence is it then that these Prelates of the Synod of Cressy did not do so it is in all likelihood because they were not of the same Belief Optatus Bishop of Mileva in Numidia aggravating the Crime of the Donatists which had with horrible Impiety thrown down the Sacrament of the Orthodox unto the Dogs speaks of it after a manner which would not be easily pardoned had he believed as the Latins do that it is the very Body of Christ himself What saith he is there more sinful and impious than to throw the Eucharist unto Beasts But what could be weaker than this Expression if this Eucharist were the real Body of the Son of God ought he not to have thundred after another manner against these wicked Wretches Should he not have exaggerated with stronger and more Emphatical Terms the Horror of so fearful an Abomination In a Word ought he not have given it a blacker Term than that of Impious and have painted the enormous Sin of these wicked Wretches with other Colours Can it be thought that a Bishop of the Latin Church should be contented with such a kind of Expression in the like Occasion not at all Wherefore then was Optatus content They can conceive no other Reason but the Difference of their Belief Let the Reader judge if there be any other more probable In the mean while I must tell you that having sometimes meditated of St. Chrysostom's Books touching the Evangelical Priesthood to see how he advanced its Dignity and having applied my self in reading them to endeavour to discover wherein he makes the greatest Priviledge of this Order to consist which with his Eloquence he exalts as much as he thought fit I find that he only attributes unto it the Function of Prayer to obtain by their Prayers the Grace of the Holy Spirit upon the Sacrament Chrysost l. 3. de Sacerdot c. 4 p. 32. vid. p. 31. The Priest saith he is present not bearing Fire but the Holy Ghost he makes long Prayers not to the end that Fire should come down from Heaven to burn the Things offered but to the end that Grace descending upon the Sacrifice should by that means inflame the Spirits of those which are present and make them purer and more bright than Silver tried in the Fire And he saieth this in Opposition to the Sacrifice of the Prophet Elias 1 Reg. 18. when he assembled all the Prophets of Baal to prefer the Evangelical Priesthood 1 Reg. 18. and what is done in the Celebration of the Sacrament much before and above the Priesthood of the Law How is it that this excellent Genius had not bethought himself of saying that though the mystical Sacrificers of the New Testament did not cause to come down from Heaven a material Fire by their Prayers as Elias did to consume the Oblations offered upon the Holy Table but the Heavenly and Divine Fire of the Holy Ghost for the purifying of our Souls They do make moreover the true Body of Jesus Christ by the Force and Vertue of these Words This is my Body Was there ever a more proper and favourable Means and Occasion to advance this Evangelical Dignity and to place what it doth daily do in the Celebration of the Sacrament by converting the Substance of Bread and Wine into the Substance of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ which is infinitely more than what Elias did against Baals false Prophets Every Body knows in what manner the Romish Catholick Doctors do exalt this Dignity and that they never forget when they treat of its Advantages and Priviledges to attribute unto their Priests the Priviledge of making the real Body of the Son of God And I don't wonder any Body should think strange of it if they consider the Doctrine and Belief of the Latin Church how is it possible then that the great St. Chrysostom should have forgotten it that he hath not said a Word of it and that in so presing an Occasion he passed over in silence a Circumstance so remarkable and essential to his Subject Men may say what they please but for my part saith the Protestant I find no other Reason for it but their Difference of Belief St. Austin in his Books against Faustus the Manichean undertaking to advance the Honour and Excellency of our Sacraments above the ancient Sacraments so far as to exhort us to suffer for them with more Vigour and Courage than the three Hebrew Children or Daniel and the Maccabees did for theirs contents himself to say August l. 19. contra Faust c. 14. That it is the Eucharist of Jesus Christ the Signs of things accomplished whereas the ancient Sacraments were promises of things to come Had he believed that our Eucharist is not a Sacrament only but also the Substance of the Body of Jesus Christ and his Flesh also wherefore did he conceal and was silent in this essential Difference from the old Sacraments because his Reputation alone had been sufficiently capable of inflaming our Zeal and of more effectually disposing us unto Martyrdom for its Defence rather than any thing else which he said unto us When we censure we endeavour to represent to the Offender the Greatness of his Fault to make him the more to loath it and all means is used to let him see the Enormity of it especially in raising and advancing the Excellency of the Object which he offended for it is commonly according to the Nature and Quality of the Object offended that the Degree and Greatness of the Offence is proportioned let us then see after what manner the Holy Fathers have demeaned themselves towards them which have offended against the Sacrament of the Eucharist For doubtless considerable Informations may be drawn from these kinds of Censures A Council of Carthage assembled Anno 419.
condemns by one of its Canons which is the 18th in the Code of Canons of the Church of Africa as we already observed in our first Part the Custom of putting the Eucharist in the Mouth of the Dead Cod. can Eccles Afric Justel c. 18. It hath been resolved saith the Council that the Eucharist should not be given unto the Bodies of the Dead for it is written Take and eat Now dead Bodies can neither take nor eat A Defence which the Council of the East was obliged to renew in the year 691. but in the same Terms of that of Carthage it is something in condemning this Abuse But certainly say some if the Church of the Vth and VIIth Century believed that it is the real Body of the Son of God it was too slightly condemned This Profanation deserved a ruder Censure and deserved a much stricter Prohibition The third Council of Braga in Gallicia assembled Anno 675. censured those which offered Milk instead of Wine for the holy Sacrament and see here the Terms that it useth Council Bracar 3. c. 2 â— 4. Council p. 833. Let them forbear then to offer Milk at the Sacrifice because the manifest and clear Example of the Truth of the Gospel appears plainly to our Eyes which admits not of offering any thing but Bread and Wine The Protestants think that the Censure of the Council had been better applied if it had been represented unto those which dared to offer Milk instead of Wine that it was not Milk but Wine which was to be converted into the proper Substance of the Blood of Jesus Christ and that it is very likely that if the Fathers had believed this substantial Conversion they would not have failed to have done so because the Occasion invited them thereunto The XVIth Council of Toledo assembled the Year of our Lord 693. do censure another Abuse which is That some Priests bethought themselves of offering for the Communion little Crusts of Bread which they raised round from Loaves intended for their own use instead of offering of whole Loaves The Council-reproves this Liberty whereunto it opposeth the Example of Jesus Christ who took an intire Loaf but it said not unto those People that they were to blame slightly to offer bits of Bread without considering that the Bread of the Eucharist is changed into the Substance of the Body of Jesus Christ which nevertheless might have been of great weight unto them On the contrary it commands to offer midling Loaves fearing if they were too big the over-plus which remained after the Communion might by its Grossness and Quantity incommode the Stomach of them which eat it which as 't is supposed drew them quite from any Thought of Reality and conducted them unto the Consideration of the Sacrament In fine when Ratherius Bishop of Verona prohibits at the End of the Xth Century committing the Eucharist unto Lay-persons to be carried unto sick Folks he doth not shew in censuring this Abuse that there is any Crime in putting into prophane Hands the real Body of our Saviour there being none but the Persons which he hath consecrated unto his own Service which ought to enjoy this Priviledge which in all probability he would not have failed to do had he been thoroughly perswaded of the Truth of the real Presence he only commands T. 2. Spicil Dacher p. 261. That none presume to give the Eucharist unto any Lay-man or Woman to be carried unto the Sick But 't is not yet time to end these Proofs the Instructions which the Holy Fathers gave their Neophytes and new Baptised will very likely afford us others For although they never spake against their Judgment not even in their Homilies and popular Sermons where according to the Circumstance of the Times they used some Restriction of not giving the Eucharist the Name of Bread and Wine thinking there might be present some Catechumeny and Persons not initiated which might hear them and in whom the Names of Bread and Wine might have created too low and mean Thoughts of the Excellency of our Mysteries Nevertheless because it is supposed that they have expressed themselves clearer in instructing these young Plants but newly grafted into the mystical Stock of the Church by holy Baptism let us see what Succour we can draw from these sorts of Catechisms wherein to give their Neophytes a great Idea of the Sacrament they forbear not using strong and elevated Expressions but yet in such a manner as they plainly discover in what Way they are to be understood For instance Cyril Hierosol Mystag 5. p. 244 246. St. Cyril of Jerusalem thus speaketh unto his Catechumeny newly Baptised In coming to the Sacrament come not with Hands stretched out nor with the Fingers open but laying your right Hand in the left as being to receive the King and hallowing the Palm of the Hand receive the Body of Jesus Christ in saying Amen And having communicated of the Body of Christ draw near unto the Cup of his Blood not in stretching out the Hands but in bowing by an Act which shews a kind of Adoration or Veneration and of Worship saying Amen sanctifie your selves in receiving the Blood of Christ. Se here a fair and great Idea of the Sacrament but that his Neophyte should carry his Thoughts no farther than he ought he explains unto him in the same place that he speaks of a Body of Jesus Christ of which he may lose some Part of which a Crumb may fall to the Ground and of a Blood whereof a Moisture and Humidity rests upon the Lips and wherewith one may wet the the Eyes Ibid. the Face and other Organs of the Body Having then saith he with assurance sanctified your Eyes by the touch of the sacred Body receive it taking heed thou lose none of it for what you lose of it is as if you should lose one of your Members Tell me if any one should give you Lingots of Gold would you not keep them with all manner of Diligence taking care not to lose any Part of them and not to suffer Damage And should you not take care that there fall not any Crumb of this which is more precious than Gold and than Pearls And afterwards passing to the consideration of the Blood whereof he exhorted him to participate with profound Respect he teacheth him of what Blood he should understand it when he adds Ibid. And as the Moisture and Humidity is yet upon the Lips touching with your Hand the Eyes the Face and other Organs of the Senses sanctifie them and having attended the Prayers give Thanks unto God for that he hath rendred you worthy to participate of these great Mysteries Hitherto our Neophyte hath not been ill instructed but let us again hear how he spake unto him in the foregoing Catechism Id. Catech. Myst 4. p. 237. Ibid. Jesus Christ affirming and saying of the Bread This is my Body who is it that can yet make any doubt of
you cannot understand then you may now say unto me seeing you have commanded us to believe explain unto us what it is to the end we might understand for this Thought may be in every body's Mind We know of whom Jesus Christ our Lord took Flesh to wit of the Virgin Mary we know he was nursed in his Infancy that he was fed that he grew that he attained the Age of Manhood that he suffered Persecution of the Jews that he was nailed to the Cross that he there died and was buried that he rose the third Day that he ascended into Heaven when he was pleased to go thither that he lifted up his Body from whence he shall come to judg the quick and the dead and that he is now sitting on the right Hand of the Father How then is the Bread his Body and the Cup his Blood Brethren these things are called Sacraments because one thing is what we see and another is that we understand that which is seen is a bodily Species that which we understand hath a spiritual Fruit If then you would know what the Body of Jesus Christ is hearken to St. Paul the Apostle which said unto Believers You are the Body of Jesus Christ and his Members your Sacrament is laid upon the Lord's Table and you there receive your Mystery You say Amen unto what you are and you thereto subscribe by your Answer It is said unto you The Body of Jesus Christ and you answer Amen be Members then of Jesus Christ that your Amen may be true But why all this to the Bread let us not add here nothing of our own but let us farther hear the same Apostle speaking of this Sacrament We which are many are one Bread and one Body understand this and rejoice for here is nothing but Unity Piety Charity one Bread and one Body although we be many Observe that the Bread is not made of one Grain but of many When you were exorcised you passed as it were under the Mill when you were baptised you were as it were kneaded and when you received the fire of the Holy Ghost you were baked like Bread Be then what you see and receive what you are See here what the Apostle hath said of Bread whereby he sufficiently shews without repeating it what we should believe in regard of the Cup for as to make this visible Species of Bread several Grains are reduced into one Body to represent what the Scripture saith of Believers they were but one Heart and one Soul in God It is also the same of Wine consider how it is one several Grapes are in a Bunch but their Liquor is mingled all into one Body so it is Christ hath represented us so it is he hath made us his and that he hath consecrated upon the holy Table the Mystery of Unity and of our Peace So it was they instructed in the ancient Church the new Baptised they were told that what they see upon the Holy Table was Bread and their own Eyes were called to witness this Truth They were taught that this Bread was the natural Body of Jesus Christ as it was his mystical and moral Body that is to say his Church because it is the Sacrament both of the one and the other and that in the Sacrament must carefully be distinguished the Substance of the Symbols which are visible and corporeal from the Benefit which accrues unto the believing Soul and which is a Thing invisible and spiritual that faithful Believers are although for mystical Reasons the very same thing which they see upon the mystical Table that is to say Bread according to what the Apostle saith we are one Bread and that they do receive truly that which they see mystically Now let the Reader judg if these Catechisms and these Instructions are for the Use of Roman Catholicks or for the Use of Protestants as for my particular I 'le pass unto a new Consideration CHAP. VIII Proofs of the Doctrines of the Holy Fathers drawn by Protestants from some Customs of the Ancient Church THere are two sorts of Language used in the Society and Commerce of Men to communicate unto each other their Thoughts and Intentions I mean Words and Actions The Language of Actions is silent indeed yet nevertheless very intelligible because Actions I speak of those authorized by publick Use are for the most part as significant as Words It is not then to be thought strange if we do relate what Inferences the Protestants draw from certain Customs which were practised by the ancient Church and which we have at large established in the first Part Therefore we will look upon them in this as established and will content our selves in barely mentioning them one after another to infer from each of them what may lawfully be deduced In Africa in St. Austin's time they communicated after Meat Thursday before Easter and in several Churches in Egypt every Saturday in the Year at Evening after having made a good Meal Without speaking of the Church of Corinth in St. Paul's time where some think the same was practis'd what Belief could those People have of the Sacrament of the Eucharist It is no very easie matter to think that they believed it to be the Substance of the Body of Jesus Christ and his Flesh it self else it must be confessed that they were guilty of an horrible Profanation to lodg in a Stomach full of Meats and it may be sometimes even to excess the precious Body of the Saviour of Mankind the only Object of their Worship and Adoration Nevertheless none of the ancient Writers have condemned this Practice those which have treated of it have spoken as of an innocent Custom which had no hurt in it and which moreover was authorized by the Example of Jesus Christ himself Therefore when the third Council of Carthage commanded to celebrate the Sacrament fasting it excepted the Thursday before Easter whereon it permitted to participate every Year after the Meal An evident Proof say some that there was no Crime in this Custom whereas it would have been intolerable if they had believed then the same of the Sacrament as the Latin Church now doth belive of it Therefore no Body can justly blame the Severity of its Laws when it is so strictly prohibited to communicate otherwise than Fasting The ancient Church for a long time used Patens and Chalices of Glass and we do not find that these first Christians ever made any difficulty of putting the Sacrament in Glass-Chalices nor that they were ever blamed that did it On the contrary some of those which used this Practice were commended for it nevertheless we cannot say that these ancient Believers were less circumspect than we are in the Celebration of the Sacrament Wherefore then was it that they feared not so much spilling of it in that Occasion as the Latin Church hath done some Ages past Let this Difference be well considered for saith the Protestant I am much deceived if
upon a serious and impartial Debate it will not be attributed unto the Difference of Judgment it not being to be imagin'd that Christians so good and zealous and fervent for the Religion of Jesus Christ as those were of whom we speak and have had the same Belief of the Sacrament that the Latin Church at this time hath which for some time past doth not suffer the Use of Glass-Chalices that they had not at least used so much Precaution as she doth to consecrate and distribute the Sacrament I mean they would have made it a Scruple of Conscience of putting the Body of their God and Saviour in so brittle a Thing as Glass those which were so careful that none of the sacred Symbols of their Bread and Wine should fall to the Ground The ancient Christians gave the Eucharist to young sucking Children at the Breast a Custom which continued in the West until the XIIth Century and which is still practised in most Christian Communions excepting the Roman Catholicks and the Protestants How came it to pass this Abuse was so long tolerated in the Church if it had been always believed therein what the Latins do believe at present who cannot justly be blamed by little and little to have abolished this Custom One could not without Horror see exposed what was believed to be the Body and Blood of Christ unto the undecent and sad Accidents which oftentimes of necessity happen in communicating of young Children those little Creatures being uncapable by reason of their tender Age of receiving the Sacrament with Respect which is due unto the Body it self of Jesus Christ our Redeemer But wherefore did the ancient Church for so many Ages suffer such an Abuse or at least having tolerated it some time wherefore had she not bethought her self of abolishing it instead of letting it take root in the midst of it Was it not so wise as the Church at this time is Had she less Zeal less Piety and less Prudence had she less love for Jesus Christ or less Veneration for his sacred Person certainly I suppose not This Difference then of Conduct cannot be grounded upon any other Reason but upon the Difference of Faith whilst Christians believed that what they received in the Eucharist was Bread and Wine in Substance but that at the same time they were also the Divine Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Christ the Reasons which moved them to give the Eucharist unto young Children made them pass by the Indecencies which might be feared on the Behalf of these little Creatures But when the Doctrine changed in the West and that in the Latin Church they began to say that it was the very Body and Blood of Jesus Christ this ancient Custom was abolished it not agreeing well with their Belief And indeed we see this Abolition was made about the time when this notable Change happened in their Doctrine And because that in other Christian Communions there is no Alteration happened by any publick Decree in the Tradition of their Fathers upon the Subject of the Sacrament they have innocently retained the ancient Custom of giving the Sacrament unto little Children I confess this Practise is contrary to what St. Paul desires of Communicants which is to examine themselves before they draw near unto the holy Table of which Proof little Children are uncapable But as we do not here treat but only of what was done by the ancient Christians and of what is still practised by several Christian Churches and not of what ought to be done I 'le say no more of it referring the Induction which the Protestants draw from this Practise unto the Judgment of all reasonable Persons which will take the Pains to read this History The Communion under both Kinds was practis'd in the Church until these last Ages wherein the Latins deprived the People of the Use of the sacred Cup for as for all other Christian Societies which hold not Correspondence with her they retain the Custom of administring the Sacrament under both Symbols altho with some little Difference The great Ground of the Latin Church for so doing being through Fear of shedding it But how comes it to pass that this Fear is so lately crept into their Thoughts Whence is it that she her self practis'd the Communion under both Kinds for above a thousand Years without any body scrupling it On the contrary when she began to forbid the Use of the Cup unto the People by a Decree at the beginning of the XVth Century a great many Persons complained of it and whole Countries earnestly desired it might be restored unto them Wherefore did she so long time grant unto her People the Communion under both Symbols distinctly Was there then less cause of Fear of shedding than when they deprived them of this Advantage particularly at the time when in Rome it self they used Chalices of Glass For it must be owned that Glass being a weak thing there was never greater ground to fear spilling than during the time those Chalices were used yet nevertheless when there was most cause of this Fear they suffered the People to participate of the Cup of our Lord as well as of his Bread and when there is less Danger Glass-Chalices being no longer in Use they are refused it Whence say they proceeds such a notable Change which could have no shew of Reason if the Doctrine had not been altered but because wise and prudent Persons do not incline unto these Sorts of Changes without some powerful Motives it must be freely confessed that no other can be found whatever Scrutiny could be made but the Change of Belief And in truth say they again if this Change be not presupposed it will be a very hard matter to forbear censuring those of Lightness which made it a Change I say of the Nature that is of and in a thing which was grounded upon the Authority of Christ himself and the constant Practice of so many Ages Whereas if the prohibiting the Cup be considered as a Consequence of this Change it will not be hard to conceive that the Fear of shedding the real Blood of the Son of God obliged them to forbid unto the People the Use of the holy Cup rather chusing to deprive them of this Comfort and Consolation than to fall into the Inconvenience of some negligent spilling of the Substance it self of the Blood of their Divine Saviour A Fear which hath not seised the other Christian Communions because they have not practis'd any Innovation in this particular or that at least there hath not any been made by any publick Determination In the ancient Church the Eucharist was delivered into the Communicants Hand who with the Hand put it into their Mouth as hath been proved and we may produce Examples of this Practice in the XIIth Century in Flanders At this time in the Latin Church it is put directly into the Communicants Mouth unto whom it is not permitted to receive it
Eucharist with the Dead did not believe in all likelihood that it was the very Body of our Lord for they would not have done any such thing the very Thoughts of it would have terrified them and they would have esteemed themselves the worst of Men to have put their Saviour which they knew to be in Heaven in the Possession of Soveraign Glory into such a mean and low Estate In this same Church in several Places they caused to be burnt the Overplus of the Sacrament and in other Places they caused it to be eaten by Children which they made come from School on purpose Is it to be thought that if they had believed it was the very Substance of the Body of Jesus Christ that they would have given it so freely unto Children who were sent for to come from School to that effect It is also more unlikely that they would have caused to be burnt the Flesh it self of the Saviour of Mankind and to cast the Son of God into the Fire who had ransomed them from the eternal Fire of Hell The ancient Christians have sometimes taken the consecrated Cup and have mingled it with Ink and then dipt their Pen in these two Liquors mixed the more authentically to sign what they had intended to ratifie not considering what is in the Cup but as a Symbol and Sacrament of the Blood of the Son of God yet one would be struck with some Terror so to see profaned this Sacrament of our Salvation but if one considers it as the Blood it self of Jesus Christ one shall find himself seized with a holy Fear And because it cannot fall within the Compass of a Christian's Thoughts to employ unto this Use the Substance of the Blood of our Lord if he had it in his power it self it must be concluded that those who did it were very far from thinking that it was the real Blood of our Saviour It may be the same Consequence might be drawn from the Practice of the Greek Church which mingles warm Water with the Wine after Consecration and at the instant of communicating But because we shall be obliged to speak elsewhere of the Belief of the Greeks we will not enlarge upon it in this place and we shall only advertise the Reader that all the Customs from whence have been drawn these Inductions contained in this Chapter have been examined in the 5 10 11 12 13 14 15 and 16 Chapters of the first Part of this History and are those which Protestants do make and which the Quality of an Historian which I have assumed in this Work hath obliged me to represent CHAP. IX Other Proofs drawn from the Silence of Heathens and of things objected against them by the Holy Fathers HAving sometimes applied my self to consider how the Enemies of Christians have behaved themselves in reference to the Simplicity of our Mysteries I find they have been displeased with most of them and that they have aspersed them The Jews as we find in the Acts and the Epistles of the holy Apostles could not endure that Christians should believe Jesus Christ the Son of the blessed Virgin was the Messias which had been promised nor that they should believe he was risen from the Dead and ascended into Heaven nor that they should endeavour to free Men from the Yoke of Moses his Law It will suffice only to read the Dialogue or Conference of Tryphon the Jew Just Martyr Dial. cum Tryph. p 290 291 292 293 317. against Justin Martyr therein to see that this Son of the Synagogue did Reproach unto the Children of the Church as things incredible monstrous and grossly forged what we teach That Jesus Christ was before Abraham and Aaron that he assumed our Nature and was born of a Virgin a Mystery which this insolent Jew esteems ridiculous and fabulous insomuch as wickedly to compare it unto the Fables which the Greek Poets relate of their Danae and in that we believe God was born and was made Flesh but he finds nothing more incredible than the Cross of Jesus Christ Tertul. ad Judaeos cap. 10. which Tertullian also reckons amongst the chiefest Objections which the Jews made against Christian Religion according to what the Apostle said That the Cross of Jesus Christ was a Stumbling-block to the Jews and Foolishness to the Gentiles The same Tryphon again reproacheth unto Christians as a great crime that they adored a Man and that they placed their Confidence in him From whence he takes Occasion to charge them of introducing another God besides the Creator As for the Gentiles they were no better disposed than the Jews because they despised the same Belief and counted fabulous all other Articles which seemed to contradict the common Notions and which did not exactly agree with the Principles and Maxims of other Religions For Example Clem. Alex. Strom. l. 6. p. 677. Clement of Alexandria observes that they found it very strange that we said God had a Son that this Son should speak in Man that he suffered and that they esteemed this Doctrine as a Fable and Forgery Tertullian witnesseth the same Teâ—tâ—l Apol. c. 21. Therefore having explained the incomprehensible Mystery of the eternal Generation of the Son and of his Incarnation he speaks according to their Supposition and saith Nevertheless believe this Fable that is to say admit at last this Doctrine which you look upon as a Fable And elsewhere speaking again according to the Opinion the Gentiles had of it he calls the Mysteries of our Faith the Foolishness of Christian Discipline and puts particularly in this Number a God born Id. de Caâ—n Christ c. 4 5. Id. Apolog. c. 47 48. de tesâ—im an c. 4. Just Apol. 2. p. 60 Arnob. l 2. p. 24. and yet born of a Virgin and a God of Flesh crucified and buried Whereunto he adds in another Treatise The last Judgment the Torments of Hell-Fire Heaven and the Resurrection of the Body And he collects from all these Articles of Faith that they condemned them of Vanity of Presumption of Folly and of Stupidity St. Justin Martyr also writes that they called the Incarnation and Passion of the Son an Extravagancy And Arnobius assures us That they made a Jest at the Simplicity of Christians in obliging them to believe the Resurrection from the Dead and the everlasting Torments of Hell-Fire Orig. contrs Câ—ls l. 1. But if we look upon the Books of Origen against the Philosopher Celsus we shall therein find other things which will inform us of the wicked and prodigious Fables which the Gentiles made use of to slander and calumniate the Birth of our Divine Jesus and of making the inviolable Chastity of the blessed Virgin the Subject of their Raileries This Philosopher reproacheth unto Christians the Doctrine of the Incarnation of the Eternal Word as a thing unworthy the Divinity Id. l. 2. p. 79. uit edit The Son of God saith he ought to have appeared like
is said That it might well be that the Gentiles transported with Hatred and Malice against the Christians might have given a wrong meaning unto what they had extorted by Torments from the Mouth of some of their Domesticks and that having heard of them that their Masters called the Bread and Wine of the Holy Communion the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ they concluded that it was indeed his Body and Blood and that they did really eat this Flesh and Blood But as it was not just to judg of the Belief of Christians upon the Testimony of their Enemies whose aim was only to slander the Truth of their Religion let us consider a little say they what is contained in the Words of Oecumenius or if you will of St. Irenaeus speaking by the Mouth of Oecumenius In the first place they attribute unto the Ignorance and Stupidity of these Slaves that they thought that the Christians held the Sacrament of the Eucharist for the true Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ because they called it his Body and Blood having heard their Masters say that the Divine Communion is the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ They thought that it was really the Flesh and Blood and said so unto those which examined them Secondly they declare positively That the Pagans had taken it as if the Christians had eaten really this Flesh and Blood which sheweth that the Christians had quite another Opinion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 câ—eâ—â—adire juxta Hesyâ—hium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They understood it it is added as if it had truly been done by Christians And in fine they represent unto us Blandina answering them freely That Christians were so far from eating the Flesh and Blood of their Saviour that they voluntarily abstained and that by a kind of Duty even from Meats and Flesh which was lawful How can it be saith she that those that abstain by Exercise from Flesh which is lawful should endure such things And because Christians never denied a spiritual eating the Flesh of Christ and which is the only eating they have acknowledged or do yet own however they may differ It is evident say the Protestants that when by the Mouth of Oecumenius they deny that they eat the Flesh of our Saviour they understand it of a bodily and carnal eating but as for the Sacrament they did never deny but that they did eat it with the Mouth of the Body I know not if they are deceived in this Discourse but they believe it is very well grounded in the Testimony which we have examined And that nothing may want to clear the Reproach made against Christians of eating human Flesh the Reader may remember if he please what hath been said in Chap. 2. of the first Part that these infamous Reports came not from the Eucharist of Catholicks and Orthodox but from the abominable Mysteries of the Gnosticks and the Carpocratians of whom we treated in the same place It shall suffice to observe here that when the Holy Fathers answered unto this shameful Reproach or rather this black and devilish Calumny it was by a down-right Denial and to shew it was a Thing so horrible and so far distant from their holy Discipline that the very Thoughts of it displeased them without ever making any Exception of the Eucharist The false Devils Just Martyr Apol. 1. vel 2. p. 50. saith St. Justin Martyr caused it to be practised by certain wicked Men for they having killed some body to cloke their Calumny against us they made some of our domestick Servants be put to the Rack or Children or ignorant Women and by cruel Torments they constrained them to say Things against us which they forged and which they themselves did do secretly whereof seeing there is nothing which concerns us we make no matter having the eternal and ineffable God for Witness of our Thoughts and Actions Athenagoras yet speaks more positively Who saith he Athenag legat pro Christ p. 38. of those that are in their right Senses can say that we are Murderers For it is not possible to eat Man's Flesh unless first some one is killed having then invented the former if they are examined of the second if they have seen the things whereof they speak no body is so bold as to say that they have seen them There be some amongst us that have Servants some more some less from whom it were unpossible to hide us but not any of them have inform'd any such thing against us For which of them can charge Murder or eating of human Flesh unto those whom they know are not permitted to stop to see the Execution of those which are thereunto justly condemned Minutius Felix I would saith he Minut. in Octavio see him that saith or thinketh that we be initiated by Murder and the Blood of an Infant do you think it can possible be that so tender a little Body should be appointed to be mangled that any in piercing it with Wounds should shed and pour forth the Blood of a new-born Infant scarce yet a Man no Body can believe it but those that are so bold as to undertake it And a little lower We are not suffered to see nor hear talk of Manslaughter and we so avoid Murder that we do not use nor admit of the Blood of Beasts amongst our Meat Tertul. Apol. c. 9. Tertullian whose reasoning is strong refutes the Calumny of the Heathens by these Words which certainly are worthy of him Let your Error saith he make you blush before Christians which do not as much as taste the Blood of Beasts and therefore do abstain from things strangled and from that of Beasts which have not been slain for fear of defiling themselves with any sort of Blood whatever even of that which is in the Body In fine to prove them you present unto them Puddings made of Blood because you very well know that they are not permitted to do the Things whereby you would make them offend Is it possible you should think that we thirst after Man's Blood we that have an Aversion unto that of Beasts If it be not that we have found it more delicious you should then make use of it to prove them as you do use Fire and Incense for then you would discover them in desiring Human Blood as they declare themselves in refusing to sacrifice and so you may condemn them if they eat of it as you do condemn them when they refuse to sacrifice and by this Means you would want no Human Blood to hear and to condemn the Christians which you keep Prisoners I freely confess saith the Protestant that I cannot apprehend this Proceeding of the Holy Fathers if they did really eat the Flesh of Jesus Christ with the Mouth of the Body after what manner or in what regard soever they eat it and to say the Truth if the Christians of their Times did eat really and truly the very Flesh of Jesus Christ they would
have been horrible Lyers in denying that they did eat Human Flesh without ever excepting the Sacrament they betrayed their own Judgment and erring shamefully in this Point they rendred themselves unworthy of being believed in what they have transmitted unto us touching the Faith and Belief of the Church But when on the other Hand I consider their Candor and Sincerity their Piety Zeal and the great Inclinations they had to glorifie God by their Death and the little Account they made of their Lives I dare not accuse them of Prevarication nor of Hypocrisie I too much honour their Memory and have too great a Love for their Vertue God forbid saith he that I should ever do them so great Injury or have any evil Thoughts of them because I own their Proceedings to be sincere and always accompanied with Truth as for my particular I leave it unto indifferent Persons to judge of the Consequence that hath been made of their Conduct But if the Silence of the Fathers hath served to shew what was the Belief of the ancient Church touching the Point of the Eucharist what the Holy Fathers have spoken against the Gods of the Gentiles will no less discover it In the first place they reproach them that by Consecration which consisted in certain precise Words and Formalities they rendred the Divinity which they adored present in the Image and inclosed him as one may say in his Statue as hath been shewed in the 7th Chapter of the first Part whereunto I will only add these Words of St. Chrysostom Chrysost Hom. in Christ nat t. 5. p. 477. Is it not an exceeding great Folly to introduce their Gods into Wood and Stone and into Statues of a low Price and to shut them up as it were in Prison and yet to think that they do nor say nothing that is amiss Let the Reader judge if the Fathers would have spoke after this manner if they had been of the same Belief the Latin Church is of and if they had not given their Enemies some Advantage over them In the second place 1 Apol. 2. p. 69. St. Justin Martyr 2 L. 5. p. 91. the Author of the Recognitions 3 Ad Demeâ— p. 201. St. Cyprian 4 Arnob. l. 6. p. 89. Arnobius 5 Inst l. 2. c. 4. Lactantius 6 Homil. 57. in Genes t. 2. Tertul. Apol. c. 13. St. Chrysostom do tell them their Gods may be stollen and that they should watch them and lock them up safe In truth saith the Protestant it would be hard to excuse them of Impudence and want of Judgment for these holy Doctors to have insulted after this manner over the Vanities of the Gods of the Heathen if they had believed of the Sacrament what is believed by the Latin Church because it is most certain that the Host of the Roman Catholicks which they look upon as their God and Saviour is carefully kept under Lock and Key and is subject and in danger to be stollen In fine Tertullian deriding the Domestick Heathen Gods saith amongst other things That sometimes they gave them in pawn Every particular Christian might have done the same by the Sacrament because at that time they were permitted to carry it home to their Houses and keep it And Cardinal Du Perron saith Du Perr de l' Euch. l. 3. c. 29. p. 918. upon the Report of Paul Jovius and Gennebrard That for certain St. Lewis King of France left an Host for Pledg of the Ransom which he had promised the Sultan of Egypt for granting him his Liberty There be others which have observed Obsâ—rvat upon the History of Chalcondyle that Vladislaus King of Hungary who was slain at the Battel of Varn Ann. 1444 also gave one unto Amurath the second Emperor of the Turks for a Pledg of his Faith upon the concluding of peace with him It is not very likely that Tertullian who was of a wise and very solid Judgment should make Reproaches against his Enemies which they might have retorted upon himself if he had believed that the Eucharist is our God and our Redeemer he sheweth then in doing so that he believed not so as the Latin Church believes at this present These are the Inferences which the Protestants draw from what hath been written in this Chapter CHAP. X. The last Proof drawn from what hath passed in regard of Hereticks either referring unto the Customs of some of them or in reference to their Silence or in fine of the Holy Fathers disputing against them THE Emperors Valentinian and Marcian Collect. Rom. bipart i. p. 104. speaking of Hereticks said thus The Enemies of our Religion have obliged us to seek God more carefully to find him more manifestly for the Light that shineth after Darkness seems to be greater and drink is most pleasant unto those that are a thirst as rest is most agreeable unto those which be weary In effect Hereticks have formerly as it were challenged the Holy Fathers unto the Combate and have invited them unto the occasion of meditating more particularly of the Truth of the Mysteries which they attacked therefore as they were obliged to stand the closer upon their Guard having to do with Enemies which took all advantages against the purity of our Religion I believe it may be safely said that of all the Works of these Holy Doctors there are scarce any more solid and more compleat than their Polemicks I mean the Books they wrote against these Enemies of Christianity it is true they had no Controversy with Hereticks upon the point of the Sacrament but nevertheless because the Holy Fathers do sometimes employ this Divine Mistery to refute some of their Heresies we will not omit drawing from those places some Light for illustrating the matter which we examine but before we proceed so far we will endeavour to explain some Inductions from certain Customs practised by some of them and of their Silence As to the former of these two Heads we see in the second Chapter of the first part that the Heretick Marc pretended to consecrate Challices wherein there was Wine and even White Wine as some think and that insisting very long upon the Words of Invocation and Prayer he made it appear red and of a Purple Colour to the end it should be believed that the Divinity which he called Grace should from the highest Heavens distil his Blood into the Cup by means of his Invocation whereupon it is said that if the Catholicks of his time had believed that the Wine of the Sacred Cup was changed by the vertue of Consecration into the real substance of the Blood of Jesus Christ the imposture of this Deceiver would not have been so much regarded by those miserable Wretches which he seduced for they might have said unto him that he took a great deal of pains to little purpose in making the Blood of the God which he preached come into the Cup seeing that the Catholicks and Orthodox without
Adversary without at the same time giving mortal blows to the Eucharist of Orthodox Christians of his time if it had been the same with that of the Latins But because those which know the rare Genius of Tertullian will never accuse him of so great Imprudence it must of necessity be concluded that the belief of the Church of his time upon the point of the Sacrament was quite contrary unto that of the Latin Church they think one cannot chuse but make this conclusion which I leave unto the Reader 's Liberty And from this Dispute of Tertullian against Marcion I proceed unto that which the ancient Church had against the Encratites which detesting Wine as a Diabolical thing and sinful to be used did celebrate the Mysteries with bare Water What have the Holy Fathers said unto them how have they refuted this Heresy have they said unto them that our Saviour having employed Wine to the matter of this Sacrament bare Water cannot be converted into the Blood of Jesus Christ have they further said to them that the aversion they had against Wine should not hinder them from using it in the celebration of the Eucharist because though it were Wine before Consecration yet it was not after the substance of it being changed by the vertue of Consecration into the substance of the real Blood of Jesus Christ and that so 't is no longer Wine which we drink but the real Blood of the Saviour of the World they have said nothing of all this unto them but then what have they said unto them they have constantly represented that Jesus Christ Offered Wine which be gave and drank thereof Which they prove by these Words I will no more drink of this Fruit of the Vine until the day I drink it new in my Fathers Kingdom It is in this manner that Clemens of Alexandria St. Epiphanius and St. Chrysostom argued against these Hereticks as hath been shewn in the second Chapter of the first part But it is enough spoken to this matter it is time to conclude this Chapter and by the same means I will conclude the Proofs drawn from the Disputes of the. Holy Fathers against Hereticks by the consideration of what passed betwixt them and the Eutychians The Heresy of the Eutychians following the same Track of the most part of others sought out Artifices and Invention the easier to insinuate it self into the Minds of Men thereby to make the greater Progress For although for the most part they declared there was two Natures in Jesus Christ but that at the instant of his being received up into the Heavenly Glory the Human Nature was changed into the Nature or Substance of the Divine Nature yet nevertheless I conceive to speak truly their Heresy was not much different in this point from the Heresy of Marcion and his Companions which formerly denied the Truth of Christ's Human Nature and only attributed unto him a Shew and Appearance And what makes me think so is that the ancient Doctors of the Church do testify that Eutyches did teach that Jesus Christ took nothing of the substance of the Holy Virgin but having brought I know not what Body of his own from his Heavenly Father he only passed through the Womb of the Blessed Virgin as through a Channel I will not insist upon alledging all the Passages of the Fathers which mention this it shall suffice to instance in some few Feriand Diacon ad Anato He would not confess saith the Deacon Ferrand that the Son was consubstantial with his Mother for he denied that the Holy Virgin had communicated unto the only Son of God which was to be born of her by the vertue of the Holy Ghost the substance of his Flesh And Vigilius an African saith Diac. Vigil adv Eutych l. 3. c. 3. alibi that he assured the Word was so made Flesh that it only passed through the Womb of the Virgin as Water passeth through a Conduit but that he did not believe that he took any thing of her which was of the Nature of our Flesh And Theodoret treating historically of this Heresy which he so learnedly hath refuted in his Writings Theod. haeret Fabul l. 4. 13. p. 246. t. 4. Eutyches saith he taught that God the Word took nothing of the Human Nature of the Virgin Mary but that he was steadily changed and made Flesh I use his ridiculous Expressions that he only passed through the Body of the Virgin and that it was the incomprehensible Divinity of the only Son of God which had been crucified buried and raised from the Dead Therefore the Count Marcellin said in his History Ma cell Cem. in Chronol Theodoret Bishop of Cyr wrote of the Incarnation of Christ against the Priest Eutyches and against Dioscorus Bishop of Alexandria which asserted that Jesus Christ had not Human Flesh St. Prosper also observes in his Prosp in Chronol ad Consul Astur Protog that this Arch Heretick said That Jesus Christ our Lord Son of the Blessed Virgin partaked not of the substance of his Mother but that in the likeness of Man he had only the Nature of the Son of God This as I conceive is the exact Opinion of the Eutychians conformable in this point with Marcion therefore I find that the Holy Fathers which disputed against them have employed the Sacrament against them in the same sence and the same manner as those which preceded them had done against the Marcionites I mean that they proved by this Sacrament the truth of the Body of Jesus Christ as commonly the truth of a thing is proved by its Image Theod. dial 2. p. 84. t. 4. and by its Picture An Image say they must of necessity have its Original for Painters do imitate Nature and delineate things which they do see if then the Divine Mysteries are the Figures or Anti-types of a true Body it follows that our Saviour hath now a Body not changed into the Nature of the Divinity but filled with the Divine Glory It is the reasoning of Theodoret in his second Dialogue which he repeats again in two other places I cannot comprehend saith the Protestant the meaning of this ancient Doctor if the Doctrine of the real Conversion at that time was an Article of Faith in the Church wherefore to alledg the Sacrament as an Image and a Figure to prove the verity of the Body of Christ if it were really and truly the very Body it self I cannot understand this Difficulty but in freely confessing that Christians at that time did not know nor believe this real Conversion whence it was that Theodoret did argue against the Eutychians just as Tertullian had done before against the Marcionites The Evidence of this Truth will yet better appear if it be considered that there was an universal Peace amongst the Orthodox and the Eutychians touching the Sacrament of the Eucharist which Peace had been incompatible with the belief of the substantial Conversion which the
Eutychians could not have admitted without pulling down with one Hand what they built with the other that is to say without destroying what they taught that Jesus Christ had not a true Body But to the end no scruple may rest hereupon in the Mind of the Reader let us hear this Dialogue of Theodoret with an Eutychian Heret Theod. dial 2. p. 84 85. t. 4. It is very well that you have begun the Discourse of Divine Mysteries for thereby I will shew you that the Body of Jesus Christ is changed into another Nature answer then to the Question which I shall propose Orthod I will answer Heret What do you call before the Priestly Invocation the thing which is offered Orthod We must not speak openly fearing we may be heard by Persons not initiated Heret Answer obscurely Orthod I call it a Food made of certain Grains Heret And how is the other Symbol called Orthod It is commonly called by a Name that designs a certain sort of Liquor Heret But after Consecration what call you them Orthod The Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Heret And do you believe you receive the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Orthod I do believe it Heret As then the Symbols of the Body and Blood of Christ are one thing before the Priestly Invocation but after Consecration are changed and made another thing so in like manner the Body of Christ was changed into a Divine Substance after his Ascension Orthod You are taken in your own Net which you laid for the Mystical Symbols do not change their Nature after Consecration but they remain in their first Substance in their first Figure and in their first Form they are visible and palpable such as they were before but they are apprehended to be what they are made and they are believed and are worshipped to be what they are believed to be Compare now this Image with its Original and you shall see the resemblance which is betwixt them for the Figure ought to resemble the Original The Body of Jesus Christ keepeth his first Form his first Figure and his first Circumscription and in a word it hath the substance of a Body but after the Resurrection it was made immortal and incorruptible it is sitting on the right Hand of God and all Creatures do adore it because it is called the Lord of Nature Heret But the Mystical Symbol doth change its former Name for it is no longer called what it was before but it is called the Body of Jesus Christ whence it follows that the Truth which answers the Sign should be called God and not Body Orthod It seems to me you are in Darkness for the Symbol is not only called Body but Bread of Life the Lord himself calleth it so and as for the Body it self we call it a Divine Body a quickning Body the Body of our Lord meaning thereby that it is not the Body of an Ordinary Person but the Body of Jesus Christ our Lord which is God and Man This Discourse being written as it were with a Sun-Beam to use Tertullian's Expression hath no need of Explication Therefore we will here put an end to the proofs of the belief of the Holy Fathers to proceed to the Inquiry into the Changes arrived first in the Expressions and then afterwards in the Doctrine it self CHAP. XI Of the change which came to pass in the Expressions or the History of the Seventh Century ALthough Custom in Speech be a very capricious Master and exerciseth over the words which are subject unto its Tyrannical Government an absolute Authority rejecting or using them at pleasure or rather after its wild Fancy Nevertheless there are certain expressions so confirmed by long use and so particularly adapted to signifie certain things that they cannot be Abolished without disturbing the Commerce and Society of Men and without forgetting by degrees and insensibly the Nature of those things for the representation whereof they were designed If this may befall in things of Civil Society much more is it to be feared in things of a Religious Nature because for the most part the consequences and effects are more fatal and dangerous therefore it was the Ancient Christians were so careful of exactly retaining certain terms and manner of Expressions which had been as 't were consecrated in the Church and which could not be changed without opening the Door unto some alteration in the Doctrine so certain it is that we must not remove the bounds which our Fore-fathers have set It is upon this ground and motive that it was said throughout the whole extent of Ecclesiastical Antiquity for above the space of six hundred years That the Eucharist was the Sacrament the Sign the Symbole the Image the Figure the Type the Antitype the Similitude and the Representation of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ it never being seen in so considerable a space of time in that vast and spacious Empire that there was any body that offered to question Expressions that were so well Established and moreover so constantly and universally received as they were Nevertheless in the Seventh Century there was sprung up in Mount Sinai a certain Friar called Anastatius which rashly passing over the Bounds that in this regard had been observed rejected the term of Sign or Figure which was commonly used until his time But not to confound this Anastatius with others of the same name which had been Patriarchs of Antioch and also to discover the Age wherein he lived it must be noted that himself observes that being at Alexandria he was told Annestat Sin in c. 10. that a good while after the Death of the Patriarch Eulogius there was in that City an Augustal Prefect which favoured the party of the Severian Hereticks and who to this effect had contributed in corrupting the Writings of the Ancients Now Eulogius dyed by every bodies confession in the year of our Lord 608. This was not told unto Anastatius until a considerable time had past after the death of Eulogius let us say it may be about 20 or 22 years which is the least can be allowed Anastatius then could not be informed of this matter till the year 630. and he could be neither of the two Anastatiuses that were Patriarchs of Antioch Ibid. seeing the last was murdered by the Jews in the year 608. Besides he writes that being at Alexandria there arose a question touching some words of St. Chrysostom which had been Bishop of the same place after his Uncle Theophilus which had been corrupted and altered and that then one Isidor Library Keeper and truly Orthodox produc'd a Copy an Exemplification of the Writings of St. Cyril which had not been adulterated which sheweth that in all likelihood the Patriarch was Orthodox for if he had been an Eutychian he would not have tolerated a Library Keeper that had been Orthodox and an Enemy to his Belief therefore it may be concluded if I be not
entire in each portion of the things divided These words can receive no good sense but by understanding them of the Sacrament that is to say of the Bread which is broken in pieces as to its matter and substance but that remains whole and intire as to the vertue of the Sacrament which made the great St. Basil say Basil Ep. 289. t. 3. That to receive one part or several at ae time is the same thing as to its virtue Moreover German will have us consider Jesus Christ as dead in the Sacrament and as pouring forth his precious blood for the Salvation of mankind when he saith Id. Germ. ib. p. 407 409 410. That the Elevation of the precious body represents the Elevation in the Cross the Death of our Lord on the Cross and his Resurrection also That the Priest receiving the Bread alone without the Blood and the Blood also without the Body signifies nothing else but that the Divine Lamb is yet all bloody and that we eat the Bread and drink the Cup as the Flesh and Blood of the Son of God confessing his Death and Resurrection And clearer yet in these words where speaking of the holy Bread which he distinguisheth from Jesus Christ he saith Ibid p. 408. That it is the only Bread wherein is figured and represented the Divine and all-healing Death of him which was Sacrificed for the Lafe of the World because it is the only Divine Bread which is Sacrificed and Offered as the Lamb but as for the other Divine Gifts they be not cut in the form of a Cross with the Knife but they are put in pieces as the members and parts of the body It is the true Commentary of what he saith in the same Treatise That Jesus Christ is always sacrificed because he is so not in himself for that cannot be by the confession of all Christians but in the Sacrament the Celebration whereof doth lively represent unto us the imolation of Jesus Christ upon the Cross Ibid. p. 408. Add unto this that he declares That Jesus Christ drank Wine in his Sacrament as he did after his Resurrection not through necessity but to perswade his Disciples of the truth of his Resurrection And that he desires at the instant of communicating we should lift up our thoughts from Earth unto the King which is in Heaven Now let it be judged after all these declarations what the change can be which he saith is passed upon the Bread and Wine by Consecration if he meant a change of substance or only of use and condition for the former seems unto Protestants to be inconsistent with the Explanations which he hath given us whereas the latter doth not ill accord with it in all appearance German saith That Jesus Christ is seen and felt in the Eucharist but he positively affirms that it is done in his Sacrament that is to say that he is seen and touched inasmuch as the Sacrament is seen and felt which doth represent him Ibid. p. 401. Our Saviour saith he is seen and suffers himself to be touched by means of the ever to be revered and sacred Mysteries I will not insist upon what is said by this Patriarch That the Bread and Wine offered by Believers for the Communion do in some sort become upon the Table of proposition which amongst the Greeks is different from that where the Consecration of the Divine Symbols are made I say they become in some sort the Images and Figures of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ because it is a frivolous conceit and with reason rejected by Roman Catholicks and Protestants But let us lay aside the Patriarch German and prosecute the History of the VIII Century in the same City where German was Patriarch the Metropolis of the Eastern Empire Constantine the 6th commonly surnamed Copronymas Son of the Emperor Leo the third called Isaurus assembled a Council of 338 Bishops Anno 754. The Assembly held full six months during which they quite abolished the Worshipping of Images and by the way Concil Constantinop in Act. Concil Nicaen 2. t. 5. Concil p. 756. clearing up the Doctrine of the Church upon the point of the Sacrament to draw a proof against the same Images they had condemned they left unto us for a Monument of their belief this following testimony Let those rejoyce which with a most pure heart make the true Image of Jesus Christ which desire which venerate and which do offer it for the Salvation of body and soul the which Jesus Christ gave unto his Disciples in Figure and Commemoration And having repeated the words of Institution they add That no other Species under Heaven was made choice of by him nor any other Type that could represent his Incarnation That it is the Image of his quickning body which was honourably and gloriously made That as Jesus Christ took the matter or humane substance in like manner he hath commanded us to offer for his Image a matter chosen that is to say the substance of bread not having any humane Form or Figure fearing lest Idolatry may get in As then say they the Natural Body of Jesus Christ is holy because it is Deified It is also evident that his Body by Institution that is to say his holy Image is rendred Divine by Sanctification of Grace for it is what our Saviour intended to do when by virtue of the Union he Deified the Flesh he had taken by a Sanctification proper unto himself so also he would that the bread of the Sacrament as being the true Figure of his Natural body should be made a Divine Body by the coming of the Holy Ghost the Priest which makes the Oblation intervening to make it holy whereas it was common therefore the Natural body of our Lord endowed with Soul and Understanding was anointed by the Holy Ghost being united unto the Godhead so also his Image to wit the holy bread is filled with the Cup of enlivening Blood which flowed out of his side What renders this testimony the more considerable and worthy to be credited is That these Fathers which represented all the Eastern Church or at least the greatest part of it were assembled about the matter of Images and not about the subject of the Sacrament for had they been assembled upon the point of the Sacrament it may be some uncharitable person might suspect them of pre-occupation or of design but having been assembled upon a very different subject of necessity it must be granted that it is by the by that they inform us of the common and general Opinion and Belief of Christians They would draw from the Eucharist an argument against the use and Worship of Images and to do it the better they were obliged to unfold unto us the Nature of the Sacrament and they explain it in saying That it is the substance of Bread that it is no deceiving Figure of his Natural Body and as they say a little before a Type
and Commemoration of the Passion of Jesus Christ and that God in choosing this Type and not a humane Effigies intended to shun the danger of Idolatry they content not themselves to say that the Eucharist is an Image they declare That this Image is the substance of Bread they speak of Sacrificing this Image this chosen matter this Substance of Bread they pleased themselves in making a perpetual opposition betwixt the real Body of Jesus Christ and the Bread which is its Figure or Image they say That the one is his Body by Nature and the other his Body by Institution that the former is the matter of his humane substance without personal subsistence and the other a matter chosen that is to say the substance of Bread not having humane Features that the one is holy because it is Deified that the other is rendred holy by the Sanctification of Grace in fine That the one is his Flesh which he hath taken to himself and that he hath sanctified with a holiness proper unto himself and that the other is sanctified by the Grace of the Holy Ghost which by the Ministry of the Priest makes it holy whereas it was common And because the Fathers which preceded them were wont to consider the Sacrament as an Image of the Son of God these also will have it to be an express Image of this adorable Mystery in contemplation whereof we must lift up our Faith and bring down our Sins it s for this reason they say That there 's no other thing under Heaven nor any other Figure but that chosen by Jesus Christ to express the Image of his Incarnation and a little under they say That our Saviour's design in the Institution of the Sacrament was to represent and shew clearly unto Men the Mystery of his Oeconomy that is to say of his Incarnation therefore they thus conclude all their Discourse It hath been demonstrated that it is the true Figure of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ our God If it be a true Image as they do assure it is necessary say some that the substance of Bread should remain after Sanctification to represent sincerely the truth of the Flesh of Jesus Christ the which is not abolished by his Union unto the Divine Nature they add unto all these considerations that the Council testifies that our Lord commanded us to make not his real Body but the Figure of his Body and of his Blood and in that Jesus Christ commanded that this Image should be of the substance of Bread without the lineaments of humane shape it was to prevent Idolatry An Argument which would be unworthy the Council if it had believed that the Bread after Consecration had been no longer Bread but the Body it self of the Saviour of the World which ought to be Religiously adored by reason of his personal Union with the Godhead very far from fearing of committing Idolatry in adoring of him Thus it is that many do argue from this testimony They lived thirty two years in the East under the Authority of this Council but in the year 787. the Empress Irene having a violent affection for Images caused a second Council to be assembled at Nice in Bythinia whither she caused to come People to her own liking as also that favoured Images insomuch as the better to accomplish her design she conferred the Patriarchship of Constantinople upon one Terrasius which being a Lay person could not according to the Ecclesiastical Constitutions be capable of enjoying this Dignity In this Council assembled at the desire and pleasure of the Empress who governed all things in the Minority of Constantine her Son was disannull'd all that had been done at Constantinople against Images and by the way they censured what the other Fathers had said That the Sacrament is an Image of the Body of Jesus Christ because said they it is his true Body and his true Blood and not an Image Concil Nican 2. act 6. t. 5. Conc p. 5â— 758. see here their very terms The Oblations are piously called Types that is to say Figures and Images by some of the holy Fathers before the perfection of Sanctification but after Sanctification they are called truly they are and are believed to be the Body and Blood of Christ And thereupon they censure those of Constantinople for calling the Eucharist an Image and to have instanced for destroying of Images the example of an Image which was not an Image but the Body and Blood I will not here make a comparison betwixt these two Councils in their full extent nor search into the parallels betwixt them I will say but little but what I shall say will suffice to satisfie the Reader Sirmond t. â— Concil Gall. p. 191. Not to mention what hath been observed by Father Sirmond that the second Council of Nice cannot have the name of an Oecumenical and Universal Council it appears in the first place that much simplicity and sincerity might be seen in that of Constantinople although we have but little of their Acts trasmitted unto us but what was done by their Enemies But in that of Nice I am obliged to say that there is Injustice to be found in that these Prelates do assure in a great many places that they had present in their Assembly the Legats of the three Patriarchs of the East whereas the certain truth is Conc. Nican 2. act 3. p. 594 595 596 597. that not one of the three Patriarchs of the East did send any Deputies thither but five or six Hermits of Palestine ignorant and unexperienced persons as they call themselves at the instance of the Deputies of the Patriarch Terrasius did depute two of their own number John and Thomas to assist at this Council of the Legates of the Patriarchs of Alexandria of Antioch and of Jerusalem I find no marks or mention the pieces inserted in the Acts of the Council testifie the same Secondly in the Council of Constantinople the Fathers whereof it was composed did not licentiously abuse the holy Scriptures to draw it to their party but I cannot forbear saying that it was quite otherwise in that of Nice where they took liberty miserably to wrest the Scriptures and to corrupt them to draw inferences in favour of Image Worship this is to be seen in several instances especially in all the fourth Session In the third place we do not see that the Fathers of Constantinople had recourse to so many and gross pieces as those of Nice Act. 2. p. 555. Act. 4. p. 622. who made use of them freely and without any scruple for the establishing of their Opinion as the Acts of Pope Sylvester in the second Session the Book of the Passion of an Image of Jesus Christ under the name of St. Athanasius although this ridiculous piece had been but newly invented Ibid. 642. Ibid. 649. no question but by some one that was for Worshipping of Images the obscene and filthy History of a Friar
tempted by the Spirit of Fornication which they attributed unto Sophronius Patriarch of Jerusalem and a Letter of St. Basil unto the Emperor Julian the Apostate wherein this holy Doctor acknowledgeth and embraceth the Worship of Images a piece also invented by some ignorant Impostor all this in the 4th Session Therefore it is very judiciously observed in the Books of Charlemain that those of Nice seeing the holy Scriptures would not accord with their Errors they had recourse unto I know not what humane Fooleries worthy of shame I 'le say nothing of their denying the Epistle produced under the name of Ibas to be truly his Act. 6. p. 775. against the testimony of the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon and the very confession of Ibas himself In fine it is found that the Fathers of Constantinople have very faithfully retained the Doctrine and Expressions of those unto whom God had committed the conduct of the Church before them for they call the Eucharist an Image Type Commemoration it is the common Language of the Ancients they teach that it is Bread the substance of Bread the Ancients had said so before them as hath been amply related in the second Chapter of this part of our History they call it the Body of Jesus Christ by Institution which amounts unto what their Ancestors said that it is the Typical the Mystical the Symbolical Body the Body by Grace as hath been declared and they also agree with them when they say that the Sacrament is the Image of his Incarnation But as for the Fathers of Nice it is said that if they absolutely departed not from the Doctrine of the Ancients they did at least from their terms and expressions when they denied that the Fathers had called the Bread and Wine after Consecration Types or Figures which appeared so impudent unto those which have given us the Councils that they could not forbear reproving this confidence by this Annotation which they have set in the Margin the Greek Fathers often call the things Sanctified Figures as Gregory Nazianzen in the Funeral Oration of his Sister and in his first Appologetick Cyril of Jerusalem in his 5th Mystagogical Catechism and others The Abbot of Billy hath also blamed as hath been before declared the like temerity in Damascen and certainly with much reason seeing there is nothing more frequent in the Writings of the Fathers than these kind of expressions yet it was upon this false ground that these Prelates of Nice founded their censure against those of Constantinople which had called the Eucharist the Image of the Body of Jesus Ghrist and that on the contrary they said That it is his Body it self Words which the Latins are wont to explain to their advantage although the Protestants do not judge that in the main of the Doctrine Nice was not Diametrically opposite unto Constantinople to understand it aright it must be remembred the chief occasion of assembling both Councils was the subject of Images the Council of Constantinople having abolished the Use and Worship of them And that of Nice having restored both the one and the other it must also be remembred that the Fathers of Constantinople taking from the Eucharist a proof against the Use and Worship of Images they called the Sacrament an Image and declared that it was the only Image which Christ commanded to be made But because the word Image doth at the first hearing form in the mind the Idea of a proper Image and simple Picture that hath no other use nor propriety then to represent unto our Eyes some form like the Original without any way participating of its Operation and Virtue in a word a Picture like to those which be sold in Painters Shops the Prelates of Nice thinking those of Constantinople had in this sense given the name of Image unto the Sacrament as Cardinal Bessarion told us Damascen had done failed not severely to censure them not but that the Fathers of Constantinople had sufficiently enough explained themselves in saying that this Image to wit the Divine Bread is filled with the Holy Ghost But in fine the Prelates of Nice either through Passion to their Adversaries or otherwise for 't is not for me to judge of their thoughts reflected sharply upon those of Constantinople thinking they had taken this term of Image in the sense as we have expressed several things made them think so In the first place they tell us themselves that it was their thought and that they gave no other signification to the word Image As for the Image say they Concil Nicaen 2. act 6. tom 6. p. 800. t. 5. Concil Ibid. p. 799. we know no other but that it is an Image which sheweth the resemblance of its Original whence also it is that it takes the name and that it hath nothing else common with it A little before they had said That what the Image hath in common with the Original is the name only and not the definition And again in another place Ibid. t. 3. p. 353 One thing is the Image and another thing is the Original and a man of sense will never seek the Proprieties of the Original in the Image Secondly Elias of Creet now Candia one of the Fathers of the Council sheweth they think very clearly that the intent of the Council was not to teach that the Bread and the Wine were changed into the substance of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ but only into their Efficacy and Vertue for using the words of St. Cyril of Alexandria before alledged Elias Cretens in Orat. 1. Greg. Nazianz p. 201. he saith That God doth send into the things offered an enlivening vertue and that he makes them to pass into the operation of his Flesh it is in the Greek of St. Cyril into the Efficacy of his Flesh There is yet more the Fathers of Nice being in a humour of reproving and censuring those of Constantinople as to whatever with any weak shew might fall within the compass of their censure it is no force to conceive that they approved what they have not blamed and that they have owned as Catholick and Orthodox the things which they have not censured They say that all reasonable persons will grant if they consider how the Bishops of Nice were affected towards them of Constantinople whose Constitutions and Decrees they publickly revoked now of two things insisted upon by these latter the Prelates of Nice censured but one they must then approve of the other and in approving they must receive it as Catholick and as one of the Articles of their Belief The Fathers of Constanstinople had said that the Eucharist is the Image of the Body of Jesus Christ but they said also That this Image is the substance of Bread here are Adversaries eagerly bent against them Adversaries that spare them not in any thing that strictly examine every thing they do or say either to render them odious or to make them be
were written the Books of Images which bear the name of this Emperor because in all likelihood they were written by his order rather than by his Pen. In one of these Books is censured the word Image or likeness as those of Nice had censured it in those of Constantinople I will not now examine if there was any thing of surprise in this Censure that is if it was done with an intent of directing it against Nice and not against those of Constantinople for although it is most certain that the principal design of the Council of Francfort was to oppose that of Nice against whom those of the West were no less incensed than those of Nice had been against them of Constantinople I will make no censure upon the matter not to give occasion unto any uncharitable Reader of censuring me It shall suffice to cite the words of the Book Carol. Magnus de imag l. 4. c. 14. that all the World may see what was the thoughts of the Author in censuring the word Image The Mystery saith he of the Body and Blood of Christ ought not now to be called Image but Verity not Shadow but Substance not the Type of things to come but what had been figured by Types the Day-light is already come and Shadows are gone away now Jesus Christ the end of the Law in righteousness unto all believers is come he hath already fulfilled the Law He that was in the valley of the shadow of Death hath seen a great Light already the Vail is fallen from the Face of Moses and the vail of the Temple which is rent hath discovered unto us all things that were hid and unknown now the true Melchisedek to wit Jesus Christ the righteous King the King of Peace hath bestowed upon us not the Sacrifices of Beasts but the Sacrament of his Body and Blood It is no hard matter to guess at the scope of these words and to see that they do not tend to the condemning the word Image taking it for a holy Sign instituted of God not only to signifie and represent but also effectually to communicate Jesus Christ unto our Souls dead for our sins their intent is only to reprove this term as it was taken for a legal Shadow or for a prefiguration of Christ to come therefore to shew that the Sacrament was not of the Nature of Types and Figures of the Law which did only represent without communicating the thing represented it is spoken in opposition unto the Sacrifices of Beasts that our Saviour hath left us not his Body but the Sacrament of his Body and of his Blood but a Sacrament so efficacious and Divine that the faithful Soul never participates of it but that it really and truly communicates of the thing it self whereas the Types of the Law did only prefigure it therefore it is that the Author said a little before Ibid. speaking of the Mystery of the Body and Blood of the Lord That believers do receive it every day in the Sacrament And in another Book he declares Lib. 2. c. 25. That it is the Mediator of God and Men which by the Ministry of the Priest and the Innovation of the name of God doth make the Sacrament of his Body and Blood which he hath left us for a Commemoration of his Death and of our Salvation And again The Apostle St. Paul Ibid. that chosen Vessel considering that the Body and Blood of our Lord should not only be equal unto all other Sacraments but also preferable unto any he saith Let every one examine himself and so let him eat of this Bread and drink of this Cup. He testifies That what is eaten at the Holy Table is Bread and in saying that the Sacrament of the Eucharist ought to be preferred almost before all others he shews plainly that he did not believe it was the very Body of our Saviour for these words would have been unworthy a Christian if they had been spoken of the proper Flesh of the Son of God But what need there any other explanation than that which is given us by Charlemain himself when writing unto Alcuin his Tutor De ration Septuages ad Alcuin he saith That our Saviour Supping with his Disciples broke Bread and also gave them the Cup for a Figure of his Body and Blood and gave them a great Sacrament for our profit Thus it is that several explain it But as to Alcuin let us see what he will furnish us for the better understanding the History of this Age and if the Tutor will accord with his Schollar I will not insist upon the Treatise of Divine Offices which go in his name because the Learned do confess that 't is not his it shall suffice to relate what is written by the late Andrew du Chesne the last of which hath set his hand unto the Edition of his works We do not saith he want sufficient conjectures to shew that this Treatise is not Alcuin's Gallia Braccata Andr. Quercetan praefat ad Alcuin c. 17. for the Author whoever it was doth testifie that he is of Gall Narboness and an ancient Copy by the help whereof we have recovered twelve whole Chapters Attributes the question of the Feasts of Saints tacked unto the 18th Chapter unto the Friar Elpris who according to Trythemius flourished in the year 1040. And in fine in this Treatise there is mention of the Institution of the Feast of All-Saints the first of November Nevertheless it is easily found by Sigebert and others that it was not begun to be celebrated that day in France and Germany till a good while after the Decease of Alcuin that is Anno 835. and Alcuin died Anno 804. Neither will I infist upon a Confession of Faith which Father Chifflet hath published in the name of the famous Alcuin because it is no less Fathered upon this excellent Master of Charlemain than the Book of Divine Offices And that it is most certain it was taken out of the Books of Anselm's Meditations and unadvisedly crowded into the Works of St. Austin Now Anselm lived towards the end of the XI Century and the beginning of the XII And I could easily here insert all the evident proofs of Forgery which the piece it self doth furnish but because it is so apparent a truth and that moreover I find it hath already been done I will proceed to the consideration of what is found in the genuine works of Alcuin touching the subject in hand In one of his Letters he saith of the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament that they be consecrated in Corpus Sanguinem Christi into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ But let us hear the Explication he gives unto us of these words in the same place Alcuin Ep. 59. The Sanctification saith he of this Mystery doth presage the effect of our Salvation The faithful people is understood by the Water and by the Grains of Wheat whereof the Flower is taken to
may happen in going about to adjust some ancient expressions with his new Opinion to make his disguise succeed the better He proceeded by way of Explication it shall suffice to say that it seems it may be so gathered from the words of his Letter unto Frudegard Although saith he I have writ nothing in this Book Pasch ep ad Frude p. 1â—25 which I have dedicated unto a certain young Man which might be worthy the Reader nevertheless as I am informed I have excited several persons to the understanding of this Mystery Thence it is that in his Treatise of the Body and Blood of our Lord he speaks of his Explication as of an admirable thing and whereof sufficient heed had not yet been taken Id de corp sang Dom. c. 1. To the end saith he I might yet say something more admirable But the chief is to know wherein his opinion did consist Those that will a little consider his Writings may observe he taught That what is received in the Sacrament is the same Flesh of that which was born of the Virgin Mary Id ibid. and which suffered Death for us Although saith he the Figure of Bread and Wine doth remain yet you must absolutely believe that after Consecration it is nothing but the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ for which reason the Truth it self said unto his Disciples It is my Flesh for the Life of the World and to say something more admirable It is no other Flesh but that which was born of the Virgin Mary that suffered upon the Cross and which is raised out of the Sepulchre So it is that he explains himself also again in the 4th Chapter of the same Book and several times in his Letter unto Frudegard It is the testimony that an Anonymus Author gives us which Father Cellot hath published Aut Anonym l. de Euchar. apud Cellot in append histor Gostech op 7. and which was one of his Adherents Paschas saith he establisheth under the name of St. Ambrose That what is received at the Altar is no other Flesh than that born of the Virgin Mary which suffered on the Cross which was raised out of the Grave and is at present offered for the Life of the World Against which Rabanus in his Letter to the Abbot Egilon sufficiently doth argue In fine we shall be informed by Rabanus and by Ratramn that it was the Opinion of Paschas and that nothing should be wanting to the establishing of his Opinion he wrote two Books of the Virgins being delivered of Child which Books had always gone in the name of Ildefons Archbishop of Tolledo T. 1. Spicileg praes ad Ratiam and are at this time under that name in the last Edition of the Library of the holy Fathers But Dom Luke d'Achery a Benedictine Friar hath informed us by the help of Manuscripts that Paschas was the true Author of them In these two Books he teacheth that the blessed Virgin was Delivered after an extraordinary and miraculous manner and that Jesus Christ was not born after the common course of Nature but that he came out of the Womb of this blessed Maid without any opening and not as Tertullian saith in some of his Writings Lege patefacti Corporis But as Bertram or Ratramn refuted the ground of the Doctrine of Paschas so he also refuted this progress of it by a little Treatise he wrote on purpose on the Birth of Jesus Christ wherein several times he qualifies with the name of Heresie the Opinion which he refutes whereas I do not find that he ever gave this name unto what his Adversary had taught of the Sacrament which gives me occasion to make this conjecture which I freely submit unto the Reader 's Judgment to wit That Paschas having proceeded in what he wrote of the Sacrament by way of Explication and as one that did seek for the true knowledge of this Mystery His Adversaries did not call this Doctrine Heresie how erroneous soever they knew him to be in other ther things because in the Church it was not the custom to call any single error Heresie unless it was attended with Obstinacy But Ratramn having seen the Books of the Virgins Delivery which were written after what he had taught of the Sacrament and as he drew near his Death Ratram de nativit Christ c. 4.5.9 t. 1. Specileg or as he saith himself in the Preface of Dom Luke d'Achery Multo jam senio confectus And having thereby judged That he was not now a man that desired to be instructed but was strongly confirmed in the Opinion he had taught and which he endeavoured to support by establishing the consequences which might best suit with his Principles he made no scruple to render this of which we speak odious in calling it Heresie but after all whatever my conjecture may be Paschas de corp sang Dom. c. 14. it is certain that Paschas omitted nothing that might set off his Opinion not Visions it self and Apparitions of Jesus Christ during the Celebration of the Sacrament not fearing to be jeered that he was the first that bethought himself of speaking of these kinds of Apparitions unknown unto Christians for above 800. years seeing that in effect there is no certain Author found that hath made any mention of them yet that hindred not but Cardinal Bellarmine and Father Sirmond consider'd him as the first that cleared and explained the Mystery of the Sacrament Bellarm. de script Eccles This Author saith Bellarmine was the first that wrote seriously and amply of the truth of the body and blood of our Saviour in the Eucharist And Sirmond Sirmond in vita Paschas operibus ciupraeâ—ixa He first of all so explained the true sense of the Catholick Church that he open'd the way unto all others that have since written of the same matter But so it is that if the belief of Paschas was the Ancient Belief of the Church he deserv'd to be loaden with blessings and thanks for having so happily laboured for the Instruction and Edification of Christians and in all likelihood no body would have dared to contradict or oppose the Doctrine which he published or if any one undertook so to do he should make himself the Object of hatred and aversion unto all the World It is then requisite to know how men carryed it towards him after that he had published his Opinion If we enquire of himself he will inform us that he was accused of departing from the common Belief and of having rashly spread abroad the thoughts of a young head for see here how he writes unto his intimate Friend Frudegard Pasch Ep. ad Frudegard pag. 1632. You have saith he at the end of this little Book the Sentences of Catholick Fathers succinctly noted by which you may see that it was not out of a hasty fit that I formerly meditated these things in my younger days but that I
took them out of the Scriptures and the holy Fathers to teach them unto such as desired to be instructed At the beginning of the Letter Id. ibi p. 1619. 1623. You examine me saith he upon a thing whereof several persons doubt Id. in Matt. l. 12. p. 1094. In his Commentary upon the 26th Chapter of St. Matthew I have treated of these things more at large and more expresly because I am informed that some reproved me as if in the Book of Sacraments which I published I had given unto the words of Jesus Christ more than the truth it self doth allow Ib. p. 1100. And again There are many that in these mystical things are of another Opinion and there are many that are blind and cannot see when they think this Bread and this Cup is nothing else but what is seen with the Eyes and which is tasted with the Mouth Wherefore the Anonymous Author before mentioned Aut Anonym uâ—i supra writes that some affirmed That what is received at the Altar is the same that was born of the Virgin and that others on the contrary denied it and said That it is another thing But having been told by Paschas himself that he had several Adversaries and Opposers We must farther learn of him what was the belief of this great number of Opposers for after having cited the words of Institution Take Eat this is my Body Paschas Ep. ad Frudegard Commentar in Matth. l. 12. he adds That those which will extenuate this term of Body saying That it is not the true Flesh of Jesus Christ which is celebrated in the Sacrament nor his true blood let them hear these words they pretend I know not what as if there was only in the Sacrament a certain vertue of the body and blood of Jesus Christ as if our Saviour had told a lye and that it was not his true Flesh and Blood c. When he broke and gave the Bread unto his Disciples he said not This is or there is in this Mystery a certain Vertue or Figure of my Body but he said This is my Body And a little after I admire that some would now say That it is not the reality of the Flesh and blood of Jesus Christ in the thing it self but in Sacrament a certain efficacy of the body and not the body a vertue of the blood and not the blood a figure and not the truth a shadow and not the substance It cannot then reasonably be after such formal and positive Declarations that the world should think any other Opinion can be attributed unto the Adversaries of Paschas but that of the Protestants of France and of all others of their Communion As the Belief of Paschas is that of the Roman Catholicks to say otherwise were to dissemble to renounce the truth and to be unworthy the esteem and credit of honest men Let it then be granted for certain that in this important point which we do examine Paschas was a Roman Catholick as 't is spoken now a days And that his Adversaries on the contrary were Protestant Calvinists from whence it will necessarily follow that if the followers of Paschas in the IX Century were more considerable and of greater numbers than his Adversaries the Opinion of the Latin Church had the victory over the other but if also the number of his Adversaries was greater their Name more famous and their Reputation better established it must be concluded That the Belief of the Protestants had the Victory it appears that so things are to be understood to do right unto both parties The better to succeed in this design I will begin with those that followed Paschas seeing it was him that obliged his Adversaries to contradict him and oppose themselves unto the Establishment of his Opinion which appeared new unto them and different from the ancient Faith of the Church It cannot be denied but Paschas Radbert had good Endowments as appears by his Works and that he was commended by some Writers of that time as a Man of great Learning and above the common sort Nevertheless as to the Subject in hand I have not observed in what I have read that many persons have declared in favour of him It is out of all question that Frudegard fell into his Opinion after having read his Treatise of the Body and Blood of Christ for in the Letter which Paschas writ him Paschas Ep. ad Frudeg pag. 1620. we therein find these words You say that you believed so formerly he speaks of his Opinion and that you read the same in the Book of Sacraments that I composed Since which time Frudegard having read the Advertisement which St. Austin gives in the third Book of Christian Doctrine of understanding figuratively what our Saviour speaks of eating his Flesh he was very much shaken and if he changed not quite it may be said that he continued in suspence without declaring for or against Paschas It is what he informs us Ibid. when he adds unto his first words But you say that you have since read in St. Austin 's third Book of Christian Doctrine that where it is said it is the body and blood of Christ it is a figurative manner of expression and if it is a figurative speech and a figure rather than the truth I cannot tell say you how it should be understood And you say afterwards And if I believe that it is the same body as that which he took from the holy Virgin his Mother this excellent Doctor that is to say St. Austin declares on the contrary that it is a great crime to wit to believe that it is the real body of Jesus Christ Paschas doth what he can to continue him in the Opinion he had been of before he had read this passage of St. Austin and the better to effect it he alledges this unto him under the name of this great Saint and as being taken out of his Sermons unto the Neophites Ibid. Receive in the Bread what was nailed upon the Cross and in the Cup that which came out of the Side of Jesus Christ Words which for certain are not of St. Austin and which are not to be found in any of his Works which we have in great numbers Paschas 't is true cites them as to the best of his remembrance and I cannot tell if in a matter so important as this it will serve turn to say As I remember or If my memory fail not In the main it not appearing that he satisfied Frudegard in his doubts the surest side we can take in this Conjuncture is to make him neither a Friend nor an Adversary of Paschas but to leave him in his doubts if we would not increase the Sect of Scepticks I will not say the same of the Anonymous Author which Father Cellot hath furnished us and whom we have twice mentioned already in this Chapter for it appears plainly he was
on Paschas his side I know not precisely the time that he lived although it is very probable it was either at the latter end of the IX Century or it may be in the X. but I know he was not a stout Champion and that his Courage was not able to restore Paschas his Party if they had the fortune to be worsted Unto this day the name and quality of this Proselite is not known as also it is not known who or what Frudegard was if it be not inferred by Paschas calling him Brother and Fellow-Soldier that he was either a Friar or Abbot of some Monastery As for Hinâ—mar Arch-Bishop of Rheims incomparably better known than our Anonymous and more famous than Frudegard by his Dignity and Writings I find my self a little at a loss for when I consider that he saith with St. Cyprian and St. Austin 1 Hinem. de proedest c. 3. epilogi c. 1. That our Saviour recommended his Body and Blood in things that are reduced into one 2 Id. ibid. de cavend viriis c. 12. ad Hincm Laud. c. 48. That he reserves with St. Austin and St. Prosper the eating of the Flesh of Christ for Believers only 3 Id de non trina deitate c. 17. That he declares with the former that the Mystery of Bread passeth into a Sacrament 4 Id. de caven vit c. 11. And that he acknowledgeth with others That our Saviour hath left us the Sacrament as a Pledge of his Love and as a Memorial of his Person and of his Death as a Man travelling into a far Country should leave a Pledge unto his Friend I cannot tell if I should make him a Friend of Paschas whose Doctrine doth not agree well with what we have now mentioned But when on the other hand I find in his Writings some things which seem to favour the same Paschas I cannot tell how to make him his Adversary Id. de cavend vit c. 12. For example what he saith That Jesus Christ is every day consecrated upon his Table that he sanctifies his Sacrament and that he makes himself Id. de pradest â— 31. And that he observes that Prudens Bishop of Trois and John Scot or of Scotland or rather of Ireland said That the Sacraments of the Altar are not the real body and blood of our Lord but only the memorial of his true body and blood Let the Reader then place Hincmar either amongst the Enemies of Paschas or amongst his Friends for my part I am very apt to believe that he was of his favourers I mean that he followed his Opinion in the point of the Eucharist which yet I do not affirm as a thing indubitable and which may not be questioned I will only say that I do not find that he was of any extraordinary esteem for if we believe Father Sirmond who otherwise was no Enemy unto him Archbishop Hincmar was wont to be deceived himself Sirm. de duob Dionys c. 4. Mauguin Hist Chron. p. 442. Apolog. pour les Saints Peres l. 5. p. 3. c. 5. and to deceive others If we believe Monsieur the President Mauguin he calls him a Deceiver and a Dissembler And if we will give Credit unto the description that is made of him in the Apologies of the holy Fathers Defenders of Free Will we shall find him to be both violent and ignorant a Deceiver scandalous and malicious a Calumniator and a Man full of Vanity These are the Colours wherein he is displayed in that excellent Work besides several others which I pass over in silence So that if Hincmar was such a person as these Gentlemen describe him to be I do not think he would render the Party very considerable in which side soever he is placed yet he cannot be denied the Knowledge of the ancient Canons if I mistake not wherein he was better skill'd than in that which is dogmatical and relating unto Divinity In the main see here two Followers of Paschas one of which to wit the Anonymous declares himself directly for him and the other I mean Hincmar though he makes not so formal a Declaration doth nevertheless in all probability follow his steps But in fine they are the only two which I can find to be of the Belief of Paschas in the IX Century if it were true that the Anonimous wrote in that Century whereas if he wrote after as Father Cellot inclines to think he did all the strength of this Friar and afterwards Abbot of Corby will consist in himself and Hincmar in the uncertainty we are in whether St. Austin or Paschas prevailed over Frudegard As for the Author of the Commentaries upon St. Paul's Epistles which some attribute unto Haymon Bishop of Alberstadt others unto Remy Arch-bishop of Lyons and others in fine with greater probability unto Remy Friar of Auxerr I do not think he ought to be reckoned amongst the Friends nor Enemies of Paschas He did like those that seeing a Kingdom divided into two Factions take part with neither but think of making a third Party for he would neither follow the Party of Paschas nor the Belief of those which argued against him but would establish in the West as far as I can find the Opinion that Damascen had broached in the East of the Union of the Bread of the Sacrament with the Divinity to make by means of this Union one sole Body with the true Body of our Saviour as we have shewed in speaking of Damascen And this is the reason that we here place Remy of Auxerr although he lived not according to all Circumstances but at the end of the IX Century and to say the truth because he had a middle Opinion betwixt that of Paschas and that of his Adversaries we cannot appoint him a fitter place than this to the end that as he disturbed not the Depositions of Paschas his Friends neither should he trouble the Testimony of his Adversaries That the Opinion of Remy is such as we say I hope the Candid Reader will believe it to be so when he shall see what we here produce of his Commentaries upon the 10th and 11th Chapters of the First to the Corinthians and of his Exposition of the Cannon of the Mass ' The Flesh saith he which the Word took in the Womb of the Virgin into the Unity of his Person Remig. Altiss comment in â— ad Corin. c. 10. and the Bread which is Consecrated in the Church are one Body of Jesus Christ for as this Flesh is the Body of Jesus Christ so also this Bread passeth into the Body of Jesus Christ and they be not two Bodies but one Body for the fulness of the Godhead which was in that Body filleth also this Bread and the same Godhead of the Son which is in them filleth the Body of Jesus Christ which is Consecrated by the Ministry of several Priests throughout the World and causeth that it is one sole Body of
Jesus Christ And as this Bread and Wine pass into the Body of Jesus Christ so also all those that eat it worthily in the Church are one sole Body of Jesus Christ as himself hath said Whosoever eateth my Flesh and drinks my Blood dwelleth in me and I in him Nevertheless this Flesh which he hath taken and this Bread Id. ibid. in cap. â—1 and the whole Church are not three Bodies of Jesus Christ but one Body And afterwards Although this Bread is brought from several places and that it is Consecrated throughout the whole World by several Priests nevertheless the Divinity that filleth all things filleth it also and maketh it to be one sole Body of Jesus Christ and all those which receive it â—d in Canone Idiss â— t. 6. Bibl. Pat. p. 441. do make this same Body of Jesus Christ which is one and not two And elsewhere As the Divinity of the Son which filleth all the World is one so also although this Body is Consecrated in sundry places and in an infinite number of different days yet they are not several Bodies of Jesus Christ nor several Cups but one sole Body and one Blood with that which he took from the Virgin and gave unto the Apostles for the Divinity fills it is joyned to it and causeth that as it is one so also it should be joyned unto the Body of Jesus Christ and should be one Body of Jesus Christ in verity This Author whoever he was says two or three things which sufficiently inform us of his intention for he saith that the Divinity joyns the Bread unto the Body of Jesus Christ of necessity then he must needs believe that it subsisted still after Consecration because a thing that is not cannot be joyned unto another thing the uniting and joyning of two different subjects presupposeth the Existence of the one and the other he saith also that the Church as well as the Sacrament is one Body with the natural Body of Jesus Christ he affirms it no more of the Sacrament than of the Church he then meant that they were both so after one and the same manner In fine see here how he argues the Natural Body of Jesus Christ the Sacrament and the Church are filled with one and the same vertue and animated if it may be so said with the same Spirit they are not then three Bodies but one the Unity of one Body depending on the unity of the Principle that acts in him So that because the same Principle that acts in the natural Body of Jesus Christ acts also in the Bread of the Eucharist and in the Church they should not be according to this Author but one and the same Body because that though considering them severally they be three different Bodies yet to consider them in the unity of this Principle and in the Numerical Identity if I may so say of the same vertue they become one sole Body This is as far as I can comprehend the Opinion of Remy which though not favouring the Opinion of Paschas yet is not for all that the Opinion of his Adversaries Therefore we will let him stand alone to receive the Depositions of others which present themselves to be heard The first is Rabanus very illustrious for his Dignity and for his Merit Historians vie with each other to celebrate his Praises as of the greatest Man of that Age and unto whom none was to be compared He was first a Friar in the Abby of Fulda then Abbot of the same Monastery and at last Archbishop of Mayance This illustrious Prelate and the most famous Disciple of the great Alcuin Tutor unto Charlemain being informed of the Opinion of Paschas Radbert touching the Sacrament set himself in a posture of arguing and openly opposing himself against it as against a Doctrine that appeared new and strange unto him and contrary to the ancient Belief of the Church This is the Declaration which the Anonimous Author and favourer of Paschas hath made us saying That Rabanus disputed against him at large Autor Anonym ubi supra in his Letter unto the Abbot Egilon But if we had not the Testimony of this Disciple of Paschas we cannot be ignorant of this matter seeing Rabanus himself hath transmitted the thing unto us for in his Penitential which Peter Stuart Professor in Divinity in the College of Ingolstat hath published he speaks after this sort Raban Maur. in Poenitent c. 33 de Eucharist It is not long since some persons holding erroneous Opinions touching the Eucharist of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ have said That it is the Body it self and the Blood of Jesus Christ which was born of the Virgin Mary and wherein our Saviour suffered upon the Cross and rose again from the Dead which Error we have opposed as much as we could and have signified in writing unto the Abbot Egilon what ought to be believed of the Body it self It cannot then be doubted but Rabanus wrote directly against Paschas seeing that the Opinion which he condemns and which he opposeth as erroneous is just that of Paschas as we have plainly demonstrated This Letter is lost either through the length of time or the malice of Men which have lived since that time But 't is sufficient that we do know that he wrote it and by consequence was a great Enemy of Paschas as unhe plainly testifies by several of his other Works which are come to our hands for he teacheth that the substance of Bread and Wine remain after Consecration and that these divine Symbols being received by Communicants part of it turns into their substance and the rest goes as their other ordinary food doth unto the place where Nature dischargeth it self Autor Anonym ubi supra The Anonymous Author already cited several times saith positively That he held the Sacrament to be subject unto this Accident And William of Malmesbury wrote to his Brother Robert in the Preface of the Epitome of Amalarius of Divine Offices which is to be seen in a Manuscript at Oxford Guillelm Malmesbur in All-Souls College I gave you notice saith he that amongst those which have writ of these things there is one that you are to avoid which is called Rabanus which in the Books of Ecclesiastical Offices saith That the Sacraments of the Altar are profitable to nourishment and for that reason are subject to corruption or malady or age or to be cast into the draft or to death it self See how dangerous a thing it is to say to believe and to write these things of the Body and Blood of our Saviour Tho. Waldens t. 1. doctrin in praesat t. 2. c. 19.52 62. Thomas Waldensis testifies the same in divers parts of his Writings where he reproacheth Wicliff That as he teacheth that the Eucharist is digested and passeth into our substance so he might also teach with Rabanus that it passeth into the draft And he instanceth the
Chron. c. 17. t. 2. p. 133. 135. that he was a learned Doctor of the Church Non levis Armaturae in Ecclesia Christi Militem Eminent in Probity and in Doctrine an undaunted and powerful Defender and Protector of the Catholick Verity against Innovators It was this Ratramn whom Charles the Bald consulted upon the Mystery of the Sacrament to be informed by him what was the true Opinion of the Church and who by his Order wrote the little Treatise Of the Body and Blood of our Saviour The Destiny whereof was more favourable than that of John Erigenius's Book which is destroyed whereas the other is still in Being Ep. ad Dom. Luc. d'Achery t. 2. Spicileg praes I know the late Monsieur de Marca said that the Book of John Erigenius and that of Bertram or Ratramn was but one and the same thing and that the true Author of it was John Erigenius who having concealed his Name cloaked it under that of Bertram but in truth nothing can be seen weaker than the Conjecture of this illustrious Prelate I have often admired that so learned and understanding a person as Monsieur de Marca should have such a thought for if he had taken the pains to have compared this little Treatise whereof we speak with the other Works of Ratramn and with what remains unto us of John Erigenius's he would never have gone about to have taken it from the one to have given it unto the other because the Style is wholly Ratramn's and is nothing like unto that of Joh. Scot for the saying that Berengarius frequently made mention of John Scot and that he made no mention of Ratramn is to say nothing to the purpose for it may be that Berengarius might speak of him and that it might not come unto our knowledge or if he did not speak of him it might be because Bertram's Book was not come to his hands as that of John Erigenius's was Doth it not very often come to pass that small Treatises as that of Ratramn's was do at first make a great noise but a hundred or two hundred years after they are as it were buried in Oblivion that scarce any hath knowledge of them And who knows but the same fate may one day befall the great and famous Works of this illustrious Archbishop I mean his eight Books of the Privileges of the Gallican Church This great Man adds the Testimony of Ascelin who making Answer unto a Letter of Berengarius doth make mention of an Interpretation given by John Erigenius unto some passages of Gregory the First very agreeable unto that which Ratramn also gives them and from thence infers to confirm his Hypothesis that the Book of Ratramn and of John Erigenius was but one and the same Book and composed by this latter But let me again take the liberty to say that this is no solid Reason John Erigenius and Ratramn disputed against one and the same Adversary they both pleaded the same Cause wherefore then might they not employ the like Arguments and explain after the same manner the words of Gregory now spoken of And to say the truth if the reasoning of Monsieur de Marca should be admitted it would follow that Tertullian and St. Austin should be but one and the same Author seeing they both write and almost in the same Terms that Jesus Christ gave unto his Disciples the Figure of his Body And that moreover it doth not appear that the Explication of John Erigenius is whole and entire word for word in Ratramn It is concerning these words of the ancient Latin Liturgy We beseech thee O Lord that thy Sacraments may accomplish in us what they contain to the end we may receive in substance what we now perform in appearance Ascelin upon whose Testimony this learned Prelate doth relie makes John Erigenius say Specie inquit geruntur ista non veritate But the words found in Ratramn are Dicit quod in specie gerantur ista non in veritate See here already some difference in the Construction and in the Terms Besides we know not if John Erigenius joyned unto his words this Paraphrase which Ratramn joyned unto his Id est per similitudinem non per ipsius rei manifestationem that is to say by resemblance and not by manifestation of the thing it self It cannot then be said for certain that the Explication of John Erigenius is to be found verbatim in Bertram for although they agree both as to the Ground of the Explication and that in substance they expressed themselves alike nevertheless it cannot be denied but that there was some difference in their Expressions I am very sorry that this illustrious Prelate had not always followed the truth and that it was his fortune sometimes to run against the constant Current and Truth of History as when he pretends to vindicate Pope honorius from being tainted with the Heresie of the Monothelites when he would make the Foundation of Churches in France to be ancienter than indeed it is when he undertook to derive the Institution of Archipresbyters from the Will and good Liking of Bishops of Cities and other things which it may be may some time or other be enquired into And to conclude that the Books of Ratramn and of John Erigenius should be but one and the same Book against the truth of History Cardinal Baronius said very well Baron Annal. Eccles num 12. That one ought to make light of what a new Writer doth relate of ancient Transactions if he be not countenanced by the Authority of some elder than himself Of much greater reason then should he be rejected when he directly opposeth the Testimony of the Ancients Here is a Question of a matter in the IX Century viz. whether Ratramn wrote against Paschas Monsieur de Marca denies it Is it just to believe him before a Writer of that Age and which was a favourer of Paschas and whose Interest it was by consequence to have supprest the Works of Ratramn I mean the Anonymous writer of whom we have formerly made mention Paschas Radbert saith he Anonym apud Cellot ubi supra abbot of Corby affirms under the name of St. Ambrose that it is no other flesh which is received at the Altar but that which was born of the Virgin Mary and which suffered on the Cross that is risen from the Dead and which is at this day offered for the Life of the World Rabanus in his Letter unto Egilon and one Ratramn in a Book which he composed and dedicated unto King Charles that is to say Charles the Bald do sufficiently argue against him Unto this Testimony may be joyned that of Sigibert in the XI Century and of Trythemius in the XV. besides the Witnesses of several written Manuscripts And after all this conclude that the Treatise of the Body and Blood of Christ which we have under the name of Ratramn is truly his and that it was published in the
that the Bread which is called the Body of Jesus Christ and the Cup which is called his Blood are Figures because a Sacrament and that there is a great difference betwixt the Body which is by Mystery and the Body which suffered which was buried and rose again This here is the real Body of our Saviour where there is neither Figure nor Signification but the evidence of the thing it self is present The Faithful desire to behold him because he is our Head and because that in his sight consists the joy of our Souls for the Father and him are but one which is to be understood not in regard of the Body which our Lord hath assumed but in regard of the fulness of the Divinity which inhabits in Jesus Christ God-man but the mystical Body is a Figure not only of the true Body of Jesus Christ but also of the believing People for it bears the Figure both of the one and the other Body of Jesus Christ that is to say of Jesus Christ himself which was crucified and is risen again and of the People which are born again in Jesus Christ by Baptism and was raised from the Dead Unto which may be added that this Bread and this Cup which are called the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are a Memorial of the Death and Sufferings of our Saviour as himself hath declared in the Gospel saying Do this in remembrance of me which St. Paul expounds after this manner As often as ye shall eat this bread and drink of this cup you shew forth the death of the Lord until he come It is then our Saviour and St. Paul which teach us that this Bread and Cup that are set upon the Altar are there laid as a Figure or Memorial of the death of our Saviour And as Ratramn opposed himself directly against the Opinion of Paschas so he also refuted the Consequence of this Belief by opposing in his Book of the Birth of Jesus Christ what Paschas had written of the Delivery of the blessed Virgin For in this little Treatise he positively affirms the Locality or the Inclusion of the Body of Jesus Christ within the bounds of the place which it occupieth whereas the Hypothesis of his Adversary imported that it could be in several places at the same time In Spicil d'Acher t. 1. p. 333 In holding these things saith he you wickedly utter a kind of Novelty to cry that there was nothing could hinder our Saviour that he should not be born because no Creature could resist the Creator but that all things that do subsist are open and penetrable unto him Whilst you judge so you judge very prudently but when by this rule you go about to subject the beginnings of the Birth of Jesus Christ you plainly dogmatize as to what regards his Power but as to what regards the property of the Body which he hath taken and his Humane Birth you stray very far from the way of Truth for there is nothing firm nothing that is not penetrable unto the Power of the Will of Jesus Christ But as for the Humanity which he hath taken it was inclosed and shut up in the Virgins Womb that during the time it remained there it was not elsewhere but in a short time it left the Abode of the Virgins Womb and went forth and returned no more thither What is it that he hath shewed by this change of place if it be not that though he be omnipresent by the propriety of his Divinity he was but in one place according to the circumscription of his Body That that which is local as it is not always every where but it goes unto one place when it leaves the other so also also when he goeth from one place to another he at the same time is not at the right hand and at the left neither walketh he before and behind nor above and below So also the Saviour as he was at one time in the Womb of the Virgin according to the Flesh and at another time he was out of it so in going out though nothing could stop him when he would come out nevertheless he made use only of one way for his coming forth and he issued not out by all the parts of the body wherein he had been formed I will not here say any thing of certain Sterconaristes which some pretend to have been opposed by Ratramn and not by Paschas Others say he was one of this Sect himself and others in fine That in disputing against it he varied from the true Sentiments of the Church because we will treat of it in examining the Testimony of Heribold To continue the Course of my History I come to John Erigenius the other Doctor which the Emperor Charles the Bald consulted and whom he commanded to write upon the same Subject He had a singular esteem for him and lived so familiarly with him that some Historians have assured that he made him eat with him at his own Table and lie in his own Bed-chamber I am not ignorant how unworthily he was treated by Remy Archbishop of Lyons and by the Deacon Florus and that Prudens Bishop of Troys and the Council of Valentia did censure some Errors that appeared in some of his Books upon the Subject of Predestination Neither would I undertake to defend all his Expressions and Phylosophical Notions about the state of the Blessed and of the Damned neither can I but confess that the Pen of his Adversaries have been steeped in too smart Liquor to tear the Reputation of this Man unto whom Historians give great Commendations Gulicl Malms de gestis Reg. Angl. l. 2. c. 5. Apud Usser in Sylloge Ep. Hibernic Ep. 24. de Christian Ecclesiar success c. 2. dignifying him with these two glorious Titles of most Learned and most holy William of Malmesbury assures us That he was a very wise Man and very eloquent that he translated out of Greek into Latin at the desire of Charles the Bald the Hierarchy of Dennis the Arcopagite A Translation so acceptable to Anastatius Library-keeper unto the Popes that he wrote a Letter unto King Charles which was inserted in the Preface of this Translation wherein after having admired that a Man born in one of the remotest parts of the World that is in Ireland should be capable of comprehending and of rendring this Hierarchy into Latin he adds That he had heard he was a Saint concluding that it was the work of the Spirit of God which had made him as zealous as he was eloquent Also the fame of his Learning made him be sent for by Alfred King of England where he died Anno 883. or 84. in the Monastery of Malmesbury having received several Wounds by Penknives from young Men that he instructed The Writers also of England observe that having been buried without much honour in the Church where he had been slain there shined a miraculous Light several nights upon his Grave which made the
Friars transport him into the great Church and to interr him more honourably near the Altar with this Epitaph which is to be seen in the History of William of Malmesbury Guliel Malms l. 2. c. 5. Here lieth John the holy Philosopher who in his life was enriched with marvellous Learning and who at last had the honour to ascend by Martyrdom unto the Kingdom of Jesus Christ where the Saints reign everlastingly The same Historian said in the same place He was esteemed a Martyr which I do not say by way of doubt to do wrong unto this holy Soul And after his death he was put into the Catalogue of Saints for Thomas Fuller in his Ecclesiastical History of England saith that he was accounted a Martyr of Jesus Christ Histor Eccles Angl. l. 2. p. 119. and that his Anniversary Commemoration was celebrated the 4th of the Ides of November in the Martyrology printed at Antwerp Anno 1586. by the Command of Gregory the Thirteenth He adds That it was Baronius that put him out of the Martyrology out of hatred because he had written against the Real Presence alledging upon this Subject Henry Fitz Simond in 2. Edit Catal. S.S. Hibern who defends the Action of Baronius and saith That there was preparing even in his time an Apology for justifying this Proceeding Bishop Usher also testifieth That in the Catalogue of Saints buried in England drawn out of ancient English Monuments Usser de Eccl. Christian success statu c. 20. by a Friar of Canterbury in the time of Anselm that is in the beginning of the XII Century there are these words St. Adelm and John the Wise are recorded to be laid in the place called Adelmisbirig that is to say Malmesbury Molanus Professor of Divinity in the University of Lovain hath left this in Writing in his Appendix in the Martyrology of Ussuard John Erigenius Martyr Molan Appen ad Usuard littera l. translated the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy of Dennis He was afterwards by the Command of the Popes put in the number of the Martyrs of Jesus Christ Hector Deidonat in his History of Scotland Which words have been inserted in the Appendix of the Martyrology of the Gallican Church which was left us by the Bishop of Thoul having recorded in the Supplement at the 4th of the Ides of November the Commemoration which is made of St. John Surnamed Erigenius Martyr kill'd at Malmesbury by some young Debauchees See here exactly what the Man was that wrote of the Sacrament by Command of Charles the Bald as Ratramn also did as we are given to understand by a Letter of Berengarius written unto one Richard who had some Access unto King Philip. In this Letter printed some years past by the care of Dom Luke d'Achery he desires him to speak for him unto this Prince to the end he would be pleased to repair by his Liberality the Losses and Damages which he had unjustly sustained After which he adds Epistola Berengarii ad Richard t. 2. Spicil p. 510. If he doth not do it yet nevertheless I shall be ready to prove by the Scriptures unto his Majesty and those whom he shall appoint and to make appear that John Erigenius was very unjustly condemned by the Council at Verceil and Paschas very unjustly vindicated And afterwards To the end the King should not reject this service of my fidelity he may know that what John Erigenius hath written he wrote it at the desire and by order of Charles the Great he means the Bald one of his Predecessors who was as affectionate unto Religious things as he was valiant in his Expeditions lest the folly of ignorant and carnal men should prevail And he commanded John that learned Man to collect from the Scriptures what might check this folly Whence it follows saith he that the King is obliged to take up the Defence of the Deceased against the Slanders of those alive not to shew himself unworthy of the Succession and Throne of his Illustrious Predecessors that desired this Service of this learned Man not to scatter Darkness over the Light of the Truth but to inform himself carefully in the Knowledge of the holy Scriptures Berengarius complains of the Condemnation of John at the Council of Verceil in the year 1050. because it was there his Book was read and condemned to be burnt about two hundred years after he wrote it as we are informed by Lanfranc who owns him to be an Adversary of Paschas whereof he was himself a great favourer Therefore Berengarius wrote to him Tereng Ep. ad Lanâ—ranc If John whose Judgment we approve touching the Sacrament be esteemed by you to be a Heretick you must also hold for Hereticks St. Jerome St. Ambrose and St. Austin not to mention others That which renders John Erigenius's Testimony the more Authentick in this Debate is for having had four Enemies to wit the learned Church of Lyons Florus its Deacon Prudens Bishop of Troys the Councils of Valencia and of Langres which spared him not upon the matter of Predestination it is very likely they would have less spared him upon the Subject of the Eucharist had he differed from the Belief generally received in the Church upon so important a Point as is that of the holy Sacrament This truth will yet be more evident if we consider that many do believe Prudens Bishop of Troys and Florus Deacon of the Church of Lyons two Enemies which his Opinion of Predestination had stirred up against him were also opposite unto the Opinion of Paschas so that it hapned unto those People much after the same manner as we have seen it hath done in our days unto those called Jansenists and Molinists for however they be divided in the matters of Predestination and free Grace yet nevertheless both the one and the other still retain the great point of the real presence of the Latin Church so although Prudens and Florus did censure what John wrote of Predestination yet for all that they were well agreed as to what concerned the Sacrament Prudens indeed hath writ nothing or at least there is nothing of his come unto our knowledge But the Archbishop Hincmar suffers us not to be ignorant of what Prudens believed when joyning him with John Erigenius against whom nevertheless he observes he wrote upon the Subject of Predestination he saith that they both held Hinemar de praedest cap 31. That the Sacraments of the Altar are not the real Body and the real Blood of our Saviour but only the memorial of his true Body and Blood And when I speak of Prudens I speak of one of the greatest Ornaments of his Age in Piety and Learning and of a Man whose memory is Annually Honoured with great Solemnity I shall content my self with relating the character which the Bishop of Thoul gives of him in the Martyrology of France the 6th day of April Martyrol Gallican Andr du Saussay 5. Id. April
have insisted already had found something amiss in the Service of the Church of Lyons which so offended Agobard that he wrote a Book on purpose against the four Books of Amalarius touching Ecclesiastical things And he writes it with so high a resentment that Father Chifflet could have wished he had wrote with more moderation And that he had dipt his pen Ep. ad Baluzium Agobardo praefixa after the example of his Predecessors in the Blood of Jesus Christ the Lamb without spot truly meek and humble in Spirit It is then very probable that in the humour Agobard was against Amalarius he suffer'd nothing to pass unreproved except what he thought not fit to be censured and which he approved of himself And indeed by reading his Book it will plainly appear with what exactness he examines all that dropt from the Pen of his Adversary Now 't is most certain he censured not any of the passages which we alledged for proving that Amalarius was contrary to the Opinion of Paschas can it be believed this Man so full of anger and revenge and who wrote not his Book but to censure those of Amalarius and yet touched not any of the testimonies whereof we speak if the belief of Amalarius had not been the belief of the Church or if Agobard had not been of the same Opinion he was on the subject of the Eucharist how could it possible be but that he would have censur'd what Amalarius said How could he have slipt so fair an occasion to have discredited his Adversary as a Man that prevaricated from the belief of the Church upon one of the Capital Articles of our Religion but further he alledges these words of Amalarius which we before cited The Bread set upon the Altar represents the Body of our Saviour spread upon the Cross the Wine and Water in the Cup do shew the Sacraments which did flow from the side of our Saviour upon the Cross Agobard advers Annal. cap. 21. p. 119. but he doth not there apply one word of censure What can be inferr'd from this conduct but that they were both agreed upon this point Now if from the consideration of his silence we proceed to that of his words it is said we shall be confirmed in the belief of what hath been said for he testifies Ibid. c. 13. p. 115. That as there is but one Altar of the Church so also there is one bread of the Body of Jesus Christ and one sole Cup of his Blood He distinguisheth the Bread from the Body of Jesus Christ and the Cup from his Blood as he distinguisheth the Altar from the Church where it is Moreover he declares Ibid. That the Church consecrating by these words he speaks of all the words of Institution according to the Tradition of the Apostles the Mystery of the Body and Blood of our Lord he saith expresly that our Saviour said unto his Disciples Take and Eat you all of this Words which the Deacon Florus borrowed of him with those that follow as we observed not long ago to prove that what our Saviour commanded his Disciples to take and eat was Bread This is what was said of Agobard We have already mentioned in the 7th Chapter of this second Part an Assembly of Bishops of the Diocesses of Roan and of Rhemis at Cressy which furnished us with a Declaration of their belief but because they wrote in this same Century the History whereof we examine it is just that we should here insert their testimony David Blundel in his Exposition of the Eucharist said in Chap. 18. That he separated not from Ratramn and John surnamed Erigenius the greatest part of the Bishops assembled at Cressy anno 858. with out signifying the place where they had given marks of their belief therefore some have thought he had read it in some Manuscripts Nevertheless it is certain that he had a regard unto what we have alledged and unto what we will produce a second time yet in referring the Reader unto the 7th Chapter to ponder the occasion and the words which be these Concil Carisiac t. 3. Concil Gall. p. 129. Extr. It would be an abominable thing if the hand which makes by prayer and the sign of the Cross Bread and Wine mingled with Water the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ that it should after promotion unto Episcopacy meddle in any secular Oath whatever it did before Ordination The Chronicle of Mouson which is in one of the Tomes of the Collection of Dom Luke d'Achery makes mention of one Arnulph and represents him unto us as a Martyr He died as near as can be judged about the end of the IX Century And as he was at the point of death he said unto those that were present Favour me by your compassionate piety and help Chron. Mosomens t. 7. Spicil pag. 627. that I may receive from the hands of the Priests the Eucharist of the Communion of our Saviour He desires to receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist which truly communicates unto the faithful and penitent Soul Jesus Christ our Lord which he plainly distinguisheth from his Sacrament as the thing whereof we communicate from the Instrument by means whereby we do thereof participate He did not then believe with Paschas that the Eucharist was the real Flesh of Jesus Christ It is the Inference that many do make In the last Chapter of the first part we treated of the Custom of mingling the consecrated Wine with Ink and at the end of the 8th Chapter of the Second Part we shew'd the Inferences which is said are lawfully made from it But because of the Examples of this practice which we have alledged there is one of the Year 844. we will make no difficulty of joyning this Testimony unto the former yet it shall be only in the nature of a Historian which relates what passed at Tholouse betwixt King Charles the Bald and Bernard Count of Barcelonia whom this Prince had sent for under pretence of being reconciled unto him but indeed with design to kill him See here what the Historian saith Odo Ariâ—ertus inedit in notis Baluz ad Agobard pag. 129. The Peace having been concluded and interchangeably signed by the King and the Count with the Blood of the Eucharist Count Bernard came from Barcelonia unto Tholouse and cast himself at the King's feet in the Monastery of St. Saturnine near Tholouse The King taking him with the left hand as it were to lift him up he stabb'd his Dagger into his side with the other hand and cruelly murthered him not without being blamed for having violated Faith and Religion nor without suspition of Parricide because it was generally thought Charles was Son to Bernard also he resembled him very much about the mouth Nature publishing thereby the Mothers Adultery After so cruel a death the King descending from his Throne reeking in blood kicking the body with his foot said thus
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
is consumed the holy Body of our Lord. Which cannot be applied unto the true Body of Jesus Christ which by the Confession of of all Christians is a Subject which cannot be consumed Of necessity then this Abbot must needs have believed that what was received at the holy Table was not the real Body of Jesus Christ because he speaks of it as of a thing that was to be consumed And I am much deceived if he borrowed not this Expression of St. Austin who testifies that the Sacrament is consumed The Bread August de Trinit l. 3. c. 10. saith he prepared for this purpose is consumed in receiving the holy Sacrament What is laid upon the Table is consumed the Celebration of Devotion being ended The Abbot Folium departed this Life Anno 990. and was succeeded by Herriger so that they be mistaken which place Herriger at the end of the XI Century because he succeeded Folium in the Office of Abbot about the end of the X. De Gest Abbar Lob. t. 6. Spicil p. 591. And of this Herriger it is said That he collected against Paschas Radbert several passages of Catholick Fathers touching the Body and Blood of our Lord. Molanus writeth in his Martyrology of the Saints of Flanders on the 2d of January that a certain Author of the Life of Adelard observes that it appears by a Letter of Herriger's whom he styles the wisest of Men what Paschas was and how much Reputation he was of But that hinders not that in collecting against him the Passages and Testimonies of the holy Fathers upon the Subject of the Sacrament he declared that he did not approve of his Opinion for Justice ought indeed to be done unto the Merit of the person even of our greatest Enemies and it was a great honour unto Herriger to write against a Man unto whom he gave so great Commendations at least if Molanus his Author saith true for he thereby shewed that it was only Love of the Truth which made him take Pen in hand against a Man whose Memory he honoured Ibid. p. 590 591. and whose Learning he esteemed He which continued the History of the Abbots of Lobes doth exceedingly praise Herriger as a Man whose Vertue and Learning was esteemed even by Strangers He makes mention of several Books composed by him and observes that some said that Miracles were made at his Grave The Author of the Customs of the Abbots of Gembloux near Namur speaks also much in his praise in the same Tome of Dom Luke d'Achery Herriger had for his Friend and Companion in Studies Ibid. p. 519. in the searching and Meditation of the holy Scriptures one Hughes who succeeded him in the Dignity of Abbot after Ingobrand And it is observed that Herriger wrote unto him familiarly concerning some Questions This great familiarity Ibid. p. 591.593 joyned with a strict society in reading and the understanding of the holy Scriptures gives if I mistake not a sufficient evidence that they were both of one Opinion upon the point of the Sacrament but an Opinion contrary unto that of Paschas against whom Herriger assembled several Testimonies of the holy Fathers And as what I have now related is but a Conjecture so I leave it unto the Reader 's liberty to think and say what he please whilst I proceed to continue the History of the X. Century In the beginning of this Century the Congregation of Cluny was instituted Anno 910. by the Foundation of William Tom. 3. Concil Gall. p. 569. Count of Auvergne and Duke of Guien who by his Testament bestowed the place of Cluny with all its Dependences there to erect a Monastery of Benedictine Friars to the honour of St. Peter and St. Paul Which Monastery he put under the Protection of the Pope and See Apostolical and he nominated Bernon to be Abbot of it during life but after his death he left it to the liberty of the Monks to chuse what Abbots they should think fit Accordingly they elected Odo after the decease of Bernon Tom. 4. Spicil p. 40.49 unto Odo succeeded as I suppose Haymard Majole unto Haymard and Odilon unto Majole and it was after the death of the Abbot Odilon who died about the middle of the XI Century that the Friar Ulrick digested into a Body the Customs of this Monastery Cassander saw them in a fair Manuscript and drew a passage out of them for the Communion under both Kinds as hath been observed in the first part but six or seven years ago they were printed by the care of Dom Luke d'Achery a Benedictine Friar I find in these Customs several things which make some think that the Opinion of Paschas was not received in this famous Congregation at the beginning of its Institution nor in all the X. Century And I take notice particularly of that time because those persons would not deny but that the Congregation might have changed Opinion after the condemnation of Berengarius not that there is any certain proof thereof but if it be considered that it was under the Protection of the Roman See one may be inclined to believe that as soon as that See declared against the Doctrine of Berengarius which was that of the enemies of Paschas this Society of Cluny did also embrace the Opinion favoured by its Protectors But because it cannot be perceived that there was in these Ancient Customs above mentioned certain passages which agreed not well with the Doctrine of the real Presence or that having perceived it they dared not to take them away it being come to the knowledge of too many People we therefore find them yet therein at this time and it is from hence we intend to draw proofs of what hath been said That this Congregation was not at first nor in all likelihood during all the X. Century of the Opinion of Paschas and as they be the first that have produced an instance in this matter they endeavour to confirm the truth of it in such a manner which as they think will not be displeasing unto all reasonable persons and unto such as as are wont to judge of things according to reason and truth They say then in the first place that at the time when these Customs were written to wit about the end of the XI Century the Bread steeped in Wine for Celebrating the Communion was practised which sheweth that in all likelihood they were not come unto this use until after the Condemnation of Berengarius the fear of shedding not having entred into their thoughts until that time because they believed not that what was in the Cup was the very substance of the Blood of Jesus Christ Unto all those to whom is given the Sacred Body Antiquae consâ—etud Clunica l. 2. c. 30. p. 146. t. 4. Spicileg he first steeps it in the holy Blood because some of our Novices are so heedless that if they should receive the Blood apart they would be sure
represents unto us to be purely spiritual Ep. 23. wherein he alledges the words of St. Austin It is a Figure which commands us to communicate of the Passion of our Lord and to represent unto our minds sweetly and usefully that his Body was crucified and broken for us Ep. 1. ad Adeod t. 3. Bibl. Pat. p. 438. A. B Post poeniten mulierum p. 521. E. for I do not regard the Addition that some unadvised hand hath thereunto annexed will the Heretick say And these others of the same Saint Him that dwelleth not in Jesus Christ and in whom Christ dwelleth not doth not indeed eat his Flesh although he eats and drinks the Sacrament of so great a thing unto his Damnation Ibid. p. 522. B. Unto which words in all appearance Berengarius had regard when he said in his Letter unto Richard If the thing were so how should the Doctrine of the Eucharist come to my knowledge which is in the Writings of Bishop Fulbert of glorious Memory Tom 2. Spicil d'Ach. p. 510. and which some esteem to be of this Bishop but it is of St. Austin If it be farther considered that he declares that Jesus Christ is ascended into Heaven and that he hath left us the Sacrament Ep. 1. ad Adcodat p. 437. C. as a Pledge of his Presence that he speaks of what we receive in the Sacrament as of a thing which is broken into very small bits and whereof a little portion is received and that he distinguisheth as Ratramn did Id. Epist 2. p. 440 441. and in the same words the Sacrament which he calls the body of Christ from his true Body If I say all these things be well considered it must presently be concluded that he was contrary unto Paschas Yet nevertheless I would not affirm that he exactly followed the Opinion of his Adversaries not because he speaks of the Transfusion and Change of the Bread into the substance of the Body of Jesus Christ for besides that Id. Ep. 1. p 437 438. he calls this Change a Change of Dignity that is to say of Quality which the Ancients often design by the name of Substance as hath been shewn he compares the Change which happens in the Eucharist unto that which came unto the Manna in the Wilderness and unto that which comes unto Men in Baptism and that he testifies That there is also a Transfusion of Believers into the Body of Jesus Christ Ibid. But I judge so because he seems to me to have embraced the Opinion of Remy of Auxerr which was the same of John Damascen who taught not that the substance of the Symbols was abolished but that they were united unto the Divinity to make one Body with the Natural Body of Jesus Christ as hath been fully shewed And that these were the thoughts of Fulbert it appears if I mistake not by what he saith That the Pledge which our Saviour hath left us is not the Symbol of an empty Mystery but the true Body of Jesus Christ Compaginante Spiritu Sancto Id. ibid. p. 437. or as Remy speaks Conjungente that is to say that the Holy Spirit unites joyns and knits the Sacrament unto the true Body of Jesus Christ in uniting it unto the Divinity Let the Reader judge if I use any violence unto the words of Fulbert and if I vary from his meaning About the time that Fulbert of Chartres flourished Bernon Abbot of Augy wrote his Treatise of things which concerned the Mass to wit about the Year 1030. and Fulbert died in 1027. In this Treatise he speaks of Making and confecrating the Body and Blood of the Lord Cap. 1. 2. t. 10 Bibl. Pat. but the real Body say some and the proper Blood of our Saviour not being possible to be made because it was made a thousand years before Bernon wrote nor be sanctified because it was always holy it must of necessity be understood of the Sacrament Cap. 1. And he shews it plainly when he said That this Body of Jesus Christ is broken Which cannot be understood of his true Body which is not subject unto this Accident and that moreover he declares Cap. 5. That we are refreshed with the Wine which is in the Cup in Type of the Blood of Jesus Christ Nevertheless the Opinion of Paschas establishing it self by degrees Bruno Bishop of Anger 's and Berengarius born at Tours but Arch-Deacon and Treasurer of the Church of Anger 's a Dignity which in former times was not conferred but upon persons of Worth and Learning Bruno I say and Berengarius not enduring that the Opinion of Paschas which they looked upon as an Innovation of the ancient Faith should get possession of the minds of the people opposed it publickly teaching that the Bread and Wine did not lose their substance by Consecration to become the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ but they only became by the Blessing of Sanctification the Sacrament of this Body and Blood The truth is Bruno suffering himself to be overcome with fear became silent a little after for say some it often happens upon these occasions that Men hearken to the Counsels of the Flesh rather than unto those of the Spirit But as for Berengarius he had more strength and courage and opposed himself with more Resolution and Vigour unto the setling of the Doctrine which Paschas begun to teach in the IX Century but without any great success until the XI wherein it also found a great many Opposers I am not ignorant that some Enemies of Berengarius have endeavoured to slander him to render his Belief the more odious but the truth is he was reputed to be a very learned Man grounded in Philosophy and the knowledge of the Liberal Arts and moreover of a holy and unblameable Life A fragment of the History of France from the time of King Robert Tom 4. Histor Franc. de scripror Eccles Platina in Joan. 15. Sabellic Enead 9. l. 2. Chron. tit 16. c. 1. § 20 unto the death of Philip saith That his name was famous amongst the Professors of Divine Philosophy Sigebert saith That he was illustrious for the Knowledge of the Liberal Arts and of Logick Platina and Sabellicus reckon him amongst those which rendred themselves famous by their Piety and Learning Bergomas in the Suppliment of Chronicles upon the Year 1049. observes That he passed a long time in the Judgment of Men to be eminent in Learning and in Holiness Therefore the Arch-Bishop Antonine declares Tom. 2. Spicil p. 747. That he was very learned And the Friar Clarius in his Chronicle of St. Peter of Sans gives him these two Epithets of Admirable Philosopher and Lover of the Poor But in fine the Belief which he maintained upon the Subject of the Eucharist and which was directly contrary unto that of Paschas found the people so disposed to entertain it or rather to declare openly for it so that in all
parts it was publickly professed And this easily persuades me that Berengarius did not so much infuse this Opinion into them as he encouraged them by his Example to publish it by rousing them up from the stupidness wherein they had layen for some time For had this people believed no more of the Eucharist than just what Berengarius had taught this Doctrine could scarce have made so great a progress in so little a time but as it was instill'd into them from Father to Son Berengarius had no sooner opened his mouth but that they embraced it not regarding the fear that had till then discouraged them seeing the Contradiction it found in the World whilst that of Paschas therein received favour and encouragement But because the Enemies of this Doctrine have looked upon Berengarius to have been the true Author of it they have taxed him of infecting with the Venom of his Heresie all those which by his example had the courage to make Profession of it It is with this prejudice that Matthew of Westminster saith Ad Ann. 1â— 87. That he had almost infected all France Italy and England Matthew Paris and William of Malmesbury say Matt. Paris in Willielm II. Will. Malms 6. in Willielm l. l. 3. That all France was full of his Doctrine So it is that Durandus of Troarn an ancient Monastery in Normandy also saith in a Treatise which he made of the Body and Blood of Christ wherein he opposeth the Doctrine taught by Berengarius It cannot be doubted but that the Doctrine of Berengarius was the same with that taught by several in the IX Century which opposed the Opinions of Paschas as Novelties which until then had not been heard of in the Church If then the Doctrine of the Adversaries of Paschas was the ancient Belief of Christians as we suppose hath been sufficiently proved it must be granted that Berengarius did not depart from it and that those which followed him had been of old instructed therein Therefore as soon as he began to bublish it they knew it and without any difficulty made Profession of it But if Berengarius had Friends he also had Enemies if he had Followers he had also those which opposed him The first that attempted to write against him seems to be Adelman which from Theologal of the Church of Liege became Bishop of Bress He had studied with Berengarius under Fulbert Bishop of Chartres and having heard what Berengarius taught of the Sacrament of the Eucharist he wrote him a Letter wherein having renewed the memory of their old Friendship he shews that it was reported of him that he taught Tom. 3. Bibl. Pat. ult ed. p. 167. That the Eucharist is not the true Body nor the real Blood of Jesus Christ but the Figure and Resemblance Adelman endeavours to refute this Doctrine but by Reasons which appear weak and some also that do not very well agree with his Hypothesis but Berengarius answered him in such a manner as he might see that he did not much value his Reproof and that he was resolved always to defend his Belief calling that which was contrary unto him Apud Lanfran t. 6. bibl Pat. p. 192. The folly of the people of Paschas and of Lanfranc By which words he sheweth that he looked upon Paschas as the Author of this Novelty and Lanfranc as the Promoter of it and that both the one and the other endeavoured to infuse it into the people to the prejudice of their ancient Faith For Berengarius pretended that his Doctrine was the Doctrine of the Primitive Church and that that of his Adversaries was not known but since Paschas his time who having invented it in his Cell brought it forth in the Year of our Lord 818. Berengarius having thus silenced Adelman Tom. 3. Bibl. Pat. p. 319. his ancient Fellow-Student Durandus Bishop of Liege and by consequence Adelman's Bishop sounded an Alarm in a Letter he wrote unto King Henry against Bruno Bishop of Anger 's and against Berengarius his Arch-Deacon as against persons which taught that the Sacrament is not the Body of Christ but the Figure of his Body which this Prelate calls Renewing of ancient Heresies And to shew with what Spirit this Bishop was acted he exhorts the King to deliberate of their punishment rather than to hear them in Councils Moreover I have called this Bishop of Liege Durandus after Baronius and those which have given us the Library of the holy Fathers but according to the truth of the History it cannot be so because Durandus was dead before Bruno was Bishop of Anger 's And indeed Durandus died Anno 1025. according to Segebert and Bruno attained not unto the Episcopacy until 1047. Of necessity then this Bishop of Liege must be some other than Durandus and probably it may be Dietuvin who was made Bishop of Liege in the Year 1048. about which time he and Adelman might have writ the Letters above mentioned Durandus Abbot of Troam in Normandy makes some mention at the end of his Treatise of the Body and Blood of our Saviour of a Council assembled at Paris by the Authority of the King against Berengarius and his Followers where the Doctrine of Berengarius absent and unheard was condemned and it was there concluded that he and those of his Judgment should be prosecuted in all parts and that they should be besieged where they should be found assembled to force them to renounce their Belief or be taken and put to death a Remedy very contrary unto the temper of the Gospel and unto the mildness of the Religion of Jesus Christ But after all this Council of Paris is no other than a fiction of the Author's brain For what likelihood is there that Lanfranc who wrote against Berengarius after this pretended Council would have passed it over in silence having so exactly mentioned all the Councils which were assembled against Berengarius in some of which he was present himself Moreover Anonymus de damnatione Berengarii multiplici Father Chifflet hath printed an Anonymous Author which specifies all the Synods wherein the Belief of Berengarius was condemned at the last of which himself was present at Rome Anno 1079. under Gregory the Seventh without making any mention of that of Paris Whereunto may be added that the Date and Character of the time doth not agree with the truth of History Cardinal Baronius in his Annals Ad ann 1035. thinks King Henry had thoughts of assembling a Synod against Berengarius but that he was hindred by the Bishop of Liege his Letters which I cannot believe after all that hath been said on this matter We are informed by Lanfranc that in the Year 1050. Pope Leo the Ninth assembled two Councils one at Rome where Berengarius Lanfranc de Eucharist Sacram t. 6. Bibl. Pat. p. 193. without being cited or heard was condemned upon Letters which he wrote unto Lanfranc and
which were read in the Assembly The other at Verceil in September where Berâ—en garius was warned to appear but he thought sufficient to send two Clergy-men in whose presence he was condemned a second time and with him the Book which John Erigenius had writ against the Opinion of Paschas about two hundred years before The Anonymous also failed not to begin the History of the divers Condemnations of Berengarius by these two Councils of Rome and of Verceil But these two Councils hindred not but that many wrote for him as there were many that wrote against him so it is expressed in Sigebert's Chronicle Sigebert in Chron ad ann 1051. of the Edition of Mireus at Antwerp Anno 1608. and it might also be seen in all the other Impressions had not care been taken to suppress it Many saith he disputed for and against him both by Word and in Writing In fine there is in Monsieur de Thou's Library a Manuscript Copy of the Chronicle of Sigebert wherein this is read France is troubled by reason of Berengarius of Towers who affirmed that the Sacrament which we receive at the Altar is not really the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ but the Figure of his Body and Blood for which cause several disputed with much heat for and against him by Word of mouth and by Writing As for Berengarius himself he so little valued the Anathema's of Rome and Verceil that he spake very slightly of Pope Leo the Ninth and of his See as it was seen formerly in Guitmond his Adversary before it was altered by the Expurgatory Indexes but that 's in vain Anonym p. 363. seeing Father Chifflet's Anonymous relates almost the same thing and near hand in the very same terms which I will save my self the trouble of transcribing because they be something sharp and full of Contempt Victor Successor unto Leo seeing that Berengarius still persisted in his Opinion and that he ceased not to publish it notwithstanding the thundring of Leo's two Councils caused one to be assembled at Towers Anno 1055. wherein his Sub-Deacon Hildebrand who was afterwards Pope under the name of Gregory the Seventh presided and the Adversaries of Berengarius Lanfranc Guitmond and the Anonymous before mentioned have writ that Berengarius there presented himself and dared not to defend his Cause chusing rather to submit unto what Rome had determined in the matter We not having the Acts of this Synod it would be difficult to speak certainly of it it not being just wholly to give Credit unto what his Adversaries relate of him which doth not appear to agree with the following part of the History For Nicholas the Second of that Name was obliged to assemble another Council at Rome five years after that of Tours Berengarius there appeared and if we will believe Lanfranc and Chifflet's Anonymous he dared not to defend his Belief Chron. Cassin l. 3. c. 33. Sigon de Regn. Ital. l. 9. ad An. 1059. But how shall we reconcile Lanfranc and the Anonymous with the History of Mount Cassin and with Sigonius for they observe that his Enemies could not tell what to reply unto his Reasons and that they were constrained to search in the Monastery of Mount Cassin for a Friar called Alberick which Pope Stephen saith Sigonius had made Cardinal-Deacon who being come and not being able to answer Berengarius his Arguments demanded a Weeks time to answer him but in fine Threatnings having greater efficacy than their Arguments Berengarius being affrighted signed the Revocation which Humbert Cardinal of Blanch-Selva had Order to draw up and which I do not here examine because I do not meddle with matter of Controversie and which moreover the Latin Church at this time doth not much like of and that it was for fear of death that he renounced cannot be doubted after the Testimony of Lanfranc his great Enemy who thus speaks unto him in the Book he composed against him You have in presence of the Council Tom. 6. Bibl. Pat. p. 189. confessed the Orthodox Faith not for love of the Truth but through fear of death Therefore Chifflet's Anonymous doth observe a considerable Circumstance and which as I think deserves to find place in this History of Berengarius for he said Anonym ubi supra that Alexander the Second which succeeded Nicholas Anno 1061. did in a very friendly manner by his Letters advise and desire Berengarius to lay aside his Opinion and not to scandalize the Church But that Berengarius would by no means depart from his Judgment and that he had the courage to declare so much unto the Pope by Letters Thence it was that Gregory the Seventh Successor unto Alexander gave him Audience in two Councils as the Anonymous observes who assisted at the latter assembled at Rome Anno 1079. As for the former held at the same place he mentions not at what time but so it is that in the latter Council there was drawn up another Confession of Faith much milder and more moderate than that which had been made in Nicholas his time and they obliged Berengarius to sign it After which Tom. 2. Spicil p. 5â—8 Gregory gave him Letters of Recommendation which Dom Luke d'Achery has caused to be printed in one of the Thomes of his Collections This Gregory I say of whom 1 In vita Hildebrandi Cardinal Benno and the 2 Ad Anno 1080. Abbot of Ursperg do write That wavering in the Faith he made his Cardinals to keep a solemn Fast to the end that God would shew whether the Church of Rome or Berengarius were in the truest Opinion touching the Body of our Lord. And it must be remembred that this Synod of Gregory's was full of Contests upon this Subject of the Sacrament there being yet a great many Prelates which defended the Opinions of Berengarius against the Reality of Paschas as appears by the Acts of this Council related by Thomas Waldensis and Hugh de Flavigny Tom. 2. c. 43. Chron. Verd. ad Ann. 1078. in the Chronicle of Verdun which is in the first Tome of the Library of Father l'Abbe who doth also give us the Abridgment with this difference That he assigns this Council unto the Year 1078. whereas it was held in the Year 1079. But in fine The Acts produced by Waldensis and what the Chronicle of Verdon alledges doth testifie that there were those in this Assembly which affirmed that the Eucharist is the Figure of the Body of Jesus Christ But that nothing may be wanting unto the History of Berengarius it is necessary to touch upon some Circumstances which have not yet been mentioned In the first place His Adversaries being enraged against him have not feared to charge him with some Errors touching Marriage and Infant-Baptism as if he taught the Dissolution of lawful Marriage and rejected the Baptizing of young Children but without any other Ground than meer Report which as the Poet
Perfidious Stercoranist saith he you believe that the participation of the Body and Blood of our Saviour breaks the Fast of Love and Ecclesiastical Abstinences believing absolutely that the Heavenly Food as well as the Earthly is sent out backwards by the stinking and sordid ejection of the belly Alger confirms the testimony of Humbert Algerus de Sacram l. 2. c. 1. t. 6 Bibl. Pat. p. 320. and declares positively That the Greeks are of the Opinion of those which he calls Stercoranists that is to say of those which hold that the substance of Bread doth remain after Consecration and that in regard of the substance of it it is subject unto the same fate of our common food which was exactly the Opinion of the Adversaries of Paschas and afterwards of Berengarius and his followers Cellot in append Miscel opusc 7. p. 5â— Father Cellot in his Notes upon an Anonymous Treatise in the Appendix of his History of Gotteschal confirms the same thing saying That the Error of the Greeks consists in their saying That the Ecclesiastical Fast is broken by receiving of the Eucharist and that they believe the Sacrament is digested and that it is evacuated like saith he unto the Stercoranists which we have in detestation The same Cardinal de Blanch-Selva Humbertus ubi supra p. 247. also reproacheth them that they take not heed of the Crums of the holy Bread which fall to the ground either in breaking or receiving of it whereunto he adds Some amongst you do eat the remainder of the Oblation like common bread sometimes even unto excess and if they cannot eat all they bury it or cast it into a Well All which things do not well accord with the Doctrine nor with the practice of the Latins But this is not yet all we have to say of the Belief of the Greek Church in the XI Century In the Memorials of Sigismund Liber touching the affairs of Muscovy Printed at Basil Anno 1571. there is a Letter of one John Metropolitan of Russia unto the Archbishop of Rome written as near as I can judge in this Century or it may be afterwards for he makes some mention of the contention betwixt the Latins and the Greeks touching leavened or unleavened Bread In this Letter he very amply declares that what our Lord gave his Disciples was Bread Sigismund liber râ—rum Moscovit p. 32. He did not give them Wafers saith he but bread when he said See the Bread which I give unto you Leo Allatius in his Diatribe of the Simeons makes mention of one Simeon prefect of the Monastery of St. Mamant in Xerocerco who flourished in the middle of the XI Century in great reputation of Holiness and Learning He was indeed accused of holding some errors concerning the Vision of God in this Life and of the Union of Believers with him but that hindred not but that he was followed by most of the Greeks the errors now spoken of did not regard the Sacrament and had no relation unto the Eucharist Therefore although he had some Enemies yet neither he nor his followers were ever taxed to have erred in the matter of the Sacrament This Simeon at the time that the Doctrine of Berengarius was Condemned at Verceil taught in the East That the Sacrament was one thing and that the Body of Christ was another thing and that those which participated unworthily of the Sacrament could not receive the Body of the Son of God In fine Allatius making up the accompt of the works of this Simeon Allatius de Simeonibus p. 163. speaks of a certain Hymn the title whereof was That whosoever liveth without the knowledge of God is dead in the midst of those which live in the knowledge of him and that those which participate unworthily of the Mysteries cannot receive the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ It were to be wished that Allatius had given us the whole Hymn as well as the Argument but however this Argument contains a Doctrine manifestly contrary unto that of the Latins in favour of whom by consequence it is very unlike that Theophylact should declare seeing he was of the Greek Church and lived in the XI Century at which time the Greeks believed and taught what is above written yet let every body judge sincerely and freely without any other interest than that of truth which I endeavour to represent in this History which informs us that it was in this Age that they begun to introduce the Communion under one kind and to change the form of the Bread of the Eucharist in the Churches of the West as hath been discoursed at large in the First Part. CHAP. XVIII A Continuation of the History of the Eucharist or the State of the XII and XIII Centuries THe Opinion of Paschas having been in fine publickly Authorised in the XI Century there needs no farther enquiry be made to know if it obtain'd the Victory over its Adversaries the thing being without any difficulty the establishing of this Doctrine being a manifest condemnation of that which was opposite unto it it will suffice then to understand what were the consequences and to what effect so many Decrees in favour of the Opinion of Paschas and contrary unto that of which Berengarius and his followers so stoutly maintained did work upon the minds of men for during all the XI Century the minds of Men were divided and notwithstanding the decisions of several Councils there was in all parts infinite numbers of People which made open profession of the Doctrine which Berengarius taught and which was exactly that of the Adversaries of Paschas therefore the very Enemies of Berengarius told us in the foregoing Chapter That all France Italy and England was full of his Doctrine In fine the party which rejected the Determination of Gregory the VII against Berengarius was so considerable that Urban the Second was constrained to condemn anew the Opinion of Berengarius in another Council held at Plaisance Anno 1095. Berthold ad aunum 1095. as Bertholdus has observed in his Appendix unto Herman Contract for relating all things that were translated in this Council of Plaisance which was celebrated in his time he saith amongst other things that the Doctrine of Berengarius was there again condemned after having been so several times before But as the former Determinations could not impose silence upon the Disciples of Berengarius I mean those which embraced the same Doctrine which obliged Urban to condemn them again in the year 1095. seven years after the Decease of Berengarius so also the condemnation of Urban the Second had not power sufficient to silence them seeing that in the beginning of the XII Century Bruno Archbishop of Treves expell'd great numbers of them out of his Diocess as is testified by Monsieur de Thou in the Epistle Dedicatory of his History It is true that instead of the year 1060. whereto he assigns the action of this Prelate it
Decission of Popes and their Councils in favour of the Doctrine of Paschas separated themselves openly from their Communion and gave their Reasons for so doing in a Book which they published to that purpose in the vulgar Tongue wherein they made this Declaration of their Faith touching the Eucharist Hist de Albigensis de Paul Perrin l. 3. c. 4. The eating of the Sacramental Bread is the eating of the Body of Jesus Christ figuratively Jesus Christ having said As often as you do this do it in remembrance of me This Book as is observed by him that inserted it wholly in his History of the Albigensis and the Waldensis was taken from a Manuscript wherein was contained several Sermons of the Barbes so it was that those people called their Pastors it is dated in the Year 1120. which I find nothing strange when I consider that in the Year 1119. Pope Calixtus the Second assembled a Council at Tholouse in his own presence wherein certain Hereticks were condemned who rejected the Sacrament of the Eucharist that is to say which in all likelihood did not believe what the Latin Church believed We are obliged for the Canons of this Council unto Monsieur Baluze who hath inserted them wholly in a Book of Monsieur de Marca's touching the Liberties of the Gallican Church In the third of these Canons this Ordinance is made Apud Marc. de Concord l. 8. c. 18. p. 344. We expel out of the Church as Hereticks and condemn those who making a shew of piety do not approve the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Lord c. We command all Secular Powers to punish them and we bind with the same Bond of Excommunication those which shall protect them until such time as they shall repent This Canon as far as I see concerns only these Albigensis who not approving the Doctrine of the Latin Church upon the point of the Eucharist separated themselves from their Communion after it had condemned the Doctrine taught by Berengarius and established that of Paschas in the XI Century although it had not admitted thereof before And what confirms me in this Opinion is what I find in the Chronicle of St. Tron in the Country of Liege touching Radolph Abbot of that Monastery and besides Author of the Chronicle viz. That being gone to Rome in Pope Honorius the Second his time who was advanced to this Dignity in the Year 1125. and held the Chair five years he had a design to travel into another Country which he doth not name but that he was informed that it was infected with the Heresie of the Sacramentarians that is to say the Doctrine which was condemned in the person of Berengarius It adds Moreover Tom. 7. Spicil d'Ach. p. 493. he understood that the Country towards which he had a design to travel in going farther it was infected with the old Heresie of the Body and Blood of our Lord. This Radolph was Abbot of Tron Anno 1108. and he wrote his Chronicle about the Year 1125. There was then at that time a Country wherein Profession was made of a Belief contrary unto that of the Latin Church in the point of the Sacrament and because this Abbot had received and approved the Decisions of Leo Victor Nicholas and of Gregory against Berengarius and against his Doctrine he calls the other Opinion Heresie and not only Heresie but the old Heresie this is the very term he useth which sheweth that the Belief which he condemns was no new Invention according to the Judgment of this Author but that it had of a long time been much spoken of and that it was publickly professed by great numbers of people especially in the Country mentioned by him which in all probability was the Country of Languedock wherein the followers of Berengarius spread and published abroad his Doctrine immediately after his death not valuing the Prohibitions and Decrees of the Councils of Verceil of Rome and of Tours On the contrary seeing they authorized and passed into an Article of Faith an Opinion which they esteemed to be Novel and contrary unto the ancient Doctrine of Christians they separated and broke off from the Latin Church in whose Communion they had lived till that time These people had for their chief Conducter Peter de Bruis who after having defended and maintained this Faith and Doctrine having preached and published it for the space of twenty years in Languedock in Gascoygne and elsewhere was at last Martyred and burnt at St. Giles in Languedock by the care and diligence of the Latin Church preferring rather to suffer death and to seal with his Blood the Doctrine which he had taught and which infinite numbers of people openly professed than to return unto the Communion which he had forsaken After Peter de Bruis succeeded Henry who with some others defended the Faith of these Churches which after his Name were called Henritians as they had been also called Petrobusians from the Name of his Predecessor It is true that those which had caused Peter de Bruis to be burnt found means also to suppress Henry by Order of Pope Eugenius for Cardinal Alberick Vita S. Bernardi l. 3. c. 5. Bishop of Osty his Legat having got him into his power order'd matters so that he was never heard of after neither could it be heard of what manner of death he died but we know very well that Pope Eugenius being informed of the great progress made by Henry after the death of Peter de Bruis whose Martyrdom did only increase and heighten his Zeal for the Defence of the Faith we know I say that the Pope sent Alberick his Legat who with Gaufrid Bishop of Chartres St. Bernard Abbot of Clervaux who was at that time in great esteem with some others Baron ad An. 1147. who went towards Tholouse to pluck up these Thorns as Cardinal Baronius saith St. Bernard wrote beforehand unto Alphonsus Count of St. Giles in Languedock who favoured Henry with his Protection notwithstanding the violent death which Peter de Bruis had suffered Bernard Ep. 240. In this Letter St. Bernard saith several things against the Doctrine and the Conversation of Henry who from a Friar that he was had embraced the Opinion and Party of Peter his Colleague less modest therein than Peter de Cluny his Contemporary and also a great Enemy of the Albigensis Contr. Petrobrus against whom he wrote under the name of Petrobusians for he declares that he will suspend his Judgment of what was reported of Henry until he was more certainly informed of it So that I cannot tell if it might not be applied unto St. Bernard In Frideric l. 1. c. 47. in this occasion what was said by Otto de Frisinge That by a mildness which was natural unto him he became in a manner over credulous In fine St. Bernard being come to Tholouse Vita Bernard l. 3. c. 5 6. he bestirred himself with much
success if we believe the Author 's of his Life having with his Sermons attended with Miracles instructed the Ignorant confirmed those which wavered restored them which had gone astray and scatter'd the Gain-sayers who dared not present themselves before him Nevertheless the consequence of matters did not answer the pretended success of this Voyage for Historians write that the numbers of the Albigensis did mightily increase after this Voyage It is what is precisely observed by Papyrius Masso in his History of France for after having spoken of Henry Successor unto Peter of the Letter of St. Bernard unto the Count of St. Giles and of his Voyage unto Tholouse he adds Moreover Hist Franc. l. 3. in Philip. August neither the death of Peter de Bruis nor the preaching of St. Bernard could hinder the progress of this Sect c. Tholouse Albi Carcassona Beziers Agde Castres Lavaur and almost all the Cities and Villages of Languedock had embraced it In Chronico insomuch that William de Puylaurens wrote in his Chronicle that the Inhabitants of Castelverd made light of the Sermons of St. Bernard and esteemed them erroneous About the same time Arnold of Bress appeared in Italy teaching the same Doctrine which Peter de Bruis and Henry of Tholouse did teach in France Otto Frising in Frideric l. 2. c. 20. which is the reason that Otto de Frisinge amongst many other things he lays to his charge accuseth him to have bad Opinions touching the Sacrament of the Altar but in fine either for that and for the other things he taught or for the liberty he used in speaking against the Court of Rome against the Clergy and the Friars he was burnt at Rome Anno 1155. under Pope Adrian the Fourth and his Ashes cast into the River Tiber fearing saith Otto and Guntherius Gunther de Gest Frid. l. 3. De investig Antich l. 1. lest the people which followed him should honour his body as the body of a Martyr and because Gerhohus Rescherspergensis a Writer of the same Age could not forbear saying That he could have wished the Church had not been guilty of that man's blood who might have been corrected with some milder and easier punishment the Jesuit Gretzer not relishing an expression of so much Humanity and mildness said Prolegom in scriptor cont Valdens c. 4. That Gerhohus spoke of the punishment of Arnold with no little dis-satisfaction Five years after the death of Arnold of Bress according to the testimony of Historians Peter Waldo a Citizen of Lions appeared who having found whole Countries of people separated from the Latin Church he adhered unto them with those which followed him to make but one Body and Society by the unity of the same Faith and Doctrine they were no better used than the others had been for Waldo having declared himself publickly in the Year 1160. I find that in the Year 1167. there was caused to be burnt at Vezelay in Burgundy near unto Lyons of which place Waldo was some of his followers under the name of Donarii or Poplicani which is one of the names given unto the Waldensis which in all likelihood was turned by the Flemings into that of Pifles for so it is they were called in Flanders The History of Vezelay placeth the death of those persons Tom. 3. Spicil p. 644 645. which were seven in number in the Year 1167. I know that all are not agreed of the time wherein Waldo began to appear and that some make it to before the time we have mentioned Nevertheless because the commonest and most received Opinion agrees that he appeared about the Year 1160. we refer it thereunto as to the most probable Epoch and that which is most generally consented unto by Historians But if all agree not of the time neither do they agree of the personal Qualities of Waldo some representing him to be stupid ignorant and unlearned and others on the contrary not denying him to be well learned In this diversity of Opinions it appears very reasonable to prefer the testimony of those which lived near that time before such as wrote a long while after especially seeing there is nothing that should render the former to be suspected Therefore it is that in this occasion I give the preferrence unto Reynerus of the Order of preaching Friars because he flourished in the XIII Century about ninety years after Waldo began to preach So that if he lived but twenty years after then Reynerus wrote seventy years after his death Besides Reynerus was a declared Enemy of the Waldensis against whom he wrote there is no likelihood then that he would flatter Waldo Contra Valdens c. 5. nor attribute unto him what was not his Right Now see what he saith The Sect of the Poor of Lyons which were also called Leonists began thus Some of the chiefest Citizens of Lyons being one day together it happened that one of them died suddenly in presence of the rest which struck such a terror into one of the Company that immediately he distributed great treasures unto the Poor so that very great multitudes of people followed him whom he taught to profess voluntary poverty and to imitate Jesus Christ and his Apostles and having some competent knowledge of Letters he taught them the New Testament in the Vulgar Tongue It is a sign that if he understood not Greek he at least understood Latin enough to expound the Latin Translation into the Language of the Country Of this Waldo they were called Waldensis and of the City of Lyons of which he was Leonists or the Poor of Lyons as before they had been called Petrobrusians from Peter de Bruis and Henritians of Henry and of some other Doctors they had they were called Arnoldists Esperonists Josephists Lollards others at several times in several places and on several occasions have called them Albigensis Tholousians Picards Poplicani or Pifles Bogomiles Bulgarians Patarians Insabatas Gazarians Turlupians and by several other names As for their Doctrine and Belief even those which have an aversion and hatred for their name and memory do testifie that it was conformable unto that of the Albigensis The Waldensis saith Mariana are the same with the Albigensis Mariana prâ—f in Lucam Tud seeing the Doctrine both of the one and the other contains almost the same Articles neither were they much distant in time one from the other and therefore it is that Emery of the Order of preaching Friars and Inquisitor of the Kingdom of Arragon did not reckon the Albigensis amongst the other Hereticks which I observe to have been done by other Authors of that Age for the same reason Gretzer who hated them no less than Mariana speaks also in the same manner Episc praeixa scriptor cont Valdens c. 1. There is a difference betwixt the Albigensis and Waldensis saith he in regard of the name but not of the thing it self And in his Prologomenies upon the the same Writers he testifies
That there is no doubt but the Tholousians and Albigensis condemned Anno 1177. and 1178. were no others but the Waldensis Neither doth Monsieur de Thoul make any difference betwixt them in the sixth Book of his History Which sufficeth to shew that the Waldensis as well as the Albigensis had an Opinion contrary unto the Latin Church upon the point of the Sacrament seeing we fully proved it in regard of the Albigensis from whose Belief and Faith the Waldensis did nothing differ What they say may be read in a Treatise entituled The spiritual Almanack where they give an account of their Faith particularly upon the Subject of the Sacrament for they say in plain terms History of the Waldensis and Albigensis of Paul Perrin l. 1. c. 6. That the bread which Jesus Christ took in his last Supper which he blessed which he broke and gave his Disciples to eat is in its nature true bread and that by the Pronoun This is shewn this sacramental proposition This is my Body not understanding these words identically of a numerical Identity but sacramentally really and truly and not measurably And afterwards The eating of the sacramental bread Ibid. is to eat the body of Jesus Christ in figure Which is just the Language used by the Albigensis in the Year 1120. as hath been shewed But besides their own Confession we have the Testimony of their very Enemies which suffer us to make no question but that they opposed themselves against the Decrees of Councils held under several Popes against Berengarius Radulphus Ardeas an Author of the XII Century or of the XI makes this Observation Hom. in Dom. 8. post Pentec They say that the Sacrament of the Altar is meer bread Caesarius of Heisterback In Dialog They blaspheme the Sacrament of the body and blood of Jesus Christ Contr. Vald. c. 6. to wit because they did not acquiesce unto the determinations of the Latin Church And Reynerus They say that the Body of Jesus Christ is but bread but the proper body they call that the true Body of Jesus Christ De erroribus Begehard Conradus de Montepuellarum Prebend of Ratisbon They blaspheme saith he against the Sacrament saying That the true Body of Jesus Christ cannot be contained under so small a quantity of bread and against the Priests calling them through derision Contra Vald. c. 8. God-makers Evrard of Bethune saith the same They are so far from saying that what Christ called his Body is his Body that they deny it Contra Vald. c. 11. as Successors of Judas Ermengard wrote somewhat to the same effect touching the same Waldensis it is the same Slander which is made against them by Guy of Perpignan Lib. de haeres saying That they denied that the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ was under the Sacrament of the Altar Tom. 2. c. 19. And Thomas Waldensis speaking of Bruno and Berengarius They erred said he like those He observes moreover That when the Host was lifted up they lifted their eyes up unto Heaven saying openly that they worshipped the Body of Christ where it was Contra Vald. c. 10. and not where it was not Coussard a Divine of Paris speaks of them also in these terms They say that the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ is not the real Sacrament but consecrated bread which is called the Body of Jesus Christ by a Figure as it is said that the Rock was Christ Therefore the Inquisitor Emery Director part 2. q. 14. chargeth it upon them as an Error when they said That the Bread is not transubstantiated into the true Body of Jesus Christ nor the Wine into his Blood And because the Albigensis and Waldensis to shew that they could not conceive that the Eucharist was the real Body of Jesus Christ were wont to say that how big soever it had been it could not subsist still because the numbers of Communicants would have consumed it since the time they participated thereof Peter de Vaux-Sernay writes that they taught publickly and infused this Doctrine into the ears of the simple Hist Albigens c. 2. That the Body of Jesus Christ if it had been as big as the Alps had been consumed long since and reduced unto nothing by those which eat thereof And I find in the Chronicle of the Senonian Monastery at the Mount de Vauge in the Diocess de Toul that a Person of Quality upon that very consideration rejected the Doctrine of the Real Presence and Substantial Conversion for being sick of his last Sickness at the end of the XII Century they going about to persuade him that the Sacrament was the real Body of Jesus Christ Tom. 2. Spicil p. 405. And how saith he can that be For if this Body were as big as a great Mountain it would have been eaten by the people a thousand times There be some which observe also that Berengarius was wont to jest by the like words at the Confession of Faith which they would have him make and wherein they made him confess amongst other things Petrus Clunia contra Petrobrus That the Body of Jesus Christ is truly handled by the hands of the Priests that it is broen and eaten by the teeth of Believers I will joyn unto all these Considerations that we find in the History of Roger de Hoveden by the relation of Peter Cardinal of St. Chrysogan and Legat of Pope Alexander the Third in France touching his proceedings against the Waldensis at Tholouse and principally by the Declaration of Henry Abbot of Clervaux upon the same Subject That one of the eminentest amongst them called Peter Moran being pressed to declare ingenuously what he believed concerning the Sacrament of the Altar answered Apud Baron ad An. 1178. That the holy Bread of Life Eternal consecrated by the Ministry of the Priest and by the word of our Saviour is not the Body of Jesus Christ A Declaration which fully justifies that it was the true Belief of the Albigensis and Waldensis and sheweth that they were deceived which said that they did not deny that the Eucharist was the true Body of Jesus Christ but when him that celebrated and consecrated was sinful and unworthy to consecrate for they denied it simply and absolutely without enquiring into the good or bad qualities of him that officiated And the most considerable Doctors of the Latin Communion do confess that they had the same Belief that Berengarius had of the Sacrament and it cannot justly be any way questioned after all the many Testimonies which have been instanced It is true that the Albigensis and Waldensis have been taxed and charged with many reproaches and there has been many grievous Accusations laid to their charge both referring unto their Doctrine and their Manners As to their Doctrine I think that their Belief ought to be judged according to their Confessions of Faith which being publick Declarations of
they were cautious in declaring themselves for fear of being troubled It was otherwise in Bohemia the profession of this Doctrine being more free by reason of the great numbers of persons which had embraced it and which had separated themselves from the Communion of the Latin Church If we credit Historians King George Pogebrack who in the Year 1455. succeeded Ladislaus Son of Albert became Protector of the Taborites that he embraced this Party and afterwards drew upon himself the Excommunications of two Popes Pius the Second and Paul the Second I will not here insist upon the Commendations which some of these Historians give him for his Vertue Justice Prudence and Integrity neither do I intend to examine the differences which he had with these two Popes against whose Anathema's he defended himself as well as against the Enemies which he had engaged against him unto his death which happened in the Year 1471. I shall content my self to observe that the Historians which represent him unto us as a Taborite and Protector of the Taborites are grosly mistaken which may warn us not too easily to give credit unto all that they report In fine we have a Letter of this Prince unto Mathias King of Hungary his Son in Law dated in the Year 1468. which Dom Luke d'Achery a Benedictine Friar hath lately published the reading whereof informs us several things In the first place that the Doctrine of the Taborites and Waldensis of Bohemia if it were so that there were any of the ancient Waldensis still remaining Tom 4. Spicil p. 415. was such as we have represented It must be granted saith he if we will say things that are more true than apparent that several Errors have flourished in this Kingdom touching the Sacrament of the Eucharist Circa remanentem panis Sacramentalis sic enim illi nuncupabant upon their teaching that the Bread of the Sacrament remained and that it was converted into the substance of the Communicant In the second place that this Prince was not a Taborite but a Calixtin because he desired to communicate under both kinds as he had always done after the example of his Father his Mother and his Grandmother but that in all other points he was agreed with the Latin Church Thirdly It may be gathered from this Letter that the Taborites whose Doctrine he styles to be erroneous were not kindly used by this King Ibid. p. 415. therefore in the Apology which they made in the Year 1508. under the name of Waldensis against the Doctor Augustin they complained that some of their Brethren suffered great miseries under King George Pogebrack by reason of their Opinion touching the Article of the Sacrament Unto George Pogebrack succeeded Ladislaus Son of Casimir King of Poland whom the Bohemians saith Ritius chose for their King De regno Hungar l. 2. upon condition that he would suffer the Hussites he makes them all one with the Taborites to enjoy their Liberty of Conscience which he did until the latter end of this XV. Century But at length the malicious Accusations of their Enemies having prevailed over the Spirit of Ladislaus In fasciculo rerum expeten fol. 81. Dubrav hist Bohem. l. 32. as appears by the first Letter they wrote unto this Prince to inform him that it was nothing but false calumnies whereby they endeavoured to mis-represent them unto him They were forbidden all sorts of Assemblies both publick and private They were commanded to shut up the places where they were wont to make their Assemblies not to preach nor teach their Doctrine any more neither by word nor by writing and in a certain time to conform themselves either unto the Calixtins or unto the Roman Church This Edict occasioned two Letters which they wrote unto Lagislaus with all the humility and respect as was due unto the Majesty of their Prince and Soveraign wherein they complained of so great severity and of condemning them before they were heard And the more to excite him to have compassion on them they joyned their Confession of Faith unto each of these Letters declaring what was their Belief of the Sacrament In the first written Anno 1504. they say That they believe that the Bread which Jesus Christ took which he blessed broke and the which he said was his Body that it is his Body which they explain more particularly in the second which they wrote the year following We believe and confess that the Bread is the natural Body of Jesus Christ and the Wine his natural Blood sacramentally And because the Doctor Augustin charged them with having confessed Transubstantiation in their Writings they do protest that they did not write so Contr. binas litter Doctor Augustin ann 1508. in fasciculo supra nominato For say they this Confession hath no foundation in the words of our Saviour Jesus Christ which said nothing of the Real Presence neither under these species nor in this nor of this nor with this Besides they reject the Adoration of the Sacrament and there also they declare That Jesus Christ is no longer personally upon Earth and that they expect him not until the day of Judgment giving no credit unto those which shew his person here below And a little after they declare That Jesus Christ promised his Disciples to be with them spiritually by the participation of his Body and Blood and in the Sacrament in vertue with the testimony of his holiness Whereupon they alledge the words of St. Austin Donec seculum finiatur sursum est Dominus sed tamen hic etiam nobiscum est veritas Dominus corpus enim in quo resurrexit in uno loco esse oportet And there also they deny that the Body of Jesus Christ is in several places at once In Prologom de Vald. c. 8. It would be difficult and even impossible to declare what was the effect of these Apologies seeing the Historians are therein silent Only the Jesuit Gretzer makes this Observation The Waldensis preserved themselves a long time in Bohemia Gesner in Bibliothec and to this day they cannot be quite rooted out It was about the same time that one Paulus Scriptoris Professor in Divinityin the University of Tubinge was banished for having in his Lectures spoken against the common Belief of the Eucharist But this is not all yet for the Waldensis of Provens and Piedmont present themselves and oblige us to speak of them As the Persecutions were violent in France against those people in the XII and XIII Centuries and particularly in the latter wherein the Popes published several Croysado's against them they were in fine constrained to disperse themselves and in this dispersion considerable numbers of them retired themselves into Provens and towards Labriers and Merindol where they preserved themselves until the Reign of Lewis the Twelfth at which time they were persecuted by the Friars and Inquisitors who brake in violently upon them by force and Arms saying That they should be
say they that the Consecration being ended the Body of Jesus Christ is not really under the species of Bread and Wine but only in resemblance and in figure and that Jesus Christ did not transubstantiate really the Bread and Wine into his Body and Blood but only in type and in figure One may lay what stress they please upon the testimonies of these two men which may be looked upon but as of one seeing the one transcribed it from the other As for my part I shall only say that I take the present Armenians to be so grosly ignorant that they scarce know what they do believe of this Mystery Prateolus doth positively teach the same thing De haeres l. 1. haer 67. which is also confirmed by the testimony of Thomas Herbert an English man which had been so informed upon the place as he declares in the relation of his Voyage of the Translation of Mr. Wick fort What I say of the Armenians I may almost say of all the Greeks in general for it cannot be denied but they be fallen into very great ignorance of the Mysteries of Christian Religion and have corrupted their primitive Faith by many Alterations Nevertheless Learning having flourished a long time amongst them their ignorance is not so very great as that of other Christian Communions of the East They have had but very few that have written since the Ages which we have examined in the precedent Chapter yet have they had some few as Nicholas de Methona Nicholas Cabasilas Mark of Ephesus and Jeremy Patriarch of Constantinople As for Bessarion I do not put him into the number because he turned unto the party of the Latins who to requite him honoured him with a Cardinals Cap whereas the others died in the Communion of the Greek Church If you would know of them what they believed of the Eucharist they will answer That the Bread and Wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and that after Consecration they are his Body Blood And so far the Roman Catholicks have cause to believe they be of their side But it must be confessed also that they say things which do not agree well with the Hypothesis of the Latins and which make the Protestants conclude that the change whereof they speak is not a change of substance but of vertue and efficacy for not here to repeat what is said by Euthymius in the foregoing Chapter In Matth. 26. That the nature of the things offered is not to be considered In exposit liturg c. 32. 43 t. 2. Bibl. Pat. Graeco-Lat but their vertue And without insisting upon Cabasilas his regarding the Body of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament as dead and crucified for us which by the confession of all Christians cannot be true in the reality of the thing but only in the signification of the Mystery nor in that he saith that all those unto whom the Priest gives the Communion do not receive the Body of our Lord. De Corpore sanguin Christi ibid. Nicholas de Methona doth formally affirm the Union of the Symbols unto the Divinity which is exactly the Opinion of Damascen an Opinion which as hath been shewed doth presuppose the Existence of the Bread and Wine Jesus Christ saith he doth this that is to say communicates unto us his Flesh and Blood by things which are familiar unto Nature in joyning unto them his Divinity and saying This is my Body This is my Blood Jeremy Patriarch of Constantinople saith as the others That the Bread is changed into the Body of Jesus Christ But he adds Respon 1. c. 10 That Jesus Christ for all that did not give the flesh which he carried unto his Disciples to eat And elsewhere Ibid. c. 7. That the Grace of the Holy Ghost doth spiritually sanctifie our Souls and our Bodies are sanctified by the sensible things to wit the Water the Oyl the Bread the Wine and the other things sanctified by the Holy Ghost Which language agrees better with Damascen whom he cites in his second Answer than with the Latins because the first preserves the substance of Bread and Wine but the latter quite destroys it The Cardinal of Guise being at Venice had a Conference with the Greeks and amongst several Questions that he asked them he demanded of them what they believed of the Sacrament Cum Sigismundo Libero de rebus Moscovit Basileae 1571. See here the Answer they made him We believe and confess that the Bread is so changed into the Body of Jesus Christ and the Wine into his Blood that neither the Bread nor the accidents of its substance do remain but are changed into a divine substance Were there no more but this in the Answer of the Greeks it might be said either that they did not well understand themselves or that through complaisance unto the Latins amongst whom they lived they allowed the change of the substance of the Bread in such a manner nevertheless that to shew that they followed not the Opinion of the Roman Catholicks they say That the very accidents do not remain which is inconsistent with the Doctrine of Transubstantiation But because in this Answer they alledge as well the words of Theophelact upon Mar. 14. by which he declares That the Bread and Wine is changed into the vertue of the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ as also several passages of Damascen some of which have already been examined in the 12th Chapter to strengthen their Belief and Opinion we are obliged to believe that the change whereof they speak is quite different from that of the Latin Church It is true that scarce any of them explained themselves as fully as Cyril of Lucar Patriarch of Constantinople who a little above thirty years ago said Cyrillus Constantinop Patriarch confession fidei c. 17. We believe that the other Sacrament which our Lord did institute is that which we call Eucharist for the night wherein he was betrayed taking Bread and blessing it he said unto the Disciples Take eat this is my Body And taking the Cup he gave thanks and said Drink ye all of this it is my Blood which is shed for you Do this in remembrance of me And St. Paul adds As often as ye eat of this Bread and drink of this Cup ye shew the Lord's death This is the plain the true and lawful Tradition of this admirable Mystery in the administration and knowledge whereof we confess and believe the true and certain presence of our Saviour Jesus Christ to wit that which Faith teacheth and giveth unto us and not that which Transubstantiation rashly and unadvisedly invented doth teach If I would write the History of this Patriarch I should be obliged to speak of his Country I mean of the Isle of Crete now Candia of the great affection he had unto Learning the marvellous progress he made therein during his stay in Italy of the Voyage which he made â—â—to
Apostol l. 8. c. 12. the Oblations unto the Bishop having a Priest on each hand of him and a Deacon at each end of the Altar with Fanns to hinder any Fly or other little Creature from falling into the Cup Then the Bishop with the Priests pray unto God with a low voice then he puts on a rich Vestment and standing by the Altar he makes the Sign of the Cross and saith unto the People there present The Grace of God Almighty the Love of our Lord Jesus Christ and the Communication of the holy Spirit be with you all and those which be present answer with one accord And with thy Spirit The Bishop saith again Lift up your hearts unto which the People reply We do unto the Lord and the Bishop Let us give thanks unto the Lord It is just and right say the People After which the Bishop addressing himself unto God saith That it is just and right to praise him shewing in a long Discourse the motives and reasons of this praise taken either from the Nature of God and his works whether of the Creation and Preservation of his ancient People or from the redemption and sending Jesus Christ into the World for our Salvation which discourse he concludeth by the History of the Institution of the Sacrament from whence he proceedeth unto the Consecration after the manner of the Greeks And this is in short the substance of the preparations which this Liturgy doth propose unto us on the part of him which doth Celebrate Dionys Arcopag de Eccles Hierarch c. 3. In that of the pretended Dennis the Arcopagite the Bishop makes his prayer near the Altar causeth Incence to be burnt and goeth round the place of the Assembly returning unto the Altar he beginneth to sing Psalms all the Clergy singing with him After which the Deacon readeth some part of the holy Scriptures which being ended the Catechumeny the Energumeny and the Penitents are made to go out Then the chief amongst the Deacons together with the Priests put the Bread and Cup of blessing upon the Altar After a general Hymnologie of all the Church the Bishop prayeth gives the blessing unto those which are present which salute each other and having with the Priests washed his hands he Consecrates the Divine gifts But because one of the circumstances of this preparation is the burning of Incense let us endeavour to discover as near as may be the time when Christians first began to introduce this Ceremony into the service of their holy Religion Tertullian who wrote at the end of the second Century and the beginning of the third doth sufficiently testifie that Christians in that time were wholly ignorant of the use of it and that perfumes were not used in their Worship for speaking of prayers which they presented unto God for their Emperors Tertull. in Apolog. c. â—â— See Athanag who reiects it besore Tâ—rtul in Apol. for Christian p. 13 and Clement Alexandrin in his Stromates p. 717. 719. I cannot saith he demand these things but of him who I know will grant them unto me as it is he only in whose power it is to grant them it is unto us only that he will give them because we are his faithful Servants which adore and Worship him alone and offer unto him the fattest and best Sacrifice which he hath commanded to be offered unto him to wit prayer proceeding from a chaste body a pure Soul and from the holy Spirit and not grains of Incense of small price not drops of that Arabian Tree not two spoonfuls of Wine nor the blood of an Oâ— ready to dye of Fat. And in the same Treatise he declares That if the Christians made any use of Incense it was in burying of their Dead Id. ibid. c. 42. Vide de Idolat c. 11. ad scapul We do not buy any Incense saith he if the Aratian Merchants do complain let them know that there is more of their Commodities employed and with greater profusion in burying Christians then in perfuming the Images of the Gods And elsewhere he makes the true use of Incense to consist in driving away ill Odours Id. de coron c. 10. When I go into any place saith he and smell an ill savour that offends me I cause a little Incense to be burnt but not with the same Ceremony the same disposition nor the same pomp Advers Gent. l. 7. as it is burnt in the Temples of Idols Arnobius at the end of the third Century if not the beginning of the fourth doth in such sort press the Gentiles for their causing Incense to be burnt unto their Gods that there is no likelihood he would have treated them as he did if the Christians had used it in any of their Ceremonies and especially in the Celebration of the Eucharist or at the least he would have represented that there was very great difference betwixt the one and the other in regard that what the Gentiles did unto the honour of Idols Christians did unto the Honour of the true God He doth nothing of all this he contents himself in deriding the blindness of the Gentiles and to shew them that it was ridiculous in them to undertake to offer Odours and Perfumes unto their Gods And Lactantius Epitom c. 2. his Disciple doth he not positively say That God doth not require of us neither Sacrifices nor Perfumes Orat. ad coetum c. 12. And Eusebius introduces the Emperor Constantine saying That the Sacrament is a sacrifice of thanksgiving wherein is not desired neither a smell of Incense nor a burning Brand. St. Austin himself who died in the year 430. seems wholly to reject the use of Incense in God's Worship In Psal 49. We saith he are in safety we are not obliged to travel into Arabia to get Incense we do not cause the greedy Merchant to unfold his Ballots In Psal 50. God requires of us a sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving And elsewhere Do not make provision of Perfumes which comes from without but say O God what I dedicate unto thee is in my heart with the praises which I will render unto thee And if I mistake not In Psal 65. St. Hillary understood it so when he said We are informed in the Book of the Psalms what is meant by Perfumes Let my prayer come before thee like Incense signifying that by Perfume is to be understood Prayers St. Ambrose in his Commentary upon the Gospel according to St. Luke speaketh of perfuming Altars in expounding what is said of Zacharias the Father of St. John Baptist That his Lot fell to offer Incense But because he saith in the same place that Jesus Christ is sacrificed which cannot be literally true all Christians confessing that he is not really sacrificed in the Eucharist I suppose the safest and best way is mystically and in a spiritual sense to understand St. Ambrose his Discourse especially seaing the Declaration which St. Austin
Century heartily desired Lib. 3. de divin office in praefat It would suffice saith he without Singers without Readers and without all the other things practised in the celebration of the Sacrament that the Bishop or Priest should pronounce the blessing to consecrate the Bread and Wine to the end the People should be nourished for the salvation of their Souls as the Apostles did at the first beginning of Christianity By which words he sheweth that he found the celebration of this Mystery too much clogg'd with Ceremonies as also St. Austin found that all the Christian Religion was 500 years before Amalarius for he complains That Religion is burdened with heavy yokes Ep. 119. c. 19. so that the state of the Jews is more supportable But now it is time to consider the preparations of the Communicant having examined those of him which Celebrates CHAP. II. Of the Dispositions necessary for the Communion And first Of the Inclinations of the devout Soul in regard of God and of Jesus Christ WHen our blessed Saviour did distribute the Bread and Wine of his Eucharist to his Apostles he said unto them Do this in remembrance of me which his Apostle doth extend to the Commemoration of his Death and of his Sufferings a Remembrance which draweth after it all the good and holy dispositions which the Communicant should have towards God and Jesus Christ And these Inclinations proceed from several Idea's which this saving remembrance doth stir up in our Souls at the time in which we do prepare our selves for the participation of this adorable Mystery of our Salvation For although the Sacrament was instituted principally for remembring the death of our Saviour nevertheless because his Death is inseparable from his Incarnation Resurrection and Ascension so it is that we approach unto the holy Communion after having meditated on all these great and sublime Mysteries every one of which produceth in our Souls dispositions somewhat different as having divers objects and several encouragements the which nevertheless are all heavenly and all divine and all which do tend unto one mark and unto one end which is the Glory of God and of Jesus Christ and the eternal Salvation of our Souls And to say the truth this Sacrament cannot represent unto our eyes all these great and wonderful objects but that it opens unto us at the same time a wide Field for our Meditation to enlarge upon from the Incarnation of the eternal Word even unto his second coming to Judgment and we cannot finish this glorious course without having all the dispositions which God requires and all the preparations which he desires of us This will plainly appear if we do severally reflect upon all the Idea's which the remembrance of our Saviour and of his Sufferings do present unto our Souls and what the Fathers have said upon each of them and if we also feel the divine motions which will necessarily flow from the Christian Soul For example The holy Fathers have considered the Eucharist as a Memorial a Symbol an Image and a Sacrament of the Incarnation or as the Doctors of the Greek Church speak of the Oeconomy of Jesus Christ that is to say of that free and merciful dispensation which inclined him to take our Nature in the Womb of the blessed Virgin Mary by the miraculous operation of the Holy Ghost which is what St. Justin Martyr would say when he observed Contr. Try phon p. 296. That the Lord commanded us to make the Bread of the Eucharist in remembrance in that he was made Man for those which should believe in him It was also the thoughts of Eusebius Demonstr l. 8. a Genesi That Jesus Christ gave unto his Apostles the Symbols of his divine Oeconomy commanding them to make the Image of his true Body And it cannot be any way doubted but it was on this same consideration that Pope Gelasius said De duabus in Christo natur That we do celebrate in the Action of the Mysteries the Image and resemblance of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and that we must believe of our Lord Jesus Christ that it self which we profess in his Image which we there celebrate and there receive that is to say that we should be persuaded of the truth of his Flesh and Blood the Symbols and Sacraments whereof we do receive at the holy Table It is just what St. Leo intended to express by these words which were addressed unto the Eutychians You should communicate at the holy Table in such a manner Serm. 6. de jejun 7. mensis pag. 86. that you may not in the least doubt of the truth of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ It is whereunto also attendeth all the passages of the Fathers which prove either against the Eutychians or against the Docetes and the Putatifs the truth of the Flesh of Jesus Christ by the Eucharist as the existence of a thing is proved by the Image and by the Figure which represents it Dialog 2. p. 84. because according to Theoderet's saying There must be an Arch-type of the Image because the Painers which imitate Nature do represent the Images of things which are seen From whence he draws this Conclusion If the divine Mysteries are the Figure of a true Body then the Body of our Lord is now also a true Body not changed into the nature of the Divinity but filled with the divine Glory A Reasoning for the most part like unto that of Tertullian against Marcian for having expounded these words This is my Body by these others That is to say Lib. 4. advers Marcion c. 40. the Figure of my Body he adds That it would not have been a Figure if there had not been the truth of a Body or a true Body And indeed this Idea of the Incarnation of our Lord was in such a manner imprinted in the minds of Communicants that the last Prayer of St. Basil's Liturgy begins thus O Jesus Christ our God Bibl. Patr. t. 2. Graeco-Lat we have accomplished and finished according to our power the Sacrament of thine Oeconomy and Dispensation This Meditation which representeth unto us the horrour of sin the sad condition we were in the fearful Gulph wherein we have precipitated our selves the Love of the Father the tender Charity of the Son the admirable work of our Redemption the great Mystery of Godliness God manifest in the Flesh fills us full of Gratitude unto God And if unto the Idea of his Conception and Birth we joyn that of his Life therein to contemplate the purity of his Innocence the glory of his Miracles the splendor of his Vertues the efficacy of his Doctrine and the shame of his Sufferings we shall therein find so great joy so great comfort and so great pleasure in the contemplation of this divine Scene that we shall be insensibly transformed into the same Image from Glory unto Glory to speak with St. Paul that is to say
318. Of the care which should be taken in receiving of the Eucharist In reading this Title it came into my mind that the Fathers of the Council might haply have comprised Auricular Confession in the preparations which they commanded yet nevertheless I do not find therein any such thing they only warn That a great deal of care must be taken in participating of the Body and Blood of our Lord and take care that we do not abstain from it too long lest that should turn unto the ruin of the Soul and that if one partake thereof indiscreetly we should fear what the Apostle saith Whosoever eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh his own Damnation A man ought therefore to examine himself according to the Command of the same Apostle and so eat of this Bread and drink of this Cup that is to say to prepare himself for the receiving of so great a Sacrament in abstaining some days from the works of the Flesh and in purifying of his Body and Soul Hincmar Arch-Bishop of Rhemes who died towards the end of th IX Century useth the same method when he represents unto Charles the Bald the Preparations necessary for worthy receiving the Sacrament Opusc 1. c. 12. t. 2. p. 101 102. He desires that every one would judge himself to the end that the trial being made in the heart the thought should serve for an Accuser the Conscience for a Witness and fear for an Executioner Then that the blood of the Soul should fall by tears And in fine that the Understanding should give such a sentence that a man should judge himself unworthy of participating of the Body and Blood of our Saviour And several other things which he proposeth without speaking any thing of Confession But by degrees Confession established it self infensibly amongst the Christians of the West and at length Innocent the Third authorized it by a Decree at the Council of Lateran in the Year 1215. at which time the Albigensis and Waldensis had separated themselves from Communion of the Latins The most part of all Christian Communions have no such Law as the Latins that obliges them unto Confession before receiving the Communion for example the Abyssins or Ethiopians the Armenians the Nestorians Confession 't is granted is used in the Greek Church which is of a large extent but it is so little practised that their Bishops and Priests do scarce ever confess De concord l. 4. c. 2. as Arcudius a Greek Latinized doth inform us And as for the Protestants every body knows they have found this Yoke of the Latins too heavy to bear But if the holy Fathers have not hitherto demanded private Confession before coming unto the Table of our Lord they do require other dispositions without which they forbid us approaching unto it It is in this sense that St. Chrysostom condemning the practise of those which came unto the Sacrament as it were by Rancounter and by custom at certain times which they looked upon to be more solemn he sheweth them that it is not the time that makes us any thing the more worthy to receive but that it is the purity of the Soul the holiness of our life the innocence of our Conversation Chrysost Hom 3. in c. 1. ad Ephes p. 1050 1051. It is not saith he the Epiphany nor the Lent that renders us worthy to approach unto the holy Sacrament it is the sincerity and purity of heart therewith draw near at all times and without them never come unto it Consider with what care and with what respect the Flesh of Sacrifices was eaten under the Law What caution did they not use what trouble were they not continually at to purifie themselves to that purpose And you approaching unto a Sacrifice which the very Angels behold with a religious reverence you think it is sufficient to prepare your selves unto so solemn an action by governing your selves according to the course of the Season Consider the Vessels which are employed for the Celebration of this Sacrament how clean they be how bright and shining they be yet nevertheless our Souls should be cleaner more holy and more resplendent than these Vessels seeing that it is only for us that they be prepared And in another place speaking of seldom and often receiving the Sacrament Id. Hom. 17 in Ep. ad Heb. p. 1872. We regard not saith he neither those which communicate often nor those which communicate seldom but those which communicate with a sincere Conscience a pure heart and an unreprovable life Let those that are in this condition always draw near and those which are not let them not so much as once draw near because they only draw upon themselves the wrath of God and make themselves worthy of Condemnation of pains and of punishments which should not seem strange unto us for as Meats which are wholsom of themselves being received into a diseased Body there causeth a disorder and an entire corruption and becomes the Original of some disease so it is the same of these terrible and venerable Mysteries when they be received into Souls which be indisposed And because the holy Fathers considered that this august Sacrament which giveth life unto some gives death unto others that is to say unto those which receive it unworthily and that if it be full of consolation unto holy Souls it is also full of terror unto the wicked They have spoken of it as of a terrible and fearful Sacrament because according to the saying of the same St. Chrysostom Whilst the death of Jesus Christ is celebrating Hom. 21. in Act a dreadful Sacrament is represented God gave himself for the World From thence came the Exhortation addressed unto the people in the ancient Liturgies to call them unto the Communion Draw near with fear August l. 3. de doctr Christ c. 16. in Ps 21. Hom. 2. Id. qu. super Evang l. 2. q. 38. p. 152. t. 4. And in fine should not we be seized with a holy fear accompanied with a very great respect to participate of the death of our Saviour to eat his Passion in eating his Supper as St. Austin speaks and to lick as he saith again his Sufferings in the Sacraments of his Body and of his Blood But if this warning was given unto Communicants they were told also in inviting them unto the holy Communion Holy things are for the Saints Whereupon St. Chrysostom makes this reflection When the Deacon cries Hom. 17. in Ep. ad Hebr. Holy things are for the holy it is as if he said Let not him draw near which is not holy he doth not say only him which is free of sin but him that is holy for it is not barely the remission of sins which renders a man holy but it is the presence of the Holy Ghost and the abundance of good works And St. Cyril of Jerusalem Mystag 5. The holy things saith he are proposed to be sanctified by the
coming of the Holy Ghost and you are also holy having received the Gift of the Holy Ghost And so holy things agree very well with those that be holy therefore German Patriarch of Constantinople observes in few words in expounding these words of the Liturgy 1 Theoria rerum Eccles t. 2 Bibl. Pat. Grec vel Lat. p. 407. That God takes pleasure in giving holy things unto those which be pure of heart And then the Sacrament doth not a little contribute unto the augmentation of this purity according unto what is spoken by Theophilus Arch-Bishop of Alexandria 2 Ep. Pasch 2. That we break the Bread of our Lord for our Sanctification And Pope Gelasius 3 De duab nat Christ That the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of our Saviour renders us partakers of the divine Nature And to say the truth 4 In Anaceph There is in the Bread a vertue that quickens us as St. Epiphanius doth testifie Moreover the Sacrament effecting in regard of our Souls what a good Medicine doth operate in regard of our bodies there is no question to be made but when the ancient Doctors of the Church have contemplated it under this Idea but that they intended that Communicants should at the least use as much care and caution unto the reception of this divine Medicine as we are wont to take when we intend to purge our Bodies for when we intend to take Physick we live the day before within some bounds and are careful not to surcharge the Stomach that it might operate with more ease and profit for the purging out of peccant humours In like manner when we are to present our selves at the holy Table of the Church we should prepare and dispose our Souls to receive this saving Remedy the vertue and efficacy whereof shews and maketh it self to be felt in healing the spiritual Maladies wherewith we are naturally oppressed This was in all likelihood the thoughts of Hillary Deacon of Rome when he said Apud Ambros in c. 18. 1. ad Cor. That although this Mystery was celebrated at Supper yet it is not a Supper but a spiritual Medicine which purifieth those which come unto it with devotion and which do receive it with respect Besides the Sacrament having been instituted to give unto us the Communion of our Saviour Jesus Christ because that in participating of this visible Bread one eats spiritually the Flesh of Christ to speak with St. Hom. 27. Macarius is it not just that we should purifie and sanctifie our Souls to be the Palace and Temple of this merciful Saviour to the end that there delighting to make his abode and residence he might spread abroad his Graces his Blessings and his favours and that he may incessantly apply unto them the fruits of his death wherein they find their life their joy their comfort and their salvation In fine The Sacrament being to be unto us a Symbol of Unity a Band of Charity and of Peace according to the constant Doctrine of the holy Fathers they desired that Believers should maintain a holy Concord amongst themselves and a perfect Union that they should be careful of preserving the Unity of the Spirit in the Band of Peace and that they should put on unto each other bowels of pity and of Charity as the Apostle speaks Therefore they would not receive Oblations of those which were not reconciled and not accepting them they admitted them not unto the Sacrament for the one necessarily depended upon the other Therefore they warned Believers at the time of the Communion to salute each other and to give each other the holy Kiss mentioned by St. Paul in one of his Epistles Mystag 5. The Deacons cry saith St. Cyril of Jerusalem embrace and mutually kiss each other and then we salute one another But do not think that it is such a kiss as common friends do give unto each other when they meet in the publick place This Kiss doth unite Souls and makes them hope a perfect forgetfulness of what is past it is a sign of the uniting of spirits and not retaining the memory of injuries any longer And therefore also it is that our Saviour Jesus Christ the Son of God said When you bring your Gift unto the Altar and that you there remember that your Brother hath ought against you leave there thy Gift before the Altar and go first be reconciled with thy Brother and then come offer thy Gift This Kiss then is a Reconciliation and by consequence is holy And it is of this Kiss St. Paul speaketh when he said Greet one another with a holy Kiss and St. Peter Salute each other with a Kiss of Charity And they believed this Union so necessary that without it as they thought one could receive no benefit by the Sacrament how much soever other ways one was addicted unto good works Whence it is that St. Chrysostom after having exalted the vertue and efficacy of this holy Kiss which uniteth Souls reconciles Spirits and maketh us all to become one Body he exhorts his Auditors strictly to unite their Souls by the Bands of Charity to the end they might with assurance enjoy the Fruits of the Table which is prepared for them he adds Although we abound in good works Chrysost de praed iud t. 5. p. 465. if we neglect the Reconciliation of Peace we shall reap no advantage for our Salvation All the Liturgies come to our hands make mention of this Kiss of Charity which Believers gave each other before the Sacrament and which St. Paul calls a holy Kiss and St. Peter a Kiss of Charity many of the ancient Fathers do also make mention of it Indeed the time of kissing each other was not alike in all Churches in some it was given before the Consecration of the Symbols and in others just at the time of communicating but however it was the manner to salute each other before approaching unto the holy Table And this custom continued a very great while in the Church but at length it insensibly vanished at least in the West and the Latins have put instead of this mutual Kiss that which they call Kiss the Peace which is a kind of little Silver Plate or of some other matter with the Image of Jesus Christ or the Relicks of some Saint which is offered unto each person to kiss a custom not very ancient seeing it was never heard of until the end of the XV. Century Lect. 81. for then it began to be introduced into some Churches in the West as is observed by Gabriel Biel in some of his Lessons upon the Canon of the Mass Besides it is not said in the Liturgies whether this Kiss was given indifferently amongst Men and Women Lib. 3. c. 32. I only observe in the Books of Ecclesiastical Offices of Amalarius Fortunatus who wrote in the IX Century and in the Rational of Durandus Bishop of Mende L. 4. c. 53. extr who lived
It is evident that this respect and veneration hath reference unto the Body of Jesus Christ as the Adoration of the Wise men had which adored him when they saw him in the Manger at Bethlehem as Communicants adore him when they see him not in himself but in his Sacrament whereof he grants them the favour to participate All the World doth confess that Jesus Christ is not any more visible unto the Eyes of Men since his Ascension into Heaven I think that it is so also are to be understood the Adorations spoken of in a Liturgy which is attributed unto St. Chrysostom but cannot be his the Author being much younger than him There be some also which attribute it unto John the Second called the Mute Patriarch of the same Church but about 200 years after St. Chrysostom and yet neither is it very certain that it is of this John To conclude the Copies are very different for in that amongst the works of St. Chrysostom there is no mention made of Adoring but once when the Gospel is carried and when 't is lifted up because then the Choir saith Tom. 4. p. 9â—3 Come let us Worship and kneel down before Jesus Christ excepting that the Priest and Deacon bow the Head in several places in the Liturgy before and after the Consecration and that the People are once warned to bow the Head to give thanks unto God In liturg c. 7. Cassander represents another unto us in his Liturgies of the version of Leo Tuscus wherein there is no mention of Adoration but is not so of two others which we have one in the Library of the Holy Fathers and the other in the Ritual of the Greeks by James Goar of the Order of Preaching Friars for in both these there is frequent mention made of Adoring It is true these sorts of Adorations are there practised before the Consecration and after which plainly sheweth they were addressed unto God and unto Jesus Christ because the Bread and Wine by the Doctrine it self of the Church of Rome are not to be adored until after Consecration The thing will appear yet plainer if we consider the prayers which be there made when they dispose themselves unto the Communion Tom. 4. obser Clarysâ—st p. 618.8 〈◊〉 Pat. t. 2. Gree-Latiâ— p. â—1 Lord Jesus saith the Priest behold us from thy holy habitation and from the Throne of thy Glory and come sanctifie us thou who art in the Heavens sitting with thy Father and art here present with us in an invisible manner be pleased to give us by thy powerful hand thy pure and unspotted Body and thy precious Blood and by us unto all the People This prayer as every body sees hath for its Object Jesus Christ Reigning in Heaven and present unto his faithful Communicants by his Eternal Divinity and by the participation of his Grace Besides that Erasmus whose Translation comes nearer the Greek then that which is in the Library of the Holy Fathers and which we have followed because it is better liked by some Roman Catholick Doctors hath Translated these words Ibid. Be pleased by thy powerful hand to give us thy pure and immaculate Body and thy precious Blood In like manner when the Priest the Deacon and the People do Worship it is in saying three times Lord or as it is in the Ritual of the Greeks O God have mercy upon me who am a sinner which words do shew that this Adoration doth address it self unto God only who is therein expresly mentioned I say the same of the prayer which the Priest makes in taking the holy Bread when bowing his Head before the holy Table he saith I confess that thou art the Christ Ibid. p 32. the Son of the living God which didst come into the World to save sinners whereof I am chief c. After which he beseecheth him that he will vouchsafe to enter into his Soul filled with Passions and into his Body polluted with sin It cannot then be questioned but this prayer hath reference unto Jesus Christ and not unto the Sacrament which cannot enter into our Souls whereas our Saviour doth therein enter and into our Bodies also by the vertue of his Grace and by the efficacy of his holy Spirit for the sanctifying of them both of which Sanctification dependeth their Salvation and their Life As for the Deacons adoring when he cometh unto the Communion of the Cup in saying Ibid p. 8â—3 I come unto the King Immortal it can admit of no other Interpretation for I do not here examine what was the belief of the Ancient Church upon the point of the Sacrament I only inquire what the Ancients have said of the Adoration of Jesus Christ in the Act of communicating not to confound the Adoration of the Master with the Adoration of the Sacrament Therefore unto all the passages which have been alledged I will yet add two others unto which if I mistake not the same Explication ought to be given The first is taken from a fragment of the life of Luke the Anchorite who lived in the X. Century wherein is read these words You should sing Psalms which are suitable unto this Mystery In auctar Francis Combef t. 2. p. 986. and according to the Greek Typical Psalms and which do represent it Or the Hymn called Trysagion with the Symbol of the Creed then you shall three times bow the Knees and joyning the hands you shall with the mouth participate of the precious body of Jesus Christ our God It is easie to see that these three Genuflections have relation unto him to whom the Trysagion was sung that is to say unto God the Father Son and Holy Ghost of whom they begged Grace to communicate worthily I place in the same rank the History of St. Theoctista who having lived 35 years in a wilderness in the Isle of Paros desired a Huntsman whom she met by accident that he would the year following bring her the Sacrament Apud Metaphrast in vit S. Theoctist c. 13. which the Huntsman having done the Saint cast her self upon the ground received the Divine Gift and wetting the ground with her tears she said Lord now let thy Servant depart in peace because mine eyes have seen the Saviour which thou hast given us or as Cardinal du Perron hath translated Because mine eyes have seen thy healthiness After what way soever these words are taken nothing else can lawfully be gathered but that this Maid being transported with a holy joy in that God was pleased to give her the benefit of participating of this Divine Mystery of the enjoyment whereof she had been so long deprived she profoundly humbles her self in his presence in rendring thanks for procuring her so great a benefit and so sweet and solid a Consolation not to speak of Cardinal Baronius his often undervaluing Metaphrastus who relates the life of this Saint But besides this first consideration we must make a second which
is no less important to the clearing of the matter whereof we treat It concerns the Greek Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which doth not barely signifie to Adore but also Venerate and respect the Roman Catholicks and the Protestants do confess it so yet that doth not hinder but that we will produce some Instances of the latter signification because the former findeth no Obstruction 1 Lib. 1. ep 136. lib. 4. ep 27. Isidor of Damicta speaks in this sense of the adorable Gospels a term which he useth again in speaking of the Sepulchre of Jesus Christ which he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the 2 Tom. 4. Concil pag. 107. E. Clergy of Apame in the lower Syria speaking of Temples in general in the 5th action of the Synod held at Constantinople under Agapetus and under Menna applieth also unto them the term now in question as also the Emperour 3 Novel 6. Justinian doth unto Baptism 4 Homil. 4. de ascens Chr. tom 6. St. Chrysostom unto the Feast of Easter 5 Homil. 49. in Matt. p. 439. and unto the person of John Baptist It is also in the same signification this word must be taken when it is applied unto Emperors and Emperesses which are sometimes called Adorable that is worthy of respect and veneration as even in the Acts of the 6 Part. 1. pag. 26.27 tom 3. Concil p. 28.29 Council of Chalcedon And even there also is mention made of the 7 Ibid. p. 26.27 adorable Altar and of the adoration of Venerable places and so in an infinite number of places which need not be recited This word then having divers significations it is but just and right when it is found in discourse to explain it according to the Nature of the subject then in hand for example if there be mention of the three persons of the blessed Trinity it must necessarily be translated by that of adoring because the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost be objects worthy of our Adoration but if things truly Sacred and Religious are spoken of but yet nevertheless are not to speak in a proper sense adorable it is to be translated by venerated and respected for by this means it will be easie to resolve and clear all the difficulties which seem to entangle this matter according unto which if any of the Ancients treating of the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist make use of the term which we examine it will not be difficult unto us to understand that his design is not that we should adore them but only that we should venerate them and that we should respect them as Sacraments which Jesus Christ hath instituted for the saving of our Souls especially if this Writer doth formally declare that the Bread and Wine do not change their Substance by Consecration In acting by this principle we need only hear Theodoret to understand what he means to say unto us Dialog â— p. â—5 The Mystical Symbols saith he do not change their own nature after Consecration but they remain in their former substance in their first Figure and in their first shape they are visible and palpable such as they were before but it is conceived by the understanding that they are what they have been made and they are believed and venerated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as being what they are believed to be Theodoret doth positively testifie That the Consecration doth not take from the Symbols of the Eucharist their Substance their Form nor their Figure Besides he assureth in the same place that they be Images and mystical Symbols whereof the Body of Jesus Christ is the truth and the Original And elsewhere he saith Dialog 1. That our Saviour hath honoured the visible Symbols with calling them by the name of his Body and Blood not by changing their Nature but in adding Grace unto Nature After declarations so formal and positive say some the Greek word cannot be translated by Adore but by Venerate else it must be said that Theodoret is fallen into the highest excess of folly to adore what he confessed was but Bread in its proper nature and substance but because we are obliged to judge more favourably of him the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be translated are venerated are respected and not are adored They also think the Reader will be very much confirmed in this Opinion if these other words of this Author be considered writing in another Dialogue against the Eutychean Hereticks and speaking thus unto them Dialog 3. p. 127. If the Body of Jesus Christ seem a vile thing unto you and inconsiderable how is it that you do nevertheless esteem his Figure to be venerable and saving for how can an Original whose Type is venerable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and worthy of Honour be it self vile and despicable They observe that these words do also manifestly shew that there is not here meant a true and proper adoration but a veneration honour and respect such as is due unto holy and sacred things And that he speaks also of venerating the Symbols in the nature of Figures which he distinguisheth from the Archtype and from the Original an opposition which justifies that the words of Theodoret cannot at all be understood neither here nor in the former testimony of a relative Adoration such as some do ground in relation to Images as if this ancient Doctor did teach a real Adoration of the Symbols of the Sacrament but so as it terminated in Jesus Christ instead of terminating in the Symbols themselves And in fine there be learned men amongst the Latins which do so explain themselves But some others do think that this Explication doth require to be made more plain for say they if it be only meant that in communicating we should adore Jesus Christ prostrate and as it may be said become vile in his sight as we do with reverence take his Sacrament there is no Christian but will agree thereunto although it is not as they think the meaning of Theodoret but if they intend this relative Adoration should so terminate in Jesus Christ as that the Symbols should also have their part it is to establish the quite contrary of what is said by Theodoret who leaves only a Respect and Veneration to be given unto the Sacrament And what they say of Theodoret they say in like manner of all others which have spoken of the Adorable Mysteries of the Adorable Communion and also of adoring the heavenly Gifts for they think Contr. Hermog c. 22. that because one expression is used that therefore the same Interpretation must be given as when Tertullian said I adore the fulness of the Scriptures that is to say I reverence and admire it I have a veneration and respect for it And St. Basil of Seleucia 1 Orat. 30. in illad faciam vos piscat hom That Rome vailing her Diadem adored the preaching of the Cross 2 Tom. 3. Bibl. Pat. p.
81. to intimate that she received it with respect and with veneration Whence also it is that St. Jerom in his Preface unto the Easter Epistles of Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria speaks only of receiving the holy things with veneration a veneration which he makes to be common and of the same nature with that which is given unto Chalices Vails and other things which are used at the Celebration of the Eucharist or as he speaks At the Passion of our Saviour intimating that these things should be venerated with the same Majesty as the Body and Blood that is to say the Sacrament for he did not mean to include in the same kind of veneration the true Body of Jesus Christ and the holy Vessels but the Sacrament of this divine Body unto which Sacrament he yields no Adoration but a common Veneration the same as unto the Lining and unto the Chalices of the holy Table Thus do these last argue and discourse After these two considerations we may with more ease examine the matter whereof we are to write the History I mean the Question of the Adoration of the Sacrament And because according to the Advertisement of St. Cyprian That heed must be taken unto what Jesus Christ did do and that what he did in celebrating his first Sacrament should serve as a Model and rule unto what Christians should do after him in the Celebration of theirs it is absolutely necessary to look back unto him to begin our Examination and Enquiry I say then in the institution of this Sacrament which is exactly described unto us I find that our Saviour having broke the Bread which he had taken and consecrated gave it unto his Disciples saying unto them Take eat and that he also in like manner commanded them to take the Cup and drink of it but I do not find that he commanded them to adore neither the one nor the other But if we do not find that he commanded them to adore what he gave unto them neither do we read that the Apostles did adore the Eucharist The Evangelists which have so exactly transmitted unto us the History of this Institution in so exactly marking all the Circumstances of it speak not a word of the holy Apostles adoring of it On the contrary they represent them unto us in a posture which doth not well agree with an act of Adoration for they were almost lying along upon their sides on little Beds round the Table according to the manner of that time Moreover if Jesus Christ had commanded his Disciples to adore what he gave them in the distribution of his Sacrament and if the Disciples had indeed adored it it is very likely say some that the Rulers of the Jews would have known it by Judas and knowing it they would not have failed to have urged it as a capital Crime against Jesus Christ for as they searched only some specious pretext to condemn him they would never have failed embracing this which was very plausible and would have accused our Saviour of having adored Bread and Wine and the rather because amongst them worshipping of Creatures was held for an unpardonable crime at least after their return from the Babylonian Captivity But besides what hath been said the disorder of the Church of Corinth in St. Paul's time affords us say they a convincing Argument of the same thing This divine Apostle condemns the Corinthians irreverence in the celebration of this august Sacrament he endeavours to make them ashamed of it and to shew them that their Conduct in this occasion was quite contrary both unto the working of Charity and the rules of holy Discipline such as the Discipline amongst Christians should be yet nevertheless to return them unto their duty and to persuade and inspire them with the respect due unto so great a Sacrament he doth not say a word unto them of its Adoration the consideration whereof had been of very great moment and capable of producing in the Spirits of these disorderly Christians other thoughts than those which they shewed at the time which they were to participate of this divine Mystery St. Luke in the Acts of the Apostles which contains the History of the Infant Church doth observe several times that Believers assembled to break Bread that is to say to celebrate the Eucharist but he never said that the Sacrament was to be adored But it may be that the Christians which immediately followed the Age of the Apostles had upon this Subject other discoveries than those which the Scriptures inform us of and that they can inform us of things we know nothing of St. Justin Martyr which flourished about fifty years after the death of St. John doth in his second Apology exactly and amply describe the whole action of the Sacrament and all that was therein practised in his time on the behalf of him which celebrated and also on their parts which did communicate the Oblation of Bread Wine and Water which was presented unto the Pastor when Sermon and Prayers were ended the Consecration which was performed by him by Prayers and Thanksgivings unto God the Amen which was answered by Believers the distribution and communicating of the things which had been blessed and consecrated and in fine the Charities and Alms-deeds made by particular persons and which was as the Crown and Seal of all this holy Action But in all this description we do see no mark of the Worship of Latry nor of any religious Worship either commanded by the Pastors or practised by the People towards the Sacrament although that this glorious Martyr had twice treated of the Sacrament in this Apology as hath been declared in our first part And this Representation which St. Justin gives unto us of the Eucharist in his time I mean of the Celebration of this Sacrament answers not ill unto what himself observed in his Dialogue against Tryphon That Christians in all places made the Eucharist of Bread and Wine and yet never speaks of adoring it and unto the silence of other Authors of his and the following Age because in all their Writings they are silent upon this matter although it be of the greatest moment in Religion I speak of St. Ireneus of Clemens of Alexandria Tertullian St. Cyprian and of Origen who very far from enjoyning this Adoration give not the least appearance to imagine that it was practised neither in the passages where they speak of the Eucharist nor in others where they seem to be indispensably obliged to say something of it As for example Tertullian in his Apologetick where he promiseth to discover Cap. 39. and to demonstrate what doth concern Christian Religion and where he makes so excellent and rich a description of the Agapes and of the Assemblies of those primitive Christians he saith only Ep. 10 11 12 13. That they do there eat as persons which remember that they are obliged to serve God all night And St. Cyprian treating of those which had fallen
Jesus Christ that he take care that not a crumb of it fall to the ground and having in this manner communicated of the Body of Jesus Christ he should approach unto the Cup having the Body bowed in way of Adoration or Veneration But besides say some St. Cyril doth not desire of his Communicant this inclination of body for Reception of the other Symbol which he represents unto us and doth call it the Body of Jesus Christ such as some crumbs whereof may fall to the ground it is that the Cup unto which he desires he should draw near with this inclination of Body contains a Liquor the moisture of which and the humidity remains as he saith upon the lips which cannot be said of the proper Blood of the Son of God The posture then which he prescribes for receiving of the Cup must necessarily be understood not of an act of Adoration which he doth not teach in any part of his Catechisms unto his Neophites but according to our second Consideration of the Veneration and respect which we ought to have for so great a Sacrament the Greek word used by St. Cyril being to be understood by that of veneration and respect because he speaks of an Object which is not adorable with the Adoration of Latery that is to say of the Sacrament and that besides he would not have said barely Approach with a little bowing the body but he would precisely have commanded to have adored it before receiving of it this action being of too great moment to speak so indifferently of and not to have commanded it after a more exact manner I will ad unto all these reasons that St. Cyril requires nothing of his Communicants but what what St. Chrysostom doth require of his also and yet in stronger terms of his Catechumeny when the time of their Catechising was expired that they presented themselves to be baptized In illud simile est regnum coelor patrifamil t. 6. p. 550. When you shall saith he come into the Closet of the holy Spirit when you shall run into the Marriage-Chamber of Grace when you shall be near unto that terrible and also desirable Pool prostrate your selves as Captives before your King cast your selves all together on your knees and lifting up your hands unto Heaven where the King of us all is sitting on his Royal Throne and lifting up your eyes unto that Eye which never slumbers use these words unto that Lover of Mankind c. Is not this approaching unto Baptism in a way of Worship and Adoration as St. Cyril desired one should approach unto the holy Communion And yet Christians never inferred from the words of St. Chrysostom that the Water of this Sacrament of our Regeneration was to be adored But what I say of the water of Baptism the same Chrysostom requires we should also do of the hearing of the Word of God The King himself saith he will not have his Diadem upon his head In illud ne eleemos vestr sac t. 6. p. 528. but lays it aside in reverence unto God speaking in the holy Gospel What saith he I know his Dignity which hath given me mine I adore his Kingdom which hath been pleased to make me reign And to say the truth we owe the same respect and veneration unto the Word of God and to his Sacraments which we do owe unto him which is the Author of them by giving him the Soveraign Adoration which we are obliged to render him at all times especially when we hear his Word read and preached and when we participate of his divine Sacraments If we descend yet lower than St. Austin we may inform our selves of what hath been practised in the Church since his death upon the Subject of the Adoration of the Sacrament for we have in the Works of St. Ambrose two Treatises touching the same matter made in the behalf of those newly initiated of which the latter entituled Of the Sacraments is more ample than the other We have that of Ecclesiastical Offices composed by St. Isidore Arch-Bishop of Sevil the Book of Sacraments of Gregory the First that made by Maximius Abbot of Constantinople expounding very mystically all the Action of the Sacrament German Patriarch of the same place also employed himself upon the same Subject and hath at large all that long History of Ceremonies practised in an Age which had already departed very much from the simplicity of the primitive times The Book called The Roman Order doth also examine all the particulars of the publick Service practiced in the Church of Rome We have in the IX Century the Treatise of Rabanus Arch-Bishop of Mayans of the Institution of Clerks that of Ecclesiastical Offices of Amalarius Fortunatus that of Walfridus Strabo almost under the same Title that of Florus under the name of Explication of the Mass In fine we have several other Treatises of the manner and order that ought to be observed in the Celebration of the Mass or of the Eucharist which Hugh Mainard a learned Benedictine hath caused to be printed with the Books of Sacraments of Gregory the Great as that he took from the Manuscript of Ratold Abbot of Corby about the Year 986. Another from the Library of du Tillet and which he saith is the Roman Order of the Year 1032. and a third of the Priory of Saluse in Normandy of the Prebends of the Order of St. Austin about the Year 1079. But in all this we do not find one word of the Adoration of the Sacrament no more than the Interpreters and Commentators of the History of the Institution of it which are not a few Moreover the expressions of the ancient Doctors of the Church will not a little contribute unto the illustrating of this matter for if they had a design to have Christians worship the Sacrament before receiving of it or at the instant of communicating methinks they should have spoke in a manner and way which should have possessed them with thoughts and dispositions suitable and which should have made them to conceive of it the same Opinion which one hath for an Object which is truly adorable Nevertheless instead of so doing I find their Instructions tended rather to divert than to incline them unto this Homage In fine I cannot comprehend that the people could dispose themselves unto the Adoration of the Eucharist when they heard the holy Fathers unanimously call it Bread and Wine even in the very act of Communion Wheat the Fruit of the Vine the Fruit of the Harvest and the like things They testifie it is Bread which is broke positively affirm that it is Bread and Wine Bread which nourisheth our Bodies which is inanimate which is digested the substance whereof remains after Consecration in a word Bread subject unto the same accidents with our common food For these are so many formal Declarations which these holy Doctors have made unto us in the second Chapter of the second Part. Must it not be
I may become happy by the sight of thy Glory And this other I salute thee Light of the World Gloss ad decret Greg. l. 3. tit 41. de Miss celebr c. 10. sane Word of the Father true Hosty living Flesh perfect God true Man It must not be forgot that just at the beginning of the XIII Century a few years before Honorius the Third had made his Constitution for the Adoration of the Sacrament Odo Bishop of Paris ordained Statut Synod c. 5. t. 6. Bibl. Pat. That the people should often be exhorted to bow the knee before the Body as before their Maker and Lord as often as they should see it pass before them This Prelate caused several precautions to be added unto this Decree in case it should happen that any part of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ should fall to the ground or that any Fly or Spider should chance to fall into the Blood 'T is true Odo was not the first that prescribed these kinds of precautions for from the VIII Century somewhat of this nature is to be seen in a Penitential attributed unto Pope Gregory the XIII which held the Chair according unto Bellarmine's computation from the Year 731. unto the Year 741. I say this Penitential is attributed unto him for it is not very certain that it is his but in fine it is in this Book which is inserted in one of the Tomes of the Councils Tom. 5. p. 471. that Precautions like unto those established by Odo Bishop of Paris are to be seen And it is as I conceive of this Penitential Book De Consecr distinct 2. c. si per negligentiam attributed unto Gregory the Thirteenth that the Canonist Gratian hath taken the words he cites in his Decrete under the name of Pope Pius the first who lived about the middle of the II. Century In fine besides that they agree much better with the time of Gregory than with that of Pius who as yet was ignorant of these kinds of Precautions The words related by Gratian as spoken by Pius are at this day to be found verbatim in the Penitential given us under the name of Gregory the XIII The first Christians were careful that no part of the sacred Symbols of the Eucharist should fall to the ground but we do not find that they made any Ordinance touching what might through neglect fall to the ground of the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament that was an effect of after Ages which being in process of time become infinitely more scrupulous than former Christians became also more liberal of their Decrees and Constitutions especially in what concerned the Sacrament of the Eucharist insomuch that Hubert Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and Legat of Pope Celestine made this Decree at the end of the XII Century never regarding the simplicity with which the Sacrament was sent unto sick people in the first Ages of Christianity Apud Roger. de Hoveden in Richard I. That Priests as often as there is need to communicate the Sick should themselves carry the Host in their Priestly Habits suitable unto so great a Sacrament and that Lights should be carried before it if stormy Weather the badness of the Ways or some other reason doth not hinder Odo Bishop of Paris did moreover ordain That all persons should kneel down unto it when it passed by which if my Memory fail not is the first Decree made for adoring the Host yet it must not be imagined that the Adoration of the Sacrament was not at all practised in the Latin Church before this Ordinance of Odo which was made in the beginning of the XIII Century There be some which think that it was established by Durandus Abbot of Troarn in the XI Century a little after Berengarius had declared himself against the Dostrine of the Real Presence But if Durandus made no mention of the Adoration of the Sacrament as in effect there be those which refer his words unto the blessed Humanity of our Redeemer whereof he maketh mention in the same place and unto which they pretend that the act of Adoration should be addressed according to the design of this Abbot it cannot be denied but Alger formally taught it in the XII Century De Sacram. l. 2. c. 3. for as to what we read in the ancient Customs of the Monastery of Cluny That all those which meet the Priest Lib. 3. c. 18. t. 4. Spicil p. 217. bearing the Body of the Lord unto a sick person should demand Forgiveness I do not see that all do explain this action after one manner Dom Luke d'Achery which caused them to be printed understands it of Adoration having caused this little Annotation to be put in the Margin That is to say that they should prostrate and adore Others say that these words Demand Pardon do only signifie that those which meet the Sacrament should demand Forgiveness either of the Priest the same as in communicating Ibid. l. 2. c. 30. p. 145. for they all demanded Pardon of each other and kissed the Priest's hand before they received the holy Sacrament or of God in consideration of the death of Jesus Christ Ibid. l. 1. c. 13. p. 58. c. 38. p. 92. whereof the Sacrament is a Memorial Whereunto they add that the same was practised in this famous Assembly when the Cross was uncovered on Good-Friday and the day called The Exaltation of the Holy Cross and that the Pardon which they asked upon these two occasions is distinguished from Adoration Moreover they say that in the thirtieth Chapter of the second Book of these Customs wherein is exactly represented what was practised in those times in this famous Monastery in the Consecration and in the Communion of the Eucharist there is not one word said of the Elevation of the Host Whence they infer that they did not practise the Adoration of the Sacrament which in the Latin Church for some Ages past doth immediately follow the Elevation of it After all should the words in question be applied unto the Adoration of the Host no other consequence could from thence be drawn but this to wit that in the XI Century at the end whereof was collected together in three Books all these ancient Customs this Adoration began to be practised that is to say after the Condemnation of Berengarius although there was no Decree for it until the XIII Century And as before the XIII Century there was no Decree made touching the Adoration of the Sacrament so also before that time there was no Holy Day dedicated unto its honour from whence the Protestants do not fail to make their advantage against the Adoration of the Eucharist saying That if this Adoration had been practised in the ancient Church Christians would not have referred it unto Urban the Fourth the care of instituting the Feast of the Sacrament which he did in the Year 1264. But it is not sufficient to know that Urban the
Fourth did institute this Holy Day in that Year if we do not also know that he was inclined thereunto by the desires and upon the Revelations of certain Women of the Country of Liege particularly of a Nun called Eve unto whom he wrote a Letter upon this Subject and another unto all the Bishops the which is contained in the Bull of Clement the Fifth in the third Book of Clementines tit 16. as we are fully informed by John Diesteim Blaerus Prior of St. James of Leige which he composed after having made as he saith an exact enquiry of what had passed in this Institution And to inform the Reader of the nature of these Revelations he adds That the first of these Women called Juliana in praying perceived a marvellous Aparition viz. The Moon as it were at Full but having some kind of Spots Whereupon she was divinely inspired that the Moon was the Church and that the Spot which appeared therein was the want of a Holy Day which as yet was wanting So that she received a Command from Heaven to begin this Solemnity and to pubish unto the World that it ought to be celebrated He saith moreover That this Juliana having communicated her Revelations unto one Isabella this Isabella knowing the troubles Juliana was in upon this Subject she desired of God by earnest Prayers that he would impart unto her the knowledge of these things and that going to visit Eve a Nun of the Church of St. Martins of Leige she no sooner kneeled down before the Crucifix but being ravished in mind she was shewed from Heaven that this particular Holy Day of the Eucharist had always been in the Council of the Soveraign Trinity and that now the time of revealing it unto Men was come for she affirmed that in her Extasie she saw all the Heavenly Host demand of God by their Prayers that he would speedily manifest this Solemnity unto the wavering World to confirm the Faith of the Church Militant I am not ignorant but that there be some which would attribute the cause of this Institution unto a Miracle of Blood which as they say fell from an Hosty in the hands of a Priest as he sang Mass But Besides what Diesteim and after him several others have related unto us we have touching the first cause of this Institution the Declaration of Urban himself which made it For in the Letter which he wrote unto all the Bishops inserted in the Bull of Clement the Fifth he thus speaks We have understood heretofore being in a lower Office that is to say when he was Arch-Deacon of the Church of Leige that it was revealed unto some Catholicks which were the three Women mentioned by Diesteim Juliana Isabella and Eve that such a Holy Day was to be generally celebrated in the Church And in that which he wrote unto Eve We are sensible Daughter that your Soul hath desired with great desire that a solemn Holy Day of the Body of Jesus Christ might be instituted in the Church to be celebrated by Believers unto perpetuity This is the ground and foundation of this Feast and the true cause of its Institution even according to the Testimony of the Life of Juliana the first of these three Women a Testimony whose proper terms is related by Molanus in his Martyrology of Saints in Flanders on the 5th of April But how great soever the Authority of Popes at that time was in the West the Decree of Urban was not observed in all Churches by reason of the newness of the thing therefore Clement the Fifth caused it to be published again about fifty years after as the Gloss upon the Decretal of Clement the Fifth wherein that of Urban is inserted expresly observes But notwithstanding all this it was not hitherto kept as Diesteim informs us in the ninth Article of his Book Although saith he the Apostolical Commands touching the Celebration of the new Holy Day of the venerable Sacrament hath been addressed unto all the Churches yet so it is nevertheless that none of the Churches were careful to give Obedience thereunto excepting the Church of Leige which as soon as it had with honour received the Apostolical Nuncio with the Bulls the Decretals and the Office which he had brought presently as a dutiful Daughter gave Obedience thereunto rejecting the Office which the Virgin Juliana caused to be made and using that which had been composed by Thomas Aquinas And so ever since those Bulls came the Diocess of Liege and no other else hath solemnized this Holy Day until the days of our Lord Pope John the Twenty second who lived in the Year of our Lord Jesus Christ 1315. who published all the Constitutions of Clement and sent them unto the Universities And now if it be demanded of Urban Clement lib. 3 tit 16. si Dominum what profit was made by this Institution he will answer That this Holy Day properly belongs unto the Sacrament because there is no Saint but hath its Holy Day although there is remembrance had of them in the Masses and in the Litanies That it must be celebrated once every year particularly to confound the Unbelief and Extravagance of Hereticks to make a solemn and more particular Commemoration of it to the end to frequent Churches with more and greater Devotion there to repair by attention by humility of Spirit and by purity of heart all the defaults wherein we have fallen in all the other Masses either by the disquiet of worldly cares or by the dulness and weakness of humane frailty and there with respect to receive this Sacrament and to receive increase of Graces Almost the very same thing is to be seen in the Breviary of the Latin Church The Feast of the Sacrament was attended by Procession wherein the Host is born with Pomp and Magnificence Diesteim saith Offic. fir 6. infra Oct. Corp. Christ lect 4. 5. that it was Pope John the Twenty second which introduced this custom But Bossius in his Chronicles and after him Genebrard in his Chronology Book IV. place it much later and say that it began a hundred years after the Institution of the Holy Day to be practised at Pavia from whence it spread it self abroad into all the Western Churches and especially at Anger 's where Berengarius had been Arch-Deacon Upon which several observe that this Institution is directly contrary unto the practice of the ancient Church that very far from carrying in Procession the sacred Symbols of the Body and Blood of our Saviour did administer them the Doors shut even from the III. Century and concealed them not only from Unbelievers and Idolaters but even also from the Catechumeny which were made to go out when this divine Sacrament was to be administred They add that this Procession was very ill resented by many persons that lived in the Communion of the Roman Church In fine Queen Catherine de Medicis wrote unto the Pope in the Year 1561. as Monsieur de Thoul
which said That Jesus Christ was but a meer Man The others That he had only a shadow of a Body They pretend I say that the silence of the Fathers upon the subject of the Adoration of the Sacraments in disputing against these Hereticks is an evident proof that it was not adored in the Ancient Church because if it had been adored they would have urged this Adoration both against the one and the other because one adores not the Body of a common Man nor an imaginary Body and which hath nothing of a true Body but a deceitful appearance It is also what is farther inferred by some amongst them from the silence of the same Fathers in their Disputes against the Aquarians which celebrated the Eucharist with Water only saying They could not dispence themselves from alledging this act of Adoration to represent unto them that the Consecration not being to be performed with Water only they would be guilty of the crime of Idolatry to adore common Water as if it had been the Blood of Jesus Christ whatever intention they might have had otherwise They say the same of the Canon made by the third Council of Braga Anno 675. against those which Consecrated Milk instead of Wine in the Holy Cup the Fathers satisfying themselves in saying that the Institution of our Lord admitted not to celebrate with Milk nevertheless say the Protestants if the Church had practised the Adoration of the Eucharist had not that been the fit time to have spoken of it and to have shewed That those which did celebrate the Sacrament with Milk caused the Church to be guilty of Idolatry because the People adoring the Cup could not in effect adore any thing but Milk How comes it to pass say they again that this publick Service of Religion this Adoration of the Sacrament was never alledged to overthrow Nestorias who said in speaking of the Humane Nature of Jesus Christ That he could not adore him which had been an Infant of two Months old and which had sucked the Breasts As for the Greek Church I cannot tell how after all that hath been said at the end of the XII Chapter of the Second Part it can be thought the Greeks adore the Sacrament It is true that all things which we therein observed do not well agree as many say with this act of Adoration no more than the reproach made by Arcudius a Greek Latinised against the Greeks whereof we made mention in the same place when he saith That they give but little or no honour unto the Sacrament As for Cabasilas Archbishop of Thessalonica who wrote in the XIV Century he saith only That believers willing to shew their Devotion and their Faith adore bless and celebrate as God that is to say in the Act of communicating Jesus Christ who is understood in his gifts Nevertheless certain words of Gabriel Archbishop of Philadelphia are cited who was a Prelate at Venice about 45 years ago the which do formally lay down the Adoration we treat of But the Protestants answer thereunto that besides that the Greeks do several things which as hath been shewed agree not with this Adoration There never hath been in the Greek Church any Decree made for the adoring of the Eucharist neither doth there appear any in their publick Books of Religion They say moreover That there is no certainty that the words cited under the name of Gabriel of Philadelphia are his because the Greek hath never been cited And that if it were true that they had been spoke by this Prelate it were not to be thought strange that a Greek living amongst the Latins should be prevailed upon by the ordinary practice of those which adore the Sacrament with the Worship of Latry but that his example and testimony conclude nothing touching the body of the Greek Church In fine Anthony Cancus a Patrician of Venice Archbishop of Corfou answering unto Pope Gregory the XIII which had commanded him particularly to inform him of the differences betwixt the Greek and Latin Church observes expresly in his History of the Heresies of the Modern Greeks the Manuscript whereof is to be seen in the Kings Library that there is no Christian Communion which renders less reverence less honour nor less Worship unto the Sacrament of the Eucharist than the Greeks do He also adds that having taxed them with the little respect they give unto the Sacrament that they answered him That there was no command which required this Adoration From whence he takes occasion to compare them unto Oecolampadius who plainly taught that the Sacrament should not be adored with the Worship of Latry Let the Reader judge of this dispute for it is not my business to decide it Therefore from the consideration of the Greek Church I pass unto that of Ethiopia or the Abyssins in the which according to the testimony of Francis Alvarez a Priest of Portugal and an Eye-witness In his Voyage into Fthiopia cap. 11. all the People as well Men as Women go unto the Communion with their hands lift up and open and during the whole Office and all the time of the Communion every one is standing Damian a Goes p. 507. the which is confirmed by Zaga Zabo an Abyssin who in the Explication of their Faith translated by Damian Goes observes that in saying their Mass they do not shew the Sacrament of the Eucharist as he saw that it was usually practised amongst the Latins The which doth shew how little credit is to be given unto a Liturgy of the Abyssins which is put into Latin in the Library of the Holy Fathers without mentioning from whence it was taken or who it is that translated it and in the which there is mention made both of the Elevation and Adoration of the Sacrament the which is directly contrary unto the Deposition of these two infallible Witnesses whose testimonies we just now received and the one of which to wit Alvarez expresly observes that the Abyssins do not lift up the Sacrament in the Celebration of their Eucharist which is the cause as the other saith that the Sacrament is not shewed unto the People as it is amongst the Latins And in the West it self there hath always been People which have celebrated the Sacrament without adoring or lifting it up as we have shewed at large in the first Part of this Historical Treatise because before the Introduction of the Elevation or Adoration of it in the Latin Church Berengarius with his followers were grown very eminent who were immediately followed by the Albigensis and Waldensis which spread themselves in France Italy England in Bohemia and elsewhere and all those celebrated the Eucharist without lifting up or adoring the Sacrament which practice was followed by the Taborites of Bohemia at the beginning of the XV. Century and the which is also practised by Protestants which are in very great numbers in all parts of Europe In fine to conclude this Chapter and at the same
time the whole History of the Eucharist I will here insert two passages of St. Austin to the end the Reader might judge of his Opinion touching the subject which we examine In the first he puts the Sacrament in the same degree with the other Symbols and gives it only the respect which ought to be given unto Religious things Lib. 3. de Trinit c. 10. To establish a Sign saith he one employs sometimes a thing that was existent before upon Earth as Jacob when he awaked after his Dream made use of the Stone which served him for a Pillow while he slept sometimes the thing one makes use of is made on purpose for it and should continue for some time after as the Brazen Serpent which Moses lifted up in the Wilderness and as our Characters and our Letters But sometimes also it ought to cease to be after having served the use whereunto it was destinated as the Bread which we make on purpose to that end and which is consumed in receiving of the Sacrament But because these things being done by Men are known unto Men they may be honoured or respected as Religious things but to cause admiration as miraculous things it is what they cannot do In the other of these two passages he speaks of Baptism and of the Lords Supper and without making any difference betwixt the one and the other as to the respect which we owe them He attributes unto them only a bare and common veneration and also he will have us give it unto them not through any carnal servitude but by a spiritual liberty that is to say as he explains himself not in venerating these Sacraments for their own sake nor in taking the Sign for the thing signified but in directing our Devotion unto the things whereunto they do relate Him saith he that doth Worship or Venerate a Sign Lib. 3. de Doctr Christian cap. 8. 9. without knowing what it signifies he is made subject to the Law but he that celebrates a Sign which is useful and Divinely instituted in knowing what it doth signifie he doth not venerate that which is visible and temporal but all his Devotion is lifted up unto him unto whom it ought to be referred And I affirm that such a person is free and spiritual even though he had lived under the times of Bondage wherein it was not yet convenient to explain the Signs unto carnal Men they being to be brought under by this yoke The Patriarchs and Prophets and all those of the Ancient Israel which the Holy Ghost made use of were those spiritual Men whereby we have received the aid and comfort of the holy Scriptures But since the Resurrection of our Saviour Jesus Christ in these times wherein the Ensign of our liberty hath manifestly appeared we are not so much as burdened with the troublesome observation of Signs whereof we have the knowledge already Whereas the Ancients had such great numbers we have but very few and these few it self which our Saviour and the example of the Apostles left us are very easily practised very easily understood and of a most pure observation as the Sacrament of Baptism and the Celebration of the Body and Blood of our Saviour Every one that receives them knoweth them very well and whereunto they have relation and they be venerated not by any carnal Obedience but by a spiritual Liberty Besides as it is the Nature of a servile weakness to follow the literal sense and to take the Signs for the things signified I suppose that it is also the Nature of Error and Extravagancy to attribute unto Signs needless and frivolous Explications God Almighty give us all Grace so well to distinguish Signs from the things which they represent that we may never give unto those that which we ought only to render unto these I mean that Jesus Christ only may be the Object of our Worship and Adoration and his Sacraments that of our Veneration and Respect So be it Amen AN Alphabetical Table OF THE Chief MATTERS contained in this BOOK The Letters A B C mark the three Parts of the Work A The First Part B The Second C The Third A. ACcidents cannot subsist without their Subject B. Chap. 5. pag. 254 Albigensis their Doctrine Manners and Persecutions they suffered B. ch 18. 475 Albigensis made profession of the Belief of Berengarius immediately after his death Id. 474 Albigensis and Waldensis had one and the same Belief Id. 475 There must be a distinction made betwixt the Adoration of Jesus Christ and the respect and veneration due unto his Sacrament C. ch 4. 562 Jesus Christ distributing his Sacrament unto his Disciples commanded them not to adore what he gave them neither did they adore it Id. 563 St. Paul speaks nothing of this Adoration in his censuring the Corinthians Id. 564 St. Luke says nothing of it in the Acts where he makes mention of the Celebration of the Sacrament Id. Ibid. The first Decrees made touching the adoring the Sacrament was in the XIII Century Id. 576 The use of ringing a Bell for the same Subject instituted in the same Century Id. ibid. Adoration of the Eucharist doth not agree with many things practised by the ancient Church Id. 571 To adore what one sacrificeth is an Impiety Id. 583 To adore what one eateth is absurd Id. ibid. The Sacrament miraculously adored by Beasts was unknown unto the ancient Church before Berengarius A. Ch. 8. 80 The Adoration of the Eucharist inconsistent with what the Ancients have said in their Disputes against the Heathens Id. 581 The Adoration of the Sacrament never retorted against Christians by the Gentiles Idem 482 The Adoration of the Sacrament doth not appear in the Disputes of the Fathers against the ancient Hereticks Id. 584 Adoration of the Sacrament is not practised by the Greeks nor Abyssins Id. ibid. B. BErtram did write by the Command of King Charles the Bald. B. ch 13. 403 Bertram's Book falsly attributed unto Oecolampadius Id. 406 Bertram's Book unadvisedly attributed unto John Scot. Id. 403 Berengarius much esteemed for his Sanctity B. Ch. 17. 453 Berengarius calumniated Id. 454 Berengarius his Adversaries could not answer his Arguments 457 Several disputed and argued for Berengarius Id. 456 Berengarius favourably heard by the Pope Id. ibid. The Doctrine of Berengarius spread throughout the whole Church Id. 454 Berengarius retracts for fear of death but perseveres again Id. 460 Epitaphs made by Hildebert Bishop of Mentz and by Baldrick Abbot of Bourgueil and Bishop of Doll in praise of Berengarius Id. 461 C. WHence proceeded the Reports of unlawful Copulations and those inhumane Banquets wherewith the ancient Christians were scandalized A. Ch. 2. 8 The Celebration of the Sacrament altered by several Hereticks and rejected by others Id. p. 16. Ch. 3. 24 Wherefore the Eucharist is called the Lord's Supper A. Ch. 5. 40 A general and particular Consideration of the place where the Symbols were
Christ is present with the believing Soul by the Intercourse of Devotion Id. 241 Jesus Christ must be sought in Heaven in Communicating Id. 242 The Body of Jesus Christ which was made 1600 Years ago cannot be made every day B. Ch. 5. 251 In what sense the Books of Charlemain condemn the term of Image in respect of the Sacrament B. Ch. 12. 380 John Scot wrote of the Sacrament by Command of Charles the Bald. B. Ch. 13. 403 Adversaries of John Scot upon the Point of Predestination Id. 415 John Scot never accused by his Adversaries to have erred upon the Point of the Eucharist Id. ibid. John Scot enrolled in the number of Saints after his death Id. 413 The Book composed by John Scot by Command of the Emperor Charles the Bald burnt at the Council of Verceil 200 years after viz. An. 1050. Id. 414 L. A Body cannot be in several places at once no not the glorified Body of our our Lord Jesus Christ B. Ch. 5. p. 247 The glorified Body of Jesus Christ cannot exist invisibly and after the manner of a Spirit in one place nor by consequence in the Eucharist Id. 248 The place which containeth is greater than what is contained Id. 251 Two Bodies cannot be in one and the same place and there cannot be Penetration of Dimensions Id. 261 Every part of a Body should answer unto every part of the place Id. ibid. A Body cannot be whole and entire in one of its parts Id. ibid. The Original of using Lamps and Lights in the Celebration of the Eucharist C. Ch. 1. 531 M. THe Flesh of Jesus Christ is to be eaten spiritually and corporally B. Ch. 4. 234 The Wicked do not eat the Body of Jesus Christ but the Sacrament of it only Idem 237 John Hus and Jerome of Prague put to death as Enemies of Transubstantiation although they ever believed it B. Ch. 19. 508 c. What a Mystery doth mean B. Ch. 5. 259 c. N. THe Nature of Bread remains after Consecration B. Ch. 2. 206 Nicholas the First keeps silent during the Disputes of the IX Century B. Ch. 15. 430 The Silence of Nicholas the First no way favourable unto Paschas Id. 431 O. JOhn Damascen his particular Opinion of the Eucharist B. Ch. 12. 365 Paschas Radbert a Friar of the Monastery of Corby near Amiens his Opinion He was after Abbot of the same Convent B. Ch. 13. 385 Opinion of the Adversaries of Paschas Id. 393 c. The Opinion of Paschas is that of Roman Catholicks and the Opinion of his Adversaries that of Protestants which are called Calvinists Id. 405 The Opinion of his Adversaries followed by the greatest Men in the IX Century Idem 430 The Silence of the Popes Adrian the Second and Nicholas the First prejudicial to the Opinion of Paschas B. Ch. 15. 431 The Opinion of Paschas had no advantage over that of his Adversaries during the X. Century B. Ch. 16. 440 It began to be established in the XI Century B. Ch. 17. 451 Berengarius and his Followers Opposition with his several Condemnations which hindred not but he persevered unto his death Id. 455 Berengarius calls the Opinion contrary to his the Folly of Paschas of the People and of Lanfrank Id. 454 Berengarius his Opinion condemned after his death by Urban the Second in a Council held at Plaisance Anno 1095. B. Ch. 18. 465 Those which held this Belief assembled themselves in the Arch-bishoprick of Treves Anno 1106. Id. 466 P. REflections of the holy Fathers upon the words of Institution of the Eucharist B. Ch. 1. 187 How they understood these words This is my Body Id. 188 No Body can participate of himself B. Ch. 5. 262 How the Fathers instructed their Catechumeny B. Ch. 7. 283 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies not only to adore but venerate and respect therefore it is to be explained according to the nature of the Subject in hand C. Ch. 4. 563 c. Q. THe Question of Communicating under both Kinds discussed at large A. Ch. 12. 141 c. Who opposeth not an Error approves it B. Ch. 15. 431 Whosoever recovereth not a Man from Error sheweth that he erreth himself Id. ibid. Whosoever defends not a Truth suppresseth it Id. ibid. The Question of the Adoration of the Sacrament fully examined C. Ch. 4. 563 c. R. THe Christians reproached for sacrificing Bread to God A. Ch. 3. 25 Christians reproached for serving Ceres and Bacchus Id. ibid. Religious Women called the Blood of Jesus Christ common Wine B. Ch. 6. 273 Remy of Auxerr as well as Damascen believed the Union of the Bread unto the Divinity B. Ch. 13. 391 Rupert de Duitz believed the Assumption of the Bread and followed near hand the Opinion of Damascen and of Remy of Auxerr B. Ch. 18. 468 S. THe Sacraments are simple in the Act and wonderful in effect Preface The Sacrifice of Christians is a Sacrifice of Bread and Wine A. Ch. 8. 82 The reason why the Fathers gave the Eucharist the name of Sacrifice but improperly Id. 83 c. They confess unto the Pagans they have neither Altars nor Sacrifices Id. 94 They never oppose the Eucharist unto the Sacrifices of the Law but the Actions of Piety and Christian Religion and the Sacrifice of the Cross Id. 96 The Elevation of the Sacrament to represent the Elevation of Christ on the Cross when begun to be practised A. Ch. 9. 101 The Elevation converted into the Adoration of the Host in the XIII Century Idem 105 There hath been always People in the West which have celebrated the Sacrament without Elevation or Adoration Id. 103 The breaking of the Bread of the Sacrament always practised in the Church even amongst the Latins until the XII Century A. Ch. 9. 106 The Sacraments have no Miracles in them B. Ch. 2. 212 It is unto the vertue and efficacy of the Sacrament that we must refer the Communion which we have with Jesus Christ and our Vinification B. Ch. 3. 230 The Testimony of the Senses is infallible B. Ch. 5. 257 The Use of Flowers practised by the Latins in honour to the Sacrament unknown unto the primitive Christians C. Ch. 4. 573 T. ALtar or Eucharistical Table one and the same thing in the Writings of the ancient Fathers of the Church A. Ch. 5. 44 45. It was for a long time made of Wood in the same form of Tables to eat upon and not in the form of an Altar Id. ibid. There was but one Table or one Altar in a Church Id. 47 The Greeks Muscovites and Abyssins now retain the same Custom Id. 50 What Fraud and Deceipt is B. Ch. 5. 260 The Taborites of Bohemia and their Belief B. Ch. 19. 505 John Hus and Jerome of Prague ever held Transubstantiation Id. 508 V. THere can no Prescription be alledged against Truth Preface The Truth of God must be followed and not the Traditions of Men. A. Ch. 1. p. 1 A Body should be visible and palbable B. Ch. 5. 247 What may be seen and felt is a Body Id. 264 Waldensis their Doctrine Manners and the Persecutions used against them B. Ch. 18. 472 c. Waldensis in Italy in the XIV Century B. Ch. 19. 502 Wickliff his Doctrine and Followers which were very numerous in England under the name of Lollards in the XIV Century Id. 499 The Waldensis of Provence and Piedmont Id. 512 The Original of holy Vestments used in the Celebration of the Eucharist C. Ch. 1. 539 FINIS
Mischief befall thee who didst defile the Bed of my Father and of my Lord. This Testimony is so much the more authentick as that it is grounded upon the mixture which was made of the consecrated Wine with Ink an action which the Christians of those times blamed not yet it is evident that they would not have failed to condemn it as a great Crime if they had believed that it was the real Blood of their Saviour It is after this manner they interpret the thought of this Historian CHAP. XIV A Continuation of the History of the IX Century wherein the Dignities and Promotion of Heribold is discoursed of ALthough the Testimony of good men ought alike to be considered and admitted of nevertheless it must be granted that there be some persons that give greater credit unto that which they affirm their extraordinary Merit or the degree they are in above others rendring it more authentick or more worthy to be believed which is most especially done in matters of Religion in regard whereof there are sometimes persons to be found whose Depositions turn the Balance and do much support the Opinion in whose favour they declare I judge that Heribald or Heribold was of this number and quality therefore we have reserved a whole Chapter for him to examine in the first place the Dignities which he enjoyed in the Church and then his Belief upon the point of the Sacrament As to the first Head Heribald or Heribold for the Writers of that Age give him indifferently that Name was a Bishop a Dignity which every body knows is very considerable and in fine Messieurs de St. Gall. Christ t. 2. p. 269. Martha reckon him to be the 36th Bishop of the Church of Auxerr and do observe that he was a person of good Quality and very much esteemed by King Charles the Bald in whose Reign he flourished There is not any question to be made but his proper Merits were the Foundation of his Credit with this Prince Lupus Ferrar. Ep. 19. 37. Whence it is that Loup Abbot of Ferriers calls him Most Excellent Prelate and speaks of him as of a Man endowed with a sublime and divine Spirit But besides the Dignity of Bishop it may be collected by the 37th Letter which Loup writ unto him that he was also Principal Chaplain unto Charles the Bald. It is the Induction which is made by Monsieur Baluze unto whom we are beholden for the last Edition of the Works of Loup Abbot of Ferriers and certainly he doth it with great reason for by only carefully observing this Letter one may perceive the marks of this Dignity in the person of Heribold In the first place Lupus Ferrar. Ep. 37. Loup represents him unto us as being intrusted with multiplicity of Affairs that employ him continually from which he wishes him some ease that he might have some time to spend in reading St. Jerom's Commentaries upon the Prophets whereof he sent him a Copy before he had read it himself I know that the Charge of Pastor and Bishop is attended with much trouble when it is faithfully and conscientiously discharged Nevertheless that continual attendance and multiplicity of business spoken of by Loup cannot be attributed unto the Office of a Bishop And what puts the thing out of question is that he calls this sort of business Publick Affairs that is to say great and important Business in a word which the chief Chaplains were wont to determine in the Princes Palace as we shall see and as Monsieur Baluze has observed in his Notes upon his Letters Secondly Loup intimates this Dignity by these words Officii clarissimus gradus which imports an illustrious Degree and something that is sublime and eminent In fine he congratulates him with the many Honours conferred upon him Vos convenientibus cumulatos congratulor honoribus All which things tend only to design this eminent Dignity And if we had not this Letter of the Abbot de Ferriers we could not doubt but Heribold was Principal Chaplain because the History of the Bishops of Auxerr which is in the first Tome of the Library of Father Labbe saith so in plain terms and speaks of him as of an eloquent wise and circumspect person abounding in Vertues and full of Probity It was this Heribold which assisted at the Council of Tours Anno 849. But because it is not sufficient to know that Heribold was Principal Chaplain unto Charles the Bald unless we know wherein this high Office consisted I hope the Reader will not be offended if I here make some little Digression to shew what the Dignity of Arch Chaplain was Under the second Race of our Kings there were two Palatine Offices that is to say of the Palace and of the King's Houshold which were the two chiefest Offices of the Crown The one of which took cognizance of all things relating to spiritual matters and the other of all things relating unto temporal matters The first was called Principal Chaplain Arch Palatine Chief Chaplain Prelate of the Sacred Palace and the other was called Count of the Palace very different from those Counts which were sent into the Provinces to administer Justice Unto each of whose Jurisdiction there was commonly assigned the Extent of a Bishop's Diocess I speak on purpose of the second Race of our Kings because I find indeed there were Counts of the Palace under the first Race Hignon in not ad lib. 1. Marculf p. 288. by what the late Monsieur Bignon said in his Notes upon Marculf where he instanceth an Example after what manner the Kings of the first Race did judge affairs wherein mention is made of Andobella Count of the Palace and of Clothair Son of Clovis the Second and Grandson of Dagobert But as for Principal Chaplain I find not any until the second Race Now the better to know what was the power and privileges of these two Dignities we must consider what Adelard near Relation of Charlemains and Abbot of Gorby doth inform us in one of Hincmar Archbishop of Rheims his Letters for he writes that the Office of Principal Chaplain and that of Count of the Palace Hincmar Ep. 3 c. 19. Edi. Mog were the two Principal Offices of the Kings Houshold That the former that is to say the Apocrisary who was called the Chief Chaplain or Governour of the Palace had the charge and took an account of all Ecclesiastical matters and of all Church Officers and the Count of the Palace of all secular causes and things so that neither Ecclesiastical nor secular persons were permitted to trouble the King about their affairs until they had first advised with these Officers to see if their business merited to be mentioned unto the Prince but if it was a business whereof the King should take present cognizance they disposed the King to hear them honourably patiently and favourably according to each persons quality And speaking again of Ecclesiastical judgments which