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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
the Sun which sheweth it self in spreading its Light over all Things And afterwards directing his Words unto Christians he saith unto them That having said the Word was the Son of God they declare instead of the pure and holy Word of God a Man shamefully punished whipt and nailed to a Cross He makes a Jest Id. ibid. l. 6. p. 3 5. that we should believe that God is born of a Virgin saying that God intending to send a Spirit had no need to form it by his Breath in the Womb of a Woman because knowing before how to make a Body he could have made one for himself without sending his Spirit in so filthy a place And to render the more ridiculous this great Mystery of our holy Religion he compares it unto the Fables of Danae Id. lib. 1. p. 30. Id. l. 3. p. 131. 8. p 385. of Menalippe of Auge and of Antiope He could not suffer they should adore and as he saies elsewhere that they should honour with a Worship religious above all Religion a Man that had been a Prisoner and was dead As also for that Reason justifies the Plurality of his Gods as if Christians contented not themselves in worshipping one alone under a Shadow that they worshipped Jesus Christ Id. l. 8. p. 385. If Christians saith he worshipped but one only God they might it may be have some Pretext of despising all others but they render infinite Honours unto this which hath appeared but of late nevertheless they think they do not offend God when they serve and honour his Minister What St. Cyril of Alexandria hath written against Julian the Apostate sufficiently informs us of all the Blasphemies which this Back slider from the Christian Religion spewed out against all that was most Holy and Sacred in the most important and essential Mysteries of our Religion He denied the Incarnation of the Divinity of Jesus Christ which is the Ground and Foundation of all our Hopes the Salvation he hath purchased for us with the Price of his Blood he reviles us with the glorious Title of Mother of God which we give unto the holy Virgin Julian Ap Cyril Alex. l. 8. p. 262. t. 6. You cease not saith he to call Mary Mother of God He refutes the Mystery of the Trinity of Persons in the Unity of Essence accusing us of contradicting Moses who saith there is but one God whereas we admit of Father Son and Holy Ghost Id l. 9. p. 290 291. Moses saith he taught there is but one God but you have invented Things which agree not with what Moses said for you teach that the Son is God with the Father Id. l. 8. p. 262. And in the foregoing Book They will tell me it may be they admit not of two nor three but I 'le shew that they do admit of it by the Testimony of John when he saith In the Beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God Id. ibid. p. 276. If the Word is God saith he again as you assure it is begotten of the Substance of the Father wherefore say you that the Virgin is the Mother of God For how can a Woman of the same human Nature with us bring forth a God And morover seeing God said positively It is I and there is no Saviour but me how then dare you call him your Saviour which is born of a Woman Accordingly we read in the Acts of the Martyrdom of Terachus of Probus and Andronicus which Cardinal Baronius inserts in his Annals but which Mr. Emery Bigot unto whom the whole Republick of Learning is obliged hath given us more entire in Latin two or three Years since and from whom we daily expect it in Greek we there read it I say that the Judg Maximius a Pagan hearing Terachus which he caused to be tormented say That he trusted in the Name of God and of his Christ failed not from thence to take Occasion to treat him with Unjust and Cursed and to tax him with the Plurality of Gods Pâ—ass SS Tarachi c. p. 7. False and wicked that thou art said he thou adorest then two Gods which thou confessest with the Mouth and thou deniest those which we do serve But to return to the great Enemy of the Christian Name I mean Julian the Apostate he also hath vilified our holy Baptism reproaching us with what we believe of the Vertue and Efficacy of these mystical and healing Waters See saith he what St. Paul saies unto them Julian Ap. Cyril Alex. l. 7. p. 245. that they have been cleansed and sanctified through the washing of Water as if Water penetrated unto the Soul to wash and to purifie it But Baptism cannot heal a Leper non a Scurf nor a Scab nor a Gout nor a Dysentery nor a Dropsie nor the least Sickness of the Body and then how much more unable is it to remove Adulteries Rapines and all other Impurities of the Soul This wretched Apostate hath ever undertaken to condemn the wise and just Conduct of the God which we adore in punishing of some for the Sins of others and for the same Reason he makes some Attempt against the Doctrine of Original Sin he urgeth what is written That God visiteth the Iniquities of the Fathers upon the Children and insolently condemns what God said in the Book of Numbers touching Phineas who ran a Javelin through the Israelitish Man which defiled himself with the Midianitish Woman till that he had turned away his Anger from the Children of Israel and hindred that he had not consumed them Id ibid l. 5. p. 160 161. Suppose saith he there had been a Thousand which had undertaken to transgress the Laws of God ought six hundred thousand been destroyed for the Sin of one thousand It seemes to me saith he it had been much better to save one wicked Man with so many thousands of Good than to have destroyed so many thousands of good Men in the Destruction of one wicked Man There is scarce one of all our Mysteries but have been attacqued by the Jews or the Gentiles and have been censured by them which doth evidently shew that they had Knowledg of them and that they were not ignorant of what was believed and practised in the Christian Religion either by reading our Books or by the Relation of some Apostates that fell away what we have hitherto said sufficiently testifies it Lactant. Instit l. 5. c 2. and what Lactantius saith of a Heathen which wrote against the Religion of Jesus Christ doth fully confirm it He related saith he so many Things and Things so secret and private that he seemed to have formerly been of the same Belief That which causeth Admiration in a great many is that amongst so many Things as they have said of our Religion amongst so many Reproaches which they have made against Christians touching the Nature of their Mysteries amongst so many Accusations
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
in newness of life And if we would know what this Resurrection is which St. Paul requires of a Christian St. Ghrysostom will inform us Hom. 10. in c. 6. Rom. That it is a holy Conversation which proceedeth from the change of Manners the death of Sin the restoring of Righteousness and the entire ruin of the old Life to establish one that is new and wholly Angelical Therefore it is that Theodoret interpreting these same words In c. 6. Rom. gives us this excellent Lesson The Sacrament of Baptism teacheth us to fly from sin for Baptism is a type of the death of our Saviour now by it you participate with Jesus Christ of death and also of the Resurrection you must then lead a new life and agreeable unto him of whose Resurrection you have been made to participate Unto the Remembrance of Christ's Resurrection these holy Doctors joyn also that of his Ascension and Glory therefore it is they say Gaudent tr 2. tom 2. Bibl. Pat. That the Sacrament is the Viaticum of our journey wherewith we are nourished by the way until we come unto him at our leaving this World a pledge of his presence and a portraict of his passion until he comes again from Heaven And in preparing our selves for the Sacrament we cannot make this reflection but that we must bewail his absence but yet comforting our selves with this persuasion that he is sitting on the Throne of his Father as Lord of Heaven and Earth the Master of all things and the Monarch of the whole Universe That it is from thence that he sends forth his Commands into all the World that he dispenseth the Treasures of God that he defends his people that he protects his Church and that he restraineth the pride and insolency of his Enemies but that we must at the same instant be raised with heavenly thoughts divine motions and spiritual affections to be lifted up unto him by holy ejaculations and to contemplate him shining with Glory in Heaven after having meditated on him all covered with shame upon Earth and nailed upon the Cross in Mount Calvary for the expiating of the sins of Men and for the work of our Redemption Therefore the holy Fathers desire we would become like unto Eagles Chrysost Hom. 24. in 1. ad Corinth To fly up unto Heaven that we should have nothing of Earth in us that we should not bend downwards that we should not wallow in the love of the Creatures but that we should incessantly fly towards the things above and that we should stedfastly behold the Sun of Righteousness with an earnest sight and piercing eyes In fine the ancient Liturgies do not from all these Commemorations separate that of his second coming Which maketh us think of that great and last day wherein the Dead shall be raised wherein the Books shall be opened and wherein shall be the universal Judgment to cast the Wicked into Hell and to receive the Good into the felicity and glory of Heaven then there shall be no more want of Sacraments for as Theodoret saith In 1 ad Corinth c. 11. After his second coming we shall have no farther need of the signs and Symbols of the Body because the Body it self will appear but until that time the Celebration thereof is absolutely necessary according to this Observation of the Author of the Commentaries upon the Epistles of St. Paul attributed unto St. Jerom In 1 ad Corinth c. 11. That we have need of this Memorial during all the time which shall pass until he be pleased to come again So that all the Idea's which we have considered do help to form in us Acts of Faith Repentance Hope Charity Humility Gratitude Sanctification Holiness Justice Innocence Purity Joy Consolation and generally all those of Piety and devout Christianity and by consequence all the motions and dispositions which the Soul of a worthy Communicant ought to have towards God and Jesus Christ Now let us see those which it should have in regard of the Sacrament it self CHAP. III. Of the Motions and Dispositions of the Communicant in reference to the Sacrament AS the remembrance which our Saviour commands us to make of him and of his death when we receive the Sacrament comprehends all the Qualifications which we ought to have in regard of God and of Jesus Christ so also the Examination required by St. Paul contains all those which we ought to have in regard of the Sacrament 1 Cor. 11. Let every one saith he prove his own self But it is not sufficient to say that the Apostle enjoyns Communicants unto this Examination we must also know wherein it doth consist to this purpose I say that what St. Paul requires of us is an act whereby we must search our hearts look into every corner of it whereby we examine every part of our Soul we must assure our selves of the state wherein it is whether Faith hath therein taken its place whether Hope lifted us up in expectation of the happiness promised and whether the Love of Jesus Christ and of our Neighbour therein unfolds its vertue and efficacy In a word it is an act whereby we discover whether we be fitting to approach unto the holy Table for in coming thither we protest that Jesus Christ is our Master and our Lord that it is he which hath redeemed us by his Blood and that hath purchased Life for us by his Death And as the Apostle enjoyneth this Law unto all Communicants it may be said that this Trial doth consist in the serious and sincere Examination which every one makes of his Conscience to know in what state and disposition it is Whence it may be gathered that it desires no Witnesses but that it should be done in private and in secret in the presence of God only for there it is that the Sinner calls himself to an account that he reflects upon his life past that he condemns his wicked actions that he groans under the thoughts of his sins that he deeply mourns for the greatness of his offences that he cleanseth his heart and purifies his Soul by the tears of Repentance and by the working of a true Contrition But because the Latin Church defines in the Council of Trent whose Decretes are to be considered as the Confession of Faith of the Latin Church Sess 13. c. 7. That the custom of the Church declares that the necessary proof is that how contrite soever the sinner feels himself he ought not to approach unto the holy Eucharist without having first made his sacramental Confession that it must of necessity be made that without it one receives this Sacrament unworthily unto his death and condemnation We are obliged to enquire what was the Conduct of the ancient Church in this occasion for it is not my intention to examine the matter of Confession in all its parts but only in that which concerns my subject To do it in some order it must
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
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
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
have prostrated himself in its presence and would have ardently prayed unto it to bestow upon him better dispositions in approaching another time unto the mystical Table there to receive the pledges of his consolation and salvation Is it probable say some if these Christians had held the Eucharist for an Object deserving the highest Adoration that they would have used so severe and rigorous a Discipline which no way savoured of the meekness and love of Jesus Christ against these several sorts of People Is it not more likely that they would have endeavoured to have comforted them in representing that if they were debarr'd for some time from the participation of this great Sacrament that yet they had the comfort of adoring it and of rendring it their homage and the acts of their Piety and Devotion in an occasion wherein God shewed himself more propitious unto men and wherein he answers more favourably unto their prayers and desires But they were fo far from doing so that they turn'd them out without any pity at the time they were to celebrate this Divine Sacrament from whence the Protestants infer That they did not look upon it as an object of Adoration But as they argued against the Adoration of the Sacrament upon what was done by the Primitive Christians so do they also argue against it by what they did not do and yet that which is very religiously practised by the Latins for the Latins do not fail to expose and shew the holy Sacrament in publick rejoycings or calamities they adore and invoke it when they undertake any thing which is considerable and the execution whereof seems difficult They cause it to be adored by their new Converts and by their Penitents by the former that they should give it thanks for their spiritual regeneration and by the others to make atonement for their sins in its presence They make little Images of it and do consecrate them they address unto it their Vows their Prayers and their Thanksgivings but in the Ancient Christian Church nothing of all this was seen neither any Miracle of the Host being Worshipped by Beasts as is related in some Writers of the Latin Church to have frequently happened which confirms them the more in the belief they have that for more then ten Ages the Church did not Worship the Eucharist Whereunto they also add that the Primitive Christians neither caused Incense nor Candles in day time to be burnt unto it as we have shewed in the Chapter wherein we endeavoured to discover the beginning of these two Customs which is attended with a third amongst the Latins I mean that of Flowers which are used either in a way of Garlands or otherways unto the honour of the Sacrament particularly the day called the Holy or the Feast of God and nevertheless Athenagoras doth include under the same condemnation the use of Incense Leg. pro Christian of Odours and Flowers in the Service of God The Creator saith he and the Father of all things hath no want of Blood of Fat of Flowers nor of odoriferous Perfumes because he needeth nothing and is himself a very sweet Odour and desireth nothing out of himself and that the greatest Sacrifice which he requireth is That we should know him In the Dialogue of Minutius Foelix Pag. 10. ult ed. the Pagan Cecilius reproacheth ours That they do not Crown their Heads with Flowers and that they perfume not their Bodies with Odours Which Octavius the Advocate for the Christians doth not deny and he only replies That Christians do not disallow the use of Flowers Ibid. p. 30. yet it is in such a way as that they do not wear them upon their Heads Pardon us saith he pleasantly if we Crown not our Heads with Flowers we are wont to smell the Odour of them with the nose and not with the hinder part of the head nor with the hair Pedag. l. 2. c. 8. p. 179. It is whereunto amounts also what is said by Clement of Alexandria when he condemns the use of Flowers as fit only for Banquets and for Debauchery alledging even presently after these two or three words Adorn not my head with a Crown He is content we should enjoy the sweet smell of Flowers Ibid. p. 180. which are so plentiful in the Fields But to make a Crown of them to put them on the head Ibid. and to wear them as an Ornament about or in the house Ibid. p. 181. he cannot suffer it saying That doth not become a wise and sober person He adds That those which be crowned with Flowers do neither enjoy the beauty of them by the eyes nor the scent of them by the nose although that is their true and natural use He observes that it was but of late that the Luxury of the Greeks had invented this use of Crowns of Flowers Ibid. p. 182. from whence he concludes That the Disciples of Jesus Christ should abstain from them because they are consecrated unto Idols that they ought not to be used for Conscience sake and that the lively Image of God should not be crowned as dead Idols are crowned He saith moreover That it is not at all reasonable that those who have been taught that our Saviour was crowned with Thorns should have their heads crowned with Flowers Ibid. p. 183. by derision to insult over his venerable Passion In fine he observes That if in matter of Flowers something should be granted unto pleasure and civil Recreation Christians should satisfie themselves with the smell of Flowers but that they are not permitted to be crowned with them Tertullian is no less express than the rest nor no less severe in condemning these sorts of Crowns for answering the reproach made against Christians of not bringing any profit unto the Trade of the World and of the fault which was imputed unto them for not using Flowers Apolog c. 42. see here what he saith I buy no Flowers to make a Crown to go round my head What need you care what use it is that I make of the Flowers that I shall buy in the Market I fancy they are better when they are loose unbound and several without any order than to have them made up like a Crown when they are in that condition we are wont to put them unto the nose and to smell them Let them which wear them on their heads consider which is properest to smell them by the hair or by the Organ of smelling Id. de Cor. c. 2. And elsewhere he proposeth the practice of all Christians Not one of which saith he wears a Crown on their heads at least if they are not in danger of being thereby to be known that is to say when there is no danger of being known to be a Christian by refusing to wear a Crown and of being led unto punishment by Persecutors which might know them by this mark for then the Flesh being weak and frail many
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
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
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
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