the Armenian Tongue by Chrysostom at the beginning of the fifth Century as many do believe and we do find Theodoret to affirm that in his time the Armenians had a Translation of the Holy Scriptures in their Language now Theodoret flourished about 40 years after the death of the great Chrysostom Into that of the Dalmatians by S. Jerom who dyed in the year of our Lord 420. In the Arabick Tongue Anno. 717. by John Archbishop of Sevil in Spain In Saxon by King Alfred who reigned in England in the VIII Century as is affirmed by those who have transferr'd unto us Bede's Ecclesiastical History in Anglo-Saxon and in Latin in the Preface to the Reader and Bede himself translated the Gospel of S. John into the vulgar Tongue as is to be seen in his life partly written by himself and partly by one of his Disciples Into the Slavonian Tongue by Methodius in the IX Century And I do not think that ever any body amongst the Christians ever thought of condemning this wise conduct of the Church until the year 1228 that a certain Council of Tholouse Tom. 2. Spicil c. 4. p. â— 24. assembled against the Albigenses and Waldenses made this Decree We also forbid to give unto the Lay-people permission to have the Books of the Old and of the New Testament except that probably some for devotion sake desire to have the Psalter or the Breviary for the Divine Service or the blessed Virgins Prayer-Book neither are they to have these Books in the Vulgar Tongue But this Decree did not hinder but that James de Voragine Translated the Bible into Italian about the year 1290. Nicholas Orem into French under Charles the fifth called the wise Son of King John and Father of Charles the sixth and at the beginning of the XV. Century an anonymous Author made an Apology in England for the Translation of the Holy Scriptures into the Language of the Country Dâ— Christian Eccl. succes p. 81. as is related by Vsher Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of Ireland At this time saith that Author our Bishops burn the Law of God because it hath been translated into our Mother Tongue But in fine the Council of Trent Session the fourth Anno. 1546. doth sufficiently give to understand that they tacitly condemn all the Translations of the Holy Scriptures in the Vulgar Languages allowing only the Latin Translation It is true say the Protestants that whilst the use of the Latin Tongue subsisted in the West and that that Language was common and frequent unto the Nations of the Western Empire there were a great many Latin Translations of the Bible but when the use of that Language ceased it was necessary to translate it into other Languages for the edification of the people and Nations which there inhabited as it had been translated elsewhere into Greek and Syriack and generally into all Languages used by all the Nations in the World Now it is very difficult say they to imagine that care could be taken to make all these Versions in the Vulgar Tongues if at the same time the people had been obliged to serve God in an unknown Tongue Besides may a man say I would desire to know wherefore the Holy Fathers have so frequently and carefully recommended the reading of the Scriptures unto the people if it had not been translated into their Language It is credible yea certain that the exhortations which are to be found in the works of S. Jerom and S. Chrysostom only for injoining the reading of them would make a just Volume and what need so many exhortations to read it but only that by so doing People might learn to serve God after a right manner But we must make a stricter inquiry into the Celebration of the Eucharist and the whole Divine Service to know more particularly if it were performed as hath been said in a Language understood by the People All men will agree if I mistake not that Prayers Invocation and giving praises unto God are the essential parts of the Worship and Service of God now Origen in his excellent work against Celsus doth formally declare that every Nation did praise and pray unto God in their own Language Lib. 8. ult Edit p. 402. The Christians saith he answering unto an objection of Celsus even in their Prayers do not make use of the names attributed unto God in the Holy Scriptures but the Greeks make use of Greek words the Romans of Roman words each one praying unto God in their own Language and celebrate his praise as they are able and the glory of all Languages doth hearken unto those which pray unto him in what Language soever it be as easily understanding those which pray so differently unto him as if it were as may be said all one voice For the Great God is not like those which have but one Language committed unto them whether Greek or Barbarian and are ignorant of all others and care not for those which speak in other Languages Thence also is it that S. Gaudentius Bishop of Bress exhorts his Neophytes Tract 4. t. 2. Bibl. Pat. p. 20. Regul brevior q. â—78 t. 2. to attend diligently with him unto Prayer S. Basil making this demand to himself How the Spirit of any one should pray and that his understanding should receive no fruit he thus answers That is said of those which made Prayers in an unknown Tongue with regard to those which heard them for the Apostle saith if I pray in an unknown Tongue I pray in the Spirit or by the Spirit but my understanding profiteth not for when the words of Prayer are not known by those which are present then the understanding of him which prayeth is without fruit no body being the better for it but when those which are present understand a prayer which may be profitable for the hearers then he who prayeth hath the benefit of the progress of those which profit by the prayer it is the same at all times when the word of God is proposed for it is written that it might be profitable to the edifying of Faith De Catechis rudib c. 9. t. 4. S. Austin Care must be taken to warn those which come from Schools that being cloathed with Christian humility they should learn not to despise those which endeavour rather to shun evil actions than words c. by so doing they will not jeer if by chance they perceive that some Bishops or Ministers of the Church use some Barbarisms or Soloecisms in praying to God or that they be not aware or understand not the words they pronounce and that they deliver confusedly not but that these things should be amended to the end the people might say Amen unto what they plainly understand But because it may be tolerated in those which have learned that blessings are given by Prayers in the Church as one doth bless in the publick place with the sound of the voice De divin offic l.
remonstrances by the which in converting sinners God is pleased to become favourable and propitious unto them and in the Ninth Ib. Hem. 9. he doth not apply the duty and functions of the legal Sacrifices for offering Sacrifices but unto Believers who offer spiritual Sacrifices unto God Id. Hom. 17. in Jos And in another place making an antithesis and comparison of the Jewish Worship with the Christian he places the Altar and Sacrificer of the Christians in the Heavens without making mention of any other Altar Zeno of Verona having asserted Zeno Veron Hom. in Psal 49. there were three kinds of Sacrifices that of the Jews of the Gentiles and of Christians he understands the Sacrifice of the latter of that of Malachi and expounds it to be a Sacrifice of praise and of a spiritual Sacrifice of our own selves Greg. Nazian orat 1. Sacrifice saith he unto God a Sacrifice of thanksgiving and present your bodies a living Sacrifice well pleasing unto God Gregory Nazianzen could have no other meaning when he affirmed as an undoubted truth that the Sacrifice of praise and a contrite heart is the only Sacrifice which God requires of us And S. Ambrose doth he not say That under the Law there were Sacrifices for sins but that at present they be Sacrifices of Repentance Ambros Ep. 59. Therefore it is that the Authour of the Commentaries upon the Psalms inserted in S. Jerome's Works placeth no other Sacrifices Hieron in Ps 49 50.9â— instead of those of the Law but spiritual Sacrifices and the Oblation of our own selves but there is nothing to be found in the Writings of the Ancients neither more excellent nor richer upon this Subject than these excellent words of the admirable S. Chrysostome We have saith he our Sacrifice in Heaven Chrysost Hom. 11. in cap. 6. ad Hebr. our Priest and our Sacrifice let us offer such Sacrifices as may be offered in that Sanctuary not Sheep and Oxen not Blood and Fat as heretofore all these things are abolished and a reasonable service is brought in in their place and what is a reasonable service the things which proceed from the soul the things which come from the Mind God saith he is a Spirit and those who worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth things which have no need of a Body of Organs and of place as modesty Id. ibid. temperancee alms-deeds long-suffering patience and humility And a little after he adds That there be also other Oblations which are true Sacrifices to wit the bodies of holy Martyrs As to the second regard Origen considering the Sacrifice of the Cross and looking upon it as the Body the fulness and substance of all the typical and figurative Sacrifices of the Law he opposes it unto them as that only which they did represent and which was to be the only true Sacrifice of the Christian Religion for having observed Origen in Num. Hom. 17. That the venom of the Devil is expell'd by the Sacrifices offered unto God he adds that whilst the time admitted of it Sacrifice was opposed against Sacrifice but when the true Sacrifice and Lamb without spot came to take away the sins of the World those Sacrifices which were successively offered unto God then seemed needless seeing that by one only Sacrifice Chrysost in Joan. Hom. 17. the whole Worship of Devils was destroyed And S. Chrysostome having said That Jesus Christ taketh away the sins of the World without being often crucified gives this reason for saith he he offered one sole Sacrifice for sins but he alwayes cleanseth us by this sole Sacrifice Id. Hom. 13 in c. â— ad Hebr. And elsewhere When you are told that Jesus Christ is a Priest do not imagine that he alwayes doth the Function for he did it once and then sat down and rested And thereupon having observed That standing related unto the humiliation of our Lord and that as he continued not a Servant so also he continued not a Sacrificer He thus continues his Discourse That shews the greatness of the Sacrifice because it sufficed being but One and having been offered but once and a little after There is no other Sacrifice one alone hath cleansed us and without this Sacrifice saith he Hell fire could not be avoided Therefore the Apostle turns these words every way One Priest one Sacrifice fearing lest some thinking there were several should sin boldly and without fear S. Austin was of the same Judgment Aug. de Trinit l. 4. c. 13. seeing he taught That the Lord washed abolished and extinguished by his Death which is the sole only and true Sacrifice offered for us Id. contr advers leg l. 1. c. 18. all manner of sins and offences for the which we were justly held under the Empire of Principalities and Powers to be tormented for them that the Sacrifice of the Cross is the only Sacrifice whereof all the ancient Sacrifices were but shadows Idem contr Faust l. 20. c. 18. the sole only and true Sacrifice by which Jesus Christ shed his blood for us that the Sacrifice which David offered to the end God should forgive the sins of his people was but a shadow of that which was for to come to signifie that by one only Sacrifice which had been represented by the types of the Law God should spiritually provide for the salvation of his people for it is Jesus Christ himself who was given up saith the Apostle for our sins and which rose again for our Justification hence it is also that he saith that Christ our Passover is slain S. Prosper doth not come short of S. Austin when he makes this question Prosp in Ps 129. What else is the Propitiation but the Sacrifice and what the Sacrifice but the death of the Lamb which taketh away the sins of the World The Commentary upon the Epistle to the Hebrews attributed to Primasius but which we have already noted to be of Haymon of Alberstad or Remy of Auxerr doth frequently press the unity of the Sacrifice of the Cross without telling us that there is any other Primas in c. 5. Hebr. t. 1. Bibl. Pat. Id. inc 7. extr as upon the Fifth Chapter he seeks in Jesus Christ the accomplishment inasmuch as there is but once in all the Scriptures mention made of the Sacrifice of Melchisedeck and he finds it in that the Lord gave himself once to be sacrificed for us And in the same Treatise speaking of the Sacrifice which Jesus Christ offered for our sins he saith That he did it once and no more because he dyed once for our sins Id. in c. 10. and now dieth no more That the Apostle sheweth the great value of the Death of Christ in that it was but once and that it sufficeth to take away the sins of Believers for ever That Christ who is our Sacrifice was not offered a second time that it was done once and
were written the Books of Images which bear the name of this Emperor because in all likelihood they were written by his order rather than by his Pen. In one of these Books is censured the word Image or likeness as those of Nice had censured it in those of Constantinople I will not now examine if there was any thing of surprise in this Censure that is if it was done with an intent of directing it against Nice and not against those of Constantinople for although it is most certain that the principal design of the Council of Francfort was to oppose that of Nice against whom those of the West were no less incensed than those of Nice had been against them of Constantinople I will make no censure upon the matter not to give occasion unto any uncharitable Reader of censuring me It shall suffice to cite the words of the Book Carol. Magnus de imag l. 4. c. 14. that all the World may see what was the thoughts of the Author in censuring the word Image The Mystery saith he of the Body and Blood of Christ ought not now to be called Image but Verity not Shadow but Substance not the Type of things to come but what had been figured by Types the Day-light is already come and Shadows are gone away now Jesus Christ the end of the Law in righteousness unto all believers is come he hath already fulfilled the Law He that was in the valley of the shadow of Death hath seen a great Light already the Vail is fallen from the Face of Moses and the vail of the Temple which is rent hath discovered unto us all things that were hid and unknown now the true Melchisedek to wit Jesus Christ the righteous King the King of Peace hath bestowed upon us not the Sacrifices of Beasts but the Sacrament of his Body and Blood It is no hard matter to guess at the scope of these words and to see that they do not tend to the condemning the word Image taking it for a holy Sign instituted of God not only to signifie and represent but also effectually to communicate Jesus Christ unto our Souls dead for our sins their intent is only to reprove this term as it was taken for a legal Shadow or for a prefiguration of Christ to come therefore to shew that the Sacrament was not of the Nature of Types and Figures of the Law which did only represent without communicating the thing represented it is spoken in opposition unto the Sacrifices of Beasts that our Saviour hath left us not his Body but the Sacrament of his Body and of his Blood but a Sacrament so efficacious and Divine that the faithful Soul never participates of it but that it really and truly communicates of the thing it self whereas the Types of the Law did only prefigure it therefore it is that the Author said a little before Ibid. speaking of the Mystery of the Body and Blood of the Lord That believers do receive it every day in the Sacrament And in another Book he declares Lib. 2. c. 25. That it is the Mediator of God and Men which by the Ministry of the Priest and the Innovation of the name of God doth make the Sacrament of his Body and Blood which he hath left us for a Commemoration of his Death and of our Salvation And again The Apostle St. Paul Ibid. that chosen Vessel considering that the Body and Blood of our Lord should not only be equal unto all other Sacraments but also preferable unto any he saith Let every one examine himself and so let him eat of this Bread and drink of this Cup. He testifies That what is eaten at the Holy Table is Bread and in saying that the Sacrament of the Eucharist ought to be preferred almost before all others he shews plainly that he did not believe it was the very Body of our Saviour for these words would have been unworthy a Christian if they had been spoken of the proper Flesh of the Son of God But what need there any other explanation than that which is given us by Charlemain himself when writing unto Alcuin his Tutor De ration Septuages ad Alcuin he saith That our Saviour Supping with his Disciples broke Bread and also gave them the Cup for a Figure of his Body and Blood and gave them a great Sacrament for our profit Thus it is that several explain it But as to Alcuin let us see what he will furnish us for the better understanding the History of this Age and if the Tutor will accord with his Schollar I will not insist upon the Treatise of Divine Offices which go in his name because the Learned do confess that 't is not his it shall suffice to relate what is written by the late Andrew du Chesne the last of which hath set his hand unto the Edition of his works We do not saith he want sufficient conjectures to shew that this Treatise is not Alcuin's Gallia Braccata Andr. Quercetan praefat ad Alcuin c. 17. for the Author whoever it was doth testifie that he is of Gall Narboness and an ancient Copy by the help whereof we have recovered twelve whole Chapters Attributes the question of the Feasts of Saints tacked unto the 18th Chapter unto the Friar Elpris who according to Trythemius flourished in the year 1040. And in fine in this Treatise there is mention of the Institution of the Feast of All-Saints the first of November Nevertheless it is easily found by Sigebert and others that it was not begun to be celebrated that day in France and Germany till a good while after the Decease of Alcuin that is Anno 835. and Alcuin died Anno 804. Neither will I infist upon a Confession of Faith which Father Chifflet hath published in the name of the famous Alcuin because it is no less Fathered upon this excellent Master of Charlemain than the Book of Divine Offices And that it is most certain it was taken out of the Books of Anselm's Meditations and unadvisedly crowded into the Works of St. Austin Now Anselm lived towards the end of the XI Century and the beginning of the XII And I could easily here insert all the evident proofs of Forgery which the piece it self doth furnish but because it is so apparent a truth and that moreover I find it hath already been done I will proceed to the consideration of what is found in the genuine works of Alcuin touching the subject in hand In one of his Letters he saith of the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament that they be consecrated in Corpus Sanguinem Christi into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ But let us hear the Explication he gives unto us of these words in the same place Alcuin Ep. 59. The Sanctification saith he of this Mystery doth presage the effect of our Salvation The faithful people is understood by the Water and by the Grains of Wheat whereof the Flower is taken to
have insisted already had found something amiss in the Service of the Church of Lyons which so offended Agobard that he wrote a Book on purpose against the four Books of Amalarius touching Ecclesiastical things And he writes it with so high a resentment that Father Chifflet could have wished he had wrote with more moderation And that he had dipt his pen Ep. ad Baluzium Agobardo praefixa after the example of his Predecessors in the Blood of Jesus Christ the Lamb without spot truly meek and humble in Spirit It is then very probable that in the humour Agobard was against Amalarius he suffer'd nothing to pass unreproved except what he thought not fit to be censured and which he approved of himself And indeed by reading his Book it will plainly appear with what exactness he examines all that dropt from the Pen of his Adversary Now 't is most certain he censured not any of the passages which we alledged for proving that Amalarius was contrary to the Opinion of Paschas can it be believed this Man so full of anger and revenge and who wrote not his Book but to censure those of Amalarius and yet touched not any of the testimonies whereof we speak if the belief of Amalarius had not been the belief of the Church or if Agobard had not been of the same Opinion he was on the subject of the Eucharist how could it possible be but that he would have censur'd what Amalarius said How could he have slipt so fair an occasion to have discredited his Adversary as a Man that prevaricated from the belief of the Church upon one of the Capital Articles of our Religion but further he alledges these words of Amalarius which we before cited The Bread set upon the Altar represents the Body of our Saviour spread upon the Cross the Wine and Water in the Cup do shew the Sacraments which did flow from the side of our Saviour upon the Cross Agobard advers Annal. cap. 21. p. 119. but he doth not there apply one word of censure What can be inferr'd from this conduct but that they were both agreed upon this point Now if from the consideration of his silence we proceed to that of his words it is said we shall be confirmed in the belief of what hath been said for he testifies Ibid. c. 13. p. 115. That as there is but one Altar of the Church so also there is one bread of the Body of Jesus Christ and one sole Cup of his Blood He distinguisheth the Bread from the Body of Jesus Christ and the Cup from his Blood as he distinguisheth the Altar from the Church where it is Moreover he declares Ibid. That the Church consecrating by these words he speaks of all the words of Institution according to the Tradition of the Apostles the Mystery of the Body and Blood of our Lord he saith expresly that our Saviour said unto his Disciples Take and Eat you all of this Words which the Deacon Florus borrowed of him with those that follow as we observed not long ago to prove that what our Saviour commanded his Disciples to take and eat was Bread This is what was said of Agobard We have already mentioned in the 7th Chapter of this second Part an Assembly of Bishops of the Diocesses of Roan and of Rhemis at Cressy which furnished us with a Declaration of their belief but because they wrote in this same Century the History whereof we examine it is just that we should here insert their testimony David Blundel in his Exposition of the Eucharist said in Chap. 18. That he separated not from Ratramn and John surnamed Erigenius the greatest part of the Bishops assembled at Cressy anno 858. with out signifying the place where they had given marks of their belief therefore some have thought he had read it in some Manuscripts Nevertheless it is certain that he had a regard unto what we have alledged and unto what we will produce a second time yet in referring the Reader unto the 7th Chapter to ponder the occasion and the words which be these Concil Carisiac t. 3. Concil Gall. p. 129. Extr. It would be an abominable thing if the hand which makes by prayer and the sign of the Cross Bread and Wine mingled with Water the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ that it should after promotion unto Episcopacy meddle in any secular Oath whatever it did before Ordination The Chronicle of Mouson which is in one of the Tomes of the Collection of Dom Luke d'Achery makes mention of one Arnulph and represents him unto us as a Martyr He died as near as can be judged about the end of the IX Century And as he was at the point of death he said unto those that were present Favour me by your compassionate piety and help Chron. Mosomens t. 7. Spicil pag. 627. that I may receive from the hands of the Priests the Eucharist of the Communion of our Saviour He desires to receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist which truly communicates unto the faithful and penitent Soul Jesus Christ our Lord which he plainly distinguisheth from his Sacrament as the thing whereof we communicate from the Instrument by means whereby we do thereof participate He did not then believe with Paschas that the Eucharist was the real Flesh of Jesus Christ It is the Inference that many do make In the last Chapter of the first part we treated of the Custom of mingling the consecrated Wine with Ink and at the end of the 8th Chapter of the Second Part we shew'd the Inferences which is said are lawfully made from it But because of the Examples of this practice which we have alledged there is one of the Year 844. we will make no difficulty of joyning this Testimony unto the former yet it shall be only in the nature of a Historian which relates what passed at Tholouse betwixt King Charles the Bald and Bernard Count of Barcelonia whom this Prince had sent for under pretence of being reconciled unto him but indeed with design to kill him See here what the Historian saith Odo Ariâ—ertus inedit in notis Baluz ad Agobard pag. 129. The Peace having been concluded and interchangeably signed by the King and the Count with the Blood of the Eucharist Count Bernard came from Barcelonia unto Tholouse and cast himself at the King's feet in the Monastery of St. Saturnine near Tholouse The King taking him with the left hand as it were to lift him up he stabb'd his Dagger into his side with the other hand and cruelly murthered him not without being blamed for having violated Faith and Religion nor without suspition of Parricide because it was generally thought Charles was Son to Bernard also he resembled him very much about the mouth Nature publishing thereby the Mothers Adultery After so cruel a death the King descending from his Throne reeking in blood kicking the body with his foot said thus
Decission of Popes and their Councils in favour of the Doctrine of Paschas separated themselves openly from their Communion and gave their Reasons for so doing in a Book which they published to that purpose in the vulgar Tongue wherein they made this Declaration of their Faith touching the Eucharist Hist de Albigensis de Paul Perrin l. 3. c. 4. The eating of the Sacramental Bread is the eating of the Body of Jesus Christ figuratively Jesus Christ having said As often as you do this do it in remembrance of me This Book as is observed by him that inserted it wholly in his History of the Albigensis and the Waldensis was taken from a Manuscript wherein was contained several Sermons of the Barbes so it was that those people called their Pastors it is dated in the Year 1120. which I find nothing strange when I consider that in the Year 1119. Pope Calixtus the Second assembled a Council at Tholouse in his own presence wherein certain Hereticks were condemned who rejected the Sacrament of the Eucharist that is to say which in all likelihood did not believe what the Latin Church believed We are obliged for the Canons of this Council unto Monsieur Baluze who hath inserted them wholly in a Book of Monsieur de Marca's touching the Liberties of the Gallican Church In the third of these Canons this Ordinance is made Apud Marc. de Concord l. 8. c. 18. p. 344. We expel out of the Church as Hereticks and condemn those who making a shew of piety do not approve the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Lord c. We command all Secular Powers to punish them and we bind with the same Bond of Excommunication those which shall protect them until such time as they shall repent This Canon as far as I see concerns only these Albigensis who not approving the Doctrine of the Latin Church upon the point of the Eucharist separated themselves from their Communion after it had condemned the Doctrine taught by Berengarius and established that of Paschas in the XI Century although it had not admitted thereof before And what confirms me in this Opinion is what I find in the Chronicle of St. Tron in the Country of Liege touching Radolph Abbot of that Monastery and besides Author of the Chronicle viz. That being gone to Rome in Pope Honorius the Second his time who was advanced to this Dignity in the Year 1125. and held the Chair five years he had a design to travel into another Country which he doth not name but that he was informed that it was infected with the Heresie of the Sacramentarians that is to say the Doctrine which was condemned in the person of Berengarius It adds Moreover Tom. 7. Spicil d'Ach. p. 493. he understood that the Country towards which he had a design to travel in going farther it was infected with the old Heresie of the Body and Blood of our Lord. This Radolph was Abbot of Tron Anno 1108. and he wrote his Chronicle about the Year 1125. There was then at that time a Country wherein Profession was made of a Belief contrary unto that of the Latin Church in the point of the Sacrament and because this Abbot had received and approved the Decisions of Leo Victor Nicholas and of Gregory against Berengarius and against his Doctrine he calls the other Opinion Heresie and not only Heresie but the old Heresie this is the very term he useth which sheweth that the Belief which he condemns was no new Invention according to the Judgment of this Author but that it had of a long time been much spoken of and that it was publickly professed by great numbers of people especially in the Country mentioned by him which in all probability was the Country of Languedock wherein the followers of Berengarius spread and published abroad his Doctrine immediately after his death not valuing the Prohibitions and Decrees of the Councils of Verceil of Rome and of Tours On the contrary seeing they authorized and passed into an Article of Faith an Opinion which they esteemed to be Novel and contrary unto the ancient Doctrine of Christians they separated and broke off from the Latin Church in whose Communion they had lived till that time These people had for their chief Conducter Peter de Bruis who after having defended and maintained this Faith and Doctrine having preached and published it for the space of twenty years in Languedock in Gascoygne and elsewhere was at last Martyred and burnt at St. Giles in Languedock by the care and diligence of the Latin Church preferring rather to suffer death and to seal with his Blood the Doctrine which he had taught and which infinite numbers of people openly professed than to return unto the Communion which he had forsaken After Peter de Bruis succeeded Henry who with some others defended the Faith of these Churches which after his Name were called Henritians as they had been also called Petrobusians from the Name of his Predecessor It is true that those which had caused Peter de Bruis to be burnt found means also to suppress Henry by Order of Pope Eugenius for Cardinal Alberick Vita S. Bernardi l. 3. c. 5. Bishop of Osty his Legat having got him into his power order'd matters so that he was never heard of after neither could it be heard of what manner of death he died but we know very well that Pope Eugenius being informed of the great progress made by Henry after the death of Peter de Bruis whose Martyrdom did only increase and heighten his Zeal for the Defence of the Faith we know I say that the Pope sent Alberick his Legat who with Gaufrid Bishop of Chartres St. Bernard Abbot of Clervaux who was at that time in great esteem with some others Baron ad An. 1147. who went towards Tholouse to pluck up these Thorns as Cardinal Baronius saith St. Bernard wrote beforehand unto Alphonsus Count of St. Giles in Languedock who favoured Henry with his Protection notwithstanding the violent death which Peter de Bruis had suffered Bernard Ep. 240. In this Letter St. Bernard saith several things against the Doctrine and the Conversation of Henry who from a Friar that he was had embraced the Opinion and Party of Peter his Colleague less modest therein than Peter de Cluny his Contemporary and also a great Enemy of the Albigensis Contr. Petrobrus against whom he wrote under the name of Petrobusians for he declares that he will suspend his Judgment of what was reported of Henry until he was more certainly informed of it So that I cannot tell if it might not be applied unto St. Bernard In Frideric l. 1. c. 47. in this occasion what was said by Otto de Frisinge That by a mildness which was natural unto him he became in a manner over credulous In fine St. Bernard being come to Tholouse Vita Bernard l. 3. c. 5 6. he bestirred himself with much
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
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
potest t. 5. p. 125 6. We must not saith he look only upon the Terms but the Scope of him that speaks the cause and occasion of his Discourse and comparing all together find out the sense and meaning of what is therein contained Nevertheless it must be noted this Rule hath its particular use when the Expressions are doubtful and difficult and when by staying at the Terms and following the rigour of the Letter a convenient Sense cannot be given unto what is said or heard except in such a case nothing hinders but looking unto the scope of him that speaks stress may be laid on his Words and much light taken from his Expressions Thus have the Holy Fathers proceeded in examining the Words used by our Saviour in instituting the Sacrament because all they have told us hitherto are only so many Reflections which they have made upon the Words and Expressions of this Merciful Saviour but because they were verily persuaded that Jesus Christ which is Wisdom it self had an end in instituting this Divine Mystery they would know the end and design which he proposed in leaving this precious earnest of his Love unto his Church Do this saith our Lord in remembrance of me for as often as ye eat this Bread and drink of this Cup saith St. Paul you shew the Lord's Death till he come From whence they concluded that the Intention of Jesus Christ in instituting the Sacrament and that of the Church in celebrating it by his Command was by this means to preserve amongst Christians the remembrance of his Death and Sufferings but because his Death doth suppose his Incarnation and Birth and that moreover his blessed Resurrection and Exaltation into Glory ensued thereupon I find they have included in this Commemoration commanded us by Christ the consideration of his Incarnation bitter Death of his Resurrection and of his Ascension into Heaven According to which some of them join unto the consideration of his Death that of his Incarnation as St. Justin Martyr which saith Just Martyr contra Tryph. p. 296. That the Lord commanded us to make the Bread of the Eucharist in remembrance that he made himself Man for those which believe in him and for whom he made himself Mortal and the Cup in remembrance of his Blood But sometimes also considering the Death of Christ as the end of his Conception and of his Birth because he took not our Nature and was born of a Virgin but to die they are content to consider the Sacrament as a Memorial of his Death only Id. ibid. p. 259. In this regard the same St. Justin said That Jesus Christ commanded us to make the Bread of the Sacrament in remembrance of the Death which he suffered for the Souls of those which have been cleansed from all Malice This was also the meaning of Tatian his Disciple Tat. Diates t. 7. Bibl. Pat. when he said The Lord commanded his Disciples to eat the Bread and drink the Cup of the Sacrament because it was the memorial of his approaching Affliction and of his Death There were others who making this Reflection in themselves that the Death of Christ would be of no benefit unto us without his Resurrection which assures us of his Victory over the Enemies of our Salvation and of the Eternal Father's accepting of the Satisfaction he made unto his Justice in our stead and in consideration whereof he delivers us from the Slavery of Sin and the Devil have considered the celebration of the Sacrament as the commemoration of his Death and Resurrection Such was the Reflection of St. Basil Basil de Bapt. c. 2. p. 581. when he observed that What we eat and drink to wit of the Bread and Wine it is to the end we should always remember him who died and is risen again for us Others in fine considering that Jesus Christ was ascended into Heaven and that he had left us the Sacrament as a pledg of his Presence to comfort us in expectation of his glorious Return they thought the consideration of his Death ought not to be separated from that of his Ascension and that as they should think of his Humiliation and Sufferings they should also think of his Exaltation and Glory This was in all likelihood the meaning of St. Gaudent tr 2. l. 2. Bibl. Patr. Gaudentius when he taught That the Sacrament is our Viaticum or Provision for our Journey whereby we are strengthned in the Way until by departing out of this Life we go to him that it is an earnest of his Presence and the portract of his Passion until he come again from Heaven but an earnest and a resemblance which he will have us take in our Hands and receive with the Mouth and Heart to the end we may have engraven in our Memories the great Benefit of our Redemption To thus much also amounts what is said by the Author of the Commentaries In Cap. 11.1 ad Cor. attributed unto St. Jerome That Jesus Christ hath left us the last Commemoration or the last Remembrance as if one taking a Voyage into a far Country would leave a Token with his Friend to the end that when-ever he look'd on it he should be mindful of his Love and Kindness which he cannot do without shedding Tears if he perfectly loved him and that he gave us this Sacrament to the end that by this means we should always remember the Death which he suffered for us Sedulius hath only transcribed this Testimony in his Commentaries upon the same Epistle and upon the same Chapter Primatius an African Bishop declares in the VIth Century that it was his Judgment and he explained himself almost as the other two had done and Christian Druthmer will say the same in the IXth Century as for the Author of the Apostolical Constitutions Constit Apost l. 8. c. 12. he hath joined all these considerations together For he will have us to remember his Passion his Death Resurrection 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 every one according to his Works The same thing is to be read in the Liturgy of St. Mark and what is found in that which the Latins use at present comes very near it But the Fathers rest not there for I have observ'd that when they speak of the Eucharist as of a Pledge and Memorial they set it in opposition not only of the Truth but even also of the Truth absent so it hath been understood by Gaudentius Sedulius Primasius the Author of the Commentaries attributed unto St. Jerome in the Passages we have alledged whereunto may be joined these Words of the latter In 1 ad Cor. Cap. 11. That we have need of this Memorial all the time which shall continue until he be pleased to come again It is in the same sense Theodoret said Theodoret in 1 ad Cor. c.
Eutychians could not have admitted without pulling down with one Hand what they built with the other that is to say without destroying what they taught that Jesus Christ had not a true Body But to the end no scruple may rest hereupon in the Mind of the Reader let us hear this Dialogue of Theodoret with an Eutychian Heret Theod. dial 2. p. 84 85. t. 4. It is very well that you have begun the Discourse of Divine Mysteries for thereby I will shew you that the Body of Jesus Christ is changed into another Nature answer then to the Question which I shall propose Orthod I will answer Heret What do you call before the Priestly Invocation the thing which is offered Orthod We must not speak openly fearing we may be heard by Persons not initiated Heret Answer obscurely Orthod I call it a Food made of certain Grains Heret And how is the other Symbol called Orthod It is commonly called by a Name that designs a certain sort of Liquor Heret But after Consecration what call you them Orthod The Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Heret And do you believe you receive the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Orthod I do believe it Heret As then the Symbols of the Body and Blood of Christ are one thing before the Priestly Invocation but after Consecration are changed and made another thing so in like manner the Body of Christ was changed into a Divine Substance after his Ascension Orthod You are taken in your own Net which you laid for the Mystical Symbols do not change their Nature after Consecration but they remain in their first Substance in their first Figure and in their first Form they are visible and palpable such as they were before but they are apprehended to be what they are made and they are believed and are worshipped to be what they are believed to be Compare now this Image with its Original and you shall see the resemblance which is betwixt them for the Figure ought to resemble the Original The Body of Jesus Christ keepeth his first Form his first Figure and his first Circumscription and in a word it hath the substance of a Body but after the Resurrection it was made immortal and incorruptible it is sitting on the right Hand of God and all Creatures do adore it because it is called the Lord of Nature Heret But the Mystical Symbol doth change its former Name for it is no longer called what it was before but it is called the Body of Jesus Christ whence it follows that the Truth which answers the Sign should be called God and not Body Orthod It seems to me you are in Darkness for the Symbol is not only called Body but Bread of Life the Lord himself calleth it so and as for the Body it self we call it a Divine Body a quickning Body the Body of our Lord meaning thereby that it is not the Body of an Ordinary Person but the Body of Jesus Christ our Lord which is God and Man This Discourse being written as it were with a Sun-Beam to use Tertullian's Expression hath no need of Explication Therefore we will here put an end to the proofs of the belief of the Holy Fathers to proceed to the Inquiry into the Changes arrived first in the Expressions and then afterwards in the Doctrine it self CHAP. XI Of the change which came to pass in the Expressions or the History of the Seventh Century ALthough Custom in Speech be a very capricious Master and exerciseth over the words which are subject unto its Tyrannical Government an absolute Authority rejecting or using them at pleasure or rather after its wild Fancy Nevertheless there are certain expressions so confirmed by long use and so particularly adapted to signifie certain things that they cannot be Abolished without disturbing the Commerce and Society of Men and without forgetting by degrees and insensibly the Nature of those things for the representation whereof they were designed If this may befall in things of Civil Society much more is it to be feared in things of a Religious Nature because for the most part the consequences and effects are more fatal and dangerous therefore it was the Ancient Christians were so careful of exactly retaining certain terms and manner of Expressions which had been as 't were consecrated in the Church and which could not be changed without opening the Door unto some alteration in the Doctrine so certain it is that we must not remove the bounds which our Fore-fathers have set It is upon this ground and motive that it was said throughout the whole extent of Ecclesiastical Antiquity for above the space of six hundred years That the Eucharist was the Sacrament the Sign the Symbole the Image the Figure the Type the Antitype the Similitude and the Representation of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ it never being seen in so considerable a space of time in that vast and spacious Empire that there was any body that offered to question Expressions that were so well Established and moreover so constantly and universally received as they were Nevertheless in the Seventh Century there was sprung up in Mount Sinai a certain Friar called Anastatius which rashly passing over the Bounds that in this regard had been observed rejected the term of Sign or Figure which was commonly used until his time But not to confound this Anastatius with others of the same name which had been Patriarchs of Antioch and also to discover the Age wherein he lived it must be noted that himself observes that being at Alexandria he was told Annestat Sin in c. 10. that a good while after the Death of the Patriarch Eulogius there was in that City an Augustal Prefect which favoured the party of the Severian Hereticks and who to this effect had contributed in corrupting the Writings of the Ancients Now Eulogius dyed by every bodies confession in the year of our Lord 608. This was not told unto Anastatius until a considerable time had past after the death of Eulogius let us say it may be about 20 or 22 years which is the least can be allowed Anastatius then could not be informed of this matter till the year 630. and he could be neither of the two Anastatiuses that were Patriarchs of Antioch Ibid. seeing the last was murdered by the Jews in the year 608. Besides he writes that being at Alexandria there arose a question touching some words of St. Chrysostom which had been Bishop of the same place after his Uncle Theophilus which had been corrupted and altered and that then one Isidor Library Keeper and truly Orthodox produc'd a Copy an Exemplification of the Writings of St. Cyril which had not been adulterated which sheweth that in all likelihood the Patriarch was Orthodox for if he had been an Eutychian he would not have tolerated a Library Keeper that had been Orthodox and an Enemy to his Belief therefore it may be concluded if I be not
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 on the contrary it serves to justifie them and to make the reproaches which they have been charged with to pass for malicious slanders I will not here insist upon their taxing the same Albigensis and Waldensis of denying Marriage because besides their positive Declaration on this matter their very Enemies confess that they do even condemn the abuse and intemperance of Marriage so it is that Reynerus their persecutor speaks who had often assisted at their Examinations Cap. 5. They condemn Marriage saith he in saying that married persons sin mortally if they marry without hopes of begetting Children Coussard also makes this remark They say that Marriage is sworn Adultery Coussard fol. 60. if it be not accompanied with Continency that is to say if the bounds of reasonable moderation and natural usodesty be not observed Wherefore then may it be asked were the Albegensis and Waldensis accused by some of being Manicheans for what appearance is there that they should have been accused of this cursed Heresie if they had been no way guilty of it Unto this the Protestants which undertake to defend their Innocency will not fail to answer that it happened unto them as it did unto the primitive Christians who were charged with grievous crimes and unheard of wickednesses although the World was never blessed with more pure and innocent Souls The thing appears sufficiently by the testimonies of their very Enemies who were constrained to confess they were neither Manicheans nor Arians but only Adversaries of the Doctrine and Worship of the Latins and so their Innocency it self is sufficiently vindicated if it were so that we could not discover the motive of these Accusations Nevertheless it is very probable they were induced to lay these Accusations unto their charge because there was in their time in France and elsewhere in the West great numbers of Manicheans Catharians Arians and other Hereticks so that inhabiting many times in the same places some through ignorance as the common people and others through Malice as the Doctors made no difficulty of charging them with the Impieties of these Hereticks who lived at the same time and in the same places And it was so much the easier to make the people believe it in seeing these Hereticks to be opposite unto the Latin Church as well as the Albigensis and Waldensis although by very different motives that they easily thought they had been all united together against her and by consequence of the same Belief and of the same Opinion It is true that the same Authors which wrote against the Albigensis and the Waldensis whom we have already mentioned wrote also against the Catharians Manicheans Arians and other Hereticks which sheweth that there were considerable numbers of them at the time that they wrote against the Waldensis And as for the Catharians and Manicheans in particular we cannot doubt but that Italy France and Germany was infected with them Ad An. 10 22. after what several Historians have written Nicholas Vignier reports in his Ecclesiastical History the Testimony of a certain Author who writes that these Catharians or Manicheans had passed from Bulgaria and Slavonia into Italy and saith that they were very numerous in Lombardy from whence they passed afterwards into France Wherefore about the Year 1017. some of them were put to death at Orleans in the presence of King Robert and of Constance his Wife after Judgment being given by the Prelates assembled in that City for retrieving these miserable Creatures from their impieties but it was in vain for they therein persisted to the last gasp excepting one of them who was a Clergy-man of Orleans and a Nun which acknowledged their error but as for all the rest especially two Priests of the same City Stephen and Lisoius they were burnt alive which if my memory fail not is the first Execution unto death practised against Hereticks ever since what had been done against the Priscilianists in the days of St. Martin Bishop of Tours in the IV. Tom. 2. Spicil p. 670 671 c. Century Dom Luke d'Achery hath inserted in one of the Tomes of his Collections the Acts of this Synod of Orleans held against the Manicheans Several Historians make mention of this Execution and have observed that ten of the Prebends of the Church of Holy Cross of Orleans who seemed to have more piety than the rest were chiefly comprised in this Condemnation Tom. 2. Bibl. l'Abbe p. 180 181. Amongst others the Friar Ademar who wrote his Chronicle at that time and who besides these Manicheans at Orleans makes mention of several others which were discovered at Tholouse and he observes with other Authors that there were great numbers of them in several Countries in the West But I cannot tell but the knowledge of another Assembly convocated against the Manicheans is due unto Ademar Ibid. p. 184. for thus he speaks at the end of his Chronicle Of late Duke William assembled at Charrou a Council of Bishops and Abbots to suppress the Heresies which the Manicheans went dispersing about And Herman Contract writes upon the Year 1052. Hom. Domin 8 post Trinitat that the Emperor Henry caused several to be hang'd at Goslar And Radolphus Ardens at the end of the XI Century doth in his Sermons at Agen in Guyen vigorously pursue the Manicheans The Manicheans then to re-assume our History being in so great numbers in France in the time of the Albigensis and Waldensis these latter might through ignorance or malice be charged with the Errors of the former But having shewn what the Enemies of the Waldensis and Albigensis wrote of their Doctrine and what they themselves declared in their Confessions it will be requisite to say something of their Life and Manners If we enquire of Reynerus their Persecutor Cap. 7. he will informs us That they were to be known by their life and by their words because they were modest and civil in their manners without pride in their Apparel which was neither vile nor over-costly That to avoid lying swearing and fraud they gave not themselves much unto Merchandizing that they had no great desire of gathering much Wealth contenting themselves with things necessary that they were sober and chaste not frequenting Taverns not Dances nor other vanities of this nature that they suffered themselves not to be overcome with passion that they laboured continually and were always employed in teaching others or instructing themselves that they spoke but little and modestly that they would not suffer jesting nor sharp reflections avoiding indiscreet words censusuring lying and swearing And another Author without name which wrote against them whom the Jesuit Gretzer hath printed with Pilichdorfius testifies of their Teachers whom he calls Arch-Hereticks That they shewed them the good examlpes of Humility Liberality Chastity Sobriety of Peace Mildness and Charity Therefore others have left upon Record â—â—cob de Repiria in collâ—crand de urb â—olos Gaill de Podio â—aurent
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
Age And doth moreover observe that most of the English Prelates connived at what they taught so that being besides favoured by several persons of Quality they made open profession of their Faith so far as they affixed publickly upon the Doors of St. Paul's Church in London certain Theses which were no ways favourable to the Doctrine of the Latin Church nor to its Clergy At the same time there were several Waldensis at the Straits of the Alps which divide France and Italy as we are informed by 1 Contr. Vald. fol. 2. Claud de Cecill Arch-Bishop of Turin and of a Bull of Clement the Seventh granted at Avignion against them in the Year 2 His Bull is in the Chamber of Accounts at Grenoble 1380. and put in Execution by one Francis Borelli Inquisitor of the Order of preaching Friars who persecuted them cruelly for several years and put many of them to death I know not whether the University of Paris intended not to speak of the same Waldensis in the Letter which it directed unto Charles the Sixth in the Year 1394. 3 Tom. 6. Spicil p. 97. complaining amongst other things That the Hereticks which have already began to appear finding none to punish them do make great progress and not only scatter abroad ther pernitious Heresies publickly but also in private The XV. Century proved more fatal unto the Waldensis and Lollards in England for from the first year the Persecution was begun against them in pursuance of an Act of Parliament which gave power to put them to death if they recanted not their Religion as 4 In Hypodig Neustr ad an 1401. in Henrico IV. Walsingham doth testifie But notwithstanding all this they lost not their courage nor abandoned the Doctrine they had until then professed On the contrary the 5 In Henr. IV. same Historian observes that the year following they proposed several Thesis's but privately for fear of the punishment which had been appointed Theses which were nothing favourable unto the Doctrine of the Roman Church which renewed the Persecution against them during which several of them were burnt alive which this Friar saith was done in the Years 1410 1414 1417. even insulting after a most unchristian manner at the death of these people as did also Thomas Waldensis who speaking unto King Henry the Fifth doth mightily commend the continual punishments which was inflicted upon them In Prolog t. 2. doct 11. ad initium prologi saying That Prince proceeded according to the Command of Jesus Christ who nevertheless requires not Consciences to be forced but persuaded and whose Gospel is made up of love and of mildness But whilst these things were acting in England there was in Bohemia infinite numbers of people that made open profession of the same Doctrine for which the Lollards were persecuted in Great Britain for besides the Waldensis which had retired themselves thither a great while before by reason of the Persecution stirred up against them in Picardy as Dubravius Bishop of Olmuz informed us in the precedent Chapter At the beginning of this Century there was made in that Country a considerable Separation from the Roman Church according to the Testimony of the same Dubravius and of Eneas Silvius in their Histories of Bohemia 'T is true this Separation was not alike in all for some only desired the Restitution of the Cup unto the people being of accord in all other points with the Latins and those for this reason were called Calixtins but as for the others they disowned the same Doctrine of the Communion of the Latins which the Waldensis and Wickliffites had opposed and did still oppose and because as some alledge these latter joyned themselves unto the Waldensis which had been setled a long time in this Kingdom and used to assemble themselves in the Mountain of Tabor they were called Taborites as Dubravius hath observed But let us hear what this Prelate intends to say touching this Separation when having spoken of the Jubilee celebrated at Prague in the Year 1400. he adds Unto this time the Christian Religion Lib. 23. hist Bohem. which had been once received by the Bohemians with all the Ceremonies of the Apostolick See had continued stedfast in Bohemia in its purity but after that time it began to faulter and decline as soon as John Hus which in the Language of the Country signifies a Goose began to make a noise amongst the Swans and by his sound to conquer the sweetness of their singing by the assistance of a Faction which made it self considerable In fine the progress was so great that he writes That the Taborites so ordered matters Ibid. l. 24. that in the City of Prague there rested no sign of the ancient Catholick Religion Also the Friar Walsingham testifies that the Emperor Sigismond returned from Constance into his own Territories after the Council had elected Pope Martin the Fifth In Henr. IV. To employ all his strength to ruin the Enemies of Religion and the Heresie of the Lollards which were mightily increased in the Kingdom of Bohemia by the lukewarmness and support of his elder Brother Dubravius proceedeth farther for after the Coronation of Sigismond at Prague Ubi supra l. 26 he proposeth the Tenets of the Taborites but after a manner that is not exactly conformable unto their Confession of Faith by which nevertheless their Belief ought to be judged because it is in those publick Acts that for the most part is declared what is believed in matters of Religion And treating of Moravia upon the Year 1421. he observes that Country was not then infected with the Heresie of the Taborites but in that same year they began there to establish themselves Renewing saith he the ancient Error of the Picards that is to say of the Waldensis to wit that none ought to kneel unto the Sacrament of the Altar because the Body of Jesus Christ is not there having ascended up into Heaven both in Body and Soul and that there remains only the Bread and Wine I know very well that the Bishop of Olmuz chargeth them in the same place of teaching that the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist is such Bread and Wine as each particular amongst the people may take with their own hands that the hand of the Priest is no more worthy then that of a private Lay person And to vomit saith he other Blasphemies against the real Body of Jesus Christ But because the quite contrary doth appear by their Confession of Faith I know not whether it would be reasonable to admit of this Accusation coming from the Pen and hand of an Enemy Eneas Sylvius Cap. 35. who was afterwards Pope Pius the Second speaks of those people at large in his History of Bohemia he relates several things of them agreeing with the Doctrine of the Protestants but he also mentions other things which the Protestants do not approve the which in all probability were unjustly
from Holiness to Holiness But if the holy Fathers considered the Eucharist as an Image of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ they have also more especially considered it as the Memorial of his Death and Sufferings That was it which was designed by St. Justin Martyr when he said That Jesus Christ commanded us to make the Bread of the Eucharist in remembrance of the death which he suffered for those Contr. Tryph. p. 259. whose Souls are cleansed from all sin And Tatian who had been at the School of this excellent Master Diatess t. 7. Bibl. Pat. observes That the Lord commanded his Apostles to eat the Bread and drink the Eucharist because it was the Memorial of his approaching Suffering and Death It was also in the same Contemplation that St. Austin spake 1 L. 83. quaest q. 61. Of celebrating the Image of his Sacrifice in remembrance of his Passion 2 Id. contr Faust l. 20. c. 21. of celebrating the Sacrifice of our Saviour by a Sacrament of remembrance and 3 Id. l. 3. de Trinit c. 4. De fide ad Petr. c. 19. to receive the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist in remembrance of the death which he suffered for us It is the constant Doctrine of the ancient Doctors of the Church of Eusebius St. Chrysostom Theodoret of Eulogius Patriarch of Alexandria and others particularly of St. Fulgentius who speaking of the Eucharist said That it is the Commemoration of the Flesh which Jesus Christ offered and of the Blood which he shed for us This Remembrance brings into our minds divers Ideas which do all contribute unto the sanctifying of the Communicant In the first place an Idea of the strict Justice of God who not being able to pardon us without first receiving a satisfaction chose rather to abandon his own Son unto the most bitter and sharpest of all torments and unto the most shameful death than to see us perish eternally Therefore the Apostle saith That God appointed him from all Eternity Rom. 3. to be a Propitiation by Faith in his Blood thereby to declare his Righteousness that is to say according to the Interpretation of Origen That God in the fulness of time In Rom. 3. and in these last Ages hath shewed his Justice and hath given for a Saviour him which he had appointed to make a Pripitiation for our Offences for God saith he is just and being just he could not justifie Sinners therefore he would have the Redeemer to interpose to the end that those which could not be justified by their own Works might be saved by believing in his Name Secondly The Idea of our sins which had rendred us Slaves unto the Devil and unto Death In Ps 95. for Mankind saith St. Austin was held Captive under Satan and were subject unto Devils And that of the goodness of God and of his great love towards men John 3. For he so loved the World that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believed in him should not perish but should have eternal Life Whence it is that St. Bernard said That he gave him unto us Serm. 1. de advent Domin because his compassion is great his mercies are many in number and his love is abundant It was the Humiliation of Jesus Christ and the exceeding greatness of his Love which moved him to die for us It was the thought of St. Austin when he said Con. duas Epist Pelag. l. 4. c. 4. Jesus Christ was pleased to undergo death for us that is to say the punishment of sin without sin for as he only was made the Son of Man to the end that we should become the Children of God so also he alone suffered the punishment for us not having deserved it to the end that by him we should obtain forgiveness without having deserved it because that as we deserved no good so also he on his part merited no evil he bare our punishment not being guilty thereby to cancil our Obligation and to put an end unto our punishment In fine the Remembrance whereof we speak represents unto us the infinite price of his Blood for our Redemption Euseb demonstrat l. 1. For it is this great and inestimable price saith an ancient Bishop which according to the testimony of the Prophets was to redeem the Jews and the Gentiles this Sacrifice for the whole World this Offering for the Souls of all Mankind this pure Hostage for all Sins this Lamb of God of whom the Prophets have said so many things and by whose divine and mystical Doctrine we all which were Gentiles have found forgiveness of sins and all those amongst the Jews which have hoped in his Name deliverance from the Malediction of the Law All these Considerations create in our Souls a holy and religious dread of offending a God whose Justice is so severe and whose tender mercies also are so great a God who being of right our Judge chose rather to become our Father and to save us by his Grace when he might justly have punished us in his Anger a mortal and irreconcilable hatred against all sin and wickedness a firm resolution of warring against it and never to lay down Arms until we have overcome it a true and hearty reliance of flying unto the merciful Throne of our Saviour an ardent Zeal for his Glory an absolute renouncing of the World and of our own selves to the end not to live but unto him only seeing he hath so lovingly shed his Blood for our Salvation and for a fulness of felicity so ardent a love for this blessed Redeemer that each faithful Communicant may say in that blessed moment with the Spouse I am my Beloveds and my Beloved is mine Moreover the same holy Doctors of the Church have contemplated the Sacrament as a Memorial of the blessed Resurrection Basil de Bapt. cap. 3. p. 581. saying that we participate thereof To put us always in remembrance of him which is risen again for us This Remembrance assures us that the object of our hope of our confidence and of our faith Rom. 1. is not Man only but that he is God also for he was declared to be the Son of God by the Resurrection from the Dead He assureth us that his Satisfaction was accepted of his Father for our discharge and that it had the vertue and power to appease his wrath and to reconcile us unto him From thence it is that the Apostle saith not only Rom. 4. That he was delivered for our sins but also That he rose again for our Justification And in fine he assures us that this Resurrection which justifies us before God should shew its efficacy in the death of our Old Man and in the crucifying the Flesh and the Lusts thereof Rom. 6. For we are buried together with him in his death by Baptism that as Jesus Christ is raised from the dead by the glory of the Father so also we should walk