entire in each portion of the things divided These words can receive no good sense but by understanding them of the Sacrament that is to say of the Bread which is broken in pieces as to its matter and substance but that remains whole and intire as to the vertue of the Sacrament which made the great St. Basil say Basil Ep. 289. t. 3. That to receive one part or several at ae time is the same thing as to its virtue Moreover German will have us consider Jesus Christ as dead in the Sacrament and as pouring forth his precious blood for the Salvation of mankind when he saith Id. Germ. ib. p. 407 409 410. That the Elevation of the precious body represents the Elevation in the Cross the Death of our Lord on the Cross and his Resurrection also That the Priest receiving the Bread alone without the Blood and the Blood also without the Body signifies nothing else but that the Divine Lamb is yet all bloody and that we eat the Bread and drink the Cup as the Flesh and Blood of the Son of God confessing his Death and Resurrection And clearer yet in these words where speaking of the holy Bread which he distinguisheth from Jesus Christ he saith Ibid p. 408. That it is the only Bread wherein is figured and represented the Divine and all-healing Death of him which was Sacrificed for the Lafe of the World because it is the only Divine Bread which is Sacrificed and Offered as the Lamb but as for the other Divine Gifts they be not cut in the form of a Cross with the Knife but they are put in pieces as the members and parts of the body It is the true Commentary of what he saith in the same Treatise That Jesus Christ is always sacrificed because he is so not in himself for that cannot be by the confession of all Christians but in the Sacrament the Celebration whereof doth lively represent unto us the imolation of Jesus Christ upon the Cross Ibid. p. 408. Add unto this that he declares That Jesus Christ drank Wine in his Sacrament as he did after his Resurrection not through necessity but to perswade his Disciples of the truth of his Resurrection And that he desires at the instant of communicating we should lift up our thoughts from Earth unto the King which is in Heaven Now let it be judged after all these declarations what the change can be which he saith is passed upon the Bread and Wine by Consecration if he meant a change of substance or only of use and condition for the former seems unto Protestants to be inconsistent with the Explanations which he hath given us whereas the latter doth not ill accord with it in all appearance German saith That Jesus Christ is seen and felt in the Eucharist but he positively affirms that it is done in his Sacrament that is to say that he is seen and touched inasmuch as the Sacrament is seen and felt which doth represent him Ibid. p. 401. Our Saviour saith he is seen and suffers himself to be touched by means of the ever to be revered and sacred Mysteries I will not insist upon what is said by this Patriarch That the Bread and Wine offered by Believers for the Communion do in some sort become upon the Table of proposition which amongst the Greeks is different from that where the Consecration of the Divine Symbols are made I say they become in some sort the Images and Figures of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ because it is a frivolous conceit and with reason rejected by Roman Catholicks and Protestants But let us lay aside the Patriarch German and prosecute the History of the VIII Century in the same City where German was Patriarch the Metropolis of the Eastern Empire Constantine the 6th commonly surnamed Copronymas Son of the Emperor Leo the third called Isaurus assembled a Council of 338 Bishops Anno 754. The Assembly held full six months during which they quite abolished the Worshipping of Images and by the way Concil Constantinop in Act. Concil Nicaen 2. t. 5. Concil p. 756. clearing up the Doctrine of the Church upon the point of the Sacrament to draw a proof against the same Images they had condemned they left unto us for a Monument of their belief this following testimony Let those rejoyce which with a most pure heart make the true Image of Jesus Christ which desire which venerate and which do offer it for the Salvation of body and soul the which Jesus Christ gave unto his Disciples in Figure and Commemoration And having repeated the words of Institution they add That no other Species under Heaven was made choice of by him nor any other Type that could represent his Incarnation That it is the Image of his quickning body which was honourably and gloriously made That as Jesus Christ took the matter or humane substance in like manner he hath commanded us to offer for his Image a matter chosen that is to say the substance of bread not having any humane Form or Figure fearing lest Idolatry may get in As then say they the Natural Body of Jesus Christ is holy because it is Deified It is also evident that his Body by Institution that is to say his holy Image is rendred Divine by Sanctification of Grace for it is what our Saviour intended to do when by virtue of the Union he Deified the Flesh he had taken by a Sanctification proper unto himself so also he would that the bread of the Sacrament as being the true Figure of his Natural body should be made a Divine Body by the coming of the Holy Ghost the Priest which makes the Oblation intervening to make it holy whereas it was common therefore the Natural body of our Lord endowed with Soul and Understanding was anointed by the Holy Ghost being united unto the Godhead so also his Image to wit the holy bread is filled with the Cup of enlivening Blood which flowed out of his side What renders this testimony the more considerable and worthy to be credited is That these Fathers which represented all the Eastern Church or at least the greatest part of it were assembled about the matter of Images and not about the subject of the Sacrament for had they been assembled upon the point of the Sacrament it may be some uncharitable person might suspect them of pre-occupation or of design but having been assembled upon a very different subject of necessity it must be granted that it is by the by that they inform us of the common and general Opinion and Belief of Christians They would draw from the Eucharist an argument against the use and Worship of Images and to do it the better they were obliged to unfold unto us the Nature of the Sacrament and they explain it in saying That it is the substance of Bread that it is no deceiving Figure of his Natural Body and as they say a little before a Type
't is very uncertain whose the Sermon is the words whereof we intend to cite They are consecrated by the invocation of Almighty God De Pasch Hom. 5. Lib. 9. p. 405. and in the same Sermon he attributes it unto sanctification The Sanctification saith he being pronounced he saith Take and drink Facundus of Hermiane The Lord called his Body and Blood the Bread which he had blessed and the Cup which he gave unto his Disciples Gregory the first Bishop of Rome Epist l. 7. What we say of the Lords Prayer presently after invocation it is because the Apostles were wont to consecrate the host of the Oblation Epist 63. by that Prayer only Which some have observed after him that have written of Ecclesiastical Offices as Amalarius Lib. 4. Cap. 26. Walafridus Strabo cap. 20 and Berno cap. 1. Isidore of Sevill De Eccles offic l. 1. c. 15. St. Peter first of all instituted the order of Prayers by the which are consecrated the Sacrifices offered unto God And elsewhere it is called a Sacrifice as a holy action because it is consecrated by mystical Prayer in remembrance of the passion which our Lord suffered for us The Books of Charlemain touching Images The Sacrament of the Body and blood of our Lord c. is consecrated by the Priest by the invocation of the name of God De Instit Cler. l. 1. c. 32. Rabanus Maurus The Lord first of all consecrated by Prayers and Thanksgiving the Sacraments of his Body and Blood and gave them unto his Disciples which his Apostles imitating practised afterwards and taught their Successors to do so likewise which the whole Church doth now practise all the World over Ibid. c. 33. And again As the Body of Jesus Christ was embalmed with sweet Spices was duely put into a new Sepulchre so in like manner in his Church his mystical Body being prepared with the perfumes of Holy Prayer it is administred in sacred Vessels by the Ministry of Priests Serm. 11 t. 4. Bibl. Patr. part 2. to the end Believers might receive it Egberâ— against the Cathari in the XII Century seems also to refer the Consecration unto the Benediction although his Doctrine is quite different from that of Rabanus Had we no other testimonies but these above-mentioned and which are frequently alledged they were doubtless sufficient to prove that in the Primitive Church the Consecration of the Symbols of the Eucharist was performed by Prayers and giving of Thanks but because the thing is of great importance the Reader will not be displeased if I joyn the following testimonies unto the former To begin with St. Fulgentius who in the Fragments of his Books against Fabian saith Ex libro 8. p. 202. You have imagined touching the Prayer by the which at the time of Sacrifice the Descent of the Holy Ghost is implored that it would seem to imply that he is locally present and a little after The Holy Spirit doth sanctifie the Sacrifice and Baptism by his Divine Vertue Macarius Bishop of Antioch in the eighth Act of the VI. general Council We saith he Tom. 5. Concil p. 99. E. draw near unto the mystical Blessings and are sanctified being made partakers of the holy Body and of the precious blood of Jesus Christ the Saviour of all The XVI Council of Toledo assembled Anno. 693. saith Can. 6. t. 5. Concil p. 430. C. That the Apostle taught us to take a whole loaf and to put it upon the Table or Altar to be blessed And again Our assembly hath appointed by a general consent that there should be presented at the Lords Table an intire and good loaf to be consecrated by the Ministerial benediction A Council of Constantinople composed of 338. Bishops assembled Anno. 754. said That the Lord would that the Bread of the Eucharist Act 6. Concil 2. Niceni t. 5. Concil p. 756. as a true figure or image of his natural Body being sanctified by the coming of the Holy Ghost did become his Divine Body and would you know how The Priest which makes the Oblation say the Fathers interposing to make it Holy whereas it was common to wit by his Prayers whereby he begs of God the presence of the Holy Ghost George Pachimer In Epist 9. t. 1. p. 290. Paraphraser of the pretended Denys the Areopagite declares That the mysteries are consecrated upon the Holy Table by Blessing the Bread and the Holy Cup. In the antient Formularies of an uncertain Author published by the late Monsieur Bignon C. 8. p. 121. ult edit the Author whereof lived in the days of Louis the Debonnair we find that this Prince to honour the Church ordered that all those should be set free and at liberty that were admitted into holy Orders and saith he who consecrate by the intervention of their Prayers De ordine baptism tit 18. the Body and Blood of our Lord. Theodulph Bishop of Orleans by the invisible Consecration of the Holy Ghost Pope Nicolas the first writing unto the Emperor of Constantinople Tom. 6. Concil p. 489. attributes the Consecration unto the benediction and Sanctification of the Holy Ghost Which words are found cited in the IV. Act of the Council assembled against Photius Ibid. p 738. which the Latins call the VIII Oecumenical Council The Council of Cressy assembled Anno. 858. saith Tom. 3. Conc. Gall. p. 129. That Consecratton is made by Prayer and by the sign of the Cross Charles the Bald King of France and Emperour of the West writing unto Pope Adrian the second complaining of some sharp and bitter words which this Pope used against him writes unto him amongst other things We cannot think that such words can proceed out of your mouth Supplem Conc. Gal. p. 265. as make the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ by devout and holy Prayer Hugh Maynard a Benedictine Frier alledges in his notes upon the Books of the Sacraments of Gregory the first two Manuscripts of the Library of Corby viz an old explication of the Canon of the Mass and an ancient Treatise of the Mass in both which the Consecration is attributed unto Prayers In the former of these Manuscripts are found these words by Maynard's relation The Sacrifices are those which are consecrated with Prayers P. 12. P. 13. and in the other Sacrifices that is things made holy because they are consecrated by mistical Prayer Which words as is observed by this learned Frier were upon a matter taken out of S. Isidore lib. 6. Orig. c. 19. Ratherius Bishop of Verona in Italy in the tenth Century in his Treatise of the contempt of Canons Tom. 2. Spicil p. 183. first Part. The Oblation saith he which is to be presented and distributed unto the People is consecrated chiefly by the Prayer wherein we say unto God Our Father which art in Heaven Which in all likelihood he borrowed from Gregory the first In fine the whole Greek Church
Concil Nicaen 2 act 6. assembled at Constantinople against Images in the year 754. Jesus Christ say these Fathers having taken Bread blessed it and having given Thanks he brake it and giving it to his Disciples he said Take eat for the Remission of Sins This is my Body in like manner having given the Cup he said This is my Blood do this in remembrance of me there being no other kind of Thing nor Figure chosen by him that could so fitly represent his Incarnation See then the Image of his quickning Body made honourably and gloriously Here are eleven substantial Witnesses which being added unto the five others which we passed over and shall appear in due time make up the number of sixteen without touching those which may by evident and necessary Consequences be drawn unto the same Testimonyâ— for I have made choice only of those which seemed most evident and of those also some speak in more express Terms than others The Reader may judg if all these Witnesses which speak of Bread Wine Fruit of the Vine of Figure Sign Type Symbol Sacrament of Representation of Fruits of the Earth do not give a figurative sense unto these Words This is my Body This is my Blood And to do it the better let him exactly see if any of these antient Commentators have spoken of Reality of bodily Conversion and of local Presence in interpreting them for say the Protestants they could not pass over in silence so important a Doctrine as that in an occasion which indispensably obliged them to say something of it without rendring themselves guilty of horrid Hypocrisy and Injustice So that if they have not done it and that there appears no such thing in what hath been produced and examined as indeed say they whatever Scrutiny we could make no such thing nor like it doth appear it may be safely and lawfully concluded that all these Fathers have taken these Words not in a proper and literal Sense but in a figurative and metaphorical Sense Moreover all these Reflections of the Ancients upon these Words of the Institution of the Sacrament amount just to the manner of understanding them commanded by the Council of Trent when it forbids to interpret the holy Scriptures Sess 4. contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers Because as 't is explained by Melchior Canus Locor l 7. c. 3. num 10. Bishop of the Canaries who assisted at the Council The Sense of all the Saints is the Sense of the Holy Ghost CHAP. II. Of what the Father 's believed concerning what we receive in the Sacrament and what they have said of it BEsides the many Reflections made by the ancient Doctors upon the Words used by our Saviour in the instituting this most august Sacrament which we have sufficiently enumerated and set down in the foregoing Chapter I find they have said many other things which may direct us unto the true understanding of their Belief which we will enquire into in this second Chapter In the first place they have called the Eucharist Bread and Wine in the very act of communicating There is given unto each of these present Just Mart. Apol. 2. vol. 1. Iâ—en l. 4. c 34. saith Justin Martyr the Bread the Wine and the Water which have been consecrated St. Irenaeus Bishop of Lyons gives it the same Name calling it The Bread upon which Prayers and Thanks have been made And I make no question Contr. Tryph. p. 260. Orig. contr Cels l. 8. Id. ibid. Id. Homil. 5. in Levitic Cyprian Ep. 76. 63 Apud Euseb Hist l. 6 c. 43. prope fin but 't is also for the same reason that our Christian Philosopher I mean St. Justin speaks of the Eucharist of Bread and Wine Origen against Celsus The Bread which is called the Eucharist the Symbol of our Duty towards God And in the same Book The Bread offered with Thanksgivings and Prayers made for the Mercies bestowed on us And in his Homilies upon Leviticus The Bread which the Lord gave unto his Disciples St. Cyprian was of the same Judgment when he called it The Bread of the Lord And in his Treatise of the Cup or in his Epistle to Cecilius he very often calls it Bread and Wine mix'd with Water and saith That the Body of the Lord is not Flower only nor Water only but a composition of these two things kneaded and moulded together and made into the substance of Bread And Cornelius Bishop of Rome writing unto Fabian Bishop of Antioch of what passed in the undue Ordination of Novatian unto the Episcopacy and speaking of the Sacrament in the act of distribution and reception he calls it That Bread From hence 't is that Tertullian disputing against the Marcionites Tertul. contr Marc. l. 1. c. 23. who taught that the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ was not the Creator he reproaches them That they were baptized in the name of another God upon anothers Earth and with anothers Water and that they made Prayers and gave Thanks unto another God upon the Bread of another It is easy to understand that in speaking in that manner to Marcion he presupposed that the Orthodox made their Prayers unto God the Creator upon this Bread that is to say The Bread of the Eucharist And the Author of the Epistle to the Philadelphians under Ignatius's Name Ep. ad Philad saith That there is one Bread broken unto all If we descend lower Conc. Ancyr c. 2. Conc. Neoces c. 13. we shall find that the Council of Ancyrus in the year 314 forbids Deacons that had sacrificed unto Idols To present the Bread and the Cup. And that of Neocesarea of the same Year saith That the Country-Priests cannot offer nor give the Bread in Prayer nor the Cup in the chief Church in the City if the Bishop or the Priests of the City are present Euseb dem l. 5. c. 3. Eusebius Bishop of Cesarea wrote about the year 328. That the Ministers of the Christian Church express darkly by the Bread and Wine the Mysteries of the Body and Blood of Christ It was also the opinion of St. Hilary Bishop of Poictiers Bil. in Matth. c. 30. when he said That the Passover of our Lord was made the Lord having taken the Cup and broke the Bread Macar Hom. 27. St. Macarius followed the same Steps in saying That in the Church one participates of visible Bread to eat spiritually the Flesh of our Lord. Concil Laod. c. 25. The Council of Laodicea assembled about the year 360 ordains That Ministers ought not that is to say the Deacons or rather Sub-Deacons to administer the Bread nor bless the Cup. A Council of Carthage made this Decree Concil Carth. c. 24. That in the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of our Lord nothing else should be offered but what the Lord himself had done to wit Bread and Wine mingled with Water This Decree is the 37th in the Code
Miles but St. Marsus felt the Eucharist was turn'd into a Scrpent which rouled about him and as he found by the pain he suffered that he was severely punished for his Disobedience and Neglect he had committed at the Communion He cast himself at the Feet of St. Milain and told him what was happened the holy Bishop wept for him all Night Watching and Praying and next Day gave him Absolution and the Blessing and presently after the Serpent took again the Form of the Eucharist and St. Marsus taking it he communicated with Joy which he neglected to do to his Damage It is plain that the Eucharist here mentioned is nothing else but the Bread of the Eucharist which St. Cyril of Alexandria commonly calls by that Name In short this Eucharist was intended for the Communion as appears by the whole Story Therefore St. Milain gave unto each of them a Portion it also appears that Marsus had received some Tincture that the receiving the Sacrament broke the Fast and I find not but the other Bishops were of the same Mind All that is blam'd in Marsus is the having preferr'd the Fast of the Day before the Communion whereas he ought to have preferr'd the Communion before the Fast that is to say that it was better to have communicated with the others and broke his Fast as they had done than to deprive himself of the Sacrament to keep the Fast of the Day Theodoret. Hist Relig. p. 791. because the Sacrament is a Bond of Charity which is infinitely greater than Fasting Therefore the Anchorit Marcion said to Avitus who went to visit him in his Solitude and who made some scruple of breaking his fast to eat with him We know that Charity is more excellent than Fasting But in fine it was believed in our France in the VIth Century as 't was in Tertullian's time that the receiving the Eucharist broke the Fast and it shall appear in the Course of this History that the Greeks believed so in the XIth Century and that they still believe it at present as Father Cellot informs us To conclude if any desire to know the Dioceses of these five French Bishops abovementioned he may understand St. Milain was Bishop of Rennes Albin of Anger 's Launus of Constance in Normandy Apâ—d Eus b. Hist l. 6. c. 49. Serm. 35. de verb. Dom. c. 5. Contr. Donat. post Collat. c. 6. Clem. Alexand. Sâ—romat l. 1. p. 271. Cyril Alex. in Joan. l. 4. c. 14. Victor of Mans and Marsus of Nantes In the seventh place I observe that the Fathers speak of the Eucharist as of a thing whereof but a little is received a Bit a Piece a Portion So the Priest of Alexandria in Eusebius sent unto Seraphion A little of the Sacrament So St. Austin speaks of receiving a little and again That Peter and Judas received each of them a Morsel So Clement of Alexandria said That each of the People took a little And St. Cyril of Alexandria That Jesus gave Morsels of Bread unto his Disciples And so in a number of other places which is not necessary here to mention in a thing not contested and that is owned by every Body In fine having endeavoured with some labour to find if the ancient Doctors of the Church have affirmed as the Latines at this time do that several Miracles are done by the Sacrament August l. 3. de Trinit c. 10. I can find nothing of that Nature on the contrary they have informed me That these things might have been honoured or receive respect as religious but not cause astonishment as things strange or miraculous CHAP. III. Of the Use and Office of the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament HAving seen what was believed and said in this spatious and vast Country of Ecclesiastical Antiquity of the things received in the Sacrament and having examined the Reflections which the Doctors of that Empire have made upon the Words of Institution of this Divine and August Sacrament we are obliged to enquire what they have taught of the Use Office and employ of these sacred Symbols I mean of the Bread and Wine If we will search into their Records wherein the Laws and Maxims of this Kingdom may be found we shall see that those which have had the Government and Direction of it have conceived that the Eucharist is the Sacrament the Sign the Figure the Type the Anti-type the Symbol the Image the Similitude and the Resemblance of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ It 's true 't is not enough to say so the Reader must moreover see the Testimonies where the holy Fathers say so for 't is their Opinions are now in question and not ours Let us then take all these Titles in Order and shew what the ancient Doctors of the Church have said unto each of them at least as far as may be necessary unto our purpose They say in the first place That it is a Sacrament Hil. in Matth. cap. 9. Ibid. c. 30. as when St. Hilary Bishop of Poictiers speaks Of receiving the Sacrament of the Bread of Life in Faith of the Resurrection and that he saith of Judas Ambros de iis qui init c. 9. Aug. Ep. 163. Id. l. 3. de Trinitat c. 4. Id. Serm. ad Infant Facund l. 9. p. 404 405. Isid Hisp dâ— Offic. Eccles l. 1. c. 18. that he was not worthy of the Communion of Eternal Sacraments St. Ambrose calls it The Sacrament of the true Flesh of our Lord. St. Austin The Sacrament of his Body and of his Blood Again he saith That it is a great Sacrament And again These things saith he are called Sacraments Facundus said the same when he saith That the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ is called his Body and Blood and that Believers do receive the Sacrament of his Body and Blood St. Isidore of Sevil in the VIIth Century saith positively That the Bread and Wine are made the Sacraments of the Divine Body being sanctified by the Holy Ghost But being there is nothing more frequent amongst the Latin Fathers than this manner of Speech which continued in the Latin Church until these late times we shall not insist on gathering more Testimonies to prove that the holy Fathers believed that the Eucharist was the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ It shall suffice to warn the Reader Aug. de Civit. Dâ—i l. 10. c. 5. comr advers leg l. 2. c. 9. aâ—â—i that St. Austin teacheth us in sundry parts of his Works that the word Sacrament signifies a holy Sign and that those which desire more proofs of this Expression may see what is said by the Author of the Commentaries attributed unto St. Jerom on the 11th of the 1st Epist to the Corinthians Charlemain in his 4th Book of Images chap. 14. Christian Druthmar upon St. Matth. in the Library of the Fathers Tome 16. p. 361. The second Title we have set down August contâ—
Devils by the eating of Meats consecrated unto Idols The Author of the Commentaries of St. Paul's Epistles in St. Jerom's Works interpreting these Words The Bread which we break c. makes this Observation Apud Hieron in c. 10.1 Cor. In like manner it appears that the Idolatrous Bread is the participation of Devils and upon these you cannot drink the Cup of the Lord and the Cup of Devils c. You cannot saith he be partakers of God and of Devils Theodoret said something of this kind upon these Words Theod in c. 10.1 Cor. t. 3. You cannot be partakers of the Lord's Table c. How saith he can it be that we should communicate of the Lord by his precious Body and Blood and that we should also communicate of Devils in eating what hath been offered unto Idols It was also the Language of Primasius an African Bishop Primas in c. 10. 1 Cor. t. 1 Bib. Patr. who makes these Reflections upon the same Words Even so the Bread of Idols is the participation of Devils you cannot have Fellowship with God and Devils Ibid. because you would participate of both Tables Sedulius speaks almost the same The second Doctrine which results from the Hypothesis of the Fathers is That considering that the Death of Christ is the cause of our Life which Life consists in the Sanctification of our Souls by means whereof we have Communion with God which is the lively Fountain of Life and therefore before Conversion we are said to be dead they have attributed unto the Sacrament the vertue of sanctifying and quickning us This is the sense of Theophilue of Alexandria Theoph. Ep. Pasch 2. saying That we break the Bread of the Lord for our Sanctification Hilary Deacon of Rome or the Author of the Commentaries upon St. Paul's Epistles under the Name of St. Ambrose be he whom it will assures us Apud Ambros in c. 11.1 Cor That altho this Mystery was celebrated at Supper yet it is not a Supper but a Spiritual Medicine which purifieth those which draw near with Devotion and which receive it with respect Gelas de duab nat Christ Pope Gelasius testifies That the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Christ render us partakers of the Divine Nature Aug. tract 27. in Joan. In Anaceph Therefore St. Austin will have us to eat and drink of it for the participation of the Holy Ghost Therefore it is St. Epiphanius saith That there is in the Bread a vertue to vivify us which is that influence of Life mentioned by St. Cyril CHAP. IV. A Continuance of the Doctrine of the Holy Fathers ALthough the Holy Fathers have hitherto sufficiently explained themselves and that they have fully declared what was their Belief touching the Nature of the Eucharist in saying That it is true Bread and true Wine and that this Bread and Wine are the Signs the Images and the Figures of the Body and Blood of our Lord but Signs accompanied if it may be so said with the Majesty of his own Person and filled with the quickning Vertue of his Divine Body broken for us called his Body and Blood by reason of the Resemblance because they are the Symbols and Sacraments the Memorials of his Person and of his Death because they are unto us instead of his Body and Blood and pass into a Sacrament of this holy Body and precious Blood and are changed into their Efficacy and Vertue nevertheless if we can discover what were the Consequences of this Doctrine I doubt not but it will yet receive greater Illustration For as it is impossisible that they should have believed the Conversion of the Substance of Bread and Wine into the Substance of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ without admitting the three following Doctrines to wit the eating of the Flesh of Christ with the Mouth of the Body the eating of this same Flesh by the Wicked as well as the Just and the Human Presence of Christ upon Earth So it is also impossible they should deny these three Positions without rejecting this substantial Conversion Therefore I suppose it is necessary to enquire exactly what they herein believed for if they have received them as Articles of their Belief it will be a great Conjecture in Favour of the substantial Conversion notwithstanding what they have already declared But if on the other hand they have rejected them or been far from admitting of them it will be a very great Conjecture to the contrary and at the same Time a strong Confirmation of what they have deposed in the precedent Chapters To begin then our Enquiry by the first of these three Points I mean by the eating of the Flesh of Jesus Christ I say if we consult Clement of Alexandria we shall find he makes a long Discourse in the first Book of his Pedagoge and that in all that Discourse he considers Jesus Christ either as the Milk of Children that is to say those which are Children in Knowledge or as the Meat of firm grown Men that is more advanced in Knowledge but always as a Spiritual Food and mystical Nourishment which requires to be eaten after the same manner as appears by what he saith of the Birth and Regeneration of the new People of the Swadling-cloths wherein he wraps them of the Growth for which he appoints them this Food and in that he makes our Hearts to be the Palace and Temple of the Son of God Hereunto particularly relates what he saith that the Lord in these Words of the Gospel of St. John Clem. Alex. Paedag. 1. c 6. Id. ibid. Eat my Flesh and drink my Blood speaks of Faith and of the Promise by an illustrious Allegory as by Meats whereby the Church which is composed of many Members is nourished and getteth growth and what he adds afterwards the Milk fit and necessary for this Child is the Body of Jesus Christ Id. ibid. which by the Word doth feed the new People whom our Lord himself hath begotten with bodily Pangs and wrapped as young Infants in his precious Blood and in fine this pious and excellent Exclamation O wonderful Mistery Id. ibid. it commands us to put off the old and carnal Corruption as also the old Nourishment to the end that leading a new Life which is that of Jesus Christ and that receiving him into us if it were possible we should lay him up in us and lodge the Saviour in our Hearts And elsewhere he saith That 't is to drink the Blood of Christ to be Partaker of the Incorruption of our Lord which he attributes to the entring of the Holy Ghost into our Hearts Tertul. de Resurrect Tertullian also speaketh yet more clearly explaining figuratively and metaphorically all that excellent Discourse which we read in the sixth of St. John where our Saviour speaks of eating his Flesh and drinking his Blood Although saith he our Saviour saith that the Flesh profiteth nothing the Meaning
of our Lord with his spiritual Presence They teach that this latter is common unto him with the Father and the Holy Ghost When the Son saith St. Austin August tract 107. in Joâ—â— Id. ibid. â—act 106. removed from his Apostles his corporal Presence he with his Father kept them spiritually And elsewhere He kept his Children by a bodily Presence and he was to depart from them by a bodily Absence to keep them with his Father by a spiritual Presence Secondly although they every where establish the Absence of our Lord as to his Body yet they teach that he is present with the believing Soul but they make this Presence depend upon the Intercourse of their Faith and Devotion which lifts it self up unto Heaven where he dwells which goes and meditates on him at the right hand of his Father and that goes to take him upon the Throne of his Glory and so it is this excellent Passage of St. August tract â—0 in Joan. Austin is to be understood Let the Jews hear let them take him but they answer How shall I take him seeing he is absent How shall I reach with my Hands unto Heaven to embrace him upon his Throne Send up thither thy Faith and you have already embraced him your Fathers have embraced him in the Flesh but you receive him in your Heart for Jesus Christ is absent as he is also present Id. Serm. 74. de divers c. 4. And again We now believe in him that sitteth on the right Hand of the Father yet nevertheless whilst we are in this Body we are absent from him If any make any doubt of it or deny it and that he saith Where is your God we cannot shew him unto him In fine I believe that from this same Fountain proceeds also this other Stream I mean the sursum Corda which was famous in the ancient Church which they made to eccho out aloud in the Christian Assemblies at the very Time when they disposed themselves to receive the Communion and which still remains in all their Liturgies for by these Words they were warned not to look barely or only upon the Bread and the Cup as the great Council of Nice doth speak by the Relation of Gelatius of Cyzika but to lift up all their Thoughts into Heaven toward the only Object of their Devotion which is Jesus Christ our Saviour therefore the holy Fathers often exhort their Flocks not to seek Jesus Christ upon Earth Chrysost Hom. 24. in 1 ad Cor. but in Heaven witness St. Chrysostom who saith that to draw near him we must be like an Eagle and fly unto Heaven it self mount on high and have nothing common with the Earth not grovel nor be drawn downwards but fly continually upwards look towards the Sun of Righteousness having the Eye of the Vnderstanding opened And elsewhere Id. Hom. 11. ad Pop. Antiochen If you would see my Wing I have one swifter than the Eagles to fly not ten or twenty Degrees nor unto Heaven only but even beyond the Heavens and above the Heaven of Heavens where Jesus Christ sitteth at the right Hand of God And again the reason wherefore Christ called us Eagles Id. de Baptism Christi saying Where the Body is there will the Eagles be gathered together it is that we should ascend up into Heaven and that we should fly upwards supported by the Wings of the Spirit But on the contrary saith he we grovel on the Earth like Serpents Id. Hom. 4. de incomp Dei Nat. and eat Dust And elsewhere Let no Body have at that time Thoughts concerning the Affairs of this Life but banishing from his Mind all worldly Thoughts transport himself wholly into Heaven as it were assisting at the Throne of Glory and flying with the Seraphims offer the most holy Hymn unto the God of Majesty and Glory Id. Hom. in Seraph And again elsewhere Consider these Things O Man and representing unto your self the Greatness of the Gift raise your self up Cyril Hierosol Mystag 5. and forsaking the Earâ—â—â—ke your Flight towards Heaven St. Cyril of Jerusalem said also â—â—fore St. Chrysostom The Priest cries Lift up your Hearts on High for in truth in that terrible moment we should have our Hearts lifted up unto God and not down towards the World and earthly Thing The Priest then commands with Authority that every one forsakes the Thoughts of this Life and houshold Cares and that he should lift up his Heart unto Heaven where God the Lover of Mankind is St. Austin said the same August de bono persev c. 13. Psal 39. serm 44. de tempore de Verb. Dom. 53. in Ps 148. Serm. 4 29. 38. a Sirmund edit 82. de divers Germ. Const in contempl Job l. 6. de verb incarn c 24 25. apud Phot. Cod. 222. What is said in the Sacraments of Believers That we should lift up our Hearts on high unto the Lord is a Gift of God for which Gift the Priest warns those to whom it is said to give thanks unto the Lord and they answer That 't is just and that the Thing deserveth it well For seeing our Heart is not in our Power but that it is raised by the help of God to the end it should rise and think on Things which are above where Jesus Christ sitteth on the right Hand of God and not on the Things of the Earth unto whom should Thanks be given for so great a Benefit but unto our Lord Jesus Christ who is the Author of it German Patriarch of Constantinople saith That the Believers which are to communicate are warned to lift up their Hearts and that they answer We have unto the Lord to the end they should lift up their Thoughts from Earth unto the King of Heaven The Frier Jovius in the Library of the Patriarch Photius When the Body of the Lord saith he is shewn upon the holy Table those which attend on both sides representing the Cherubins with six Wings fan the Things which are there offered with Wings which serve for Fanns as it were to hinder the Communicants from staying on the Things which are seen but lifting them up with the Eyes of the Understanding above all there is of Shadow raising them up by means of these visible Things to the Contemplation of Things invisible And unto this ineffable Beauty in all likelihood it was that the Collect of Ascension-Eve Apud Cassand in Vigil Ascens was conceived in these Terms in some Coppie's We beseech thee O Lord that by these holy things which we have received the Effect of our Devotion may tend where is with thee our Substance Jesus Christ thy Son our Lord. CHAP. V. Continuation of the Consequences of the Doctrine of the Fathers ALthough what we have examined in the foregoing Chapter doth fully justify that the Holy Fathers have been constant in their Doctrine and that the Consequences which depend upon it are absolutely
the Sun which sheweth it self in spreading its Light over all Things And afterwards directing his Words unto Christians he saith unto them That having said the Word was the Son of God they declare instead of the pure and holy Word of God a Man shamefully punished whipt and nailed to a Cross He makes a Jest Id. ibid. l. 6. p. 3 5. that we should believe that God is born of a Virgin saying that God intending to send a Spirit had no need to form it by his Breath in the Womb of a Woman because knowing before how to make a Body he could have made one for himself without sending his Spirit in so filthy a place And to render the more ridiculous this great Mystery of our holy Religion he compares it unto the Fables of Danae Id. lib. 1. p. 30. Id. l. 3. p. 131. 8. p 385. of Menalippe of Auge and of Antiope He could not suffer they should adore and as he saies elsewhere that they should honour with a Worship religious above all Religion a Man that had been a Prisoner and was dead As also for that Reason justifies the Plurality of his Gods as if Christians contented not themselves in worshipping one alone under a Shadow that they worshipped Jesus Christ Id. l. 8. p. 385. If Christians saith he worshipped but one only God they might it may be have some Pretext of despising all others but they render infinite Honours unto this which hath appeared but of late nevertheless they think they do not offend God when they serve and honour his Minister What St. Cyril of Alexandria hath written against Julian the Apostate sufficiently informs us of all the Blasphemies which this Back slider from the Christian Religion spewed out against all that was most Holy and Sacred in the most important and essential Mysteries of our Religion He denied the Incarnation of the Divinity of Jesus Christ which is the Ground and Foundation of all our Hopes the Salvation he hath purchased for us with the Price of his Blood he reviles us with the glorious Title of Mother of God which we give unto the holy Virgin Julian Ap Cyril Alex. l. 8. p. 262. t. 6. You cease not saith he to call Mary Mother of God He refutes the Mystery of the Trinity of Persons in the Unity of Essence accusing us of contradicting Moses who saith there is but one God whereas we admit of Father Son and Holy Ghost Id l. 9. p. 290 291. Moses saith he taught there is but one God but you have invented Things which agree not with what Moses said for you teach that the Son is God with the Father Id. l. 8. p. 262. And in the foregoing Book They will tell me it may be they admit not of two nor three but I 'le shew that they do admit of it by the Testimony of John when he saith In the Beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God Id. ibid. p. 276. If the Word is God saith he again as you assure it is begotten of the Substance of the Father wherefore say you that the Virgin is the Mother of God For how can a Woman of the same human Nature with us bring forth a God And morover seeing God said positively It is I and there is no Saviour but me how then dare you call him your Saviour which is born of a Woman Accordingly we read in the Acts of the Martyrdom of Terachus of Probus and Andronicus which Cardinal Baronius inserts in his Annals but which Mr. Emery Bigot unto whom the whole Republick of Learning is obliged hath given us more entire in Latin two or three Years since and from whom we daily expect it in Greek we there read it I say that the Judg Maximius a Pagan hearing Terachus which he caused to be tormented say That he trusted in the Name of God and of his Christ failed not from thence to take Occasion to treat him with Unjust and Cursed and to tax him with the Plurality of Gods Pâ—ass SS Tarachi c. p. 7. False and wicked that thou art said he thou adorest then two Gods which thou confessest with the Mouth and thou deniest those which we do serve But to return to the great Enemy of the Christian Name I mean Julian the Apostate he also hath vilified our holy Baptism reproaching us with what we believe of the Vertue and Efficacy of these mystical and healing Waters See saith he what St. Paul saies unto them Julian Ap. Cyril Alex. l. 7. p. 245. that they have been cleansed and sanctified through the washing of Water as if Water penetrated unto the Soul to wash and to purifie it But Baptism cannot heal a Leper non a Scurf nor a Scab nor a Gout nor a Dysentery nor a Dropsie nor the least Sickness of the Body and then how much more unable is it to remove Adulteries Rapines and all other Impurities of the Soul This wretched Apostate hath ever undertaken to condemn the wise and just Conduct of the God which we adore in punishing of some for the Sins of others and for the same Reason he makes some Attempt against the Doctrine of Original Sin he urgeth what is written That God visiteth the Iniquities of the Fathers upon the Children and insolently condemns what God said in the Book of Numbers touching Phineas who ran a Javelin through the Israelitish Man which defiled himself with the Midianitish Woman till that he had turned away his Anger from the Children of Israel and hindred that he had not consumed them Id ibid l. 5. p. 160 161. Suppose saith he there had been a Thousand which had undertaken to transgress the Laws of God ought six hundred thousand been destroyed for the Sin of one thousand It seemes to me saith he it had been much better to save one wicked Man with so many thousands of Good than to have destroyed so many thousands of good Men in the Destruction of one wicked Man There is scarce one of all our Mysteries but have been attacqued by the Jews or the Gentiles and have been censured by them which doth evidently shew that they had Knowledg of them and that they were not ignorant of what was believed and practised in the Christian Religion either by reading our Books or by the Relation of some Apostates that fell away what we have hitherto said sufficiently testifies it Lactant. Instit l. 5. c 2. and what Lactantius saith of a Heathen which wrote against the Religion of Jesus Christ doth fully confirm it He related saith he so many Things and Things so secret and private that he seemed to have formerly been of the same Belief That which causeth Admiration in a great many is that amongst so many Things as they have said of our Religion amongst so many Reproaches which they have made against Christians touching the Nature of their Mysteries amongst so many Accusations
and Commemoration of the Passion of Jesus Christ and that God in choosing this Type and not a humane Effigies intended to shun the danger of Idolatry they content not themselves to say that the Eucharist is an Image they declare That this Image is the substance of Bread they speak of Sacrificing this Image this chosen matter this Substance of Bread they pleased themselves in making a perpetual opposition betwixt the real Body of Jesus Christ and the Bread which is its Figure or Image they say That the one is his Body by Nature and the other his Body by Institution that the former is the matter of his humane substance without personal subsistence and the other a matter chosen that is to say the substance of Bread not having humane Features that the one is holy because it is Deified that the other is rendred holy by the Sanctification of Grace in fine That the one is his Flesh which he hath taken to himself and that he hath sanctified with a holiness proper unto himself and that the other is sanctified by the Grace of the Holy Ghost which by the Ministry of the Priest makes it holy whereas it was common And because the Fathers which preceded them were wont to consider the Sacrament as an Image of the Son of God these also will have it to be an express Image of this adorable Mystery in contemplation whereof we must lift up our Faith and bring down our Sins it s for this reason they say That there 's no other thing under Heaven nor any other Figure but that chosen by Jesus Christ to express the Image of his Incarnation and a little under they say That our Saviour's design in the Institution of the Sacrament was to represent and shew clearly unto Men the Mystery of his Oeconomy that is to say of his Incarnation therefore they thus conclude all their Discourse It hath been demonstrated that it is the true Figure of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ our God If it be a true Image as they do assure it is necessary say some that the substance of Bread should remain after Sanctification to represent sincerely the truth of the Flesh of Jesus Christ the which is not abolished by his Union unto the Divine Nature they add unto all these considerations that the Council testifies that our Lord commanded us to make not his real Body but the Figure of his Body and of his Blood and in that Jesus Christ commanded that this Image should be of the substance of Bread without the lineaments of humane shape it was to prevent Idolatry An Argument which would be unworthy the Council if it had believed that the Bread after Consecration had been no longer Bread but the Body it self of the Saviour of the World which ought to be Religiously adored by reason of his personal Union with the Godhead very far from fearing of committing Idolatry in adoring of him Thus it is that many do argue from this testimony They lived thirty two years in the East under the Authority of this Council but in the year 787. the Empress Irene having a violent affection for Images caused a second Council to be assembled at Nice in Bythinia whither she caused to come People to her own liking as also that favoured Images insomuch as the better to accomplish her design she conferred the Patriarchship of Constantinople upon one Terrasius which being a Lay person could not according to the Ecclesiastical Constitutions be capable of enjoying this Dignity In this Council assembled at the desire and pleasure of the Empress who governed all things in the Minority of Constantine her Son was disannull'd all that had been done at Constantinople against Images and by the way they censured what the other Fathers had said That the Sacrament is an Image of the Body of Jesus Christ because said they it is his true Body and his true Blood and not an Image Concil Nican 2. act 6. t. 5. Conc p. 5â— 758. see here their very terms The Oblations are piously called Types that is to say Figures and Images by some of the holy Fathers before the perfection of Sanctification but after Sanctification they are called truly they are and are believed to be the Body and Blood of Christ And thereupon they censure those of Constantinople for calling the Eucharist an Image and to have instanced for destroying of Images the example of an Image which was not an Image but the Body and Blood I will not here make a comparison betwixt these two Councils in their full extent nor search into the parallels betwixt them I will say but little but what I shall say will suffice to satisfie the Reader Sirmond t. â— Concil Gall. p. 191. Not to mention what hath been observed by Father Sirmond that the second Council of Nice cannot have the name of an Oecumenical and Universal Council it appears in the first place that much simplicity and sincerity might be seen in that of Constantinople although we have but little of their Acts trasmitted unto us but what was done by their Enemies But in that of Nice I am obliged to say that there is Injustice to be found in that these Prelates do assure in a great many places that they had present in their Assembly the Legats of the three Patriarchs of the East whereas the certain truth is Conc. Nican 2. act 3. p. 594 595 596 597. that not one of the three Patriarchs of the East did send any Deputies thither but five or six Hermits of Palestine ignorant and unexperienced persons as they call themselves at the instance of the Deputies of the Patriarch Terrasius did depute two of their own number John and Thomas to assist at this Council of the Legates of the Patriarchs of Alexandria of Antioch and of Jerusalem I find no marks or mention the pieces inserted in the Acts of the Council testifie the same Secondly in the Council of Constantinople the Fathers whereof it was composed did not licentiously abuse the holy Scriptures to draw it to their party but I cannot forbear saying that it was quite otherwise in that of Nice where they took liberty miserably to wrest the Scriptures and to corrupt them to draw inferences in favour of Image Worship this is to be seen in several instances especially in all the fourth Session In the third place we do not see that the Fathers of Constantinople had recourse to so many and gross pieces as those of Nice Act. 2. p. 555. Act. 4. p. 622. who made use of them freely and without any scruple for the establishing of their Opinion as the Acts of Pope Sylvester in the second Session the Book of the Passion of an Image of Jesus Christ under the name of St. Athanasius although this ridiculous piece had been but newly invented Ibid. 642. Ibid. 649. no question but by some one that was for Worshipping of Images the obscene and filthy History of a Friar
in a bad light they can never rightly understand what was the true Belief of the Church upon the Controversies wherewith it hath been agitated so many years Nevertheless there is nothing we should more indeavour than to represent and discover the naked truth not caring that men should triumph over us so that truth might triumph over us all It is with this design that I have undertaken to discover sincerely what Christians have believed in past Ages and the Article of the Eucharist which seems to me one of the most essential and which causeth the greatest division amongst Christians in the West But to the end that none may be mistaken in the explication of the testimonies of the holy Fathers and not swerve from their Intentions I will propose some means which seem not to me improper and the practice whereof may be of great use unto all such as desire to be instructed in what they believed In the first place their Works ought to be read without any prejudice I speak of their genuine not forged Works for when one is pre-occupy'd in favour of an Opinion and sets about reading them one shall find what is not intended therein prejudice so darkning the understanding that many times the shadow is taken for the substance and a fallacious appearance for the truth because that prejudice predominates and makes men incapable of rightly judging what they read the Idea of the opinion which prepossesseth us so filling the faculty of the Understanding that it can receive no other impression until we dismiss these prejudices Wherefore the first thing to be done when we set about reading the Monuments which we still injoy of Ecclesiastical Antiquity is well to examine our selves to see if we be free from all sorts of preoccupation For provided we bring unto this study nothing of our own but attention and a sincere desire of knowing the truth we shall gather Fruits full of consolation and joy and we shall doubtless discover what hath been the belief of those ancient Doctors upon the point which we examine Secondly great heed must be taken not to separate what God hath joined together I mean the nature and the matter of the Symbols from their efficacy and from their vertue in their lawful use for then these things are inseparable although they be different one from another for the nature of Bread and Wine is one thing and the grace and vertue which the Consecration addeth unto their nature is another thing and therefore it is that the holy Fathers spake not so honourably of the Sacrament when they consider the substance of the Symbols as when they regard their efficacy and vertue And indeed when they have a design to represent this efficacy they make use of the loftiest and most magnificent expressions to raise the Dignity of this Mysterie and to make us conceive a grand Idea of it and certainly it is with great reason because 't is a thing very worthy our admiration and which I may say doth surpass our understanding that Christ Jesus should accompany his Sacraments with so great a power that he should cleanse our Souls with a few drops of Water and that he should nourish them with a few crumbs of Bread and a few drops of Wine but after a manner so Noble so Heavenly and so Divine that all we can do is to feel the fruits and advantages without conceiving the manner or how it is effected And therein is seen that magnificence of the Works of God Tertul. de Baptis c. 2. which is promised in the effect whereof Tertullian speaks and which he opposeth unto the simplicity of these same Works which appears in the Action and in respect of which Simplicity the Fathers have expressed themselves in terms more humble and not so lofty agreeable unto the nature of Symbols This second means shall be follow'd by a third which is not the least considerable and for the understanding whereof it is necessary to observe that the Holy Fathers have used two sorts of expressions in speaking of the Eucharist by the one they affirm that the Sacrament is Bread and Wine and by the other they say it is the Body and Blood of Christ These two sorts of expressions taken literally cannot agree together nor be both true in relation to one and the same Subject For if the Eucharist be properly the Body of Jesus Christ it is not properly Bread and if it be properly Bread it cannot be understood to be properly the Body of Jesus Christ Nevertheless the Fathers who have said that the Eucharist is Bread have also said that it is the Body of Jesus Christ how shall we then do to give a right sense unto expressions so different and which in appearance are so inconsistent That which we should do is maturely to consider what these Holy Doctors have said for explanation of their meaning and that cannot better be done than by diligently searching their Works that of the two sorts of expressions which they have used they have restrained the one without giving any limitation unto the other for in equity it must be granted that those which they have limited ought not to be explained according to their intention without the restrictions which they have used and that on the contrary the others which have received no limitation should be understood simply and absolutely and in the proper terms wherein they have expressed them and to say the truth had they intended that these two so different expressions should have been understood in the same manner wherefore should they have taken so much care and pains to limit and restrain the one and never heed to take the least care in restraining or sweetning the others Such different proceedings in regard of these kinds of expressions doth it not plainly declare that they intended that they should be differently understood and that there should be given unto those which they have restrained a Figurative and Metaphorical Sense and unto those which were not restrained a proper and litteral Sense that is to say that the former should be taken for Figurative Speeches and the latter for proper expressions and without any Figure If then they have restrained and limited the expressions which do affirm that the Eucharist is Bread and Wine and if they have not limited those which affirm that 't is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ it must be concluded that those which declare that the Sacrament is Bread and Wine are improper and figurative Speeches and that the others which say that it is the Body and Blood of our Lord are proper and literal expressions But if on the other side they have taken exact care to restrain the propositions which say That the Eucharist is the Body of Jesus Christ without adding any limitation unto the others which asserted that it is Bread it must be necessarily infer'd that when they said that the Eucharist is the Body of our Lord they spake improperly and
to take notice that if in this History I have spoken of the Country of the Abassins as of the Kingdom of Prester John it was to accomnodate my self with the vulgar Opinion without making exact inquiry what it is and without troubling my self at this time to reconcile Historians and Travellers that have written diversly of it THE TABLE OF CHAPTERS PART I. Containing the outward form of Celebration CHAP. I. WHerein is treated of the Matter of the Sacrament Page 1 CHAP. II. Wherein is mention made of divers sorts of Hereticks as far only as may suffice to clear the Point in Question p. 7 CHAP. III. Progress of Considerations of the Matter of the Sacrament wherein is examined what is said by S. Ignatius of certain Hereticks that rejected the Sacrament the Heresie of one Tanchelin who also rejected it but by another principle the reproaches of Jews and other Enemies and the difference betwixt the Greek and Latin Churches about leavened and unleavened Bread p. 22 CHAP. IV. Wherein is shewed whence the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament was had and what was the form of the Bread with the innovations and changes which thereupon succeeded p. 30. CHAP. V. Of the Consecration of the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament and first of the place where they were Consecrated and of the Matter of Chalices and Patins p. 39 CHAP. VI. Of the Language wherein Consecration and generally of all the Service p. 54 CHAP. VII Of the Ceremonies and form of Consecration p. 65 CHAP. VIII Of the Oblation or form of the Sacrifice p. 81 CHAP. IX Of the Elevation and breaking the Bread p. 101 CHAP. X. Of the Distribution and of the Communion and first of the Time the Place and Posture of Communicants p. 110 CHAP. XI Of him that distributes the Sacrament and of him that communicates with the words both of the one and the other p. 121 CHAP. XII Of the thing Distributed and Received p. 131 CHAP. XIII The Eucharist received with the Hand p. 150 CHAP. XIV Of the liberty of carrying the Eucharist home after having taken it in the Church and of carrying it in Journeys and Voyages p. 160 CHAP. XV. The Eucharist sâ—nt unto the absent and the Sick unto whom it was sometimes sent by Lay-persons Men Women Children c. p. 164 CHAP. XVI Divers Vses and divers Customs touching the Eucharist p. 169 PART II. Containing the Doctrine of the Holy Fathers CHAP. I. REflections made by the Holy Fathers upon the Institution of the Sacrament p. 187 CHAP. II. What the â—â—thers believed of the things we receive in the Sacrament and whâ—â— they said of them p. 199 CHAP. III. Of the use and office of the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament p. 213 CHAP. IV. Consequences of the Doctrine of the Holy Fathers p. 231 CHAP. V. Continuation of the Consequences of the Doctrine of the Holy Fathers p. 246 CHAP. VI. Other proofs of the Doctrine of the Holy Fathers with the Inferences drawn by Protestants from them p. 265 CHAP. VII Continuation of the Proofs of the Doctrine of the Holy Fathers and of the Inductions of Protestants p. 277 CHAP. VIII Proofs of the Doctrine of the Holy Fathers drawn by Protestants from some practices of the Ancient Church p. 291 CHAP. IX Other Proofs drawn from the silence of Pagans and of certain things objected against them by the Holy Fathers p. 298 CHAP. X. The last Proof drawn from what passed in regard of Hereticks either of their silence or of the Fathers dispute against them p. 308 CHAP. XI Of the change made in the Expressions or the History of the Seventh Century p. 361 CHAP. XII Wherein is Examined what ensued in the Eighth Century p. 365 CHAP. XIII Containing the History of the Ninth Century p. 385 CHAP. XIV Continuation of the Ninth Century wherein is treated of the Dignities and Promotions of Heribold p. 4â—5 CHAP. XV. Continuation of the History of the Ninth Century wherein is examined the silence of Pope Nicholas the First and Adrian the Second with two Observations touching the Greek Church p. 430 CHAP. XVI Of the State of the Tenth Century p. 439 CHAP. XVII Of what passed in the Eleventh Century p. 450 CHAP. XVIII Continuation of the History of the Eucharist or the state of the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries p. 465 CHAP. XIX The History of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries p. 497 PART III. Wherein is treated of the worshipping the Sacrament CHAP. I. OF the Preparations which go before the Celebration p. 521 CHAP. II. Of Dispositions necessary for the Communion and first of the Motions of the believing Soul in regard of God and of Jesus Christ p. 541 CHAP. III. Of the motions and dispositions of the Receiver in regard of the Sacrament p. 548 CHAP. IV. Wherein the Question of Adoration is examined p. 556 THE HISTORY OF THE EUCHARIST VINCENTIUS Lerinensis hath left us for a Maxim above M C. years ago Vincent In common That great heed must be taken to retain in the Catholick Church what hath been believed every where always and by all This Maxim appears so just and reasonable that Christians should make no difficulty to submit unto it however divided they be otherwise in matters of Religion and although the Author was not wholly without blame seeing there are some which think that he fought under the Ensigns of the demy Pelagians that he was very opposite unto St. Austins Doctrine touching Predestination and that it was against him that St. Prosper did write in answering the Objections which go under the name of Vincentius Nevertheless I do not judge that any fault is to be found in his Maxim nor that any difficulty ought to be made in receiving it seeing that St. Austin himself whose name and memory shall ever be in veneration amongst good Men hath written something to the same purpose before Vincentius Lerinensis Aug. l. 4. de bapt c. 24. t. 7. It is very justly supposed saith he that what the Catholick Church believes and hath not been instituted by Councils but hath been always believed is derived only from Apostolical Authority Vndertaking then to treat Historically of the Eucharist and by Gods assistante to shew what hath been believed in all Ages in the Church touching this so important point of our Salvation there is a necessity that we should look back unto Jesus Christ the Author of this august Sacrament and the true beginning of the Antiquity we are to inquire into for as the blessed Martyr St. Cyprian said If Jesus Christ only ought to be heard Cyprian Ep. 63. ad Caecil we should not regard what some before us have thought fit to be done but what Jesus Christ who is before all hath first done for we ought not to follow the customs of Men but the truth of God To know what he hath said and done in the institution of this Mystery the Evangelists and St. Paul must be consulted who tell us
that our Saviour having finished the solemnity of the antient Passover and intending to proceed unto the institution of the New I mean of the Eucharist to leave unto the Church an Illustrious Monument of his great Love and Charity he took Bread and having given thanks unto his Father over the Bread that is to say having blessed and consecrated it he brake it into morsels and gave it unto his Disciples saying Take eat also he took the Cup wherein was Wine and having blessed it as he had done the Bread he gave it unto them saying these words Drink ye all of it that in distributing the Bread he said unto them That it was his Body giveâ— or broken for them and giving them the Cup he said That iâ— waâ— his Blood or the New Testament in his Blood shed for many for the remission of Sins and that he would drink no more of that fruit of the Vine until he drank it new in the Kingdom of his Father commanding them expresly to celebrate this Divine Sacrament until his coming from Heaven to shew in the Celebration of it the remembrance of his Person and sufferings whereunto St. Paul doth add the preparations which Communicants ought to bring unto the Holy Table for fear lest this mystery which is intended unto the Salvation and consolation of Men should turn unto their judgment and condemnation if they partake thereof unworthily But because the actions of Jesus Christ do prescribe unto us if I may so speak the manner how we should celebrate this holy Mystery that his words instruct us what we ought to believe and that the preparations which St. Paul requires of us contain in effect all the motions of a faithful Soul that disposes it self to partake thereof motions which as I conceive are again contained either in whole or in part in the commemoration which our Saviour hath recommended to us we have thought fit to follow this Divine pattern and thereupon to erect the platform and Oeconomy of our work For besides that in so doing we shall imitate as much as possible may be the Example of our Saviour Jesus Christ which ought to be our Law and guide we shall also ease the memory of the Readers we shall facilitate the understanding of those things we have to say and we shall lead them safely by the way which in all likelihood is best and plainest unto the clear and distinct knowledge of the constant and universal tradition of the Christian Church upon this Article of our Faith To this purpose we will divide our Treatise into three Parts the first shall treat of the exteriour Worship of the Sacrament and generally of what concerns it and of what is founded as well on the actions of Jesus Christ celebrating as of the blessed Apostles communicating The second shall contain the Doctrine of the holy Fathers the true tradition of the Church which derives its Original and Authority of what our Saviour said unto his Disciples that the Bread which he gave them was his Body broken and the Cup his Blood shed and in that he commanded them to celebrate this Sacrament in remembrance of him and of his death And lastly the third shall examine the Worship I mean the dispositions which ought to precede the Communion the motions of the Soul of the Communicant whether it be in regard of God and of Jesus Christ or in regard of the Sacrament in a word all things which do relate unto it And in each of these three Parts we will observe with the help of our blessed Saviour all the exactness and sincerity that can be in shewing the Innovations and changes that have thereupon ensued THE LIFE OF Monsieur L'ARROQUE IT is with very great displeasure that I insert in my first Essay of this nature an Elogie which nevertheless will render it very acceptable I had much rather have wanted so good a Subject of Recommendation to my first undertaking than to have obtain'd it by suffering so great a loss But seeing Death will not be subject unto our desires let us acquit our selves according to the various conjunctures whether they be pleasing or not Monsieur L'ARROQVE departed this Life at Roven the 31 of January 1684 Aged 65 years born at Lairac a Town not far from Agen in Guien his Father and Mother dying almost at the same time left him very young under the Conduct of his Relations and which is the common Fate of Scholars without much Wealth but his great love for Learning comforted him in the midst of all his Troubles Having made some progress therein under several Masters he advanced the same considerably in the Academy of Montauban and having applyed himself unto the study of Divinity under Messieurs Charles and Garrisoles eminent Professors who also had at the same time the famous Monsieur Claud to be their Pupil in a short time he there made so great a progress in his studies that he was judged worthy of the Ministry He was accordingly admitted betimes and by the Synod of Guyen sent unto a little Church called Poujols He had scarce been there one year but the Gentlemen of the Church of Rome opposed his Ministry which obliged him to make a Journey to Paris He there became accquainted with Messieurs Le Faucheur and Mestrezat who from that very time prophesi'd very advantagiously of him He preached at Charanton with great Success and was so well approved by the late lady Dutchess of Tremouile that she desired he might be setl'd at the Church of Vitry in Britany where she commonly made her residence For several reasons he consented unto the demands of this Princess and went to Vitry where he liv'd 26 years so confin'd unto his Closet that he therein spent 14 or 15 hours each day The world soon became sensible of his great industry by a Treatise which Monsieur L'ARROQVE published against a Minister who having chang'd his Religion caused to be Printed the motives which induced him thereunto By this Answer it was seen the Author had already attained great knowledge in Antiquity joyned with a very solid and clear way of reasoning which was ever the character of the late Monsieur L'ARROQVES Genius Some years after scil in the year 1665 he made a very learned Answer unto the Book of the Office of the holy Sacrament written by the Gentlmen of Port Royal wherein he shewed unto those Illustrious Friars that they had alledged and translated the passages of Antient Fathers either very negligently or very falsly His History of the EVCHARIST which may well be term'd his Master-piece appeared four years after and did fully manifest the merits of this Excellent Person Having compos'd so many Learn'd Volums the Protestants of Paris looked upon him as a Subject very worthy of their choice and resolved to establish him in the midst of them this honest design had been accomplish'd had not his credit and adhering unto the Interests of two Illustrious Persons whose names are
Bread and Wine may naturally have with the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ is a general uncertain and undetermin'd resemblance and which of it self is not sufficient to make them Sacraments of this Divine Body and of this precious Blood It is necessary that the Benediction and Consecration confer upon them this quality and invest them with this dignity which they cannot have by Nature and that setting them apart from the prophane and common uses which they have in Nature it should apply them unto a Religious and Divine use in Grace Nevertheless it may be affirm'd that this likeness and relation which they have by Nature with the Body and Blood of this Divine Saviour were as it may be said the first ground and the first motive of the choice which our Saviour was pleas'd to make of them for what St. Austin said in one of his Letters may well be apply'd unto this matter Aug. Ep. 23. ad Bonif. That if the Sacraments had not some resemblance with the things whereof they are Sacraments they would be no Sacraments The Holy Fathers confirm this resemblance some in the composition of Bread and Wine and say That the Bread is called the Body because it is made of several grains and the Wine the Blood because it is gather'd from sundry grapes This is the Notion of * Comm. in Matth. c. 26. Theophilus of Antioch of †Ep. 76. St. Cyprian and of some others Others ground it in the Effects and say That the Bread is called the Body of Jesus Christ because it doth nourish and strengthen the body and that the Wine is called his Bloud because it increaseth blood in the body and rejoiceth the heart This is the Reason given by St. ‖ Lib. l. deoffie Ecclâ—s c. 18. Isidore Archbishop of Sevil * Comm in Marc. 14. Bede †Lib. 〈◊〉 Inâ—â—â— cleric c. 31. Rabanus and ‖ Comm. in Matth. 26. Christian Drutmer and I make no question but when Jesus Christ chose Bread and Wine to make them Sacraments and Types of his Body and Blood he had regard unto the Effects which they produced And seeing the four Divine Writers which have related in their sacred books the history of the Institution of the Sacrament have not mentioned whether the Wine which our Saviour used in instituting and celebrating the Sacrament was pure or mixed the antient Christians made no scruple to mingle water with the Wine in the Communion The Jewish Rituals as a learned * Buxtâ—â—f 〈◊〉 hist S. 〈◊〉 § 20. person and extreamly well vers'd in the knowledge of the Uses and Customs of that Nation observes left it unto the free will and choice of every person in celebrating the Passover to use pure Wine or Wine mixt with water so that our blessed Saviour accommodating himself as much as he could in the Celebration of his Sacrament with what was practis'd in the celebrating the Jews Passover it seemeth to me impossible considering the silence of the Evangelists and of S. Paul to determine whether the Wine imploy'd in the celebrating of his Sacrament was mixed with water or not Nevertheless it is most certain that the Ancients believed there was water mingled with the Wine and that it was upon this perswasion that they established the custom of so doing a very ancient practice seeing that St. Justin Martyr who wrote about fifty two years after the death of St. John doth expresly mention it for in shewing the manner of celebrating the Sacrament in his time Just Martyr Apolog. 2 or rather 1. he observes positively that there was presented unto the Pastor Bread and a Cup with Wine mingled with Water that after he had blessed and consecrated them all those which were there present received of the Bread the Wine and the Water which had been consecrated Indeed as the first Christians sought not so many mysteries as those which came after I mean that they troubled not themselves in seeking out of Mysteries in most things relating to Religion so they satisfy'd themselves with the innocent practice of this custom and religiously to observe this use with much simplicity but about one hundred years after St. Justin had writ what is above express'd they bethought themselves of seeking a mystery in this mingling of water with the Wine The first if I mistake not that pleased himself to discover a Mystical signification in the Wine and Water in the holy Cup and of the mingling the one with the other was the glorious Martyr S. Cyprian who would that the Wine should represent the Blood of Jesus Christ the Water should shew the believing people and that the mingling the one with the other should shew the indissoluble union which there is betwixt Christ and Believers Cyprian â—p 63. The faithful people saith he is understood by the Water and the Blood of Jesus Christ is denoted by the Wine and when the Water is mingled with the Wine in the Cup the People are united unto Jesus Christ and the body of the faithful are incorporated in him in whom they believed and this mixture of water and wine in the Cup of the Lord is such that those things cannot be any more separated whence it follows that nothing can separate the Church from the Communion of Jesus Christ that is to say the Believers which are in the Church and do persevere faithfully and firmly in what they believed nor hinder but this indivisible Love shall subsist Therefore it is not permitted in consecrating the Cup of Our Lord to offer Wine alone or Water alone for if only Wine were offered it might be said that the Blood was separate from the people and if only Water were offered it might be said the people were absent from Christ but when they are mingled and inseparably joyn'd together then is effected the Spiritual and Heavenly Sacrament St. Cyprian was followed by the * Can. 2. third Council of Braga in the year 675 by †De offic Eccles lib. 1. cap. 18. Isidore by ‖ In Marc. 14. Bede by ‖‖ De Corp. lang Dom. Bertram or Ratramne But in fine the Holy Fathers have thought this mixture so Essential unto the Holy Sacrament that the sixth Oecumenical Council assembled in the year 691 reckon it amongst the Heresies of the Armenians that they celebrated the Eucharist with pure Wine because they justified themselves in this practice by the Authority of St. Chrysostom The Fathers explain the passage of this holy Doctor whereof the Armenians made use to authorize the practice of their Churches and having explain'd it they make this Decree Concil Trullan Can. 32. If any Bishop or other Priest doth not follow the Order left by the Apostles and if they mingle not Water with the Wine to offer the spotless Sacrifice let him be deposed because he declares the mystery imperfectly and by that means introduceth a change in the Traditions But notwithstanding all that the
rejected it but upon another Principle the reproaches of Jews and other Enemies and the difference betwixt the Greek and Latin Churches about Bread leaven'd or unleaven'd SAint Ignatius was a Disciple of the Apostles and particularly of St. John Bishop and Pastor of the Church of Antioch and moreover a glorious Martyr of Jesus Christ for he suffer'd Martyrdom at Rome the first of February Anno 107. or 109. in the Eleventh Year of the Emperor Trajan and if the Epistles which go in his name were truely his it were not to be questioned but that towards the end of the first age of Christianity or at farthest the beginning of the second there were Hereticks which rejected the use of the Sacrament When I mention his Epistles I speak not generally of all those which go in his name but only of the seven most antient seeing 't is above 1300 years since Eusebius saw them and after Eusebius they were cited by some of the Fathers of the Church because it is of these seven that the moderate persons both Roman Catholiks and Protestants seem to make greatest difficulty I mean the Protestants that admit them as legitimate for I find several that question them all and that cannot perswade themselves that they were the genuine Issue of that Illustrious Martyr as Messieurs de Saumaise Blondel Aubertin Daillé this latter having also examined in a particular Treatise all the marks of forgery that he could discover in these Epistles I freely confess my self to be in this Error if it be an Error and that of a long time I have therein observed several things which suffered me not to believe that S. Ignatius had writ them but as this is not the place to shew it and that besides it hath been performed by others it shall suffice to consider what he hath said of these Hereticks Ignat. Ep. ad Smyrn They abstain saith he from the Eucharist and from Prayer because they believe not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ which suffered for our sins and which the Father raised up by his goodness It is a long time since Theodoret cited this passage but instead of these words they abstained from the Eucharist and Prayer he used these they admitted not Sacraments nor Oblations I think the word Oblations is more significant than that of Prayer for there 's nothing more frivolous than to represent unto us those Hereticks as abstaining from Prayer because they owned not the Eucharist to be the flesh of Jesus Christ and I see no connexion betwixt these two things nor that they have any dependance the one upon the other unless some will say that they did not mean generally all manner of Prayer but only that whereby the Symbols of the Sacrament were consecrated and which many think was the Lords Prayer which they suppose the Apostles used for the consecrating this Mystery and therefore it is probable that the Fathers called it the Mystical Prayer and that it was not permitted unto the Catechumeni to repeat it because not having yet received holy Baptism they could not as they supposed call God Father nor participate of the Sacrament whereunto they were admitted immediately after Baptism but in fine these very words make me suspect the truth of the Epistle it might be and I 'll not deny but that towards the end of the third Century there might be Hereticks which did so and that he who forged the Epistle of S. Ignatius living at that time and opposing these Enemies of Christianity hath expresly observed it not considering as it often happens to that sort of men that it was not so in the time of this glorious Martyr under whose name he would cover himself I farther confess that if those Hereticks which I suppose to be the Docetes and Putatives that is those which denyed the Incarnation of Jesus Christ and which only allow'd him an imaginary Body a fantome and shadow of a Body I say I grant that had they acted according to their Hypothesis they would not have allowed of the Eucharist seeing they could not allow it without ruining their abominable Doctrine by an infallible consequence But this is not the place to consider what they ought to have done but what they did now it is most certain that in the time of the true S. Ignatius none of these Hereticks denyed the Eucharist for none of the Antients have observed it which they would not have omitted to do as well those which have treated of Heresies as those which have written particularly against the Hereticks whereof we now treat The first which refused to celebrate the Sacrament were as we have been informed by the Holy Fathers the Ascodrupites which were a Limb of the Impostor Mark and Mark an unhappy Branch of Valentine which Valentine began not to appear till thirty years after the death of S. Ignatius and as for those concerned in the Epistle which we examine how could they abstain from the Eucharist in the time of our glorious Martyr seeing they abstained not from it a hundred years after Tertul. advers Marc. l. 1. c. 14. For Tertullian doth formally tellus that Marcion which was one of the chief of these Hereticks persisted in the use of the Sacrament seeing he declares that the God of Marcion shews his Body by the Bread otherwise the Orthodox could not have drawn from the Sacrament any advantage against them for the truth of his Body and for the incarnation of Jesus Christ for when one disputes with another they must dispute upon common principles and which are acknowled on both sides I should think then and to end the consideration of this matter that these Hereticks which opposed not so much the Sacrament of the Eucharist Lib. 1. de Euchar. c. 1. §. ne auth as the mystery of the incarnation of Christ as Cardinal Bellarmin hath well observed taking notice of the neglect of their Predecessors and seeing they admitted the use of the Sacrament they gave the Catholicks strong Arms to contradict them they abstained from celebrating it as the Ascodrupites had done a long while before them although upon another account but besides these two sorts of Hereticks both which the one after the other rejected the celebrating of the Sacrament of the Eucharist although upon different principles we shall see in the XII Century a new Heretick that towards Flanders and especially in Brabant where he spread abroad his Heresie and the poyson of his pernitious Doctrine it was one called Tanchelin who having a design to ruin the Sacrament of the Eucharist and to forbid the use of it unto all those which he could seduce did so well by his cunning and by the help of the evil Spirit under whom he had enrolled himself that he perswaded the people of Antwerp a great and populous City that the participation of the Eucharist was not necessary unto Salvation wherefore they continued several years without communicating as the
term The mother and root of all Riches the death of Sin the life of Virtue and the way which leads unto Paradise they chearfully with their Goods relieved the necessities of the Church whereof they were Members and in the Communion of which the Lord was pleased by his grace to settle them to make them partakers of his great Salvation S. Luke gives us so clear and full a representation in the second Chapter of the Acts of the Apostles that it cannot be thought of without admiration and at the same time without lamenting and deploring the dulness and coldness of these last times wherein is too plainly seen the accomplishment of the words of our Saviour who foretold That iniquity should abound and the love of many should wax cold But at the beginning of Christian Religion as this charity was in its greatest beauty the whole Church offered unto God upon the Table every Lords day or on the days when they Assembled to participate of this Sacrament of their Salvation and of there Union their Oblations for the support of their Spiritual Guides or Ministers for the relief of their Poor and for the other Necessities of the whole Church and out of these Offerings there was taken as much Bread and Wine as was needful for the holy Communion a custom which if I mistake not began to be practised in the days of the Apostles for S. Clement one of their Disciples Clement Epist ad Cor. p. 53. speaks of it as of a matter already established in that excellent Letter which he wrote unto the Church of Corinth in the name of that of Rome whereof he was one of the Pastours Those saith he which make their oblations at the time appointed are agreeable and blessed for obeying the command of God they do not sin Just Mart. Apolog. 1. p. 60. And Justin Martyr in his first Apology for the Christians it is commonly called the second sheweth that in his time the Food which was offered unto God by Believers with Prayers and Thanksgiving to be eaten and to relieve the Poor were called Oblations and towards the conclusion of that excellent work he saith That after Prayers and the kiss of Charity there was presented unto the Pastour Bread and a Cup mingled with Wine and Water and that he having received these things rendred praise and thanks unto God the Father of all in the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost And there also he distinguisheth the Prayers of the Minister for the Consecration of the Eucharist from the action of the people presenting him the Bread and Wine which action he calls Oblation which he repeats again afterwards Cypr de operib Eleemos S. Cyprian also mentions these Oblations but under the name of Sacrifices when he reproacheth a rich and covetous Widow That she came into the Assembly or unto the Sacrament of the Lord without an Oblation and that she took part of the Sacrifice which the Poor had offered Hieron in â—erem c. 11. in Ezech. c. 18. Innoc. ad Dâ—cent c. 3. Ambros in Pâ—al 118. In like manner S. Jerom and Pope Innocent the first inform us that in their time the Deacon did publickly repeat in the Church the names of those which offered S. Ambrose Bishop of Milain in the argument upon the 118. Psalm and according to the Hebrews the 119. teacheth us that he that would communicate after having received holy Baptism was obliged to offer his present or gift at the Altar in the Constitutions which commonly go under the Apostles names Conslit Apost l. 8. s. 10. Prayers are made for them which offered Sacrifices and the first-fruits to the end God would render them an hundred fold and there is to be seen in the same piece several rules touching those Oblations Sozom. hist Eccles l. 6. c. 15. Hist Eccles l. 5. c. 17. Aug. Ep. 122. Sozomen observes in his Church-History that the Emperour Valens came to Church offered the gift upon the Table Theodoret reports the same of the Emperour Theodosius And S. Austin speaking of two Christian Women Captives who deploring their misery said amongst other things that in the place where they were They could neither carry their Oblations unto the Altar of God nor find any Priest unto whom to present it Id. Serm. 215. de temp if it were his And elsewhere recommending unto his flock the use and practice of these Oblations Offer saith he the Oblations which are consecrated at the Altar that man that is able to offer and doth not ought to blush for shame if he communicates of the offering of another And because the charity of Christians decayed by little and little and their zeal insensibly failing and loosing daily some of its ardour and strength these Oblations were not so numerous as they were wont to be every one easily dispensing with himself in not offering at the Table of the Lord as they were accustomed to do the Councils were obliged by their Canons and decrees to kindle the fire of this zeal which was almost extinguished whereunto tended that of the second Council of Mascon Assembled Anno 585 Concil Matisc 2. can 4. which ordains that all the people should offer every Lords day the Oblation of Bread and Wine and that of the Council of Mayence Anno 813. Which requires that Christian people should continually be put in mind to make the Oblations Con. Mogunt an 813. can 44. Capitul 858. c. 53. t. 3. Concil Gall. which is also repeated in the fifth Book of the Capitularies of Charlemain Chap. 94. It was also one of the instructions which Herard Archbishop of Tours gave unto his Priests Anno 858. that they should exhort the people to offer their Oblations to God and also in many other parts of the writings of the Antients I know not whether that Woman mentioned by John the Deacon in the life of Gregory the first needed those exhortations of presenting her offering unto God or whether she did it of her own free will and by that ardent zeal which inspired the primitive Christians with such commendable sentiments of pity and charity Vita Gregor 1. l. 2. c. 41. but in fine he writes That a certain Woman did offer unto Gregory as he celebrated the solemnity of the Mass the usual Oblations and that afterwards Gregory said in giving her the Sacrament The body of our Lord preserve your Soul she smiled in that he called the loaf of Bread which she made her self the body of Christ And forasmuch as for the most part none were admitted unto the participation of the Eucharist but those which presented their Oblations there is a very great number of Canons in the Councils which prescribe to whom the Oblations were to be distributed and to whom not but it is not necessary to alledge more proofs of this Antient custome seeing the matter admits of no difficulty Nevertheless this is not all that we intend
stirred up this cruel Emperour who by the first Edict he made to be published against Christians the 19. year of his Reign commanded to be demolished and destroyed to the ground their Oratories and Churches which continued untill Constantine imbraced the Christian Religion For then the Church breathing quietly under a Prince which cherisht her and gratify'd her in all that could be desired Christians were seen striving who could surpass each other in building magnificent and beautiful Churches and Temples which were so many illustrious Monuments of the Rest and Plenty which they enjoyed under the first Christian Emperour Having considered the Places wherein Christians assembled themselves but by relation unto the Celebration of the Sacrament I have not amply treated the Question of Temples or Churches and I have so done the rather because an occasion of examining it more at large may in some short time offer it self I only say that it was in the IV. Century that they began to be consecrated but after a manner intirely different from that at this time used amongst the Latins and that it was about the same time prohibitions were made of celebrating the Sacrament only in consecrated places This general consideration of the place where Christians assembled and where they celebrated their Sacrament may give us some light to design the particular place where the Consecration was made whilest they assembled in private houses there is no question to be made but that they placed in some convenient place in the Chamber a Table whereupon they did consecrate the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist and where they distributed the holy Communion unto Believers the example of Jesus Christ served them instead of a Law for he celebrated his Eucharist in the same place where he had eaten the paschal Lamb there he consecrated and distributed it neither the Evangelists nor S. Paul having said any thing that may make us think otherwise Moreover the Roman Catholicks and the Protestants confess that the Corinthians did celebrate the Eucharist in the same place where they made their Love-feasts and if there be any contests I do not say betwixt Communion and Communion but betwixt particular Doctors in each of both Communions it is not in regard of the place but in respect of the time to wit whether the Sacrament was celebrated before the Agapae or afterwards which doth not relate to the Subject we now treat of seeing then that the Corinthians made their Feasts of Charity and made altogether these Feasts upon Tables or at least on things that served to that purpose methinks it cannot be at all questioned but that they did celebrate and also consecrate their Eucharist upon the same Table seeing they did celebrate it in the same place and at the same time where they did eat together S. Justin Martyr in the Account of this Sacrament which he hath left us hath not mentioned the place where this Consecration was made but to consider the innocency of those times and the manner of consecrating the Symbols which he represents unto us one cannot but conclude but that it was upon a Table that they consecrated them after that the people had presented them unto the Passover as he saith the word Supper used by S. Paul directed them unto this use and practice as well as the example of Jesus Christ Origen l. 20. c. 2. For as S. Isidore of Sevill saith It is called a Supper from the Communion of those which eat Chrysost t. 5. homil 21. whereunto also doth amount what S. Chrysostom observed before him That the Apostle calleth the Supper of the Lord that of which all that are invited do participate in common and with love For those expressions do import a Holy and Divine repast common unto all the faithful and which requires a Table to take it and to eat of it altogether when therefore Christians had places destinated for the exercise of their holy Religion it is evident there was a certain place where this Eucharistical Table was placed there to consecrate this august Sacrament and there to distribute it unto all the faithful Communicants And when under Constantine the Great the Temples of Christians began to be Stately and Magnificent there was a particular place called the Sanctuary where the mystical Table was set whereupon Consecration was made In Minutius Felix the Infidel demands Min. Fel. in Octav. Wherefore Christians have no Altars and the Christian answers thus whereby he confesseth they have none Do you think that we hide what we do adore because we have no Temples nor Altars Orig. contr Cels l. 8. p 389. ult Edit The Philosopher Celsus gives them the same reproach in Origen saying that they would not erect Altars Which Origen doth not gainsay but saith only That every one of them hath his Soul and thought for an Altar from whence do ascend truely and intelligibly the perfumes of a sweet smell that is prayers from a pure conscience Christians nevertheless did not omit to celebrate and participate of the Sacrament it must needs follow then that it was upon a Table Nevertheless it is certain there is nothing more frequent in the writings of the Fathers than the name of Altar to design the place of Consecration and of celebrating the Eucharist yet I judge that the first place of Antiquity where the Altar is mentioned is if my memory fail me not in the Book of Prayer made by Tertullian Tertul. de Orat. c. ult Your Station saith he will be more solemn if you stand-upright at the Altar of God Since which time the Antient Doctors have frequently used that manner of Speech and as they frequently spake of the Altar so they commonly spake of the Table and I verily believe whosoever would collect the expressions of Table and Altar which are to be found in the writings of the Antients to denote the place where the Consecration of the Eucharist was made might compose a compleat Volume of them so that there being nothing more frequent in the Monuments of Ecclesiastical Antiquity than the terms of Altar and of Table to signify one and the same thing it were to tire the Readers patience to alledge proofs of so evident a truth and which is owned by all for I do not find that the Protestants deny unto the Roman Catholicks that the Fathers have often called the holy Table an Altar and in truth they cannot without renouncing all sincerity and modesty neither do I find that the Roman Catholicks do deny unto the Protestants but that the same Fathers do often make mention of the Eucharistical Table the Divine Table the Holy Table and the Mystical Table neither can they without a manifest contradiction against an infinite number of passages of Antiquity that are scarcely to be numbred in the writings of S. Chrysostom and S. Austin and if any desire to satisfie their curiosity thereupon they may consult of the former Oration 19. and 20. to the
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.
in the Sclavonian Tongue unto those of that Nation whom he had Baptised that is to say Converted That as the matter was debated in the Sacred Colledge where there were several that opposed it there was a voice-heard as it were sent from Heaven saying Let all Flesh praise the Lord and every Tongue confess his Name upon which Cyrill was granted his request It is said that this Cyril is the same who in the Sclavonian Language is called Chiuppil That he lived about the Year 860. and that in the Days of Michael the Third Emperor of the East and of Pope Nicolas the First he with Methodius Converted unto the Faith of Jesus Christ the Mingrelians the Circassians and the Gazarites and afterwards several of the Sclavonians therefore in the Roman Martyrology is celebrated the day of his Birth as was antiently said amongst Christians that is of the Death of Cyrill and Methodius in the same day which is the ninth of March whence it is also that Pope John the Eighth wrote several Letters unto this Methodius Companion unto Cyrill and one of the Apostles of the Sclavonians according to the Language of those times and we find by the 247th Letter of this Pope written Anno 879. unto Sphentopulcher Prince of the Country That Methodius had been sent by this Prince unto John the Eighth who returned him back unto him to execute the Function of Archbishop with power to celebrate Mass and Divine Service in the Sclavonian Tongue We have just cause to commend saith this Pope Tom. 7. Concil part 1. Ep. 247. p. 91. writing unto Sphentopulcher the Sclavonian Characters invented by a certain Philosopher called Constantine whereby the Praises of God are published abroad and we command That in that same Language be recited the Sermons and Works of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ for we are warned by Divine Authority to praise the Lord not only in three Languages but also in all which Authority enjoyns us this Commandment when it saith All Nations praise the Lord and all People bless his name and the Apostles being filled with the Holy Ghost spake forth in all Languages the wonderful things of God Thence also it is that St. Paul that Heavenly Trumpet publisheth this Warning Let every Tongue confess that our Lord Jesus is the Christ to the Glory of the Father Touching which Languages also he instructeth us fully and plainly in the 14th Chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians how we are to edifie the Church in speaking several Languages and certainly it doth in no way prejudice the Faith or Doctrine to sing Masses in the Sclavonian Tongue or to read the holy Gospel or Divine Lessons of the Old and New Testament well translated and interpreted or to say or sing all the other Offices because he who made the three principal Languages the Hebrew Greek and Latine is the same which hath also created all other Languages for his Praise and Glory However we appoint that in all Churches under your inspection for the greater Honour the Gospel be read in Latine and because 't is translated into Sclavonian that it be read to the People who understand not Latin as it is practised in some Churches It were to be wished say the Protestants that the Christians of the Roman Communion would make serious reflection upon these words of Pope John the Eighth and that then they would consult the Decree of Innocent the Third at the Council of Lateran assembled in the year of our Lord 1215. T. 7. Concil Paâ—r part 2. Can. 9. p. 8â—9 Because that in most places in the same City and in the same Diocese there be people of divers Languages mingled together having under one Faith different Ceremonies and Customs we expresly enjoyn the Bishops of those Cities and Dioceses to provide for them persons fit to celebrate Divine Offices according to the different Ceremonies and Languages and to administer the Sacraments of the Church instructing them by their words and by Example Cardinal Cajetan who lived in Luther's time hath left in his Opuscula Opuscul t. 3. tract 15. art 8. That it were better for the edification of the Church thaâ— publick Service and Prayers which are made in presence of the People should be made in the Church rather in the vulgar than in the Latin Tongue and being blamed for it by some he answered That he grounded what he had said upon the 14th Chapter of the first to the Corinthians De offic pii viri p 865. George Cassander who lived and dyed in the Roman Church wished that it might have been so practised Methinks saith he it were much to be desired that according to the Apostles command and the custom of the antient Church some heed were to be taken of the People in the publick Prayers of the Church in the Psalms and Lessons which are used in their behalf and that the common People should not always be kept strangers from the knowledge of Prayers and Divine Service The words of St. Paul are clear That one cannot understand what is said if it be not said in a known Tongue and that he that by his ignorance understands not what is said cannot say Amen unto the Prayers of another Ibid. p. 866. And having alledged the words of Aeneas Sylvius and those of Cajetan he adds Vnto those who have the conduct and Government of the Church at this time it were no hard matter to establish and settle these and the like things according to the pure and antient practice of the Church if the minds of some persons were not seized with a vain and foolish fear and if they were not kept back by a vain Superstition nevertheless unless this be done I do not see that there is any great hope of an assured agreement and union in the Church nor that the Seeds of Schisms and Divisions will ever be rooted out and I cannot conceive how those persons unto whom the oversight of the Church is committed shall escape rendering an account of the Rents and Divisions in the Church which they have neglected and whereof they have not been careful according to their duty to prevent the growing Schisms and Heresies He repeats almost the same things in the consultation addressed unto the Emperors Ferdinand I. and Maximilian II. where he saith Pag. 995. amongst other things That 't was requisite Priests should so say Mass that the People may reap some benefit by it and not to be barely busied about an outward shew This was also the Testimony of Erasmus which is cited in the Margin of Cassander's Book just by the words first alledged Dâ— modo orandi It were saith he much to be desired that the whole Divine Service were said in a Language understood by all the People as it was wont to be practised in antient times and that all things were so plainly and so distinctly spoken that those which hearkened might understand them Queen Katherine
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
he by the Churches the which as the more sacred are said to be inhabited by the presence of some Divinity having received into the Temples at their first Dedication or Consecration such Devils by curious invocations and Witchcrafts Arnobius brings in the Pagan answering the Christian after this manner You err and are deceived L. 6. advers Gent. for we do not believe that the Brass nor the Mass of Gold or Silver nor the other matter whereof Images are made are of themselves Gods and religious Deities but we serve and worship these Gods in them which holy Consecration doth introduce De vanitat Idolor and which it makes to inhabit in the Images which we caused to be made And did not St. Cyprian say in his time That these sorts of Spirits do lie hid under the Statues and consecrated Images In fine Lactantius speaking of this kind of Gods of the Gentiles Instit l. 2. c. 4. saith That when they were made they felt it not nor when they are worshiped they know it not for they became not sensible by Consecration But as for the Sanctification and Consecration of Christians it consisted only in retrieving things from a profane and common use and by applying them unto a holy use by desiring of God by their Prayers That he would sanctifie their use and Employment for his Glory and the Salvation of those who used them lawfully so that there being any Question for instance of the Water of Baptism or of the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament their Consecration tended only to give them a quality which they had not before to employ them unto a Divine and Religious use and by praying God to make them Sacraments of his Religion and that he would render them efficacious by his holy Spirit in the lawful using of them out of which use they were no more but common Bread Wine and Water as they were before all the virtue they have in quality of Signs and Sacraments either to sanctifie our Souls or to nourish them depending upon the Holy and Religious use unto which they are apply'd and on the efficacy of the Spirit acting at the same time to the end that they should not only signifie but also that they should seal in our Souls and that they should exhibit and communicate when they are administred the things which they signifie and represent Now let us see if this were the belief of the Holy Fathers of the Church In Levit. Hom. 11. p. 100. Origen upon Levitiecus There is born in my house saith he the Firstling of a Cow I am not permitted to put it unto any common use for it is holy unto the Lord and therefore it is called Holy We know then by this dumb Beast Ibid. how the Law appoints that what it will have to be Holy must be set apart for God only And in the same place to sanctifie any thing is to devote it unto God The great St. Regul brevior q 53. p. 642. D. t. 2. Basil Sanctification consists in adhering locally and inseparably unto God at all times in studying and following what is well pleasing in his fight for also in the things offered and consecrated unto God deficient things are not accepted and without impiety and sin what hath been once consecrated unto God cannot be converted unto common and human use St. Austin in his questions upon Leviticus testifies that he was of the same Opinion when he saith thus When he saith the things which the Children of Israel sanctified L. 3. q. 85. t. 4. p. 98. it must be understood in offering them unto the Priests and by them unto the Lord and this kind of sanctification must be observed which is made by vow and by the Devotion of him who offers S. Cyrill of Alexandria in his Commentaries upon Esay L. 1. Orat. 6. p. 178. What is said to be sanctified shall not always partake of sanctification but rather it signifies to be consecrated unto the glory of God as what he saith unto Moses Sanctifie unto me all the first-born which open the Matrix all the Males unto the Lord L. 7. 8. in c. 10.34 Dial. 6. t. 5. part 1. p. 595. and in those places sanctifie imports to consecrate And upon St. John What is consecrated unto God is said to be sanctified And in his Dialogues of the Trinity What then Friend will not reason constrain us to confess that what is said to be sanctified was not before Holy for I judge that is called unto sanctification which is alter'd from what it was not Hom. 14. t. 5. part 2. p. 187. In Levit. l. 7. c. 27. when it is sanctified And in his Paschal Homilies To sanctifie is to consecrate and offer some excellent Oblation unto the God of the whole Vniverse Hesychius of Jerusalem That which is sanctified and offered begins to be sanctified even by being offered it was not then Holy before The Frier Jovius in the Library of the Patriarch Photius Codic 222. ex lib. 24 25. We say that the place or the Bread or the Wine are sanctified when they are set apart for God and that they are not imploy'd about any common use Even Thomas Aquinas himself who although he lived in an Age wherein the Doctrine of the Eucharist received an alteration and change yet acknowledged this kind of Consecration who nevertheless happily would not have that of the Eucharist to depend on it T. 2. q. 81. art 8. num 70. Not only Men but also the Churches Vessels and all other things of this kind are said to be sanctified from the very time that they be applyed unto the service of God I should here end the examination of the question of Consecration were I not obliged to say something of the manner of pronouncing the words of Consecration It cannot be doubted but Jesus Christ pronounced with an audible voice the words whereby the Latins pretend that he did consecrate seeing the Evangelists nor S. Paul do neither of them remark that there was any difference betwixt the pronouncing of these words This is my Body This is my Blood and that of all the rest The Amen which the People answered in the following Ages after the Consecration was made as it appears by Justin Martyr by Denys of Alexandria in Eusebius by Tentullian by St. Ambrose by St. Leo and by others This Amen I say doth clearly shew that they consecrated with a loud voice this also is justified by most of the Liturgies which remain unto us where it is expresly observed that the pronouncing of these words was done with a loud voice as in those attributed unto St. Peter St. Mark De Observ can t. 10. Bibl. Patr. Not. in Gregor Sar. page 389. Not. 131. in Miss Chrysost Euchol St. Basil and St. Chrysostom Raoul de Tongres writes that it was so practised even in the Church of Millan conformable unto the Liturgy of St. Ambrose
said by Arnobius in the beginning of the Fourth Century this Christian Orator having related at the end of his Sixth Book that the Pagans were wont to make grievous reproaches against the Christians and to call them Atheists because they did not sacrifice He thus begins his Seventh Book What then will some say Arnob. contr gent. lib. 7. init think you that no Sacrifice at all ought to be made There ought indeed none to be made saith he to the end to give you the opinion of your Varro and not ours only Lactantius his Contemporary and of the same profession Lactant. instit l. 6. c. 25. having undertaken to treat of a Sacrifice therein considers two things The Gift and the Sacrifice it self And he saith That the one and the other ought to be incorporeal that is Spiritual to be offered unto God that the integrity of the soul is the Oblation that the Praise and Hymn is the Sacrifice That if God is invisible he must then be served with invisible things He approves the Maxime of Trismegistus That the Benediction only is the Sacrifice of the true God And thence he concludes That the highest manner of serving God is the praise offered unto him by the mouth of a just man And elsewhere he saith That he will shew what is the orue Sacrifice of God and the truest manner of serving him And see here how he doth it He saith first That God doth not require of us either Sacrifices or perfumes or other the like presents that for incorporeal that is Spiritual Natures there must be an incorporeal Sacrifice that is to say Spiritual And afterwards What is it then Id. Epitemâ— c. 2. saith he that God requires of man but the service of the understanding which is pure and holy for as for the things done with the Fingers or that are without the man they are not a true Sacrifice the true Sacrifice is what proceeds out of the heart and not what is taken out of the Coffer â— it is what 's offered not with the hand but with the heart it is the agreeable Sacrifice which the soul offers of it self In fine he concludes that righteousness is the only thing which God requires of us and that it is therein the service and Sacrifice consists which God desires Cyril Alex. l. 10. contr Julian t. 6 p. 343. It will not be unnecessary to join unto these Witnesses S. Cyril Bishop of Alexandria who refutes the Writing published against the Christians by Julian the Apostate about seventy years before in which Writing this foul Deserter of the Truth taxed them amongst other things that they approached not unto the Sacrifices and Oblations of the Altars and that they did not sacrifice yet this wicked wretch was not ignorant of what was practised in the Worship and Service of the Church and therefore this reproach must needs have some shew of truth otherwise he had exposed himself unto the scorn and contempt of all the World And S. Cyril answering in order unto all that this Apostate had spewed out against the Religion of Jesus Christ would not have failed to have cried O the Impostor if the Christians of his time that is of the Fifth Century had truly sacrificed and if they had amongst them real Sacrifices Let us then see and without prejudice exactly examine what S. Cyril replyed unto this Wretch's reproach Ibid. p. 344. B. He freely confesseth that Christians do not sacrifice any more Because the types and figures having given place unto the truth we are commanded to consecrate unto God Almighty a pure and spiritual service Ibid. p. 345. B. Vnto fire which formerly came down from Heaven upon the Sacrifices and which we have not now he opposeth the Holy Ghost Ibid. C. which proceeding from the Father by the Son comes and illuminates the Church Vnto Oxen Sheep Pidgeons Doves unto the Fruits Meal and Oyl of the Israelites be opposeth our spiritual and reasonable Oblations And explaining unto us wherein they consist and their nature and quality We offer unto God saith he an Odour of a sweet savour all manner of vertue or truth Faith Hope Charity Justice Temperance Obedience Humility a continual Praise and Thanksgiving of the Lord and his works and all the other vertues for this Sacrifice purely Spiritual agrees well with God whose Nature is purely simple and immaterial the life and actions of a truly good man are the perfumes of a reasonable service And having alledged some passages of the holy Scriptures to confirm this Doctrine He concludes as he began Ibid. p. 346. C. We sacrifice unto God saith he Spiritual things and instead of material fire we are filled with the Holy Ghost From this same Fountain proceeds another Doctrine of these first Conducters of the Christian Churches which consists in instructing Believers and teaching them what had succeeded unto the Sacrifices of the Law I do not find after an exact scrutiny that they alledge or insist upon the Sacrament but they are contented to oppose unto the Mosaical Sacrifices either the Spiritutal Sacrifices which we offer unto God under the Gospel or the truly propitiatory Sacrifice of the Cross or both of them together In regard of the former the Author of the Apostolical Constitutions Const Apost l. 2. c. 25. said That unto the Sacrifices of the Law succeeded prayers vows and giving of thanks and that the First fruits Tythes and portions and gifts of those times are now changed into the Oblations which the Bishops offer unto God through Jesus Christ who died for all He means the Oblations of Bread and Wine which Believers made and generally all things presented by them unto God in behalf of the Christian people Thence it is that he saith also elsewhere Id. l. 6. c. 23. That instead of Sacrifices which were made by shedding of blood Jesus Christ hath given to us a reasonable Sacrifice Mystical and unbloody which is celebrated in remembrance of his death by the Symbols of his Body and Blood In which words indeed he makes mention of the Eucharist but as of a Mystical and Spiritual Sacrifice and in the same sense which he said That our Sacrifices at present are prayers and giving of thanks Origen in all his Homilies upon Leviticus doth very exactly after his manner seek for all the mystical significations of the ancient Sacrifices but I do not find that he doth once speak of a propitiatory Sacrifice offered every day unto God by Christians Origen Hom. 2. in Levit. In the second Homily he mentions at large the means which we have under the Gospel besides that of holy Baptism to obtain the remission of our sins Ib. Hom. 5. but amongst all those means I do not find the Sacrifice of the Eucharist In the fifth he shews how the Ministers of the Gospel do make propitiation for the sins of the people but he only alledges for that the instructions and
they were present in the Assemblies where the Sacrament was Celebrated and if they neglected Chrysost Hom. 3. in Ep. ad Ephes the Holy Fathers rebuked them with a holy zeal in their Sermons witness what S. Chrysostom saith That it is in vain the daily Sacrifice is made that 't is in vain that Ministers assist at the Altar when there is no body present to receive And he adds That it is a boldness and impudence to be present at the Action and not to participate Therefore it is that elsewhere he considers the Eucharist as a Meal which ought to be common unto Believers The Lords Supper saith he ought to be common Id. Hom. 27. in Ep. 1. ad Cor. for our Lords goods are not for one servant to the exclusion of another but for altogether in common The Apostle therefore calls this Supper of the Lord the common Supper for it is our Lords therefore you ought not to appropriate it unto your self and to exclude and hinder others but make it common unto all us being the Supper of the Lord and Master of all These were also the thoughts of the Authour of the Commentaries upon S. Paul's Epistles in S. Jerom's Works which he expresses in these words In c. 11. Ep. 1. ad Cor. The Supper of the Lord should be common unto all because he gave the Sacraments unto all his Disciples alike But the ancient Doctors were not content to censure those who did not Communicate being in the Assembly and to shew them that the nature of the Sacrament invited them all unto the Communion they moreover made Rules and Directions against this abuse It is whereunto tends this Decree of the Council of Antioch Assembled Anno 341. Those who enter into the Assembly Concil Antioch c. 2. and do heart he holy Scriptures and by a disordered liberty do not join in prayer with the people depriving themselves of the participation of the holy Sacrament must be put out of the Assembly And in the Canons commonly called the Apostles after the VIII Canon hath condemned and deprived of the Communion of Divine Mysteries those amongst the Clergy who without lawful cause abstain from the participation of the Sacrament as being a stumbling-block to the people the Ninth makes this Decree Can. 9. Apostol All the Believers who enter into the Assembly and hear the Scriptures read but stay not for the prayers nor receive the holy Sacrament let them be cast out because they are an offence to the Church Accordingly the Constitutions called Apostolical ordain Constit Apostol l. 8. c. 11. That the Deacon should stand at the Mens Door and the sub-Deacon at the Womens Door to hinder that none should go out during the time of Oblation Which conduct teacheth us that as before the Comunion the Deacon cry'd All you which are under penance you which cannot pray Chrysostâ— Hom. 3. in Ephes that is with the Believers go out So in like manner he hindred Believers who were all bound to Communicate That they should not go out until they had received the holy Sacrament It is by this Maxim that the Deceiver who forged some Decretals in S. Clement's name makes him say in the second Pseudo Clem. decret 2. Greg. I. l. Sacram p. 235. That Sacrifices should be offered according to the number of the people S. Gregory makes the same Decree when he requires That there be laid on the Altar as many Oblations as need for the people And the first Decretal which falsely bears the name of Pope Anaclet commands Anaclet decret 1. That the Consecration being ended all those should communicate that would not be thrust out of the Church it was certainly for the same reason that the Deacon Greg. I. l. 2. dâ—al as Gregory the First witnesseth said aloud Let all those which do not communicate depart out of the Church whence it may be concluded that all those which remained did communicate It is also the Instruction given unto us by the Micrologue whose Author wrote in the Eleventh Century after the death of Gregory the Seventh who died Anno 1084. and of whom this Writer speaks as a Man of a good fame an Epithete as spoken of one deceased It is to be observed saith he that according to the Ancient Fathers Micrologâ—â— 51. none were to be present at the Divine Mysteries but such as did communicate and it is what the Consecration of the Sacraments do plainly declare for the Priest doth not pray only for his own Oblation and Communion but also for that of others And although in the time of this Author that is in the Eleventh Century and before the fervour and zeal of Christians was very much abated we do not find that they ever approved to celebrate the Sacrament without Communicants on the contrary the Councils and those which have written of Divine Offices do not own any celebration to be lawful without there are some to communicate with the Priest who officiates In that sense is to be understood what is said by Walafridus Strabo Walafr Strab. de Beb. Eccles c. 22. Extr. That in a Lawful Mass there should be a Priest one that answers one that offers and one that communicates And therefore 't is that the Council of Mayence Assembled by Charles the Great Anno 813. made this Decree We conceive that no Priest can say Mass alone for how can he say The Lord be with you or how shall he warn Lift up your hearts and many other like things there being none present but himself Which is repeated in the 48th Canon of the Council of Paris under Lewis the Debonair Cap. 7. Anno 829. An Advertisement That Theodulph Bishop of Orleans gives his Priests Anno 797. Cap. 28. And Herard Archbishop of Tours unto his Anno 858. The Canonist Gratian represents unto us this Institution of Pope Soter in his Decree Grat. de Cons Dist 1. c. Soter That no Priest dare presume to celebrate Masses unless there are two persons present and that he make a third because he saith in the plural The Lord be with you and Pray for me Now it appears that this Doctrine is grounded upon the prayers of the Liturgies being publick and having for their object not one or two Persons only but all the Faithful in general who ought to communicate also all the Liturgies Ancient and Modern and all those who have commented upon them give sufficiently to understand that they have been all composed and written in behalf of Communicants without whom they were so far from celebrating the Sacrament that Justin Martyr tells us That it was sent unto those who were absent which sheweth they looked upon the Sacrament as a Seal and Pledge of the Communion amongst Believers And therefore I suppose it is that the Council of Laodicea Concil Laodic c. 58. forbids it to be celebrated in private Houses this Divine Sacrament being appointed in nature
distribution of both Symbols separately in the latter Ages they came to administer the Bread in the Consecrated Wine so from the distributing the Eucharist steeped by little and little insensibly in some Churches of the West they gave the Communicants only the consecrated Bread a custom which in process of time introduced it self almost into all the Western Churches until that it was established in the year 1415. upon Saturday the 15. of June by this Decree of the Council of Constance Sess 13. t. 7. Concil part 2. p. 1042. This present holy general Council of Constance lawfully Assembled by the Holy Ghost declares discerns and defines that although Jesus Christ after Supper instituted and administred unto his Disciples this venerable Sacrament under both kinds of Bread and Wine yet nevertheless the commendable authority of holy Canons and the approved custom of the Church hath observed and doth observe that this Sacrament ought not to be celebrated after Supper nor to be received of Believers but fasting except in case of sickness or some other necessity allowed or admitted by Law or by the Church and in like manner that although in the Primitive Church Believers received the Sacrament under both kinds yet nevertheless to avoid certain perils inconveniencies and scandals this custom was fitly introduced that those who officiated should receive under both kinds and the Laity under the species of Bread only withall that they should firmly believe and nothing doubt that the intire Body of Christ and the Blood are truly contained as well under the species of Bread as under the species of Wine Therefore such a custom being reasonably introduced both by the Church and by the holy Fathers and that it was a long while observed it ought to pass for a Law which is not allowed to be rejected nor changed by every bodies fancy without the Authority of the Church Therefore they are to be judged erroneous that think it to be Sacrilegious or unjust to observe this custom or this Law and those who obstinately affirm the contrary of what is above said ought to be banished as Hereticks and severely punished by the Diocesans of the places or their Officials or by the Inquisitors of the Heretical evil in the Kingdoms or Provinces where by hazard or on purpose they have attempted or presumed any thing against this Decree according to the lawful Ordinances and Canons which have been seasonably made against Hereticks and their abettors against the Catholick Faith But notwithstanding the severity of this Decree Cassander hath left us upon Record in his Treatise of the Communion under both kinds formerly cited That it is read that Pope Martin the Fifth p. 1037 after the Council of Constance did practise in the solemn Office of Easter the Precept and Formulary of the Roman Order in giving the Communion unto the people under both kinds The same in the same place relates as from Thomas Waldensis That after the Synod of Constance the Pope of Rome did not forbear giving the Communion after the use of Rome that is to say under both kinds unto the Deacons the Ministers of the Altar and unto other persons eminent in Piety and Worth as also unto Rectors of places and considerable Monasteries his Brethren and unto others he thought worthy of so great a Gift He saith moreover That Cardinal Cusa in his Letter written unto the Clergy and learned Men of Bohemia Anno 1452. some years after the Council of Basle declares That until very near his time the Pope at the Feast of Easter suffered the Laity unto whom he had with his own hands given the Body of the Lord to receive the Blood from the hands of the Deacons And that Nicholas of Palerma who assisted at the Council of Basle saith That the opinion of Doctors is That it would not be ill done that the Communicant should also receive the Blood This Council of Basle whereat this Archbishop was present granted unto the Bohemians the Communion under both kinds provided that in all other things they should conform unto the Church of Rome and that they would instruct them to believe that Jesus Christ was contained wholly under the one and the other species All those who are any thing read in the History of those times know that those of Bohemia who differed nothing from the Church of Rome but only in the matter of the Communion under both kinds were called for that reason Calixtins different from the true Taborites but so 't is as it appears by a Letter from George Pogiebrac King of Bohemia that these Calixtins did not quietly enjoy this Grant for in this Letter which was written in the year 1468. and for which we are obliged unto Dom Luke d'Achery T. 4. Spicileg p. 413 414 415. a Benedictine Monk this Prince declares himself plainly to be a Calixtin That he was bred up in this manner of Communicating under both kinds That his Father Mother and Grand-mother had so practised That the Council of Basle had granted Liberty of it unto his Subjects not by way of permission as the Church sometimes tolerates Sins but to the end it should be allowed by the Authority of our Lord Jesus Christ and of our holy Mother the Church his Spouse That in all other things he agrees with the Church of Rome so that it appears by this apologetical Letter which he writes unto Matthias King of Hungary his Son-in-Law that he only desired liberty of Communicating under both kinds as he had been taught by his Father and Grandfather and I doubt not but a part of this Apology will in convenient time and place give sufficient ground for making a clear and certain Judgement of the Belief of the ancient Taborites upon the point of the Eucharist But after all these changes happened at sundry times the Council of Trent in the 21. Session being the Fifth under Pope Pius IV. Anno 1562. the 16. of July after having spoken of the Authority which the Church hath alwaies had in the dispensation of Sacraments to change in time and place what she thought fit the substance still remaining intire it adds Sess 21. c. 2. 3. de doctr That therefore the Holy Mother the Church being sensible of this wholsom Authority in the administration of Sacraments although that at the beginning of Christian Religion the use of both kinds was frequent nevertheless in process of time this custom being changed it was introduced for wise and solid reasons to approve this custom of communicating under one kind and hath commanded it to pass into a Law which shall not be allowed to be alter'd or laid aside at pleasure without the Authority of the same Church And in the following Chapter which is the Third of Doctrine It declares moreover That though our Redeemer as it is said in his last Supper instituted this Sacrament under both kinds and gave it unto his Apostles Yet it must be confessed that Jesus Christ intirely and
every one should and ought with all diligence and fidelity to contribute his Endeavours and improve the Talent which our Lord hath committed unto his trust This is what I have endeavoured to do hitherto and which I intend to do for the time to come if it be not with all the Delight and Ornament the Reader could wish at least it shall be with all the Sincerity which can be expected from one who believes to have well bestow'd his Labour and Pains if his Endeavours would create in the Minds of Christians divided by various Opinions in Religion more tender Inclinations of Love and Charity and greater Desires unto Peace and Concord We have already seen all that relates unto the outward Form of the Celebration of the Sacrament with the Alterations thereunto hapned in succession of time now we must endeavour to discover what hath been believed of this Mystery in this large and spacious Country but to do it the more orderly and to shew with more ease and clearness the History of the Innovations which have happened as well in the Expressions as in the Doctrine we will extend our Proofs as to the Expressions but unto the seventh and eighth Centuries at which time they suffer'd some Attempt and as to the Doctrine unto the ninth supposing it received some Alteration in the beginning of that Age. CHAP. I. The Reflections made by the Fathers upon the Words of the Institution of the Sacrament THE holy Fathers had so great a Love for Jesus Christ and Veneration for all his Institutions that they took a singular pleasure in meditating upon this great Mystery and in making divers Reflections upon this divine Institution Our Lord said of the Bread which he had taken which he blessed and which he broke That it was his Body and of the Wine that it was his Blood The antient Doctors of the Church considering this Expression of the Son of God have declared with a common Consent and as it were united Suffrages that Jesus Christ called the Bread and Wine his Body and his Blood Our Lord said St. Irenaeus Iren. l. 5. c. 2. Tatian tom 7. Bibl. Patr. has assured that the Bread was his Body Tatian in his Harmony upon the Evangelists saith That he testified that the Bread and the Cup of Wine were his Body and Blood Tertullian Tertul. l. 5. contr Jud. c. 11. l. 5. Carm. cont Marc. Origen in Matth. Hom. 35. Cyprian Ep. 75. ad Magn. That he called the Bread his Body and that he said of the Bread and of the Fruit of the Vine This is my Body and my Blood poured out Origen in one of his Homilies upon St. Matthew That he confessed the Bread was his Body And the blessed Martyr St. Cyprian That he called his Body the Bread which was made of the collection of several Grains The Author of the Commentaries upon the Evangelists which go in the Name of Theophilus of Antioch though 't is not certain whether they be his for all they are attributed unto him in the Library of the Fathers this Author I say has expressed his thoughts almost as St. Cyprian had done saying That Jesus Christ called his Body Theophil Antioch in Matth. the Bread which is made of the collection of divers Grains and his Blood the Wine which is pressed out of several Grapes and this he saith in explaining the Words of the Institution of the Sacrament This is my Body this is the Cup of my Blood Eusebius Bishop of Cesarea in Palestin had no other meaning I think when he said Euseb Dem. lib. 8. That the Lord commanded to make use of Bread for the Symbol of his Body Nor St. Cyrill of Jerusalem in these Words Cyrill Hie of Mystag 4. Our Lord spake and said of the Bread This is my Body Nor the Poet Juvencus when he declares Juvenc l. 4. de Evang. Hist That our Saviour giving the Bread unto his Disciples taught them that he gave them his Body Nor in fine an unknown Author in the Works of St. Athanasius which saith De Dict. Interp. Parab 9.72 That our Lord called the Mystical Wine his Blood St. Epiphanius hindered by the Scruple which the Fathers made of calling the Symbols of the Eucharist Bread and Wine contented himself to intimate unto us that Jesus Christ did assimilate his Body unto a Subject round as to its Form Epiphan in Anchor and without sense as to its Power having no manner of resemblance unto the incarnate Image nor with the proportion of Members Gaudent tract 2. in Exod. St. Gaudentius observes that our Lord in giving the consecrated Bread and Wine unto the Disciples said This is my Body this is my Blood It is also the Observation of the Author of the Apostolical Constitutions who makes Christ say of the Bread which he broke Const Apost lib. 8. c. 12. and gave unto his Disciples This is the Mystery of the New Testament Take eat this is my Body St. Chrysostome is no less clear Chrysost in 1 Co. Hom. 24. Hieron cp 4 ad Hidib 92. What is the Bread saith he it is the Body of Jesus Christ. St. Jerome also follows the same way seeing he assures That the Bread which our Lord broke and gave unto his Disciples was his Body and the Cup his Blood and that he proves it by these Words This is my Body St. Austin in the Sermon unto the new baptized August apud Fulgen. de Baptis Aeth cap. vet Cyril l. 12. in Joar 20.26 27. saith expresly That the Bread is the Body of Christ and the Cup is the Blood of Christ St. Cyrill of Alexandria was doubtless of the same mind for in his Commentary upon St. John he makes Christ say Of the Bread which he broke and distributed this is my Body which is given for you in Remission of Sins We may descend lower and carry further the Proof of this first Reflection were we not prevented by the Rule which we prescribed and of the Resolution taken of avoiding as much as possible may be the repeating of the same Testimonies It shall then suffice to inform the Reader that 't is a certain Truth owned by all Men both Protestants and Roman Catholicks that when there is a Dispute of two Subjects of a different Nature it cannot properly be said that the one is the other when therefore these sorts of Propositions meet in Discours of necessity recours must be had unto the Figure or Metaphor What the Fathers have deposed is considerable yet I do not think it sufficient nor that it is all which they have to say unto us If we examine anew these faithful Witnesses I doubt not but they will speak again and that they will inform us of other Truths besides them above-mentioned and that they will not leave us ignorant how they understood the Words of the Institution of this angust Sacrament Those which have diligently applied themselves to
Jesus Christ cannot be in the Sacrament as dead but Typically and Mystically because he really dies no more But because our Saviour said after having distributed the Cup to the Disciples I will drink no more of this Fruit of the Vine until the Day that I shall drink it new with you in my Father's Kingdom I find the holy Fathers have taken notice of this Circumstance seâ—ing they have been pleased to declare unto us that Jesus Christ did call that the Fruit of the Vine that is Wine which he drank or gave unto his Disciples to drink in the Celebration of this divine Mystery This is as I conceive what Clement of Alexandria would intimate in these Words Clem. Alex. Paedag. l 2. c. 2. That what the Lord had blessed was Wine he would declare himself in saying to his Disciples I will drink no more of this Fruit of the Vine until I drink it with you in the Kingdom of my Father Origen in all likelihood had no other meaning when he observed Origen Hom. 7. in â—evit that Jesus Christ gave unto his Disciples Wine which he called the Production of the Vine and in as much as that he would not drink himself at the Celebration of the Sacrament it was that being ready to offer the Sacrifice of his Body he thought fit to shew in his Person the accomplishment of the Type and Figure which had gone before in Aaron and the High-Priest under the Law who were forbidden drinking Wine when they were to draw near the Altar to sacrifice The Poet Juvencus may also be here admitted if the Passage which might be alledged of his were in its purity and had received no alteration but because in all appearance it hath been altered I 'll pass it over in silence that no body may have cause of Exception and instead of Juvencus I 'll produce St. Athanasius which saith Athan. in Synops That when the Lord gave the Mystery or the Sacrament he said I will drink no more of this Vine And St. Hilary Hilar. in Mat. cap. 30. That having taken the Cup and broke the Bread they drank the Fruit of this Vine And this is the reason wherefore St. Basil to prove Basil lib. 2. contr Eâ—nem that we call the Product of the Earth Fruit and not Children thus alledges the Words of our Lord I will no more drink of the Fruit of the Vine that is to say of the Production of the Vine St. Epiphanius disputing against the Encratian Hereticks or the Hydroparastarians who used only Water in the celebration of the Eucharist and for that reason were called Hydroparastites or Aquarians refutes them by the Words of our Saviour saying Epiphan haeres 47. Their Sacraments are no Sacraments but they counterfeit them in imitation of the true therefore they shall therein be condemned by the Words of our Saviour which said I will not drink of the Fruit of the Vine St. Chrysostom observes something of the same Nature when he assures That Jesus Christ Chrysost hom 83. in Math. to pluck up by the Roots this pernicious Heresy and to shew us that when he distributed the Mysteries he gave Wine he said expresly of the Fruit of the Vine for the Vine saith he doth not produce Water but Wine Gennad lib. 1. Dogm Eccles cap 75. And Gennadius Priest of Marsellis blaming those which under a pretext of Sobriety used Water instead of Wine in the celebration of the Sacrament refutes them by this reason That there was Wine in the Mystery of our Redemption and he proves it by these Words of Jesus Christ From henceforth I will not drink of the Fruit of the Vine Amalarius Florus and Christian Druthmer spake no otherwise in the IXth Century but because we will not change the method prescribed we will at this time wave their Testimonies and the proof of this antient Tradition by the Testimony of several Witnesses which have been famous in the Church as St. Justin Martyr St. Irenaeus Tertullian and many others altho Chiliasts and Millenarians For St. Jerome informs us that to prove that our Lord should drink Wine during the Reign of a 1000 years which they believed he was to reign upon the Earth they made use of these Words of our Saviour Apud Hieron Ep. ad Hedib q. 2. I say unto you I will no more drink of the Fruit of the Vine until I drink it new with you in my Fathers Kingdom from this place saith St. Jerome some dream of the Fable of a 1000 years during which they argue Jesus Christ shall reign corporally and that he will drink Wine whereof he drank not from that time until the end of the World What St. Jerome dislikes in them is the reign of a 1000 years during which they imagined that Christ should drink Wine upon Earth whereof he had not tasted any from the moment which he drank in the celebration of the Sacrament and whereof he was not to drink until this pretended Reign of a 1000 years The first thing to be considered in a Discourse is the Scope and Design of him that speaks because 't is the Mind that sets the Tongue a going and that 't is with regard to his Intention when he hath discoursed of a Matter the Expressions made use of must be considered for representing his Thoughts without this we must needs stray or at least fall into one of these Inconveniencies either not to comprehend the Sense of what is read or to impute unto him that speaks things which are strange or even sometimes unjust and unreasonable For Example Jesus Christ commands us in the Gospel to imitate the Wisdom of the unjust Steward which had wickedly wasted the Goods committed by his Lord unto his Trust this Precept to consider it barely and litterally is very wide of the Mark which our Saviour intends contains a wicked Practice and quite different from that which he teacheth us in his Gospel which being pure and holy infinitely surpasseth what is best and most commendable in the Heathen Morals But if we consider his Scope and Intention there is nothing in this Precept which is not worthy the School of Christ What he requires of us is not to imitate the ill-dealing of this unjust Steward which wasted his Master's Goods he only would have us imitate his Wisdom in making Friends when he saw his Stewardship was like to be taken from him that is to say that we also should make good use of those Goods which he is pleased to bestow on us and whereof he makes us Stewards that we should employ them to the relief of the Poor that by means of our Alms-deeds and Charity we should make our selves Friends which may contribute unto the saving our Souls by the Prayers which they make unto God for us Nothing can be more reasonable than this Rule which St. Chrysostom lays down Chrysost Hom. in haec verba Pater si fieri
certain Observations which suffer us not to be ignorant after what manner they understand it to be so Aug. Serm 53. de verb. Dom. For in the first place they make this Observation Almost all saith St. Austin call the Sacrament the Body of Christ And again Id. l. 3. de Triâ—it c. 4. We call nothing the Body and Blood of Christ but that which being taken from the Fruits of the Earth and consecrated by mystical Prayer is received by us for the Salvation of our Souls Isid Hâ—sual Orig. 6. c. 19. And St. Isidore of Sevil By the command of Jesus Christ himself we call his Body and Blood that which being taken out of the Fruits of the Earth is sanctified and made a Sacrament We may also alledge upon this Subject those amongst them who have declared in the first Chapter of this second Part that Jesus Christ in instituting his Eucharist called the Bread and Wine his Body and his Blood and those who in the second affirmed that the Sacrament was Bread and Wine but to avoid repeating the same Testimonies we remit the Reader unto those two Chapters where he may consult those two Observations whilst we shall only say that this Observation being so express and positive gives very much Light and Strength unto the silence we hinted at although it appears plain enough to be understood by several but yet farther they give us notice in the second place that the Sacrament is honoured with the Name of the Body of Jesus Christ The Bread saith St. Chrysostom Chrysost ep ad Caesâ—r Theod. Dial. 1. is esteemed worthy to he called the Body of cur Lord. And Theodoret in one of his Dialogues He that called Wheat and Bread that which is his Body by Nature hath honoured the visible Symhols with the Name of his Body and of his Blood Having a long while meditated saith the Protestant upon these sorts of Testimonies of the Holy Fathers I have been forced to conclude that because one thing which is honoured with the Name of another cannot be truly that same by whose Name it is honoured or that these Holy Doctors which affirm That the Bread of the Sacrament is honoured with the Name of the Body of Jesus Christ knew not how to reason which cannot be said without slandring them or that they believed not that this Bread was really the Body of Jesus Christ He adds that he doth not examine what they should have said but what they did say and he infers that none can dispense themselves from approving what is contain'd in the second Branch of his Dilemma For my part I leave it to others to judg the Inductions which are made from the Passages of these Holy Doctors because it is properly the Interest of Roman Catholicks or Protestants whose Arguments I only alledge But this is not all which the Holy Fathers say for the clearing up of their Intentions They tell us for a third Advertisement that if the Sacrament be the Body of Jesus Christ it is but after a manner and in some sort So St. Austin doth declare Aug. Ep 23 ad Bonif. Id. in Psal 33 Conc. 2. The Sacrament saith he of the Body of Jesus Christ is the Body of Jesus Christ after a manner And elsewhere Jesus Christ accommodated himself after a certain sort when he said This is my Body I have not yet observed that these kinds of Corrections and Restrictions were used when things were spoken of which were truly what they were called but only when the Discourse was of those which were only so improperly and by reason of certain relations which they have unto the Subjects whose Names they bear and in whose consideration there 's no scruple made to say that they are the Subjects themselves not really in the strictness of the Expression but after a sort Quintil. inst Orat. l. 8.3 p. 404. so the most excellent Orators whom we may term the Masters of the Science put this Term after some sort for one of the Tempers which may be used for modifying of Metaphors and figurative Expressions which may be too bold But let us continue our design and hear the famous Theodoret who will furnish us with such pregnant and clear Lights that we shall have no difficulty to comprehend in what sense the Holy Fathers called the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament Theod. dial 1. the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ see here how he speaks The Lord saith he made a change of Names giving unto his Body the Name of the Symbol and unto the Symbol the Name of his Body which he said upon the occasion that our Saviour had called his Body Bread in the 6th Chapter of St. John and the Bread his Body in the Institution of the Sacrament So that his design is to shew that the Sacrament is the Body of Christ as the Body of Christ is Bread seeing he puts no difference in this exchange of Names and that he observes that the Name of the Body of Jesus Christ belongs no more to the Sacrament than that of Bread belongs to the Body of Jesus Christ Tertullian if I mistake not had an opinion much like this long before Theodoret when he said Tertul. conâ—r Marc. l. 3. c. 19. Chrysost iâ— c. 5. Galat. That Jesus Christ called the Bread his Body to interpret the ancient Prophecy of Jeremiah which had called the Bread his Body St. Chrysostom will not a little contribute to the clearing of what we examine for explaining these Words of the 5th to the Galatians The Flesh lusteth against the Spirit and the Spirit against the Flesh He observes that this Word Flesh hath divers improper and figurative Significations and amongst these sundry significations he puts this that sometimes it is taken for the Mysteries or for the Sacraments The Scriptures saith he is wont to call the Mysteries by the Name of Flesh and the whole Church saying that it is the Body of Jesus Christ but nothing can be seen plainer nor more intelligible than these Words of Facundus Facund l. 9. c. ult We call the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ which is in the Bread and consecrated Cup his Body and Blood not that the Bread is truly his Body nor the Cup his Blood Hitherto these Holy Fathers have not ill informed us of the Nature of this manner of Speech that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ but nevertheless they intend not to rest there they will moreover inform us wherefore it is so used in the Church They tell us then in the first place that the Bread and Wine is called the Body and Blood of our Lord by reason of their resemblance It is the Lesson St. Austin teacheth us in one of his Letters Aug. Ep. 23. ad Bonif. If the Sacraments saith he had not some resemblance unto the things whereof they be Sacraments they would be no Sacraments and it is because
Antio in Marc. Seeing our Saviour hath said This is my Body This is my Blood those which offer or present the Bread must esteem after Prayer and Consecration that 't is the Body of Christ and participate of it and that also the Cup is instead of his Blood But I see nothing more positive and formal hereupon than what is said by Proclus Bishop of Constantinople in one of his Orations Proclus Orat. 17. where he exhorts his Hearers to imitate the Piety and Devotion of the wise Men which went to worship the Child Jesus in the Manger at Bethlehem for after having represented unto them that instead of Bethlehem they had the Church instead of a Stable the House of God and instead of a Manger the Altar or Communion-Table he adds instead of the Child we embrace the Bread which was blessed by the Infant And it shall appear in its place that Amalarius was very near of this Opinion when he taught That the Sacrament is that which is sacrificed instead of Jesus Christ But because the Fathers which say That the Bread and Wine are the Body of Jesus Christ say also that they pass and are changed into the Body and Blood they have taken care to explain unto us these latter Expressions as they also have fully done the former for they tell us that when they say That when the Bread and Wine pass into the Body and Blood of Christ they mean that they pass into the Sacrament of his Body and Blood This is the Explication which St. Isidore Arch-bishop of Sevil gives us in these Words Isid Hispal de offic Eccles l. 1. c. 18. The Bread which we break is the Body of Jesus Christ who saith I am the true Vine but the Bread because it strengthenâ— the Body is for this Reason called the Body of Jesus Christ and the Wine because it increaseth Blood in the Body for that cause refers unto the Blood of Jesus Christ now these two things are visible yet nevertheless being sanctified by the Holy Ghost they pass into the Sacrament of the divine Body It was also the Opinion of Bede Bed Hom. deâ— Sant in Epiphan Jesus Christ saith he daily washeth us in his Blood when we renew at the Altar the remembrance of his holy Passion when the Creatures of Bread and Wine pass into the Sacrament of his Flesh and Blood by the ineffable Sanctification of the Holy Ghost Raban Bishop of Mayans was of his mind but we may not speak of him now And when these same Fathers say That the Bread and Wine are changed and converted into the Body and Blood of our Lord they also tell us that it is into the Vertue and Efficacy of his Body It is in this sense that Theodotus said Apud Clem. Alex. p. 800. Vict. in Marc. 14. Manus That the Bread is changed into a spiritual Vertue St. Cyril of Alexandria cited by Victor of Antioch speaks yet plainer God saith he taking pity of our Infirmities communicates into the things offered an enlivening Vertue and changeth them into the Efficacy of his Flesh whereunto amounts what hath been already said by Theodoret Theod. Dial. 1. That Jesus Christ hath honoured the Symbols with the Name of his Body and Blood not in changing their Nature but in adding his Grace unto their Nature It is for that Reason he adds Ibid. That the Lord made an exchange of Names giving unto his Body the Name of Bread and unto the Bread the Name of his Body to the end saith he that those which participate of the Divine Mysteries should not stop at things which are seen but that by the change of Names they should believe the change which is made by his Grace It is just what Ephraim Apud Phot. God 229. Patriarch of Antioch intended by these Words The Sacrament doth not change the outward Form but it remains inseparable from the hidden Grace as it is in Baptism Ammon cat in Joan. 3.5 For as Ammenius saith The material Water is changed into a divine Vertue I think no other sense can be given unto these words of the 338 Bishop assembled in the Council at Constantinople Anno 754 In Conc. Nicaen 2. Act. 6. against Images As the natural Body of Jesus Christ is Holy because it was Deified so also this here which is his Body by Institution he speaks of the Substance of Bread and which is his Image is Holy as being made Divine by an Institution of Grace But we will retrench having voluntarily prescribed our selves this Law to avoid Confusion therefore it shall suffice to observe That from all these Considerations of the Holy Fathers which we have alledged there results two Doctrines from their Writings both which have been their Foundation for the Vertue and Efficacy which they attribute unto the Sacsament the first is that they regard it as a Sacrament which not only barely signifies but which also exhibits and communicates unto the believing Soul the thing which it signifies I mean the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ This is it which made St. Chrysostom say explaining these Words Chrysost Hom. â—4 in 1 ad Cor. The Bread which we break is the Communion of the Body of Christ wherefore did he not say that it is the Participation because he would give something more to be understood and shew a great Union For we not only communicate in that whereof we receive and take but also in that we are united for as this Body is united unto Jesus Christ so are we also united unto him by this Bread This was also the Judgment of St. Macarius when he said Macar Hom. 27. Dionys c. 3. Hier. Eceles That in participating of this visible Bread the Flesh of Christ is spiritually eaten And also of the Author of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy who calls the Bread and Wine the venerable Symbols whereby Jesus Christ is represented and whereby we enjoy him And of Victor of Antioch Vict. Antioch in Marc. c. 14. By the Symbol of Bread saith he we are made to participate of the Body of Christ and by the Cup we partake of his Blood St. Fulgentius had no other meaning when he thus read the words of St. Paul Fulg. de Baptis Aethiop the Breads which we break are they not the participation of the Body of the Lord. And in another place which we find in the Fragments of the ten Books he wrote against Fabian the Arrian he declares himself so fully that nothing can be said more expresly unto the Subject in hand The participation it self saith he of the Body and Blood of our Lord Id. ex l. 8. Fragm 28. when we eat his Bread and drink his Cup intimates this unto us to wit that we should dye to the World from hence it is they oppose the Communion of the Body and Blood of our Lord by means of the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist unto the participation of
must be understood according to the Subject of the Discourse for because they imagined his Discourse was hard and unsupportable as if he intended to have given them his very Flesh to eat to dispose Matters into a spiritual Sense he said in the first place It is the Spirit that quickneth then he adds The Flesh profiteth nothing that is to vivifie He also sheweth what he will have us understand by the Spirit the Words which I speak unto you are Spirit and Life as before Whosoever heareth my Words and believeth in him that sent me hath eternal Life c. Therefore to obtain Life there must be an Appetite for this Word we must devour it by the Ear meditate of it by the Understanding and digest it by Faith Also a little before he called his Flesh heavenly Bread pressing in and above all by the Allegory of necessary Meats the Memory of the Fathers which had preferr'd the Flesh-pots of the Egyptians before the heavenly Vocation And elsewhere he teacheth us the Reasons wherefore these Kinds of Expressions must be taken figuratively when he gives us this general Rule for the Interpretation of the Holy Scriptures If the natural Sence will not admit to wit Id. contra Marc. l. 3. c. 23. Rigalt in unum locum August l. 11. de Gem. ad Litt. c. 1. what the Letter of the Scripture bears it follows that the Expression should pass for a Figure or Metaphor The late Mr. Rigaut very pertinent to this Matter reports the Maxims of St. Augustin If saith he in the Words of God or of any one sent to be a Prophet there is found any Expression which cannot be understood by the Letter without Absurdity it is out of doubt that it should be understood as spoken figuratively to signifie something Orig. in Levit. Hom. 7. f. 2. Therefore Origen also understands the Words of Christ in the 6th of St. John figuratively saying particularly of these If you eat not my Flesh and drink my Blood that it is a killing Letter if it be taken in a literal Sense whereas if we understand them spiritually they kill not but there is in them a quickning Spirit And elsewhere explaining these Words He sleeps not until he hath eat and drank the Blood of the slain He seeks under the Law and the Gospel amongst the Jews and Christians the literal Accomplishment of this Prophecy and not finding it amongst the Jews who were expresly forbidden to eat the Blood nor amongst the Christians which for a long time made a Scruple of eating it particularly in Origen's time he saith Id Homil. 6. in Numb That of necessity we must depart from the Harshness of the Letter unto the Sweetness of the Allegory And having observed that what our Saviour said in the 6th of St. John That to eat his Flesh and drink his Blood had so displeased the carnal Disciples which were with him and forsook him he adds That it is said of the Christian People of the faithful People That they drink the Blood of Christ not only by the Ceremony of Sacraments but also when we receive his Words wherein is Life as he saith himself The Words which I have spoken unto you are Spirit and Life It is he then saith he that is broken whose Blood we drink that is That we receive the Words of his Doctrine He saith almost the same in the 35th Treatise upon St. Matthew Euseb de Theol Eccles contra Marc. l. l. 3. c. 12. Eusebius thus makes our Saviour speak to explain what he saith in the 6th of St. John of the eating of his Flesh Do not think that I speak of the Flesh wherewith I am environed as if you should eat it and think not that I command you to drink sensible and corporal Blood but know that the Words I have spoken unto you are Spirit and Life For it is my Words and my Discourse which are this Flesh and Blood whereof whosoever eateth always he shall be Partaker of Life eternal as being nourished with heavenly Bread Let not then what I have said unto you touching the eating my Flesh and drinking my Blood offend you saith he and let not an unadvised Understanding of what I said unto you of Flesh and Blood trouble you for these Things profit nothing being understood carnally it is the Spirit that quickens those which can underderstand it spiritually Athan. in illud quicunque dixerit verb. contra fil homin St. Athanasius speaks no less clear for explaining these Words of Jesus Christ Doth this offend you what and if you see the Son of Man ascend up where he was before it is the Spirit that quickens the Flesh profiteth nothing the Words which I speak unto you are Spirit and Life Our Saviour saith he spake of the one and the other that is of his Flesh and Spirit and he distinguisheth the Spirit from the Flesh to the end that not only believing what was visible of him but also that which was invisible they might learn that the Things which he said were not carnal but spiritual for unto how many Persons could his Body have sufficed for Meat to become Food for all the World Therefore for that Reason he speaks of the Ascending of the Son of Man into Heaven to withdraw them from carnal Thoughts and to teach them that the Flesh of which he had spoken unto them was heavenly Food and spiritual Nourishment which he was to send them from on high For the Words saith he which I have spoke unto you are Spirit and Life as if he should have said unto them This Body which appears and which is given for the World shall be given as Meat to be distributed as Meat unto each one and to be made unto all a Preservative in the Resurrection to eternal Life Macar Homil 27. And can it be thought St. Macarius was of another Mind when speaking of the Bread of the Eucharist he said That those which should partake of this visible Bread should spiritually eat the Flesh of Christ Cyril Hierosol Mystag 4. Nor St. Cyril of Jerusalem when he observed that the Jews which did not spiritually understand the Things which Jesus Christ had said were offended and forsook him thinking that he commanded them to eat Flesh Nor St. Basil observing that the Faculties of the Soul are called by the same Names as the external Members Basil in Ps 33. and that because our Lord is the true Bread and that his Flesh is Meat indeed it is necessary that the Contentment and Pleasure which is taken in eating Bread should be created in us by a spiritual Appetite Nor the incomparable St. Chrysostom in that excellent Discourse which one of his Homilies upon St. Chrysost Hom. 46. in Joan. John doth furnish us It is the Spirit that quickneth the Flesh profiteth nothing See here what he would say You must understand spiritually these Things which I have spoke of my self he which understands
conformable unto the Principles which they have set down Nevertheless because there be several others which we have not touched we find our selves absolutely obliged to handle them in this Chapter the better to clear the Truth which we seek for and if in what remains to be examined they have said any thing which might favour the Hypothesis of the real Conversion which the Latins have made an Article of their Faith it is certain that what they have said hitherto will not be of so much moment and will lose of its worth and vertue whereas if nothing can be found in what is yet to be seen contrary unto what hath been already examined it must then be necessarily concluded say the Protestants that there is nothing in all their Writings that agrees with the Hypothesis of the Latin Church In fine if these Holy Doctors have believed the change of the Substance of Bread and Wine into the Substance of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ then they must also have admitted of these following Maxims First That a Body may be in several Places at once but far from admitting this Maxim to be true they directly oppose it Tertullian disputing against the Heretick Hermogenes which made the Creature co-eternal unto God Tertul. advers Hermog c. 38. If it be in a place saith he it is then within the place if it be within the place it is then bounded by the place within which it is if it be bounded it hath a remote Line and being a Painter as you are your own Profession must needs inform you that the furthest Line is the end of any thing whereof it is the remotest Line And elsewhere Id. de anim c. 9 he establisheth the same Doctrine when he places the Extent and the three Dimensions that is the length breadth and heighth amongst the most essential Properties of a Body and which necessarily and absolutely belong to their Bulk and Mass Arnobius was so strongly of Tertullian's Opinion that he uses it as a Principle universally received to refute the Evasion of Pagans who taught that their Gods were in all the Images which were consecrated unto them Arnob. l. 6. p. 89. ult edit It is not possible saith he that one God should be at one and the same time in several different Images suppose that Vulcan hath ten thousand Statues consecrated unto him in all the World can he be present as I have said in all the ten thousand at one time I think not Why not Because that which is of a particular and singular Nature cannot multiply it self into several Subjects and yet preserve its singleness intire and whole From whence he concludes a little after That it must be said or confessed that there must be an infinite number of Vulcans if there be one in each of these Images or that he is in neither of them if there be but one Vulcan because being but one Nature cannot admit that he should be divided to be in several If the Christians of those times had believed that the Body of Jesus Christ their Saviour and God had been in a Million of places at once without being therefore multiplyed nor divided it must indeed be granted that they had chosen a miserable Advocate to defend their cause because instead of defending he betray'd it and exposed it to the scorn of Infidels in reproaching them with that to be impossible which they themselves held to be possible and which said happened daily unto the Body of their God but we intend not to do this Injury unto the memory of this Christian Orator that would be Injustice and Ingratitude so to serve him seeing he hath said nothing but what is conformable unto the Opinions of other Doctors of the Church For when a Man saith St. Hilar. de Trin. l 8. p. 41. l. in Psal â—24 p. 211. â— Hilary or his Resemblance is in a place he cannot be elsewhere at the same instant because that which is is contained where it is the Nature of him which is in any place where he is sustained being infirm and incapable of being every where Hence it is that the Fathers commonly prove the Divinity of the Holy Ghost by his being present in sundry places at once in opposition unto Creatures which can be but in one place at a time I will not here alledg all their Testimonies it shall suffice to produce some upon a matter that admits of no difficulty Amb de spirit l. 1. c. 7. t. 4. Seeing that every Creature saith St. Ambrose is circumscribed by its Nature by certain bounds and limits and that the Creatures even invisible Creatures are limited by the Propriety of their Substance who dares call the Holy Spirit a Creature which hath not a limited and bounded Power for he is over all and in all which is certainly the property of the Deity Didymus who flourished at Alexandria at the same time when Ephrem did at Edessa Didym de Spir. S. l. 1. If the Holy Ghost saith he were a Creature he should have a circumscribed Substance as all things which have been created for altho the invisible Creatures are not circumscribed by place and bounds yet they are bounded by the propriety of their Substance but as for the Holy Ghost seeing he is in many places he hath not a limited Nature And a little under he saith The Angel which was present with the Apostle when he prayed in Asia could not be present at the same time with others which were in other parts of the World Pasch de Spir. S. l. 1. c. 12. â— 9 Bibl. Patr. Paschas Deacon of the Church of Rome As all Creatures saith he are subject unto the beginning of time it is known also that they be local and bounded by certain Limits and Spaces but as for the Holy Ghost he is not inclosed within Bounds or Limits like a Creature I could add unto all these Witnesses the Depositions of several others but because it is a matter the Truth whereof is known unto those which are any thing verst in the Writings of the Ancients it is needless to insist any longer upon it but only to observe that the Holy Fathers do never except the Body of Jesus Christ from these general Maxims as if his Glorification had acquired him the propriety of being in several places at once their silence upon occasions of such weight and where they could not possibly dispense with themselves from making this Exception if their belief had admitted of it doth evidently prove that they constantly believed that when the Body of Christ was in one place it could not be in another no more than other Creatures his Glorification having indeed given him a Glory which he had not before but without taking away from him the qualities or properties of a true Body besides they are not content to inform us of their Belief by their Silence they also inform us by their Words for
Doctors that spake after this manner it may be said that they did not remember to except the Sacrament of the Eucharist wherein the Accidents of Bread and Wine exist miraculously without their Subjects for tho this Reason was not very strong there being question of a Maxim equally received both by Jews and Gentiles at Athens and Jerusalem as well as by all Christians universally excepting those of the Latin Church which admit not of it in the point of the Sacrament Nevertheless with more appearance this neglect might be charged upon one or two Doctors rather than unto a Cloud of Witnesses which have testified without touching a great many others whose Testimonies we have omitted not to burden the Reader with too long a chain of Passages What likelihood saith the Protestant that so many learned illuminated prudent Persons should so universally positively and constantly teach That Accidents cannot subsist without their Subjects and that not one of them have excepted the Sacrament if they believed with the Latin Church that they did subsist in effect without their Subject I freely confess saith he that this proceeding surpriseth me and that I see no other reason of this obstinate silence but this it is that they owned the truth of this Maxim That Accidents cannot exist without their Subject in its full extent and without any Restriction which being so saith he it must be ingeniously confessed that they take not the course to favour with their Suffrages the Doctrine of a substantial Conversion seeing they have so absolutely and unanimously rejected one of its most important and necessary Consequences But besides all these Consequences which we have examined there is yet a sixth against which it is said the Holy Fathers have no less absolutely declared themselves It regards the deposition of our Senses against which the Latin Church doth oppose it self commanding not to believe them when they tell us that what we see upon the Holy Table and that what we receive there for the Comfort and Salvation of our Souls is Bread and Wine because it is not in effect neither the one or the other but appearances destitute of the Truth and that the Senses are deceived when they make us this false Report If the Holy Fathers were of this Opinion doubtless they would have had the same foresight I say they would have undervalued their Testimony as suspicious and deceitful at least in the subject of the Sacrament Let us then set about discovering what they have said the matter is well worth the pains and it well deserves the care of this Inquiry I have done it and very far from finding in their Writings any opposition against the report of the Senses I have observed that they have established their Testimony as certain and infallible and that they assure us by the Mouth of Tertullian That otherwise it would be to overthrow the whole state of Nature Te â—â—de anim s. 17. and disturb the course of our Life and even darken the Providence of God it self which by this reckoning should have given the oversight the knowledg the dispensation and enjoyment of all his Works unto lying and deceitful Masters that is unto our Senses And having chastised the Impudence of the new Academy which condemned the belief of the Senses he passeth from Philosophers unto Christians saying As for us we are not permitted no we are not suffered to question the truth of our Senses fearing least that in the things of Jesus Christ we should not take the liberty to question our Faith which he treateth at large and he proves the Faith and truth of their Testimony especially what regards this Subject he saith That the sight and hearing of the Apostles were faithful in what they reported of the Glory of our Lord when he was transfigured upon the Mount that the taste of Wine at the Marriage of Cana altho it was Water before was no less faithful as also the touching which Thomas made He alledges the Testimony of St. John saying That they declared of the Word of Life what they had heard and seen with their Eyes and their Hands had handled their Testimony saith he should then be false if the sentiment of the Eyes the Ears the Hands is of a Nature capable of Lying that is to say if these three Senses can be deceived in the Report which they make Tertul. contr Marc. l. 3. c. 8 10 11. l. 4. c. 18. alibi â— Iren. l. 3. c. 20. l. 5. c 1. Epiphan haeâ—â—l 42. Thence also it is that the same Tertullian St. Irenaeus St. Epiphanius disputing either against Marcion in particular or in general against the Hereticks Docetes and Putatives of which number Marcion was and all denied the truth of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ and of his Death and Sufferings attributing unto him only a Shadow and Resemblance of a Body Thence it is I say that they often call to their aid the Testimony and deposition of the Senses to prove against these Hereticks the truth of our Saviour's Human Nature and the certainty of his Sacrifice and Death which makes Protestants say Is it possible that Men which do so powerfully establish the inviolable Fidelity of the deposition of the Sences and that clear their Testimony from any suspicion of Fraud or Deceit not to trouble the order of Nature nor to ruine the commerce and society amongst Men but above all not to shake the solid Foundation of the Religion of Jesus Christ Is it possible that those People could have been of the belief of the Latin Church touching the Sacrament for every one knows this Church declares it self against the simplicity of their Testimony that they accuse of Infidelity these faithful Witnesses and endeavour to deprive them of being believed amongst Christians because that being persuaded of their Verity and the Truth of their Deposition it will have much adoe to support and defend it self and yet more difficulty of insinuating into the Minds of those which do not question the belief of them But it may be some will say probably the Fathers have excepted in this Dispute of the Testimony of the Senses the Sacrament of the Eucharist as a particular thing and which ought not to be reckoned along with the rest if it be so it is not fit to keep it secret nor to argue against the Faith of the Latins of what they have said in behalf of the Senses this difficulty which may easily be fancied in the minds of many hath obliged me exactly to enquire into their Writings if they have not said any thing which may inform us of their Intentions and having made a strict search into all parts I find they have established the Fidelity of this same Testimony of the Senses in what relates to the Sacrament August Serm. ad Insent What you see saith St. Austin is Bread as also your Eyes do report and testify And Tertullian in the same place which gives us the
and consider with himself with what Doctrine they best agree either with that which teacheth that what is therein seen and touched are meer Accidents or with that which holds that they are true Substances of Bread and Wine CHAP. VI. Other Proofs of the Doctrine of the Holy Fathers with the Inferences made by Protestants ALthough we have hitherto represented several Things which have been believed and practised in the Country of Ecclesiastical Antiquity yet it is not all which I observed during the Time of my residing in that Country I will then continue the History of my Travels not to conceal any Thing from the Publick of the Laws and Customs of that spacious Empire upon the Point which we have undertaken to examine For it would not be just after having had Communication of their Records and Registers wherein all that relates unto this august Sacrament is faithfully contained that I should omit any Thing that I have there found not to fail then of my Duty nor the fidelity due to the Quality which I have taken I say that besides the Things which I have already observed I find that about two hundred Years after the first Beginning of this great Empire those which had the Direction and Government of it applied their Thoughts very much in giving divers mystical Significations unto the holy Sacrament and that those which followed them applied themselves thereunto also for they thought that the Bread of the Eucharist being a Body composed of several Grains and the Wine a Liquor pressed from several Grapes they very well represented the Body of the Church composed of several Believers united into one Society It is the Doctrine of Theophilus of Antioch of St. Cyprian St. Chrysostom St. Austin St. Isidor of Sevil of Bede Wallafridus Strabo of Raban and others but he Testimony of the blessed Martyr St. Cyprian shall suffice in a Thing which is not contested Cyprian â—p 76. When saith he the Lord called his Body Bread which is made of several Grains of Wheat he would shew the faithful People which he carried in himself in as much as it is but one People and when he called his Blood Wine made of several Grapes pressed together and made one he also signified this faithful People composed of several Persons united into one Body The Foundation of this mystical Signification can be nothing else if the Protestant be believed but the Nature and the Substance of these two Symbols unto which the holy Fathers have given this Signification after the Consecration which hath rendred them fit for this Use In fine going to represent the Unity of Believers which are sundry Persons really subsisting but united into one Body by the Bonds of the same Spirit I do not see saith he but that the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament whereof the one is moulded of sundry Grains the other prest from several Grapes may be proper to represent this Unity at least that the Substance of several Grains of Wheat and of several Grapes may continue moulded and mixt together See there after what manner he understands this constant Doctrine of the holy Fathers Moreover he desires to be suffered to add that what confirms him in this Opinion is That if any other Sense be given unto this Doctrine of the ancient Fathers this Inconvenience will scarce be avoided to wit that one shall be forced to say of the true and proper Body of Jesus Christ This Bread composed of sundry Grains represents unto us the Church composed of sundry Believers which Thing truly Christian Ears would scarce be able to endure Besides we have observed in the first Chapter of the first Part that the ancient Church was wont to mingle Water with the Wine in the Celebration of the Sacrament and that in the beginning of the third Century there was a Mystery sought for in this Mixture The Reader may please to view the Place where even those of the holy Fathers are named which have so spoken it being needless here to repeat what hath been there mentioned but only to make some few Reflections which we were not there permitted to do and which nevertheless may serve very much to clear up the Intention of these holy Doctors The first is That they have given two several Significations unto the Water and the Wine saying That the Water represents the faithful People and the Wine the Blood of Jesus Christ For I cannot conceive that these two Usages could take place if both these Things did not remain distinct the one from the other because each of them hath a several Object to represent so that the one of them cannot represent the Object which the other doth signifie Secondly they have established betwixt the Wine and the Blood of Jesus Christ the same Relation which they have established betwixt the Water and the faithful People it not being to be seen that they have given any more Vertue unto the Wine to signifie the Blood of the Son of God than they have given to the Water to represent the Christian People and without giving notice that the Wine is the Blood of Jesus Christ in a more particular manner than the Water is the faithful People On the contrary they have spoken so equally of them both in regard of the two Significations which they attributed unto them that it is impossible to discover the least difference In fine the holy Fathers declare That the Wine and Water mingled together signifie the Union of Jesus Christ and Believers which they could not discern but in the Thoughts of the Union of these two Elements I speak of the Water and Wine which subsisted firm and indissoble and the Firmness of the Union of these two Things could not subsist if their Nature and the Truth of their Being did not subsist also And to say the Truth as far as I can judge these good Doctors have not made this Signification which they gave to the Wine and Water to depend barely upon their mingling only but principally of the Subsistance of this Mixture which was absolutely necessary that it might represent the Truth and Solidity of the spiritual Union of Jesus Christ and his People There is an admirable fine Passage of St. Cyprian upon this Subject but which I shall dispense my self from inserting here because 't is to be seen at large in the Place above-mention'd Whilst I shall join unto this mystical Signification two others which we have touched in the same Place in the first Part. By the one the Wine and Water mingled in the consecrated Cup were to represent the Water and Blood which run down the Side of our Lord Jesus at the time of his Passion and by the other the Union of the Eternal Word with the Humanity But all these mystical Significations are destroyed if the Nature and Substance of Things are abolished in the which they had their only Foundation After this manner the Protestant doth reason upon these Observations The Hereticks
disputing formerly against the Catholicks and Orthodox would oblige the Catholicks to prove their Doctrine and Belief in so many express Words In the Dialogue against Arrius Sabellius and Photinus under the Name of St. Athanasius Vigil l. 1. contra Arr. c. l. 1. c. 23. ult Eâ—it p. 140. but whose true Author is Vigilius of Tapsus an African Bishop The Arrian demands of the Orthodox that he will shew him in the Scriptures the Word Homousion which signifies of one Substance or that he may read it properly that is to say in so many Syllables or that he should cease making use of it It is also the Proceedings of the Arrians against the true Athanasius in his Treatise of the Synods of Arimini and Seleutia Athanas de Synod Arim. pag. 911. Id. ibid. p. 913. Id. de decret Syn. Nicaen p. 270. But the Holy Fathers laughed at this ridiculous and impertinent Method It matters not said St. Athanasius if any make use of Terms not contained in the Holy Scriptures provided his Thoughts are Orthodox And elsewhere he saith That although these Words are not found in the Scriptures it sufficeth they contain a Doctrine agreeable to the Scriptures And Vigilius Homousion Vigil ubi supra cap. 26. p. 143. That it must be collected from the Authority of Scripture by a reasonable consequence and that it is not just to quarrel about a Name which may be firmly established by a great many Testimonies It is so several other Doctors have done and indeed they did wisely for there is nothing more unreasonable than to reduce Man to the Degree of Beasts in depriving him of the Use of Reasoning whereby he draws certain Conclusions from necessary Principles No body then ought to wonder if besides the direct Doctrine of the Fathers upon the Point of the Eucharist I here insert the indirect which consists in necessary Inductions because the Part of an Historian which I assume in this Work doth oblige me faithfully to represent unto the Reader the Inductions which others are wont to draw from their Testimonies for the better understanding their Doctrine leaving it unto the Liberty of every one to judge of their Value or Weakness I will therefore continue these Sorts of Proofs already begun in this Chapter What hath been already said containing the direct Proofs of their Belief with the Consequences which are inseparable from it Athenag de Resurrect mort ad ealcem oper Just p. 46. Athenagoras in his Treatise of the Resurrection of the Dead saith something if I mistake not worthy of Consideration Neither the Blood nor Phlegm nor Choller nor Spirits that is to say as well Vital as Animal shall be raised with our Bodies in the blessed Resurrection being no longer necessary unto the Life which we shall then live If the quickned Body of Jesus Christ be the Model and Pattern of the Resurrection of Believers as all Christians Universally agree Athenagoras say they could not believe that the Bodies of Believers after the Resurrection should have no Blood but that he believed also that the glorified Body of Christ had none also and if he believed it had none how could it be thought that he believed that it should be drank in the Eucharist but figuratively because we there make a Commemoration of that Blood which he shed upon the Cross for the Expiation of our Sins A Commemoration which we could not make as St. Paul commands us unless we participate of the Fruits and Benefits of his bitter Death A Participation which as the Protestants say is the Effect of the spiritual and mystical Eating or if you will Drinking Hieron Ep. 61. c. 8 9 c. 1.2 but also at the same time a real and true Eating which is done by our Faith The same may be said by Origen as appears by St. Jerom's sixty first Letter unto Pammachius touching the Errors of John Bishop of Jerusalem and it may be he proceeded farther at least he was not only suspected but taxed with it Moreover in the fifth Century it was not fully determin'd if the Body of our Lord in the State of Glory wherein it is Aug. Epist 146. ad Cons init had Blood For we find by one of the Letters of St. Austin which one Consentius wrote unto him to be inform'd if the Body of Christ now hath Blood and Bones This Consentius was not an Ordinary Believer or common Christian he seems to be a Bishop or at least a Priest worthy of St. Austin's Respect and Friendship for in the Beginning of the Letter he gives him the Title of most dear or most beloved And elsewhere he saith unto him That he is beloved in the Bowels of Jesus Christ I freely confess Ep. 222. saith the Protestant I cannot read these Words without thinking of the Belief of the Latin Church in the Point of the Sacrament for it is not to be conceived that one of the Conducters of the Christian Churches should propose unto the great St. Austin so ridiculous and impertinent a Question if it was believed in his Time of the Sacrament as is now believed by the Roman Catholicks In fine if it was the Belief of the fifth Century I cannot see how that Man can be excus'd of Folly and Extravagance Nevertheless on the other hand St. Austin deals by him in such a manner which suffers us not to judge so disadvantagiously of him What shall we then say Continues he to excuse the Simplicity of this Man and to give some Colour to his Demand Had he never participated of the Eucharist had he never approached unto the holy Table and had he never drank of the Cup of our Redemption Wherefore then doth he ask of St. Austin to know if the glorified Body of our Lord hath Blood if it were true that the Church at that time held for an Article of Faith That it was drank really and truly every time as they communicated of the holy Cup Or wherefore doth not St. Austin refer him back unto the Sacrament the only Consideration whereof might have satisfied Consentius if the Belief of the Latins had been the Belief of that Age. Let us proceed St. Austin proves unto his Friend by the Words of the Scriptures That the Body of Jesus Christ hath yet now Flesh and Bones but because in the Scripture he cites there is no mention of Blood he leaves this Point in the Terms Consentius left it that is to say in suspense saying That because Jesus Christ only said That he had Flesh and Bones without adding Blood we should not also extend our Question any farther nor add that of his Blood unto the other of his Flesh and Bones Fearing saith he there should come some other more inquisiâ—ive Disputer which taking occasion from the Blood should press us in saying If he hath Blood why not then Spleen why not Choller and Melancholly the four Humours which compose the Nature of the Body
to the Scorn of the Enemies of Christianity and have given them Occasion to have derided the Holiness of our Mysteries I could add unto all that we have said in the first place the Simplicity with which the primitive Christians celebrated the Sacrament as we shall perceive by Justin Martyr and the Liturgy of the pretended Dennis the Areopagite for it is very like if they had believed that the Sacrament is the real Body of Jesus Christ they would have used more Ceremony in the Celebration Secondly The Form of Consecration used in the ancient Church as well in the East as the West by Prayers Invocations and giving Thanks as hath been shewn in the seventh Chapter of the first Part doth shew in all likelihood that the Doctrine of the substantial Conversion was not believed because this Conversion could not be made without the abolishing the Substances of Bread and Wine and that Prayers and Benedictions never destroy the Creatures Moreover if what was consecrated were not Holy before Consecration as the Holy Fathers informed us in the same Chapter this Consecration could not happen unto Jesus Christ neither as God nor as Man not as God for in this regard he is Holiness it self not as Man because in this Regard he was ever Holy Besides if this Consecration only retired the Elements of Bread and Wine from their common natural Use to employ them in a religious and holy Use as they have also declared unto us it cannot be seen that this Effect of Consecration can subsist with the Ruin and Abolishment of these Elements For the Use of any Thing be it Prophane or Holy doth always presuppose its Truth and Existency otherwise it were useless in Religion and Nature The Latin Church hath also laid aside this Form of Consecration which she attributed some Ages past unto these Words This is my Body wisely foreseeing that whilst Consecration was made to depend upon Prayers and giving Thanks the substantial Conversion would scarcely be believed I will end this Chapter by another Consideration drawn from the Reasons and Motives which obliged the Holy Fathers to give unto the Sacrament the Name of Sacrifice according to the Enquiry we made in Chap. VIII of the first Part where we have at large proved by their proper Testimonies that they have given it this Title by reason of the Bread and Wine which Communicants presented upon the Holy Table of the Church for the Celebration of the Sacrament and by reason of the Oblation which was made unto God of this Bread and Wine at the instant of Consecration and afterwards Moreover they also called it so because we there render Thanks unto God for bestowing upon us his well beloved Son so that it is an Act of our Thankfulness unto the Father and the Son for the admirable and ineffable benefit of his Death because the Sacrament serves us now instead of the Legal Sacrifices being our external Worship under the Dispensation of the Gospel as Sacrifices was that of the Jews under the Oeconomy of the Law And in sine because it is the Memorial of the truly Propitiatory Sacrifice of the Cross These are the Reasons and Motives of this Name of Sacrifice which the ancient Doctors have given to the Sacrament and which we have largely insisted upon in the before-mentioned Chapter The Protestants hence infer two Things first That all these Reasons and Motives remove from the Minds of Christians the Idea of a real Sacrifice and makes them conceive that of a Sacrifice improperly so called Thence it is that when the Jews and Pagans reproached them that they had neither Altars nor Sacrifices they freely confessed it shewing thereby that if they had given unto the Eucharist the Name of Sacrifice and unto the Holy Table the Name of Altar it was but improperly and by abuse of Language Thence also it is that when they instruct those within and that they teach them what hath succeeded unto the Sacrifices of the Law they contented themselves to oppose unto the Mosaical Sacrifices either the Spiritual Sacrifices which we offer unto God under the Gospel or the Sacrifice of the Cross or both of them together and that there should rest no Scruple in the Minds of the People which they instructed touching the Nature and Quality of the Sacrifice of the Christian Church they unanimously depose at all Times and in all Places that it is an Oblation of Bread and Wine It is also what they were induced to believe because there was but one Altar or one Eucharistical Table in each Church and that the Sacrament was celebrated but once a Day For had they considered the Sacrament as a real Sacrifice they could not have had too many Altars nor too often offer the Sacrifice because in the often doing it there came the greater Benefit and Comfort unto their Souls It is also the Instruction which they drew from Believers being obliged to communicate and that those were made to depart out of the Church which did not communicate in that they never celebrated the Eucharist without Communicants and that Oblations were not received but from those which were admitted unto the holy Sacrament Why should that be if it had been a real Sacrifice seeing one might have assisted with Profit although one communicated not as is now practised in the Latin Church The second thing they infer is That seeing they have not looked upon the Eucharist as a Propitiatory Sacrifice for the Sins of the Quick and the Dead they have looked upon it as a Sacrament of Communion only and a Sacrament which is the Memorial of Jesus Christ and of his Death and where there is distributed unto the Communicants Bread and Wine for a Pledge of their Salvation For therein is distributed what is there offered unto God after Consecration Now the Holy Fathers testifie That there is offered unto God Bread and Wine Gifts and Fruits of the Earth the first Fruits of his Creatures Food which he bestows upon us the same things which Melchizedeck offered the Symbols and Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. So it is they have formally expressed themselves in this eighth Chapter which I desire the Reader to peruse over again to see if these two Inductions are lawful and natural CHAP. VII Continuation of the Doctrine of the Holy Fathers and the Inferences of Protestants BEsides what hath been hitherto said it is observ'd that there be certain Occasions wherein the Holy Fathers should have omitted the Names of Figure Antitype Sacrament if they had believed that it had been the real Body of Christ himself nevertheless they have done the quite contrary For instance The Author of Apostolical Constitutions Constit Apost l. 7. c. 26. gives us a Form of Prayer and Thanksgiving for the Communion where he makes the Communicants say We give thee Thanks O Father for the precious Blood of Jesus Christ which was shed for us and for his precious Body whereof we
upon a serious and impartial Debate it will not be attributed unto the Difference of Judgment it not being to be imagin'd that Christians so good and zealous and fervent for the Religion of Jesus Christ as those were of whom we speak and have had the same Belief of the Sacrament that the Latin Church at this time hath which for some time past doth not suffer the Use of Glass-Chalices that they had not at least used so much Precaution as she doth to consecrate and distribute the Sacrament I mean they would have made it a Scruple of Conscience of putting the Body of their God and Saviour in so brittle a Thing as Glass those which were so careful that none of the sacred Symbols of their Bread and Wine should fall to the Ground The ancient Christians gave the Eucharist to young sucking Children at the Breast a Custom which continued in the West until the XIIth Century and which is still practised in most Christian Communions excepting the Roman Catholicks and the Protestants How came it to pass this Abuse was so long tolerated in the Church if it had been always believed therein what the Latins do believe at present who cannot justly be blamed by little and little to have abolished this Custom One could not without Horror see exposed what was believed to be the Body and Blood of Christ unto the undecent and sad Accidents which oftentimes of necessity happen in communicating of young Children those little Creatures being uncapable by reason of their tender Age of receiving the Sacrament with Respect which is due unto the Body it self of Jesus Christ our Redeemer But wherefore did the ancient Church for so many Ages suffer such an Abuse or at least having tolerated it some time wherefore had she not bethought her self of abolishing it instead of letting it take root in the midst of it Was it not so wise as the Church at this time is Had she less Zeal less Piety and less Prudence had she less love for Jesus Christ or less Veneration for his sacred Person certainly I suppose not This Difference then of Conduct cannot be grounded upon any other Reason but upon the Difference of Faith whilst Christians believed that what they received in the Eucharist was Bread and Wine in Substance but that at the same time they were also the Divine Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Christ the Reasons which moved them to give the Eucharist unto young Children made them pass by the Indecencies which might be feared on the Behalf of these little Creatures But when the Doctrine changed in the West and that in the Latin Church they began to say that it was the very Body and Blood of Jesus Christ this ancient Custom was abolished it not agreeing well with their Belief And indeed we see this Abolition was made about the time when this notable Change happened in their Doctrine And because that in other Christian Communions there is no Alteration happened by any publick Decree in the Tradition of their Fathers upon the Subject of the Sacrament they have innocently retained the ancient Custom of giving the Sacrament unto little Children I confess this Practise is contrary to what St. Paul desires of Communicants which is to examine themselves before they draw near unto the holy Table of which Proof little Children are uncapable But as we do not here treat but only of what was done by the ancient Christians and of what is still practised by several Christian Churches and not of what ought to be done I 'le say no more of it referring the Induction which the Protestants draw from this Practise unto the Judgment of all reasonable Persons which will take the Pains to read this History The Communion under both Kinds was practis'd in the Church until these last Ages wherein the Latins deprived the People of the Use of the sacred Cup for as for all other Christian Societies which hold not Correspondence with her they retain the Custom of administring the Sacrament under both Symbols altho with some little Difference The great Ground of the Latin Church for so doing being through Fear of shedding it But how comes it to pass that this Fear is so lately crept into their Thoughts Whence is it that she her self practis'd the Communion under both Kinds for above a thousand Years without any body scrupling it On the contrary when she began to forbid the Use of the Cup unto the People by a Decree at the beginning of the XVth Century a great many Persons complained of it and whole Countries earnestly desired it might be restored unto them Wherefore did she so long time grant unto her People the Communion under both Symbols distinctly Was there then less cause of Fear of shedding than when they deprived them of this Advantage particularly at the time when in Rome it self they used Chalices of Glass For it must be owned that Glass being a weak thing there was never greater ground to fear spilling than during the time those Chalices were used yet nevertheless when there was most cause of this Fear they suffered the People to participate of the Cup of our Lord as well as of his Bread and when there is less Danger Glass-Chalices being no longer in Use they are refused it Whence say they proceeds such a notable Change which could have no shew of Reason if the Doctrine had not been altered but because wise and prudent Persons do not incline unto these Sorts of Changes without some powerful Motives it must be freely confessed that no other can be found whatever Scrutiny could be made but the Change of Belief And in truth say they again if this Change be not presupposed it will be a very hard matter to forbear censuring those of Lightness which made it a Change I say of the Nature that is of and in a thing which was grounded upon the Authority of Christ himself and the constant Practice of so many Ages Whereas if the prohibiting the Cup be considered as a Consequence of this Change it will not be hard to conceive that the Fear of shedding the real Blood of the Son of God obliged them to forbid unto the People the Use of the holy Cup rather chusing to deprive them of this Comfort and Consolation than to fall into the Inconvenience of some negligent spilling of the Substance it self of the Blood of their Divine Saviour A Fear which hath not seised the other Christian Communions because they have not practis'd any Innovation in this particular or that at least there hath not any been made by any publick Determination In the ancient Church the Eucharist was delivered into the Communicants Hand who with the Hand put it into their Mouth as hath been proved and we may produce Examples of this Practice in the XIIth Century in Flanders At this time in the Latin Church it is put directly into the Communicants Mouth unto whom it is not permitted to receive it
Eucharist with the Dead did not believe in all likelihood that it was the very Body of our Lord for they would not have done any such thing the very Thoughts of it would have terrified them and they would have esteemed themselves the worst of Men to have put their Saviour which they knew to be in Heaven in the Possession of Soveraign Glory into such a mean and low Estate In this same Church in several Places they caused to be burnt the Overplus of the Sacrament and in other Places they caused it to be eaten by Children which they made come from School on purpose Is it to be thought that if they had believed it was the very Substance of the Body of Jesus Christ that they would have given it so freely unto Children who were sent for to come from School to that effect It is also more unlikely that they would have caused to be burnt the Flesh it self of the Saviour of Mankind and to cast the Son of God into the Fire who had ransomed them from the eternal Fire of Hell The ancient Christians have sometimes taken the consecrated Cup and have mingled it with Ink and then dipt their Pen in these two Liquors mixed the more authentically to sign what they had intended to ratifie not considering what is in the Cup but as a Symbol and Sacrament of the Blood of the Son of God yet one would be struck with some Terror so to see profaned this Sacrament of our Salvation but if one considers it as the Blood it self of Jesus Christ one shall find himself seized with a holy Fear And because it cannot fall within the Compass of a Christian's Thoughts to employ unto this Use the Substance of the Blood of our Lord if he had it in his power it self it must be concluded that those who did it were very far from thinking that it was the real Blood of our Saviour It may be the same Consequence might be drawn from the Practice of the Greek Church which mingles warm Water with the Wine after Consecration and at the instant of communicating But because we shall be obliged to speak elsewhere of the Belief of the Greeks we will not enlarge upon it in this place and we shall only advertise the Reader that all the Customs from whence have been drawn these Inductions contained in this Chapter have been examined in the 5 10 11 12 13 14 15 and 16 Chapters of the first Part of this History and are those which Protestants do make and which the Quality of an Historian which I have assumed in this Work hath obliged me to represent CHAP. IX Other Proofs drawn from the Silence of Heathens and of things objected against them by the Holy Fathers HAving sometimes applied my self to consider how the Enemies of Christians have behaved themselves in reference to the Simplicity of our Mysteries I find they have been displeased with most of them and that they have aspersed them The Jews as we find in the Acts and the Epistles of the holy Apostles could not endure that Christians should believe Jesus Christ the Son of the blessed Virgin was the Messias which had been promised nor that they should believe he was risen from the Dead and ascended into Heaven nor that they should endeavour to free Men from the Yoke of Moses his Law It will suffice only to read the Dialogue or Conference of Tryphon the Jew Just Martyr Dial. cum Tryph. p 290 291 292 293 317. against Justin Martyr therein to see that this Son of the Synagogue did Reproach unto the Children of the Church as things incredible monstrous and grossly forged what we teach That Jesus Christ was before Abraham and Aaron that he assumed our Nature and was born of a Virgin a Mystery which this insolent Jew esteems ridiculous and fabulous insomuch as wickedly to compare it unto the Fables which the Greek Poets relate of their Danae and in that we believe God was born and was made Flesh but he finds nothing more incredible than the Cross of Jesus Christ Tertul. ad Judaeos cap. 10. which Tertullian also reckons amongst the chiefest Objections which the Jews made against Christian Religion according to what the Apostle said That the Cross of Jesus Christ was a Stumbling-block to the Jews and Foolishness to the Gentiles The same Tryphon again reproacheth unto Christians as a great crime that they adored a Man and that they placed their Confidence in him From whence he takes Occasion to charge them of introducing another God besides the Creator As for the Gentiles they were no better disposed than the Jews because they despised the same Belief and counted fabulous all other Articles which seemed to contradict the common Notions and which did not exactly agree with the Principles and Maxims of other Religions For Example Clem. Alex. Strom. l. 6. p. 677. Clement of Alexandria observes that they found it very strange that we said God had a Son that this Son should speak in Man that he suffered and that they esteemed this Doctrine as a Fable and Forgery Tertullian witnesseth the same Teâ—tâ—l Apol. c. 21. Therefore having explained the incomprehensible Mystery of the eternal Generation of the Son and of his Incarnation he speaks according to their Supposition and saith Nevertheless believe this Fable that is to say admit at last this Doctrine which you look upon as a Fable And elsewhere speaking again according to the Opinion the Gentiles had of it he calls the Mysteries of our Faith the Foolishness of Christian Discipline and puts particularly in this Number a God born Id. de Caâ—n Christ c. 4 5. Id. Apolog. c. 47 48. de tesâ—im an c. 4. Just Apol. 2. p. 60 Arnob. l 2. p. 24. and yet born of a Virgin and a God of Flesh crucified and buried Whereunto he adds in another Treatise The last Judgment the Torments of Hell-Fire Heaven and the Resurrection of the Body And he collects from all these Articles of Faith that they condemned them of Vanity of Presumption of Folly and of Stupidity St. Justin Martyr also writes that they called the Incarnation and Passion of the Son an Extravagancy And Arnobius assures us That they made a Jest at the Simplicity of Christians in obliging them to believe the Resurrection from the Dead and the everlasting Torments of Hell-Fire Orig. contrs Câ—ls l. 1. But if we look upon the Books of Origen against the Philosopher Celsus we shall therein find other things which will inform us of the wicked and prodigious Fables which the Gentiles made use of to slander and calumniate the Birth of our Divine Jesus and of making the inviolable Chastity of the blessed Virgin the Subject of their Raileries This Philosopher reproacheth unto Christians the Doctrine of the Incarnation of the Eternal Word as a thing unworthy the Divinity Id. l. 2. p. 79. uit edit The Son of God saith he ought to have appeared like
is said That it might well be that the Gentiles transported with Hatred and Malice against the Christians might have given a wrong meaning unto what they had extorted by Torments from the Mouth of some of their Domesticks and that having heard of them that their Masters called the Bread and Wine of the Holy Communion the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ they concluded that it was indeed his Body and Blood and that they did really eat this Flesh and Blood But as it was not just to judg of the Belief of Christians upon the Testimony of their Enemies whose aim was only to slander the Truth of their Religion let us consider a little say they what is contained in the Words of Oecumenius or if you will of St. Irenaeus speaking by the Mouth of Oecumenius In the first place they attribute unto the Ignorance and Stupidity of these Slaves that they thought that the Christians held the Sacrament of the Eucharist for the true Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ because they called it his Body and Blood having heard their Masters say that the Divine Communion is the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ They thought that it was really the Flesh and Blood and said so unto those which examined them Secondly they declare positively That the Pagans had taken it as if the Christians had eaten really this Flesh and Blood which sheweth that the Christians had quite another Opinion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 câ—eâ—â—adire juxta Hesyâ—hium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They understood it it is added as if it had truly been done by Christians And in fine they represent unto us Blandina answering them freely That Christians were so far from eating the Flesh and Blood of their Saviour that they voluntarily abstained and that by a kind of Duty even from Meats and Flesh which was lawful How can it be saith she that those that abstain by Exercise from Flesh which is lawful should endure such things And because Christians never denied a spiritual eating the Flesh of Christ and which is the only eating they have acknowledged or do yet own however they may differ It is evident say the Protestants that when by the Mouth of Oecumenius they deny that they eat the Flesh of our Saviour they understand it of a bodily and carnal eating but as for the Sacrament they did never deny but that they did eat it with the Mouth of the Body I know not if they are deceived in this Discourse but they believe it is very well grounded in the Testimony which we have examined And that nothing may want to clear the Reproach made against Christians of eating human Flesh the Reader may remember if he please what hath been said in Chap. 2. of the first Part that these infamous Reports came not from the Eucharist of Catholicks and Orthodox but from the abominable Mysteries of the Gnosticks and the Carpocratians of whom we treated in the same place It shall suffice to observe here that when the Holy Fathers answered unto this shameful Reproach or rather this black and devilish Calumny it was by a down-right Denial and to shew it was a Thing so horrible and so far distant from their holy Discipline that the very Thoughts of it displeased them without ever making any Exception of the Eucharist The false Devils Just Martyr Apol. 1. vel 2. p. 50. saith St. Justin Martyr caused it to be practised by certain wicked Men for they having killed some body to cloke their Calumny against us they made some of our domestick Servants be put to the Rack or Children or ignorant Women and by cruel Torments they constrained them to say Things against us which they forged and which they themselves did do secretly whereof seeing there is nothing which concerns us we make no matter having the eternal and ineffable God for Witness of our Thoughts and Actions Athenagoras yet speaks more positively Who saith he Athenag legat pro Christ p. 38. of those that are in their right Senses can say that we are Murderers For it is not possible to eat Man's Flesh unless first some one is killed having then invented the former if they are examined of the second if they have seen the things whereof they speak no body is so bold as to say that they have seen them There be some amongst us that have Servants some more some less from whom it were unpossible to hide us but not any of them have inform'd any such thing against us For which of them can charge Murder or eating of human Flesh unto those whom they know are not permitted to stop to see the Execution of those which are thereunto justly condemned Minutius Felix I would saith he Minut. in Octavio see him that saith or thinketh that we be initiated by Murder and the Blood of an Infant do you think it can possible be that so tender a little Body should be appointed to be mangled that any in piercing it with Wounds should shed and pour forth the Blood of a new-born Infant scarce yet a Man no Body can believe it but those that are so bold as to undertake it And a little lower We are not suffered to see nor hear talk of Manslaughter and we so avoid Murder that we do not use nor admit of the Blood of Beasts amongst our Meat Tertul. Apol. c. 9. Tertullian whose reasoning is strong refutes the Calumny of the Heathens by these Words which certainly are worthy of him Let your Error saith he make you blush before Christians which do not as much as taste the Blood of Beasts and therefore do abstain from things strangled and from that of Beasts which have not been slain for fear of defiling themselves with any sort of Blood whatever even of that which is in the Body In fine to prove them you present unto them Puddings made of Blood because you very well know that they are not permitted to do the Things whereby you would make them offend Is it possible you should think that we thirst after Man's Blood we that have an Aversion unto that of Beasts If it be not that we have found it more delicious you should then make use of it to prove them as you do use Fire and Incense for then you would discover them in desiring Human Blood as they declare themselves in refusing to sacrifice and so you may condemn them if they eat of it as you do condemn them when they refuse to sacrifice and by this Means you would want no Human Blood to hear and to condemn the Christians which you keep Prisoners I freely confess saith the Protestant that I cannot apprehend this Proceeding of the Holy Fathers if they did really eat the Flesh of Jesus Christ with the Mouth of the Body after what manner or in what regard soever they eat it and to say the Truth if the Christians of their Times did eat really and truly the very Flesh of Jesus Christ they would
have been horrible Lyers in denying that they did eat Human Flesh without ever excepting the Sacrament they betrayed their own Judgment and erring shamefully in this Point they rendred themselves unworthy of being believed in what they have transmitted unto us touching the Faith and Belief of the Church But when on the other Hand I consider their Candor and Sincerity their Piety Zeal and the great Inclinations they had to glorifie God by their Death and the little Account they made of their Lives I dare not accuse them of Prevarication nor of Hypocrisie I too much honour their Memory and have too great a Love for their Vertue God forbid saith he that I should ever do them so great Injury or have any evil Thoughts of them because I own their Proceedings to be sincere and always accompanied with Truth as for my particular I leave it unto indifferent Persons to judge of the Consequence that hath been made of their Conduct But if the Silence of the Fathers hath served to shew what was the Belief of the ancient Church touching the Point of the Eucharist what the Holy Fathers have spoken against the Gods of the Gentiles will no less discover it In the first place they reproach them that by Consecration which consisted in certain precise Words and Formalities they rendred the Divinity which they adored present in the Image and inclosed him as one may say in his Statue as hath been shewed in the 7th Chapter of the first Part whereunto I will only add these Words of St. Chrysostom Chrysost Hom. in Christ nat t. 5. p. 477. Is it not an exceeding great Folly to introduce their Gods into Wood and Stone and into Statues of a low Price and to shut them up as it were in Prison and yet to think that they do nor say nothing that is amiss Let the Reader judge if the Fathers would have spoke after this manner if they had been of the same Belief the Latin Church is of and if they had not given their Enemies some Advantage over them In the second place 1 Apol. 2. p. 69. St. Justin Martyr 2 L. 5. p. 91. the Author of the Recognitions 3 Ad Demeâ— p. 201. St. Cyprian 4 Arnob. l. 6. p. 89. Arnobius 5 Inst l. 2. c. 4. Lactantius 6 Homil. 57. in Genes t. 2. Tertul. Apol. c. 13. St. Chrysostom do tell them their Gods may be stollen and that they should watch them and lock them up safe In truth saith the Protestant it would be hard to excuse them of Impudence and want of Judgment for these holy Doctors to have insulted after this manner over the Vanities of the Gods of the Heathen if they had believed of the Sacrament what is believed by the Latin Church because it is most certain that the Host of the Roman Catholicks which they look upon as their God and Saviour is carefully kept under Lock and Key and is subject and in danger to be stollen In fine Tertullian deriding the Domestick Heathen Gods saith amongst other things That sometimes they gave them in pawn Every particular Christian might have done the same by the Sacrament because at that time they were permitted to carry it home to their Houses and keep it And Cardinal Du Perron saith Du Perr de l' Euch. l. 3. c. 29. p. 918. upon the Report of Paul Jovius and Gennebrard That for certain St. Lewis King of France left an Host for Pledg of the Ransom which he had promised the Sultan of Egypt for granting him his Liberty There be others which have observed Obsâ—rvat upon the History of Chalcondyle that Vladislaus King of Hungary who was slain at the Battel of Varn Ann. 1444 also gave one unto Amurath the second Emperor of the Turks for a Pledg of his Faith upon the concluding of peace with him It is not very likely that Tertullian who was of a wise and very solid Judgment should make Reproaches against his Enemies which they might have retorted upon himself if he had believed that the Eucharist is our God and our Redeemer he sheweth then in doing so that he believed not so as the Latin Church believes at this present These are the Inferences which the Protestants draw from what hath been written in this Chapter CHAP. X. The last Proof drawn from what hath passed in regard of Hereticks either referring unto the Customs of some of them or in reference to their Silence or in fine of the Holy Fathers disputing against them THE Emperors Valentinian and Marcian Collect. Rom. bipart i. p. 104. speaking of Hereticks said thus The Enemies of our Religion have obliged us to seek God more carefully to find him more manifestly for the Light that shineth after Darkness seems to be greater and drink is most pleasant unto those that are a thirst as rest is most agreeable unto those which be weary In effect Hereticks have formerly as it were challenged the Holy Fathers unto the Combate and have invited them unto the occasion of meditating more particularly of the Truth of the Mysteries which they attacked therefore as they were obliged to stand the closer upon their Guard having to do with Enemies which took all advantages against the purity of our Religion I believe it may be safely said that of all the Works of these Holy Doctors there are scarce any more solid and more compleat than their Polemicks I mean the Books they wrote against these Enemies of Christianity it is true they had no Controversy with Hereticks upon the point of the Sacrament but nevertheless because the Holy Fathers do sometimes employ this Divine Mistery to refute some of their Heresies we will not omit drawing from those places some Light for illustrating the matter which we examine but before we proceed so far we will endeavour to explain some Inductions from certain Customs practised by some of them and of their Silence As to the former of these two Heads we see in the second Chapter of the first part that the Heretick Marc pretended to consecrate Challices wherein there was Wine and even White Wine as some think and that insisting very long upon the Words of Invocation and Prayer he made it appear red and of a Purple Colour to the end it should be believed that the Divinity which he called Grace should from the highest Heavens distil his Blood into the Cup by means of his Invocation whereupon it is said that if the Catholicks of his time had believed that the Wine of the Sacred Cup was changed by the vertue of Consecration into the real substance of the Blood of Jesus Christ the imposture of this Deceiver would not have been so much regarded by those miserable Wretches which he seduced for they might have said unto him that he took a great deal of pains to little purpose in making the Blood of the God which he preached come into the Cup seeing that the Catholicks and Orthodox without
liberty of writing and speaking against the Doctrines of the Church was never greater than in the first Ages of Christianity nor less in the West than since the Condemnation of Beranger I can find no other cause of so various and different proceeding but the difference of Doctrine which until Paschas his time was such that no Body had reason to take up Arms to dispute against it whereas ever since the establishing of his Opinion which altered the ancient Belief there hath been made continual Resistance and Opposition Now I come to the Disputes which the ancient Fathers have had against Hereticks wherein they have imployed the Mystery of the Eucharist The first which troubled the settlement of Christianity were the Saturnians the Menandrians Valentinians Marcionites and others I intend not to burden my Paper with all the Impieties of these Wretches but only to represent those against which the holy Doctors have made use of the belief of the Holy Sacrament and in what manner they have done it I find then there were three horrible Impieties held by these extravagant Persons against which they employed the Holy Sacrament by the first they taught that Jesus Christ had not a true human Body but a shadow of a Body and a meer form void of substance or solidity By the second they said that the Father of Jesus Christ was not the Creator of the World but that the World and all Creatures which we see in it are the effect of Passion of Nature and of Ignorance and not of the Father of Jesus Christ And by the third in fine they said that all these material Creatures should be wholly destroyed and that by Consequence our Bodies being of the number of these Creatures should not be raised being uncapable of receiving supernatural Incorruption nor of participating of the Grace of the Holy Spirit Flesh and Spirit not subsisting both together The Holy Fathers do alledge the Eucharist to refute the first of these Impieties but it is requisite to know how they do alledge it for if they had been in the belief of the Latin Church they would not have failed as the Protestants say to have told these Hereticks that they overthrew the Faith of the whole Church which holds that the Substance of Bread and Wine is turned into the Substance of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ which could not be if he had not a true Body They suppose this would have been the only means to have refuted them and they think the Latins would have used this course had they to do with such Hereticks They say also that the Argument would have been clear and convincing and that 't is to be believed the ancient Doctors would not have followed any other course if they had been of the same Opinions that yet nevertheless they do not argue after that manner to refute the first Error of these Instruments of Satan they only tell them that seeing the Eucharist is the Image and Figure of the Body of Jesus Christ then of necessity he hath a true Body because every Image and Figure doth presuppose the Existence and Truth of the thing that it represents and that it is the reasoning of Tertullian in his Excellent Treatise against Marcion Tertul. adyers Marc. l. 4. c. 40. Jesus Christ saith he made the Bread his Body saying This is my Body that is to say the Figure of my Body now it had not been a Figure if there had not been a true Body for a Shadow and empty Appearance such as is a Spirit is not capable of having a Figure The Author of the Dialogues against the Marcionites in Origens Works reasoneth after the same manner Author Dial contra Marc. inter Orig op Dial. 3. If Jesus Christ saith he had neither Flesh nor Blood as the Marcionites affirm of what Flesh and Blood is it that he hath given us the Images that is to say the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament when he commanded his Disciples to remember him by those things Against the second Impiety they also imply the Holy Sacrament and see here how they do it Tren contr heres l. 4. c. 34. They say The Holy Sacrament is an Acknowledgment which we make unto God under the Title of Creator in offering unto him the first Fruits of the Creatures which he hath made and that it were an injustice to the Father of Jesus Christ if he were not the Creator of the World to offer unto him things which belonged not unto him as if he coveted that which belonged to another and desired to have what was not his own That if the Creatures were the product of Passion of Nature and of Ignorance it were to wrong God instead of giving him Thanks to offer him the Fruits of Passion of Nature and of Ignorance It is after this manner St. Ireneus doth argue to confute the Adversaries which he opposed in shewing them that the Father of Jesus Christ must needs be the Creator of the World because he accepts the Oblations of Bread and Wine which is made unto him in the Eucharist for to say that it is no longer Bread and Wine after Consecration but the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and that 't was so St. Ireneus understood it the Protestants say this would have been yeilding the cause unto these Hereticks who teaching that Jesus Christ was not of the number of the Creatures of this World would not have failed to have inferred that his Father had not been the Creator because our Lord was offered unto him which was not the work of the Creator whereas in saying that there was offered unto him Creatures of this World as these Hereticks owned as well as the Orthodox that there was such offered unto him in the Eucharist he would have put them to silence all the shifts they could have made would have vanished away at the sight of this Truth because they confessed that Bread and Wine are of those Creatures whereof the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ would not have received an Oblation if he had not been the Maker of them Something of this Nature is seen in Tertullian's first Book against Marcion Chap. 14. It remains to see after what manner the Fathers have acted to refute the last Impiety of these Hereticks who denied the resurrection of the Body maintaining that all material Creatures shall be wholly destroyed and reduced to nothing Iren. advers haeres l 4. c. 34. and that the Flesh is uncapable of receiving Incorruption because Incorruption is a Grace of the Spirit which can have no Commerce nor Society with the Flesh We preach in the Eucharist saith St. Ireneus the Communion and Unity of the Flesh and Spirit for as the Bread which is of the Earth receiving the Invocation of God is no longer common Bread but is the Sacrament composed of two things the one Terrestrial the other Celestial so also our Bodies receiving the Eucharist are no more corruptible
having the hope of the Resurrection If the Consecration destroys the substance of Bread and Wine it must be granted say the Protestants that this Holy Doctor took wrong Measures when he would that the Bread of the Sacrament should represent the Flesh which is not destroyed under the Grace of the Spirit because if the Bread it self be destroyed it cannot be employed to signify that our Flesh shall not be destroyed Seeing then that St. Ireneus doth use it to this purpose it must be ingeniously confessed that he believed that Consecration did not annihilate the Nature and Substance of the Symbols Tertul. contra Marc. l. 1. c. 14. They say moreover that Tertullian confirms them in this Opinion when he saith The God of Marcion hath not yet rejected the Bread of the Creator to represent his true Body so that in his own Sacraments he hath need of borrowing the Goods of the Creator But Marcion which is a Disciple above his Master and a Servant above his Lord is much wiser than him for he ruines what his Master would have It plainly appears by these Words that Marcion in destroying the Bread that is to say in teaching that it shall be destroyed as being of the Creatures of this World doth the quite contrary unto Jesus Christ who desires it and useth it in his Sacrament and that by Consequence preserves the Substance of it For if Tertullian say they had believed that he destroyed it in consecrating of it he would not have opposed as he doth the act of Marcion or rather his Doctrine which condemns it unto an entire destruction unto the action of Jesus Christ which makes use of it and doth employ it And because there be several other things in the Works of this African Doctor against Hereticks which may contribute unto this History Tertul. advers Prax. c. 26. I will instance some before I shall proceed farther In his Book against Praxeas he sets it down for undoubted That what is of a thing is not the thing it self And it is thereupon he grounds the distinction of the Person of the Holy Ghost from that of the Father either his Maxim is false say some and very indiscreetly propounded or he did not believe that the Eucharist was the real Body of Jesus Christ because it is the Sacrament by the confession of all Christians Elsewhere disputing against the Blasphemy of Marcion Id. adv Marc. l. 3. c 10. who said that Jesus Christ had not a true Body he saith That it was unworthy the Son of God to appear under a strange shape you make us saith he to Marcion a miserable God in that he could not shew his Christ but in Effigie of a thing unworthy of him And presently after Wherefore did he not come in some other Substance more worthy of him but especially why did he not come in his own and not to seem to have had need of another which is unworthy of him Let Christians judg say the Protestants if he could have spoke thus and believe that Jesus Christ doth every day appear under the Effigies and Resemblance of Bread but an appearance destitute of the substance and truth of Bread Ibid. c. 8. It is whereunto amounts also what is said unto this Heretick in the same Book Jesus Christ was not what he seemed to be and disguised what he was being Flesh and not being so being Man and not Man and in like manner Christ God and not God for what hinders but that he also bore the shadow of a God shall I believe it of his interior substance who deceived us by his exterior how shall he be believed to be true in that which doth not appear seeing he hath been found so false in that which did appear See again if what he now saith can be accommodated with a Doctrine which teacheth that Jesus Christ in the Eucharist is not what he seems to be for he seems to be Bread and they will have it to be a bodily Substance As for my particular I am content to guess at what the Protestants infer from these Maxims He again objects this to Marcion Ibid. c. 11. Thou honourest thy God with the title of a Deceiver if he knew that he was any thing else than what he gave cause to Men to believe he was The boldness or rather rashness say they of Tertullian cannot enough be admired so to pursue and force Marcion if the Church of his time had been of the belief the Latin Church is now of And in another Book of the same Treatise he refutes the shadow of this Arch Heretick by the History of the penitent Sinner in the Gospel Id. adv Marc. l. 4. c. 18. In that she kissed saith he the Feet of Jesus in that she washed them with her Tears and wiped them with the Hairs of her Head in that she poured precious Ointment upon him it shews that she handled a true real Body and not an empty shadow All the World as they think may observe that if the Christians of those times had believed what the Latins believe Marcion would undoubtedly have opposed unto the example of the Sinner which Tertullian presseth against him that of the Eucharist which is handled which is received into the Stomack wherewith a living Body may be nourished which is subject to Mouldiness and several other the like Accidents and that it may not for all this be concluded according to the Doctrine of the Roman-Church that it is the true substance of Bread and not barely Accidents and Appearances In another Treatise speaking to the same Heretick Id. de carne Christ c. 5. Wherefore saith he will you that one half of Jesus Christ should be a Fiction he was nothing but Truth wholly and intirely Believe me he chose rather to be born than to lye in any respect whatsoever And there again he adds that according to the Doctrine of Marcion Jesus Christ had Flesh hard without Bones solid without Nerves bloody without Blood covered without Garments a Body that was hungry without Appetite that eat without Teeth and spake without a Tongue so that his Words were but a Shadow which deceived the Ear by the sound of a Voice And in fine he presseth in the same Chapter by the Words of our Saviour to his Disciples after the Resurrection See that it is I for a Spirit hath not Flesh and Bones as you see me have Then he adds that if Jesus Christ according to the fancy of this Heretick had not truly Flesh and Bones it follows that when he so presented the Appearances unto his Disciples he openly deceived them in shewing them that for Bones which were not so in effect See saith he he surpriseth he deceiveth he abuseth the Eyes the Senses the coming near and touching of all his Disciples There needs not say they much subtilty and wit to comprehend that Tertullian could not by these kinds of Arguments destroy the Hypothesis of his
Adversary without at the same time giving mortal blows to the Eucharist of Orthodox Christians of his time if it had been the same with that of the Latins But because those which know the rare Genius of Tertullian will never accuse him of so great Imprudence it must of necessity be concluded that the belief of the Church of his time upon the point of the Sacrament was quite contrary unto that of the Latin Church they think one cannot chuse but make this conclusion which I leave unto the Reader 's Liberty And from this Dispute of Tertullian against Marcion I proceed unto that which the ancient Church had against the Encratites which detesting Wine as a Diabolical thing and sinful to be used did celebrate the Mysteries with bare Water What have the Holy Fathers said unto them how have they refuted this Heresy have they said unto them that our Saviour having employed Wine to the matter of this Sacrament bare Water cannot be converted into the Blood of Jesus Christ have they further said to them that the aversion they had against Wine should not hinder them from using it in the celebration of the Eucharist because though it were Wine before Consecration yet it was not after the substance of it being changed by the vertue of Consecration into the substance of the real Blood of Jesus Christ and that so 't is no longer Wine which we drink but the real Blood of the Saviour of the World they have said nothing of all this unto them but then what have they said unto them they have constantly represented that Jesus Christ Offered Wine which be gave and drank thereof Which they prove by these Words I will no more drink of this Fruit of the Vine until the day I drink it new in my Fathers Kingdom It is in this manner that Clemens of Alexandria St. Epiphanius and St. Chrysostom argued against these Hereticks as hath been shewn in the second Chapter of the first part But it is enough spoken to this matter it is time to conclude this Chapter and by the same means I will conclude the Proofs drawn from the Disputes of the. Holy Fathers against Hereticks by the consideration of what passed betwixt them and the Eutychians The Heresy of the Eutychians following the same Track of the most part of others sought out Artifices and Invention the easier to insinuate it self into the Minds of Men thereby to make the greater Progress For although for the most part they declared there was two Natures in Jesus Christ but that at the instant of his being received up into the Heavenly Glory the Human Nature was changed into the Nature or Substance of the Divine Nature yet nevertheless I conceive to speak truly their Heresy was not much different in this point from the Heresy of Marcion and his Companions which formerly denied the Truth of Christ's Human Nature and only attributed unto him a Shew and Appearance And what makes me think so is that the ancient Doctors of the Church do testify that Eutyches did teach that Jesus Christ took nothing of the substance of the Holy Virgin but having brought I know not what Body of his own from his Heavenly Father he only passed through the Womb of the Blessed Virgin as through a Channel I will not insist upon alledging all the Passages of the Fathers which mention this it shall suffice to instance in some few Feriand Diacon ad Anato He would not confess saith the Deacon Ferrand that the Son was consubstantial with his Mother for he denied that the Holy Virgin had communicated unto the only Son of God which was to be born of her by the vertue of the Holy Ghost the substance of his Flesh And Vigilius an African saith Diac. Vigil adv Eutych l. 3. c. 3. alibi that he assured the Word was so made Flesh that it only passed through the Womb of the Virgin as Water passeth through a Conduit but that he did not believe that he took any thing of her which was of the Nature of our Flesh And Theodoret treating historically of this Heresy which he so learnedly hath refuted in his Writings Theod. haeret Fabul l. 4. 13. p. 246. t. 4. Eutyches saith he taught that God the Word took nothing of the Human Nature of the Virgin Mary but that he was steadily changed and made Flesh I use his ridiculous Expressions that he only passed through the Body of the Virgin and that it was the incomprehensible Divinity of the only Son of God which had been crucified buried and raised from the Dead Therefore the Count Marcellin said in his History Ma cell Cem. in Chronol Theodoret Bishop of Cyr wrote of the Incarnation of Christ against the Priest Eutyches and against Dioscorus Bishop of Alexandria which asserted that Jesus Christ had not Human Flesh St. Prosper also observes in his Prosp in Chronol ad Consul Astur Protog that this Arch Heretick said That Jesus Christ our Lord Son of the Blessed Virgin partaked not of the substance of his Mother but that in the likeness of Man he had only the Nature of the Son of God This as I conceive is the exact Opinion of the Eutychians conformable in this point with Marcion therefore I find that the Holy Fathers which disputed against them have employed the Sacrament against them in the same sence and the same manner as those which preceded them had done against the Marcionites I mean that they proved by this Sacrament the truth of the Body of Jesus Christ as commonly the truth of a thing is proved by its Image Theod. dial 2. p. 84. t. 4. and by its Picture An Image say they must of necessity have its Original for Painters do imitate Nature and delineate things which they do see if then the Divine Mysteries are the Figures or Anti-types of a true Body it follows that our Saviour hath now a Body not changed into the Nature of the Divinity but filled with the Divine Glory It is the reasoning of Theodoret in his second Dialogue which he repeats again in two other places I cannot comprehend saith the Protestant the meaning of this ancient Doctor if the Doctrine of the real Conversion at that time was an Article of Faith in the Church wherefore to alledg the Sacrament as an Image and a Figure to prove the verity of the Body of Christ if it were really and truly the very Body it self I cannot understand this Difficulty but in freely confessing that Christians at that time did not know nor believe this real Conversion whence it was that Theodoret did argue against the Eutychians just as Tertullian had done before against the Marcionites The Evidence of this Truth will yet better appear if it be considered that there was an universal Peace amongst the Orthodox and the Eutychians touching the Sacrament of the Eucharist which Peace had been incompatible with the belief of the substantial Conversion which the
deceived that it hapned about they year 630. Hist Miscel l. 18. And because Anastatius wrote some time after there being yet in Egypt an Augustal Prefect it necessarily follows that he wrote about the year 637. And before the year 639. Hist Sarac in Omar that the Sarrazins entring into Egypt expelled the Augustal Prefect and made themselves Masters of the Country Which being granted the Reader may please to take notice that this Anastatius of whom we speak disputing against the Hereticks which held that the Body of Christ could not suffer from the first moment of his Conception brings in the Orthodox making this question to the Heretick Annasâ—at Sin in cap. 23. Tell me I pray the Communion of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ which you offer and whereof you are partakers is it the true Body and Blood of Jesus Christ or common Bread as that which is sold in Markets or only a Figure of the Body of Jesus Christ as the Sacrifice of the Goat offered by the Jews Whereunto the Heretick having answered God forbid we should say that the Holy Communion is the Figure of the Body of Jesus Christ or bare Bread Anastatius replies We believe it to be so and confess it according to Christ's words to his Disciples when in the Mystical Supper he gave them the Bread of Life saying Take Eat this is my Body He also gave them the Cup saying This is my Blood He said not this is the Figure of my Body and Blood He is the first that deviated from the usual Expressions and that denied what all the holy Fathers before him had affirmed and some also after him as we have shewed in the Third Chapter of this Second Part And have shewn that these holy Fathers testifie That when our Lord gave his Eucharist to his Apostles he gave them the Figure of his Body Anastatius then denying what the others affirmed according to the Maxim of Vincentius Lirinensis his Opinion should be rejected as an Opinion private and peculiar to himself and we are firmly and constantly to hold and embrace the publick and universal Belief but because the words of Authors are favourably to be interpreted at least as much as may be some say it should be so done towards Anastatius and that 't is easie to give a good sense unto what he said He declares the Eucharist is the true Body and Blood of Jesus Christ he saith nothing as they think that being rightly understood but is very reasonable because it is most certain that the Sacrament is unto the faithful Soul instead of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ that he truly communicates unto him this broken Body and this Blood poured out for his Consolation and Salvation and that it is changed as St. Cyril of Alexandria speaks into the Efficacy of his Body If Anastatius say they erred in rejecting the word Sign and Figure the Fathers both before and after him having used it it cannot be believed that he hath changed any thing in the ground of the Doctrine they think so for several reasons in the first place he saith it is not simple Bread as is sold in the Markets for thus speaking is to acknowledge that it is Bread which by Consecration hath acquired the quality of an Efficacious and Divine Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ of whom for that reason it takes the name as it hath the virtue and efficacy in its lawful use as when the Fathers say of the Waters of Baptism and the Oyl of Chrisin Cyril Hieros Catech. 3. illum Mystag 3. that it is not common Water and common Oyl they deny not that it is Water and Oyl they only mean that it is Water and Oyl sanctified to be the Symboles of the washing and purifying our Souls by the Blood of Jesus Christ and by the Vertue of the Holy Ghost Secondly He declares that it is not a Figure as the Sacrifice of the Goat which the Jews offered that is a Type and Figure without efficacy and vertue having taken this name of Type and Figure for a Legal Figure and without Operation in which sense it is true that the Communion is not a Figure and bare Type destitute of the truth like the Types and Figures of the Law whereof he produceth an Example in the Sacrifice of the Goat In the third place he speaks of a Body of the Lord Which being kept in a Vessel corrupts in few days Id. Anast Ibid. c. 23. changeth and quite altereth of a Body and Blood which as he saith in another Chapter of the same Treatise may be broken divided Id. c. 13. Ibid. c. 13. and distrihuted in parcels broken with the Teeth changed poured out and drank And in the same Chapter he saith That the Body and Blood distributed unto the People saying The Body and Blood of our Lord God and Saviour is a Visible Body created and taken from the Earth They conclude then that if there was imprudence in his expressions there was no Error in his Doctrine and they are very much confirmed in this Opinion which I freely remit unto the judgment of others if they consider the Doctrine had received no Opposition in the East nor West Maxim in Nol. Dionys Arcop pag. 68. 75. 69. not in the East because in the time Anastatius wrote in his Desert Maximius Abbot of Constantinople whose Name was more famous and his Doctrine more eminent taught That the holy Bread and Cup of Benediction are Signs and sensible Symbols or Types of true things Symbols and not the truth that the things of the Old Testament were the Types those of the New Testament are the Antitypes but that the truth shall be in the state of the World to come This Author faithfully retains the ancient Expressions and Doctrine of those which went before him and he thus defines the word Symbol Id. in Interp. vocum The Symbol is a sensible thing taken for an intelligible thing as the Bread and Wine are taken for the Divine and immaterial Food Not in the West because in the same Age Anastatius lived Isid Hispal de Offic. Eccl. l. 1. c. 18. St. Isidor of Sevil said That the Bread which we break is the Body of Jesus Christ that the Wine is his Blood that the Bread is called his Body Id. Origin l. 6. c. 19. because it strengthens the Body that the Wine resembles the Blood of Jesus Christ because it creates blood in the body Id. voca c. 26. de alleg in Genes c. 12. And that these two things which be visible pass into a Sacrament of the Divine Body being Sanctified by the Holy Ghost That by the Commandment of the Lord we call the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ that which being made of the fruits of the Earth is sanctified and becomes a Sacrament by the Invisible Operation of the Holy Ghost Id. in Genes
tempted by the Spirit of Fornication which they attributed unto Sophronius Patriarch of Jerusalem and a Letter of St. Basil unto the Emperor Julian the Apostate wherein this holy Doctor acknowledgeth and embraceth the Worship of Images a piece also invented by some ignorant Impostor all this in the 4th Session Therefore it is very judiciously observed in the Books of Charlemain that those of Nice seeing the holy Scriptures would not accord with their Errors they had recourse unto I know not what humane Fooleries worthy of shame I 'le say nothing of their denying the Epistle produced under the name of Ibas to be truly his Act. 6. p. 775. against the testimony of the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon and the very confession of Ibas himself In fine it is found that the Fathers of Constantinople have very faithfully retained the Doctrine and Expressions of those unto whom God had committed the conduct of the Church before them for they call the Eucharist an Image Type Commemoration it is the common Language of the Ancients they teach that it is Bread the substance of Bread the Ancients had said so before them as hath been amply related in the second Chapter of this part of our History they call it the Body of Jesus Christ by Institution which amounts unto what their Ancestors said that it is the Typical the Mystical the Symbolical Body the Body by Grace as hath been declared and they also agree with them when they say that the Sacrament is the Image of his Incarnation But as for the Fathers of Nice it is said that if they absolutely departed not from the Doctrine of the Ancients they did at least from their terms and expressions when they denied that the Fathers had called the Bread and Wine after Consecration Types or Figures which appeared so impudent unto those which have given us the Councils that they could not forbear reproving this confidence by this Annotation which they have set in the Margin the Greek Fathers often call the things Sanctified Figures as Gregory Nazianzen in the Funeral Oration of his Sister and in his first Appologetick Cyril of Jerusalem in his 5th Mystagogical Catechism and others The Abbot of Billy hath also blamed as hath been before declared the like temerity in Damascen and certainly with much reason seeing there is nothing more frequent in the Writings of the Fathers than these kind of expressions yet it was upon this false ground that these Prelates of Nice founded their censure against those of Constantinople which had called the Eucharist the Image of the Body of Jesus Ghrist and that on the contrary they said That it is his Body it self Words which the Latins are wont to explain to their advantage although the Protestants do not judge that in the main of the Doctrine Nice was not Diametrically opposite unto Constantinople to understand it aright it must be remembred the chief occasion of assembling both Councils was the subject of Images the Council of Constantinople having abolished the Use and Worship of them And that of Nice having restored both the one and the other it must also be remembred that the Fathers of Constantinople taking from the Eucharist a proof against the Use and Worship of Images they called the Sacrament an Image and declared that it was the only Image which Christ commanded to be made But because the word Image doth at the first hearing form in the mind the Idea of a proper Image and simple Picture that hath no other use nor propriety then to represent unto our Eyes some form like the Original without any way participating of its Operation and Virtue in a word a Picture like to those which be sold in Painters Shops the Prelates of Nice thinking those of Constantinople had in this sense given the name of Image unto the Sacrament as Cardinal Bessarion told us Damascen had done failed not severely to censure them not but that the Fathers of Constantinople had sufficiently enough explained themselves in saying that this Image to wit the Divine Bread is filled with the Holy Ghost But in fine the Prelates of Nice either through Passion to their Adversaries or otherwise for 't is not for me to judge of their thoughts reflected sharply upon those of Constantinople thinking they had taken this term of Image in the sense as we have expressed several things made them think so In the first place they tell us themselves that it was their thought and that they gave no other signification to the word Image As for the Image say they Concil Nicaen 2. act 6. tom 6. p. 800. t. 5. Concil Ibid. p. 799. we know no other but that it is an Image which sheweth the resemblance of its Original whence also it is that it takes the name and that it hath nothing else common with it A little before they had said That what the Image hath in common with the Original is the name only and not the definition And again in another place Ibid. t. 3. p. 353 One thing is the Image and another thing is the Original and a man of sense will never seek the Proprieties of the Original in the Image Secondly Elias of Creet now Candia one of the Fathers of the Council sheweth they think very clearly that the intent of the Council was not to teach that the Bread and the Wine were changed into the substance of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ but only into their Efficacy and Vertue for using the words of St. Cyril of Alexandria before alledged Elias Cretens in Orat. 1. Greg. Nazianz p. 201. he saith That God doth send into the things offered an enlivening vertue and that he makes them to pass into the operation of his Flesh it is in the Greek of St. Cyril into the Efficacy of his Flesh There is yet more the Fathers of Nice being in a humour of reproving and censuring those of Constantinople as to whatever with any weak shew might fall within the compass of their censure it is no force to conceive that they approved what they have not blamed and that they have owned as Catholick and Orthodox the things which they have not censured They say that all reasonable persons will grant if they consider how the Bishops of Nice were affected towards them of Constantinople whose Constitutions and Decrees they publickly revoked now of two things insisted upon by these latter the Prelates of Nice censured but one they must then approve of the other and in approving they must receive it as Catholick and as one of the Articles of their Belief The Fathers of Constanstinople had said that the Eucharist is the Image of the Body of Jesus Christ but they said also That this Image is the substance of Bread here are Adversaries eagerly bent against them Adversaries that spare them not in any thing that strictly examine every thing they do or say either to render them odious or to make them be
esteemed Wicked and Villains there 's no likelihood then they would have spared them if they had departed from the Belief publickly received in the Church seeing they had taken the liberty of censuring them for using the terms and expressions which their Forefathers had been accustomed to use in the like occasions In fine of two things that Constantinople had asserted Nice doth censure one and not the other it condemns the former and not the latter The first doth disgust it the second doth not although the one regards but the terms and the other ingageth directly the ground of the Doctrine it self it will not permit it should be said that the Eucharist is the Image of Jesus Christ but it will have it said That it is the substance of Bread after Consecration Let us for example put instead of that of Nice a Council of the Latin Church and instead of that of Constantinople a Protestant Council who could imagine that the Council of the Latin Church should condemn that of the Protestants for saying That the Eucharist is the Image of the Body of Jesus Christ and that it should not condemn it for affirming That it is the substance of Bread even after Consecration Nevertheless this is just what is done by the Fathers of Nice Is not there then absolute necessity to conclude That Nice was of Accord with Constantinople as to what concerned the Doctrine and that neither the one nor the other departed from the Ancient Belief of the Church this at least is what is inferred But may the Latins say the Prelates of Nice say that the Eucharist is properly called the Body of Christ and that it is so The Protestants answer it cannot be thought strange in the thoughts they had that the Bishops of Constantinople meant that it was an Image that had nothing common with its Original but the Name only an Image that participated not of its vertue and that was destitute of any efficacy and to say the truth say these latter the Sacrament being impregnated if it may be so said with the Grace and Benediction of our Saviour filled with his Vertue and Efficacy cloathed with the Majesty of his own Person accompanied with all the fruits and advantages of his death nothing may hinder from saying That it is his Body because it enjoys the priviledges and that there is seen in the lawful use of this Copy the same Vertue and the same Efficacy as that which resides in its Prototype and in its Original with the which it is by consequence in a manner one and the same for then especially is true what Eusebius said Euseb contr Marcel de Eccl. Theolog. l. 2. c. 23. That no body in his right senses will say that the King and his Image that is carried about are two Kings but one only which is honoured in his Image And St. Athanasius Athanas contr Arian Orat. 4. contr Sabel Gregal That the King and his Image is but one and the same thing The Picture of the King saith St. Basil is called the King yet they are not for that two Kings for as he saith elsewhere He that in an open place contemplates the Kings Picture and that saith it is the King doth not for all that own two Kings to wit Basil de Spirit S. c. 18. The Portraicture and him that it represents Contr. Sabellian vel Homil 27. t. 1. p. 522. But according to the observation of St. Cyril Archbishop of Alexandria The Pourtrait may say unto him that looks upon it and that besides would see the King himself the King and I are all one thing as to the perfect resemblance Cyril Alex. in Thesaur assert 12. t. 5. p. 111. And I make no doubt but it was in this sense that some of the Ancients considered the Bread of the Sacrament and the Body of our Saviour crucified upon the Cross as one Body and not as several Bodies and if I should doubt of it Haymond Bishop of Alberstat or Remy of Auxerr would soon cure me of this doubt in saying The Flesh which Jesus Christ hath taken Haym Halber in 1 ad Cor. c. 10. and the Bread of the Sacrament and the whole Church do not make three Bodies of Christ but one Body that is to say the Bread of the Sacrament and the Church are called the Body of Jesus Christ just as his Natural Body is because they are Mystically so that they have all their relation unto his true Body and that by virtue of this relation they are deemed one and the same Body Theodot apud Bulenger cont Casaub and before Haymond Theodotus of Antioch so expressed himself As the King saith he and his Portrait are not two Kings so also the Personal Body of Jesus Christ which is in Heaven and the Bread which the Priest distributes unto believers in the Church and which is the Antitype and Figure are not two Bodies In fine if it may be said in a good sense of all Images in general that they are one and the same with their Original of greater reason may it be said of the Eucharist which is not an Image depending of the Painters Fancy as the others nor of the skill of his Pencil but of the Institution of Jesus Christ which hath instituted this Divine Sacrament to be the remembrance of his Death the Portraicture and Image of his Person and Sufferings but an Image and Portrait that truly communicates unto us his Body broken and which in the Celebration of the Sacrament is always accompanied with his Virtue and Efficacy therefore St. 1 Chrys Hom. 28. in 1 ad Cor. Chrysostom saith That the Sacramental Table is exuberant with life 2 Homil. 51. in Matt. and full of the holy Spirit 3 Catech. ad illuminand that the Cup is full of much virtue 4 Ibid. Ambro. lib. de initiand c. 4. t. 4. p. 346. and that those which are initiated know the force and virtue of this Cup. Which agrees not ill with what the Fathers of Constantinople said That the Bread of the Eucharist is filled with the Holy Ghost And what they said of the Bread and Cup of the Sacrament the Author of the Book of those which are initiated in St. Ambrose saith the same of the Water of Baptism Believe saith he that the Waters are not alone Just Mart. Dial cum Tryph. pag. 231. Ammon Cat. in Joan. 3.5 and that there descends a Divine Vertue into this Fountain Thence it is St. Justin Martyr calls the Water of Baptism the Water of Life and that Amonius saith It is changed into a Divine Nature Seven years after to wit in the year 794. Charlemain being displeased at what had been done at Nice in favour of Images caused a Council to be assembled at Francfort to prohibit the Worship and stop the progress of an abuse which then seemed intolerable unto the greatest number of Christians in the West And at this time
time of Charles the Bald by whose Command he wrote it Father Cellot the Jesuit never made any difficulty of this matter freely attributing unto Ratramn the little Treatise whereof we speak and proving by a long Dispute that he was the Fore-runner of Berengarius and of Calvin and that he openly taught that the Eucharist is not the real Body of Jesus Christ which he confirms by the Authority of persons most learned in the Communion of the Latins Allain Despans de Saints du Perron Clement the Eighth which all have had this same Opinion of Bertram and of his Book He observes that Cardinal Bellarmin doth rank him amongst those which have disputed whether the Eucharist is the real Body of Jesus Christ and that it was justly put in the Index of prohibited Books according to the intention of the Council of Trent As for Sixtus de Sienna he found it so contrary unto the Belief of the Latin Church that he took it to be some of the Works of Oecolompadius which the Protestants published in the name of Ratramn It is commonly said that second thoughts are better than the first but Monsieur de Marca seems to go about to give the Lie unto this Maxim by his Conduct for in this French Treatise of the Eucharist a little before mentioned and which he had composed before what we but now examined of his he very judiciously attributes unto Bertram this little Treatise of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and saith That he was consulted on this matter by Charles the Bald This is that whereto he should have held and not to change his Opinion without any solid Ground And it ought not to be said with some that Bertram who was a Friar in an Abby whereof Paschas was Abbot durst not therefore write against him for in the first place who told those persons that Bertram was yet a Friar in the Monastery of Gorby when he wrote against Paschas when probably he was Abbot of Orbais and no way depending upon Paschas And for my part I find much more likelihood of the last than of the former In the second place Wherefore is it that Ratramn should not dare to write against what Paschas writ touching the Sacrament of the Eucharist seeing he feared not in other things directly to oppose one of the necessary Consequences of Paschas his Opinion and plainly to call it Heresie as we have fully made it appear in the 13th Chapter of the second Part of this History It may then boldly and without danger be affirmed after the testimony of so many Learned Men of the Communion of Rome that Ratramn was an Adversary unto Paschas But to make this truth appear in its full lustre it is requisite to alledge some passages of this small Treatise after having shewed that all therein amounted to prove two things one is That the Mystery of the Eucharist is a Figure and not the thing it self and the other That 't is not the same Body which is born of the Virgin Mary as Paschas did teach it was In fine having first of all said unto Charles the Bald Bertram de corp sanguin Dom. That there being nothing better becoming his Royal Wisdom then to have a Catholick Opinion of the sacred Mysteries and not to suffer that his Subjects should be of different Judgments touching the Body of Jesus Christ wherein we know is the Abridgment of Christian Religion he proposed two questions wherein the King desired to be resolved 1. Whether the body and blood of Jesus Christ which Christians do receive with the mouth be made in mystery or in reality And 2. Whether it be the same Body which was born of the Virgin that suffered dyed rose again ascended into Heaven and is set down at the right hand of God the Father Paschas taught That it was the same Flesh as was born of the holy Virgin and his Adversaries on the contrary That it was the Figure and the Sacrament and not the real Flesh If then Ratramn taught That the Eucharist is the Figure and the Sacrament of the Body of Jesus Christ and not the very Flesh it self of necessity it must be concluded that he directly opposed the Opinion of Paschas according to the Declaration made us by the Anonymous Author Id. Ibid. As to what regards the first question see here how it is resolved I demand saith he of those that will not here admit of a Figure and that will have all to be taken simply and in reality I say I would ask of them to what purpose was the change made that it should no longer be Bread and Wine as it was before but the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ for according to the bodily appearance and the visible form of things the Bread and Wine have no change in them and if they have suffered no change then they be nothing else but what they were before And a little after Ibid. there offers here a question which is made by several saying That these things are made in Figure and not in reality and so saying they shew themselves contrary to the Writings of the Holy Fathers And after having alledged two passages of St. Austin one of the third Book of Christian Doctrine and the other of the Epistle unto Boniface he concludes We find that St. Austin saith Ibid. That the Sacraments are other things than that whereof they be Sacraments the Body wherein Jesus Christ suffered and the Blood which flowed out of his Side are the things but the Mysteries of these things are the Sacraments of this Body and of this Blood which are celebrated in remembrance of the Death of our Saviour not only once a year at the Solemnity of Easter but also every day And although there is but one Body wherein our Saviour suffered and one Blood which he shed for the sins of the World nevertheless the Sacraments take the name of the things whereof they be Sacraments and are called the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ by reason of the resemblance they have with the things which they represent as the Death and Resurrection of our Lord which are celebrated yearly on certain days although he suffered and rose but once in himself Those days cannot be brought back again seeing they are past but the days whereon the Commemoration of the Passion and Resurrection of our Saviour is made are called by their names because of the resemblance they have with those whereon our Saviour suffered and rose again In like manner we say our Saviour is sacrificed when the Sacraments of his Passion is celebrated although he suffered but once in himself for the Salvation of the World He saith moreover Ibid. that those which believe the reality make a true confession when they say That it is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ but that they deny what they seem to affirm and that they themselves destroy what they believe for when they
happened at the end of the IV. Century where he concludes his History I have expresly spoken of legitimate and not forged Writings because I am not ignorant that in the Liturgies attributed unto St. James and St. Mark there is to be seen the custom of Perfume and of Incense at the time of celebrating the Sacrament and there be also Prayers for dedicating it unto God But for as much as the Learned as well Roman Catholicks as Protestants do confess that either they were not the Works of these Servants of God or if they be that they have received many Alterations and that things have been foisted into them unknown unto the first Christians nothing hinders but we may in this number include the use of Incense there being no likelihood that it would have been so late received into the Church if it had been practised by an Apostle and an Evangelist What I say of the Liturgies of St. James and St. Mark I say also of that attributed unto St. Peter wherein we observe the same thing Which example the Christians would not have failed to have observed had all the Liturgies appeared from the beginning As for the Liturgies of St. Basil and St. Chrysostom I would not so positively affirm that what is therein mentioned of the Oblation of Perfume hath been therein inserted since the death of the Authors for although that several things have been thereunto annexed and many things altered and that there be several which even believe that which goes under St. Chrysostom's name is not his but of a more recent Author Nevertheless the Canon of the Apostles which prescribes the use of Incense in the celebration of the Sacrament having been composed before either of these two Doctors of the Church I shall refer it unto others to decide this difficulty although St. Basil upon Psal 115. rejects the Oblation of Incense and I shall content my self in saying that if these two Liturgies are truly St. Basil's and St. Chrysostom's and if what is therein said of the Oblation of perfume hath not been thereunto added since their death there is great cause to wonder that there is no mention at all made of it any where else in the Works of Authors of the times before the Council of Chalcedon at least I have not observed any even in St. Cyril of Jerusalem Mystag 5. who describing particularly enough the form of the celebration of the Sacrament and the dispositions thereunto requisite speaketh not a word of the Oblation of Incense He saith indeed that a Deacon giveth Water to wash his hands that officiated and unto the Priests that be with him that the people are exhorted to give each other the Kiss of Charity to lift up their hearts on high to give thanks unto the Lord that there is mention made of Heaven and Earth of the Sea the Sun Moon and Stars and generally of all Creatures as well reasonable Creatures as Brutes of visible and invisible of Angels and Arch-Angels of Vertues Dominions Principalities Powers Thrones and Cherubims which cover their faces especially those which were seen by the Prophet Esay and which cried one to another saying Holy holy holy is the Lord God of Hosts And after being so sanctified they pray unto God that he will be pleased to send his Holy Spirit upon the Gifts proposed that is to say the Bread and Wine the Consecration whereof the Greeks make to depend upon this Prayer but as for the Ceremony of Incense which we enquire after the least sign of it is not to be found in the whole Catechism As for the pretended Denis the Arcopagite which gave occasion unto this whole Enquiry he began not to appear at soonest until the end of the V. Century or the beginning of the VI. at which time the Perfumes and Incenses were practised in the Service of the Greek Church Tom. 6. Bibl. Pat. I know very well that in the Liturgy which goes under the name of St. Cyril of Alexandria in the Library of the Fathers there is Prayers made for those which furnished the Oblations and Sacrifices the Bread Wine Oyl and Incense and the Vessels used at the Altar So that if it were truly his the introduction of this practice amongst the Greeks should be before the Council of Chalcedon because Cyril was deceased before the Council was convocated But it being very uncertain whether it were Cyril's or whether he was the Author of it or that it hath retained its purity we have not ill assigned unto the Council of Chalcedon the first restimony of this custom amongst the Greeks after the Ordinance of the Canon of the Apostles 'T is true the Request of Ischyrion Deacon of the Church of Alexandria wherein it is spoken of and which is contained in the third Action of this Council seeming to presuppose the establishment of this use but of no long time it may without any inconvenience be said that it began to be practised about the time of the assembling of this Council and probably at Alexandria rather than elsewhere Concil Chalced Act 3. t. 3. Concil p. 247. ult edit according to the Testament of a certain Lady called Peristerie who at her death bequeathed great treasures unto the Church unto Monasteries Hospitals and unto the Poor of the whole Province and also provision to supply the Oblation of Perfume as may be gathered from this Request as also from the time of the death of this Lady which was whilst Dioscorus was Bishop and after the death of Cyril But in as much as this custom of offering Incense unto God at the time of celebrating the Eucharist began to be introduced into the Eastern Church in the V. Century as near as I can judge the Reader will not be offended that I here represent the Prayer which was made unto God in presenting him the Perfume for although it be expressed in divers terms according to the diversity of Liturgies nevertheless because all these Prayers amount in substance unto the same thing this here will be sufficient It is in the Liturgy of St. James I mean Liturgia S. Jacobi in that which goes under his name O Lord Jesus Christ Word of God who offeredst thy self upon the Cross as a holy Sacrifice unto thy God thy Father and thy King which art that Coal of two natures which didst touch with Tongs the lips of the Prophet and didst cleanse him from his iniquities touch also our Understanding Ours I say who are sinners and purifie us from all uncleanness and grant we may present our selves pure and holy at thine Altar to offer unto thee a Sacrifice of Praise And receive of us who are unprofitable Servants this present Perfume in an Odour of a sweet savour Change the ill savour of our Souls and Bodies into a sweet Odour and sanctifie us by the sanctifying vertue of thy Holy Spirit for thou art the only Saint which sanctifieth and communicatest thy self unto the faithful And
unto whom with thy Father and thy good holy and quickning Spirit appertains the Glory both now and for ever Amen As for what regards the Latin Church it is no less difficult precisely to determine the time when Perfume was first offered in the Celebration of the Sacrament It may very well be inferred from what hath been alledged of St. Austin that this practice was not received in his days in the West at least in the Church of Africa I say not in the Church of Africa for I find in the Life of Boniface the first Contemporary with St. Austin this Ordinance That no Woman or Nun In lib. Pontific t 1. Concil p. 884. should touch nor wash the sacred Corporal nor cause to be burnt any Incense in the Church saving the Deacons only I know the Pontifical Book from whence this Life is taken is a Book upon which no solid foundation can be laid those which have any knowledge of Ecclesiastical Antiquity make no esteem of it And the Impostor that forged the Decretals of the first Popes hath made Soter to make a Decrete in the II. Century like unto that of Boniface in the V. but for all that I would not so absolutely deny the truth of the Ordinance of Boniface as I would that of Soter for although the Pontifical Book is not always to be believed nevertheless it cannot be said as positively as of the Decretal of Soter that it is forged There is but one thing that sticks with me and is the reason that I cannot give credit to the Decrete which is to be seen in the Life of Boniface It is that in all the Books of Sacraments of Gregory the First nor in those of Ecclesiastical Offices of St. Isidore Arch-Bishop of Sevil there is no mention at all made to the best of my remembrance touching the Oblation of Perfume It is not so of the Book called The Roman Order wherein there is express mention made of it as also in Amalarius Fortunatus who lived in the IX Century but as for the Roman Order all are not agreed of its age most thinking it was written towards the end of the VIII Century and some in the XI After all in admitting the Decrete of Pope Boniface the First it will follow that the use of Perfume and Incense in the Worship and Service of Religion was not received by the Latins before the V. Century if it be certain that it was then it self received In a Book which treateth of Divine Offices which Melchior Historpius caused to be printed together with the Roman Order there is several Prayers for consecrating and blessing the Censer and the Incense of each it will suffice to relate one I say in the first place for the Censer in blessing whereof this Prayer is made unto God Tom. 10. Bibl. Pat. O Lord God who at the time that the Children of Israel were devoured by fire by reason of their Rebellion thou wert pleased to hear the prayers of thy High Priest Aaron standing betwixt the Dead and the Living and offering thee Incense and saving the people out of the midst of the fire bless we pray thee this Censer and grant that as often as we therein offer Incense unto thee we may become a Temple of a sweet savour acceptable unto thy Christ And for the Perfume and Incense Ibid. O Almighty Lord God of Abraham of Isaac and of Jacob send upon this Creature of Perfume and of Incense the strength and vertue of thy savour to the end it may serve for a protection and defence unto thy Servants to hinder the Enemy from entring into their hearts and there fix his abode and residence through Jesus Christ our Lord Amen And in the Pontifical Pontific Rom. par 2. fol. 136. 2 Venise 1582. O Lord God Almighty in whose presence doth stand with trembling the Army of holy Angels whose service is wholly spiritual and full of zeal be pleased to behold bless and sanctifie this Incense and Perfume to the end that all the failures the infirmities and all the stratagems of the Enemy smelling its savour may fly away and depart from thy Creatures which thou hast ransomed with the precious Blood of thy Son never to be wounded by the biting of the wicked Serpent through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen But because that which is called the Apostles fourth Canon joyns unto Incense the Oyl for the Lights or Lamps at the time of celebrating the Sacrament it will not be amiss to enquire into the first Original of this Custom as we have done into that of Incense To this purpose the Reader need not expect that we should treat of the primitive Christians making use of Lamps and Candles in their Assemblies because every body knows they did not use them for Ceremony but through pure necessity being forced to assemble in the night and early before day-light for fear of Persecution From thence did proceed the unjust slanders wherewith they were charged in Minucius Foelix of causing the Lights to be extinguished the more greedily to satisfie their Lusts and sensual Appetites Neither will I speak of the Wax Candles and Flambeaus which were used on Easter Eve nor stand to shew when their use began not only on this occasion but also in Feasts and Funerals as well as unto the honour of Images These things may probably be answered at some more convenient time for the present we must limit our selves within the matter which concerns the Sacrament whereof we write the History and by consequence only consider the use of the light of Lamps and Candles in that which relates unto the Worship and Service of God Tertullian accounted it as a great Superstition in the Gentiles for using Candles and Flambeaus in the day time and saith Christians do not so Apolog. c. 35. We saith he do not burn day-light with Candles and Flambeaus And he saith so upon account of what was acted by the Pagans upon Holy Days and publick Rejoycings particularly unto the honour of the Emperors But elsewhere he speaketh in a manner which giveth plainly to understand that the Christians of his time did not at all admit for Ceremony the use of Candles Flambeaus or other Lights in the Worship of their Religion so that if they made use of any it was only during their Nocturnal Assemblies their Enemies not suffering them to meet together in the day time Let them saith he every day light Flambeaus he speaks of what was done in the Temples of Idols which are absolutely in darkness De Idol c. 15. Let them which are threatned with eternal fire fasten Lawrels at their doors that they might afterwards burn them for these tokens of darkness and these fore-runners of pains and punishments become them very well Could a Christian have spoke after this manner against a Heathen Superstition if in his Religion he had practised the use of Lights and Flambeaus He would have spoke in another manner and
Century heartily desired Lib. 3. de divin office in praefat It would suffice saith he without Singers without Readers and without all the other things practised in the celebration of the Sacrament that the Bishop or Priest should pronounce the blessing to consecrate the Bread and Wine to the end the People should be nourished for the salvation of their Souls as the Apostles did at the first beginning of Christianity By which words he sheweth that he found the celebration of this Mystery too much clogg'd with Ceremonies as also St. Austin found that all the Christian Religion was 500 years before Amalarius for he complains That Religion is burdened with heavy yokes Ep. 119. c. 19. so that the state of the Jews is more supportable But now it is time to consider the preparations of the Communicant having examined those of him which Celebrates CHAP. II. Of the Dispositions necessary for the Communion And first Of the Inclinations of the devout Soul in regard of God and of Jesus Christ WHen our blessed Saviour did distribute the Bread and Wine of his Eucharist to his Apostles he said unto them Do this in remembrance of me which his Apostle doth extend to the Commemoration of his Death and of his Sufferings a Remembrance which draweth after it all the good and holy dispositions which the Communicant should have towards God and Jesus Christ And these Inclinations proceed from several Idea's which this saving remembrance doth stir up in our Souls at the time in which we do prepare our selves for the participation of this adorable Mystery of our Salvation For although the Sacrament was instituted principally for remembring the death of our Saviour nevertheless because his Death is inseparable from his Incarnation Resurrection and Ascension so it is that we approach unto the holy Communion after having meditated on all these great and sublime Mysteries every one of which produceth in our Souls dispositions somewhat different as having divers objects and several encouragements the which nevertheless are all heavenly and all divine and all which do tend unto one mark and unto one end which is the Glory of God and of Jesus Christ and the eternal Salvation of our Souls And to say the truth this Sacrament cannot represent unto our eyes all these great and wonderful objects but that it opens unto us at the same time a wide Field for our Meditation to enlarge upon from the Incarnation of the eternal Word even unto his second coming to Judgment and we cannot finish this glorious course without having all the dispositions which God requires and all the preparations which he desires of us This will plainly appear if we do severally reflect upon all the Idea's which the remembrance of our Saviour and of his Sufferings do present unto our Souls and what the Fathers have said upon each of them and if we also feel the divine motions which will necessarily flow from the Christian Soul For example The holy Fathers have considered the Eucharist as a Memorial a Symbol an Image and a Sacrament of the Incarnation or as the Doctors of the Greek Church speak of the Oeconomy of Jesus Christ that is to say of that free and merciful dispensation which inclined him to take our Nature in the Womb of the blessed Virgin Mary by the miraculous operation of the Holy Ghost which is what St. Justin Martyr would say when he observed Contr. Try phon p. 296. That the Lord commanded us to make the Bread of the Eucharist in remembrance in that he was made Man for those which should believe in him It was also the thoughts of Eusebius Demonstr l. 8. a Genesi That Jesus Christ gave unto his Apostles the Symbols of his divine Oeconomy commanding them to make the Image of his true Body And it cannot be any way doubted but it was on this same consideration that Pope Gelasius said De duabus in Christo natur That we do celebrate in the Action of the Mysteries the Image and resemblance of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and that we must believe of our Lord Jesus Christ that it self which we profess in his Image which we there celebrate and there receive that is to say that we should be persuaded of the truth of his Flesh and Blood the Symbols and Sacraments whereof we do receive at the holy Table It is just what St. Leo intended to express by these words which were addressed unto the Eutychians You should communicate at the holy Table in such a manner Serm. 6. de jejun 7. mensis pag. 86. that you may not in the least doubt of the truth of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ It is whereunto also attendeth all the passages of the Fathers which prove either against the Eutychians or against the Docetes and the Putatifs the truth of the Flesh of Jesus Christ by the Eucharist as the existence of a thing is proved by the Image and by the Figure which represents it Dialog 2. p. 84. because according to Theoderet's saying There must be an Arch-type of the Image because the Painers which imitate Nature do represent the Images of things which are seen From whence he draws this Conclusion If the divine Mysteries are the Figure of a true Body then the Body of our Lord is now also a true Body not changed into the nature of the Divinity but filled with the divine Glory A Reasoning for the most part like unto that of Tertullian against Marcian for having expounded these words This is my Body by these others That is to say Lib. 4. advers Marcion c. 40. the Figure of my Body he adds That it would not have been a Figure if there had not been the truth of a Body or a true Body And indeed this Idea of the Incarnation of our Lord was in such a manner imprinted in the minds of Communicants that the last Prayer of St. Basil's Liturgy begins thus O Jesus Christ our God Bibl. Patr. t. 2. Graeco-Lat we have accomplished and finished according to our power the Sacrament of thine Oeconomy and Dispensation This Meditation which representeth unto us the horrour of sin the sad condition we were in the fearful Gulph wherein we have precipitated our selves the Love of the Father the tender Charity of the Son the admirable work of our Redemption the great Mystery of Godliness God manifest in the Flesh fills us full of Gratitude unto God And if unto the Idea of his Conception and Birth we joyn that of his Life therein to contemplate the purity of his Innocence the glory of his Miracles the splendor of his Vertues the efficacy of his Doctrine and the shame of his Sufferings we shall therein find so great joy so great comfort and so great pleasure in the contemplation of this divine Scene that we shall be insensibly transformed into the same Image from Glory unto Glory to speak with St. Paul that is to say
318. Of the care which should be taken in receiving of the Eucharist In reading this Title it came into my mind that the Fathers of the Council might haply have comprised Auricular Confession in the preparations which they commanded yet nevertheless I do not find therein any such thing they only warn That a great deal of care must be taken in participating of the Body and Blood of our Lord and take care that we do not abstain from it too long lest that should turn unto the ruin of the Soul and that if one partake thereof indiscreetly we should fear what the Apostle saith Whosoever eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh his own Damnation A man ought therefore to examine himself according to the Command of the same Apostle and so eat of this Bread and drink of this Cup that is to say to prepare himself for the receiving of so great a Sacrament in abstaining some days from the works of the Flesh and in purifying of his Body and Soul Hincmar Arch-Bishop of Rhemes who died towards the end of th IX Century useth the same method when he represents unto Charles the Bald the Preparations necessary for worthy receiving the Sacrament Opusc 1. c. 12. t. 2. p. 101 102. He desires that every one would judge himself to the end that the trial being made in the heart the thought should serve for an Accuser the Conscience for a Witness and fear for an Executioner Then that the blood of the Soul should fall by tears And in fine that the Understanding should give such a sentence that a man should judge himself unworthy of participating of the Body and Blood of our Saviour And several other things which he proposeth without speaking any thing of Confession But by degrees Confession established it self infensibly amongst the Christians of the West and at length Innocent the Third authorized it by a Decree at the Council of Lateran in the Year 1215. at which time the Albigensis and Waldensis had separated themselves from Communion of the Latins The most part of all Christian Communions have no such Law as the Latins that obliges them unto Confession before receiving the Communion for example the Abyssins or Ethiopians the Armenians the Nestorians Confession 't is granted is used in the Greek Church which is of a large extent but it is so little practised that their Bishops and Priests do scarce ever confess De concord l. 4. c. 2. as Arcudius a Greek Latinized doth inform us And as for the Protestants every body knows they have found this Yoke of the Latins too heavy to bear But if the holy Fathers have not hitherto demanded private Confession before coming unto the Table of our Lord they do require other dispositions without which they forbid us approaching unto it It is in this sense that St. Chrysostom condemning the practise of those which came unto the Sacrament as it were by Rancounter and by custom at certain times which they looked upon to be more solemn he sheweth them that it is not the time that makes us any thing the more worthy to receive but that it is the purity of the Soul the holiness of our life the innocence of our Conversation Chrysost Hom 3. in c. 1. ad Ephes p. 1050 1051. It is not saith he the Epiphany nor the Lent that renders us worthy to approach unto the holy Sacrament it is the sincerity and purity of heart therewith draw near at all times and without them never come unto it Consider with what care and with what respect the Flesh of Sacrifices was eaten under the Law What caution did they not use what trouble were they not continually at to purifie themselves to that purpose And you approaching unto a Sacrifice which the very Angels behold with a religious reverence you think it is sufficient to prepare your selves unto so solemn an action by governing your selves according to the course of the Season Consider the Vessels which are employed for the Celebration of this Sacrament how clean they be how bright and shining they be yet nevertheless our Souls should be cleaner more holy and more resplendent than these Vessels seeing that it is only for us that they be prepared And in another place speaking of seldom and often receiving the Sacrament Id. Hom. 17 in Ep. ad Heb. p. 1872. We regard not saith he neither those which communicate often nor those which communicate seldom but those which communicate with a sincere Conscience a pure heart and an unreprovable life Let those that are in this condition always draw near and those which are not let them not so much as once draw near because they only draw upon themselves the wrath of God and make themselves worthy of Condemnation of pains and of punishments which should not seem strange unto us for as Meats which are wholsom of themselves being received into a diseased Body there causeth a disorder and an entire corruption and becomes the Original of some disease so it is the same of these terrible and venerable Mysteries when they be received into Souls which be indisposed And because the holy Fathers considered that this august Sacrament which giveth life unto some gives death unto others that is to say unto those which receive it unworthily and that if it be full of consolation unto holy Souls it is also full of terror unto the wicked They have spoken of it as of a terrible and fearful Sacrament because according to the saying of the same St. Chrysostom Whilst the death of Jesus Christ is celebrating Hom. 21. in Act a dreadful Sacrament is represented God gave himself for the World From thence came the Exhortation addressed unto the people in the ancient Liturgies to call them unto the Communion Draw near with fear August l. 3. de doctr Christ c. 16. in Ps 21. Hom. 2. Id. qu. super Evang l. 2. q. 38. p. 152. t. 4. And in fine should not we be seized with a holy fear accompanied with a very great respect to participate of the death of our Saviour to eat his Passion in eating his Supper as St. Austin speaks and to lick as he saith again his Sufferings in the Sacraments of his Body and of his Blood But if this warning was given unto Communicants they were told also in inviting them unto the holy Communion Holy things are for the Saints Whereupon St. Chrysostom makes this reflection When the Deacon cries Hom. 17. in Ep. ad Hebr. Holy things are for the holy it is as if he said Let not him draw near which is not holy he doth not say only him which is free of sin but him that is holy for it is not barely the remission of sins which renders a man holy but it is the presence of the Holy Ghost and the abundance of good works And St. Cyril of Jerusalem Mystag 5. The holy things saith he are proposed to be sanctified by the
coming of the Holy Ghost and you are also holy having received the Gift of the Holy Ghost And so holy things agree very well with those that be holy therefore German Patriarch of Constantinople observes in few words in expounding these words of the Liturgy 1 Theoria rerum Eccles t. 2 Bibl. Pat. Grec vel Lat. p. 407. That God takes pleasure in giving holy things unto those which be pure of heart And then the Sacrament doth not a little contribute unto the augmentation of this purity according unto what is spoken by Theophilus Arch-Bishop of Alexandria 2 Ep. Pasch 2. That we break the Bread of our Lord for our Sanctification And Pope Gelasius 3 De duab nat Christ That the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of our Saviour renders us partakers of the divine Nature And to say the truth 4 In Anaceph There is in the Bread a vertue that quickens us as St. Epiphanius doth testifie Moreover the Sacrament effecting in regard of our Souls what a good Medicine doth operate in regard of our bodies there is no question to be made but when the ancient Doctors of the Church have contemplated it under this Idea but that they intended that Communicants should at the least use as much care and caution unto the reception of this divine Medicine as we are wont to take when we intend to purge our Bodies for when we intend to take Physick we live the day before within some bounds and are careful not to surcharge the Stomach that it might operate with more ease and profit for the purging out of peccant humours In like manner when we are to present our selves at the holy Table of the Church we should prepare and dispose our Souls to receive this saving Remedy the vertue and efficacy whereof shews and maketh it self to be felt in healing the spiritual Maladies wherewith we are naturally oppressed This was in all likelihood the thoughts of Hillary Deacon of Rome when he said Apud Ambros in c. 18. 1. ad Cor. That although this Mystery was celebrated at Supper yet it is not a Supper but a spiritual Medicine which purifieth those which come unto it with devotion and which do receive it with respect Besides the Sacrament having been instituted to give unto us the Communion of our Saviour Jesus Christ because that in participating of this visible Bread one eats spiritually the Flesh of Christ to speak with St. Hom. 27. Macarius is it not just that we should purifie and sanctifie our Souls to be the Palace and Temple of this merciful Saviour to the end that there delighting to make his abode and residence he might spread abroad his Graces his Blessings and his favours and that he may incessantly apply unto them the fruits of his death wherein they find their life their joy their comfort and their salvation In fine The Sacrament being to be unto us a Symbol of Unity a Band of Charity and of Peace according to the constant Doctrine of the holy Fathers they desired that Believers should maintain a holy Concord amongst themselves and a perfect Union that they should be careful of preserving the Unity of the Spirit in the Band of Peace and that they should put on unto each other bowels of pity and of Charity as the Apostle speaks Therefore they would not receive Oblations of those which were not reconciled and not accepting them they admitted them not unto the Sacrament for the one necessarily depended upon the other Therefore they warned Believers at the time of the Communion to salute each other and to give each other the holy Kiss mentioned by St. Paul in one of his Epistles Mystag 5. The Deacons cry saith St. Cyril of Jerusalem embrace and mutually kiss each other and then we salute one another But do not think that it is such a kiss as common friends do give unto each other when they meet in the publick place This Kiss doth unite Souls and makes them hope a perfect forgetfulness of what is past it is a sign of the uniting of spirits and not retaining the memory of injuries any longer And therefore also it is that our Saviour Jesus Christ the Son of God said When you bring your Gift unto the Altar and that you there remember that your Brother hath ought against you leave there thy Gift before the Altar and go first be reconciled with thy Brother and then come offer thy Gift This Kiss then is a Reconciliation and by consequence is holy And it is of this Kiss St. Paul speaketh when he said Greet one another with a holy Kiss and St. Peter Salute each other with a Kiss of Charity And they believed this Union so necessary that without it as they thought one could receive no benefit by the Sacrament how much soever other ways one was addicted unto good works Whence it is that St. Chrysostom after having exalted the vertue and efficacy of this holy Kiss which uniteth Souls reconciles Spirits and maketh us all to become one Body he exhorts his Auditors strictly to unite their Souls by the Bands of Charity to the end they might with assurance enjoy the Fruits of the Table which is prepared for them he adds Although we abound in good works Chrysost de praed iud t. 5. p. 465. if we neglect the Reconciliation of Peace we shall reap no advantage for our Salvation All the Liturgies come to our hands make mention of this Kiss of Charity which Believers gave each other before the Sacrament and which St. Paul calls a holy Kiss and St. Peter a Kiss of Charity many of the ancient Fathers do also make mention of it Indeed the time of kissing each other was not alike in all Churches in some it was given before the Consecration of the Symbols and in others just at the time of communicating but however it was the manner to salute each other before approaching unto the holy Table And this custom continued a very great while in the Church but at length it insensibly vanished at least in the West and the Latins have put instead of this mutual Kiss that which they call Kiss the Peace which is a kind of little Silver Plate or of some other matter with the Image of Jesus Christ or the Relicks of some Saint which is offered unto each person to kiss a custom not very ancient seeing it was never heard of until the end of the XV. Century Lect. 81. for then it began to be introduced into some Churches in the West as is observed by Gabriel Biel in some of his Lessons upon the Canon of the Mass Besides it is not said in the Liturgies whether this Kiss was given indifferently amongst Men and Women Lib. 3. c. 32. I only observe in the Books of Ecclesiastical Offices of Amalarius Fortunatus who wrote in the IX Century and in the Rational of Durandus Bishop of Mende L. 4. c. 53. extr who lived
in the XIII that it was not then given in the Latin Church but amongst persons of the same Sex I say that Men kissed each other and also Women the like And because all these dispositions are not the fruits of Nature but Gifts of the Grace and Mercy of God the ancient Christians addressed themselves unto him by devout Prayers to the end he would be pleased to bestow upon them what they wanted that is the preparations necessary to communicate savingly and worthily Cassander hath collected several of these Prayers but they being penned variously according to the motions of the Devotion of the Communicants we forbear inserting them in this place to endeavour to discover in prosecuting our design whether the holy Fathers which have required these dispositions before drawing near unto the holy Table have also required that the Communicants should adore the Sacrament in the Act of communicating CHAP. IV. Wherein the Question of the Adoration of the Sacrament is examined WEll to explain a matter and to give it the full demonstration which it requires the nature of the question must first of all be plainly stated because it is thereupon most commonly that the clearing of it doth chiefly depend Being therefore to treat of so weighty a Subject as that which now offers it self the first thing we should do is carefully to put a difference betwixt Jesus Christ himself and his Sacrament for the question is not whether Jesus Christ ought to be worshipped all Christians are agreed upon this point But whether the Sacrament should be adored that is to say that which the Priest holds in his hands and which is commonly called the Hostie and the Sacrament for it appears to me that the Council of Trent hath agreed this to be the true state of the Question Sess 13. c. 5. when it defined That there is no doubt to be made but all the Servants of Jesus Christ should render unto the holy Sacrament in the act of Veneration the worship of Latry which is due unto the true God It must then in the first place be acknowledged as an unquestionable Truth that Jesus Christ is an Object truly adorable and that his Flesh it self deserves that we should render it the highest Religious Worship by reason of the privilege it hath of being united into one person with his eternal Divinity When therefore the holy Fathers speak of adoring Jesus Christ in the participation of the Sacrament they say nothing whereunto the Protestants do not acquiesce as well as the Roman Catholicks for say they in coming unto the holy Table one cannot meditate of the infinite love he had for us send our thoughts unto Mount Calvary to consider the precious blood which he there shed make reflection upon the Throne of Glory where he is sitting with his Father nor ever so little cast an Eye upon that ineffable goodness which inclines him to communicate himself unto us by means of the Sacrament but that the Soul of the faithful Communicant humbles it self in his presence and doth truly adore him An adoration unto which may be referred what is said by Origen or at least the Author of some Homilies that are in his Works What we read saith he in the Gospel Hom. 5. in divers t. 2. p. 285. ought not to be passed over by us as a thing of small importance That the Genturion said unto Jesus Christ I am not worthy that thou shouldst enter under my Roof for at this time Jesus Christ doth yet enter under the Roof of Believers by two Figures or after two manner of ways viz. When holy men beloved of God which govern the Churches enter under your Roof then our Lord doth enter by them and you should believe that you receive our Saviour When also you receive the holy and incorruptible Food the Bread of Life I say and the Cup you do eat and drink the Body and Blood of our Saviour and then our Lord doth enter under your Roof Humble your selves therefore and in imitation of the Centurion say Lord I am not worthy that thou shouldst enter under my Roof for wheresoever he enters unworthily he there enters for the condemnation of him which receiveth him He saith That our Saviour enters under our Roof by his Sacrament after the same manner as he there enters by his Ministers and that we should humble our selves in receiving as well his Servants as his Sacrament to the end this act of humility may be a mark of the adoration which we give unto him which hath instituted the one and which sendeth unto us the others confessing that we are not worthy of this favour St. Ambrose and St. Austin express themselves so fully that the Reader will find no difficulty to penetrate into their meaning for see here what is said by the first Ambros de Spir. S. l. 3. c. 12 We adore the Flesh of Jesus Christ in the Mysteries He puts a difference betwixt the Mysteries and the Flesh of Jesus Christ which he makes to be the Object of our Worship in the act of communicating I will not now insist upon the manner of Jesus Christs being present in the Sacrament because that hath been treated of at large in the Second Part I only produce the testimonies of Ancient Doctors which speak of adoring our Saviour when we communicate to the end not to divert the Examination we are to make of the Adoration of the Sacrament Therefore we will joyn unto St. Ambrose St. Austin who saith Let no body eat the Flesh of Jesus Christ In Psal 98. until he hath first adored him How say some is it possible St. Austin should teach that the Sacrament should be adored seeing he so formally denies it in one of his Letters for speaking of things sensible and corporeal I mean of Creatures whereof the Scripture makes use to represent things Spiritual and Heavenly he saith That they ought not to be adored although we should draw Images and Resemblances of the Mysteries of our Salvation and he puts in the rank of these signs which we should not adore Ep. 119. ad Januar cap. 6. The Water and Oyle of Baptism the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament without saying any thing more particularly for the one than the other It is unto Jesus Christ that he desires we should address our Adoration without speaking one word of the Sacrament by means whereof he communicates unto us his Flesh I know not whether any other Interpretation can be given unto the words of S. Chrysostom Homil. 24. in 1. ad Corinth You do not only see the same Body which was seen by the Wise man but you also know the vertue and all the dispensation of it and are not ignorant of the things which he did and accomplished Being well informed of all these Mysteries let us then stir up our selves let us be seized with astonishment and let us testifie yet greater respect then was shewed by the Wise men
It is evident that this respect and veneration hath reference unto the Body of Jesus Christ as the Adoration of the Wise men had which adored him when they saw him in the Manger at Bethlehem as Communicants adore him when they see him not in himself but in his Sacrament whereof he grants them the favour to participate All the World doth confess that Jesus Christ is not any more visible unto the Eyes of Men since his Ascension into Heaven I think that it is so also are to be understood the Adorations spoken of in a Liturgy which is attributed unto St. Chrysostom but cannot be his the Author being much younger than him There be some also which attribute it unto John the Second called the Mute Patriarch of the same Church but about 200 years after St. Chrysostom and yet neither is it very certain that it is of this John To conclude the Copies are very different for in that amongst the works of St. Chrysostom there is no mention made of Adoring but once when the Gospel is carried and when 't is lifted up because then the Choir saith Tom. 4. p. 9â—3 Come let us Worship and kneel down before Jesus Christ excepting that the Priest and Deacon bow the Head in several places in the Liturgy before and after the Consecration and that the People are once warned to bow the Head to give thanks unto God In liturg c. 7. Cassander represents another unto us in his Liturgies of the version of Leo Tuscus wherein there is no mention of Adoration but is not so of two others which we have one in the Library of the Holy Fathers and the other in the Ritual of the Greeks by James Goar of the Order of Preaching Friars for in both these there is frequent mention made of Adoring It is true these sorts of Adorations are there practised before the Consecration and after which plainly sheweth they were addressed unto God and unto Jesus Christ because the Bread and Wine by the Doctrine it self of the Church of Rome are not to be adored until after Consecration The thing will appear yet plainer if we consider the prayers which be there made when they dispose themselves unto the Communion Tom. 4. obser Clarysâ—st p. 618.8 〈◊〉 Pat. t. 2. Gree-Latiâ— p. â—1 Lord Jesus saith the Priest behold us from thy holy habitation and from the Throne of thy Glory and come sanctifie us thou who art in the Heavens sitting with thy Father and art here present with us in an invisible manner be pleased to give us by thy powerful hand thy pure and unspotted Body and thy precious Blood and by us unto all the People This prayer as every body sees hath for its Object Jesus Christ Reigning in Heaven and present unto his faithful Communicants by his Eternal Divinity and by the participation of his Grace Besides that Erasmus whose Translation comes nearer the Greek then that which is in the Library of the Holy Fathers and which we have followed because it is better liked by some Roman Catholick Doctors hath Translated these words Ibid. Be pleased by thy powerful hand to give us thy pure and immaculate Body and thy precious Blood In like manner when the Priest the Deacon and the People do Worship it is in saying three times Lord or as it is in the Ritual of the Greeks O God have mercy upon me who am a sinner which words do shew that this Adoration doth address it self unto God only who is therein expresly mentioned I say the same of the prayer which the Priest makes in taking the holy Bread when bowing his Head before the holy Table he saith I confess that thou art the Christ Ibid. p 32. the Son of the living God which didst come into the World to save sinners whereof I am chief c. After which he beseecheth him that he will vouchsafe to enter into his Soul filled with Passions and into his Body polluted with sin It cannot then be questioned but this prayer hath reference unto Jesus Christ and not unto the Sacrament which cannot enter into our Souls whereas our Saviour doth therein enter and into our Bodies also by the vertue of his Grace and by the efficacy of his holy Spirit for the sanctifying of them both of which Sanctification dependeth their Salvation and their Life As for the Deacons adoring when he cometh unto the Communion of the Cup in saying Ibid p. 8â—3 I come unto the King Immortal it can admit of no other Interpretation for I do not here examine what was the belief of the Ancient Church upon the point of the Sacrament I only inquire what the Ancients have said of the Adoration of Jesus Christ in the Act of communicating not to confound the Adoration of the Master with the Adoration of the Sacrament Therefore unto all the passages which have been alledged I will yet add two others unto which if I mistake not the same Explication ought to be given The first is taken from a fragment of the life of Luke the Anchorite who lived in the X. Century wherein is read these words You should sing Psalms which are suitable unto this Mystery In auctar Francis Combef t. 2. p. 986. and according to the Greek Typical Psalms and which do represent it Or the Hymn called Trysagion with the Symbol of the Creed then you shall three times bow the Knees and joyning the hands you shall with the mouth participate of the precious body of Jesus Christ our God It is easie to see that these three Genuflections have relation unto him to whom the Trysagion was sung that is to say unto God the Father Son and Holy Ghost of whom they begged Grace to communicate worthily I place in the same rank the History of St. Theoctista who having lived 35 years in a wilderness in the Isle of Paros desired a Huntsman whom she met by accident that he would the year following bring her the Sacrament Apud Metaphrast in vit S. Theoctist c. 13. which the Huntsman having done the Saint cast her self upon the ground received the Divine Gift and wetting the ground with her tears she said Lord now let thy Servant depart in peace because mine eyes have seen the Saviour which thou hast given us or as Cardinal du Perron hath translated Because mine eyes have seen thy healthiness After what way soever these words are taken nothing else can lawfully be gathered but that this Maid being transported with a holy joy in that God was pleased to give her the benefit of participating of this Divine Mystery of the enjoyment whereof she had been so long deprived she profoundly humbles her self in his presence in rendring thanks for procuring her so great a benefit and so sweet and solid a Consolation not to speak of Cardinal Baronius his often undervaluing Metaphrastus who relates the life of this Saint But besides this first consideration we must make a second which
is no less important to the clearing of the matter whereof we treat It concerns the Greek Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which doth not barely signifie to Adore but also Venerate and respect the Roman Catholicks and the Protestants do confess it so yet that doth not hinder but that we will produce some Instances of the latter signification because the former findeth no Obstruction 1 Lib. 1. ep 136. lib. 4. ep 27. Isidor of Damicta speaks in this sense of the adorable Gospels a term which he useth again in speaking of the Sepulchre of Jesus Christ which he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the 2 Tom. 4. Concil pag. 107. E. Clergy of Apame in the lower Syria speaking of Temples in general in the 5th action of the Synod held at Constantinople under Agapetus and under Menna applieth also unto them the term now in question as also the Emperour 3 Novel 6. Justinian doth unto Baptism 4 Homil. 4. de ascens Chr. tom 6. St. Chrysostom unto the Feast of Easter 5 Homil. 49. in Matt. p. 439. and unto the person of John Baptist It is also in the same signification this word must be taken when it is applied unto Emperors and Emperesses which are sometimes called Adorable that is worthy of respect and veneration as even in the Acts of the 6 Part. 1. pag. 26.27 tom 3. Concil p. 28.29 Council of Chalcedon And even there also is mention made of the 7 Ibid. p. 26.27 adorable Altar and of the adoration of Venerable places and so in an infinite number of places which need not be recited This word then having divers significations it is but just and right when it is found in discourse to explain it according to the Nature of the subject then in hand for example if there be mention of the three persons of the blessed Trinity it must necessarily be translated by that of adoring because the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost be objects worthy of our Adoration but if things truly Sacred and Religious are spoken of but yet nevertheless are not to speak in a proper sense adorable it is to be translated by venerated and respected for by this means it will be easie to resolve and clear all the difficulties which seem to entangle this matter according unto which if any of the Ancients treating of the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist make use of the term which we examine it will not be difficult unto us to understand that his design is not that we should adore them but only that we should venerate them and that we should respect them as Sacraments which Jesus Christ hath instituted for the saving of our Souls especially if this Writer doth formally declare that the Bread and Wine do not change their Substance by Consecration In acting by this principle we need only hear Theodoret to understand what he means to say unto us Dialog â— p. â—5 The Mystical Symbols saith he do not change their own nature after Consecration but they remain in their former substance in their first Figure and in their first shape they are visible and palpable such as they were before but it is conceived by the understanding that they are what they have been made and they are believed and venerated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as being what they are believed to be Theodoret doth positively testifie That the Consecration doth not take from the Symbols of the Eucharist their Substance their Form nor their Figure Besides he assureth in the same place that they be Images and mystical Symbols whereof the Body of Jesus Christ is the truth and the Original And elsewhere he saith Dialog 1. That our Saviour hath honoured the visible Symbols with calling them by the name of his Body and Blood not by changing their Nature but in adding Grace unto Nature After declarations so formal and positive say some the Greek word cannot be translated by Adore but by Venerate else it must be said that Theodoret is fallen into the highest excess of folly to adore what he confessed was but Bread in its proper nature and substance but because we are obliged to judge more favourably of him the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be translated are venerated are respected and not are adored They also think the Reader will be very much confirmed in this Opinion if these other words of this Author be considered writing in another Dialogue against the Eutychean Hereticks and speaking thus unto them Dialog 3. p. 127. If the Body of Jesus Christ seem a vile thing unto you and inconsiderable how is it that you do nevertheless esteem his Figure to be venerable and saving for how can an Original whose Type is venerable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and worthy of Honour be it self vile and despicable They observe that these words do also manifestly shew that there is not here meant a true and proper adoration but a veneration honour and respect such as is due unto holy and sacred things And that he speaks also of venerating the Symbols in the nature of Figures which he distinguisheth from the Archtype and from the Original an opposition which justifies that the words of Theodoret cannot at all be understood neither here nor in the former testimony of a relative Adoration such as some do ground in relation to Images as if this ancient Doctor did teach a real Adoration of the Symbols of the Sacrament but so as it terminated in Jesus Christ instead of terminating in the Symbols themselves And in fine there be learned men amongst the Latins which do so explain themselves But some others do think that this Explication doth require to be made more plain for say they if it be only meant that in communicating we should adore Jesus Christ prostrate and as it may be said become vile in his sight as we do with reverence take his Sacrament there is no Christian but will agree thereunto although it is not as they think the meaning of Theodoret but if they intend this relative Adoration should so terminate in Jesus Christ as that the Symbols should also have their part it is to establish the quite contrary of what is said by Theodoret who leaves only a Respect and Veneration to be given unto the Sacrament And what they say of Theodoret they say in like manner of all others which have spoken of the Adorable Mysteries of the Adorable Communion and also of adoring the heavenly Gifts for they think Contr. Hermog c. 22. that because one expression is used that therefore the same Interpretation must be given as when Tertullian said I adore the fulness of the Scriptures that is to say I reverence and admire it I have a veneration and respect for it And St. Basil of Seleucia 1 Orat. 30. in illad faciam vos piscat hom That Rome vailing her Diadem adored the preaching of the Cross 2 Tom. 3. Bibl. Pat. p.
confessed that they very ill instructed the people which God had committed unto their charge if the Sacrament is a Subject to be adored because all these plain and formal expressions served only to estrange the Mind from the Idea of this Soveraign Worship of Religion in making them conclude it was nothing but Bread and Wine in regard of their nature but otherwise the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ And what confirmed them the more in this thought is that the Fathers never warned them to take their words figuratively when they say that the Eucharist is Bread and Wine but when they call it the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ they use many precautions as hath been shewed in the third Chapter saying that almost all do call the Sacrament his Body that our Saviour hath honoured the Symbols with the names of his Body and Blood that they be his Body and Blood not simply and absolutely but after some sort being so called by reason of the resemblance because they be the Sacraments the Signs the Figures the Memorials of his Person and Death and that they are in the stead of his Body and Blood What need all these Limitations and Illustrations if their design had been that the people should have adored the Eucharist for you would say that they seem to be afraid that they should take it for an Object worthy of this Worship and Homage so much care is taken by them to make them comprehend what sense they should give unto their words when they say that it is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ a precaution absolutely inconsistent with the intention and thought of inspiring unto them the Doctrine of Adoration This is the reasoning of those which admit not of the Adoration of the Sacrament But if from the consideration of the words of the holy Fathers we pass unto that of several things which were practised by the ancient Church in regard of the holy Sacrament and which hath been examined by us in the first Part we may draw Inferences by the help whereof we shall the easier discover the truth of what we do examine For example the Christians for several Ages made use of Glass Chalices in the Celebration of the Sacrament They gave the Sacrament for a long time unto young Children although very uncapable of the act of Adoration They obliged Communicants to receive it in their hands they permitted them to carry it home along with them unto their houses and to keep it as long as they pleased even to carry it along with them in their Travels without ever finding that they gave it any particular Worship whilst they kept it locked in their Chests or Closets They sent it unto the Absent and unto the Sick without any Ceremony not only by Priests and Deacons but even by Lay-persons by Men Women and young Boys Bishops for above three Centuries sent it unto each other in token of Love and Communion without any noise or giving it any homage or honour by the way and without the peoples assembling in the ways by which it passed to receive it as an Object of their Service and Adoration They also sometimes communicated without any scruple of Conscience after Dinner or Supper and so mingled the Eucharist with their other food Were not this to answer very ill unto the soveraign respect which one should have for a Divinity one adores to mingle it in the same Stomach with ordinary food and to communicate standing as they did But besides all these Customs observed in the Ancient Church see here others also observed by them and which have been considered by us in treating of the exteriour form of Celebration In some places what was left of the Eucharist after Consecration was burnt in the Fire in other places it was eaten by little Children which were sent for from School The Sacrament was employed to make Plaisters it was buried with the Dead and sometimes Ink was mingled with the Consecrated Wine and then they dipt their Pens in these two mixed Liquors Can it be imagined say the Protestants that Christians so zealous as they were should Adore the Sacrament seeing it was employed by them unto uses so far distant from this Adoration and so contrary unto the Worship which is due unto God All these Customs could they consist with a Worship of this Nature and with this Soveraign respect which is due only unto the sole object of our Devotion and of our Religion let the Reader judge And the better to judge hereof let him compare the conduct of the Ancient Church in this particular with that of the Latin Church since the XI Century for these kinds of oppositions do not a little contribute unto the Illustrating the matters now in question practices so different upon the same subject not proceeding but from divers principles nor such various effects but from as different causes I ought not to pass in silence the custom of this same Church in turning out of the Assembly all those that could not or would not Communicate I speak of the Catechumeny the Energumeny and the Penitents which could not be admitted unto the participation of this Divine Sacrament and of those amongst Believers which voluntarily deprived themselves of it for it is most certain that all those which remained in the Assembly did communicate both great and small as hath been shewed in the first Part of this Book And nevertheless if besides the use of the Communion for which they confessed the Eucharist had been instituted they believed that the Sacrament was an object of Adoration What did they mean in forbidding those People which were not in a state of communicating the acts of Piety and Christian Humility A thing so much the more strange that the Holy Fathers believed for certain that prayers made unto God at the time of celebrating the Sacrament were more efficacious then those made unto him at other times by reason of the Commemoration which is there made of the Death of Jesus Christ in whose Name and for whose Merits we pray unto him By what principle and motive were they deprived of the fruit and comfort which they might receive from the homage which they would have given unto God at that blessed moment The sinner addressing himself unto the object of this Worship and Adoration I mean unto the Sacrament would have prayed unto it with a flood of tears and with sincere marks of his Repentance and Contrition to grant him pardon of his sins and to seal the Absolution of them unto his Soul The Energumeny would have implored the assistance of his holy Spirit for his deliverance from the slavery of the Devil The Catechumeny would have presented unto him his prayers for the augmentation of his knowledge and to be e're long honoured by being Baptized into his Church and then afterwards to be admitted unto the holy Sacrament And in fine the Believer in the sense of his unworthiness would
for Jesus Christs coming from Heaven whereas according to the Word Id. contra Arr. c. l. 2. c. 17. we believe that he is present with us on Earth And again explaining these Words of Jesus Christ unto his Apostles I go unto my Father He spake certainly saith he of the human Nature which he had taken in regard whereof he was to go to his Father from whence he was to come to judg the quick and the dead but as for his Divinity which filleth all things and which is comprehended in no space as it leaves no Place so neither goeth it to any Place Bed Hemil. 3. aestiv de temp feria 6. Pasâ—h Id. in Joan. cap. 9 Venerable Bede in the eighth Century is no less positive herein than others for he assures That Jesus Christ was received into Heaven as to his Humanity which he took from the Earth and that he remaineth with the Saints upon Earth by his Divinity which equally filleth Heaven and Earth And upon these Words Behold I am with you always until the End of the World Id. in Marc. c. 13. Hom. 4. de Confes Him saith he that was then in the World by his bodily Presence is now every where present by his Divity And elsewhere he saith That Jesus Christ ascending triumphantly unto his Father after his Resurrection Id. Homil. aestiv de temp Dem. Jubilit hath left the Church in regard of his bodily Presence the which nevertheless he never for sook as to the Protection of his Divine Presence continuing with her unto the End of the World And explaining these Words of Jesus Christ unto his Apostles You shall see me a little while because I go to my Father c. It is saith he as if he had plainly said the Reason that you see me a little while after I am risen from the dead Id. Domin cantate is because I am not to tarry always upon Earth in respect of my Body but I must go into Heaven in regard of the human Nature which I have taken And again When I am ascended into Heaven Id. Dom vocem jucunditatis you shall not see me such as you were wont to see me now invironed with mortal and corruptible Flesh but you shall see me coming with Glory to judge the World and appearing to the Saints after Judgement with greater Majesty Id. Hom. hyem de temp Dom. 3. post Epiphan Id. in Festiv Pentecostes Id. ibid. He himself again testifies That he hath left the World and is gone to the Father because he hath withdrawn from the sight of those which loved the World that which they had seen and had carried by his Ascension unto the invisible things the human Nature which he had assumed He saith farther We amongst the Gentiles which have believed cannot our selves go unto the Lord whom we cannot now see in the Flesh but those amongst us which confess the Frailties of our Servitude we should now draw near by Faith unto him which is sate down on the right Hand of the Father In St. Matth. c. 28. In fine he declares That the Lord ascending into Heaven after his Resurrection hath left the Apostles as to the Presence of his Body but that he never left them as to the Presence of his Divine Majesty that we have for a Comforter Jesus Christ our Lord whom though we cannot see bodily yet we have contained in the Evangelists all that he did and said during the Time that he was in the Flesh This same Language was used in the IXth Century as shall be seen afterwards and we shall also make one of the Prelates of the Gallican Church despose in the XIIth Century to learn from his Mouth that it waâ— not then forgotten in our France but in the mean while it will not be amiss to observe that according to the Belief which we have established the holy Fathers have only taken notice of two comings of Jesus Christ the one attended with Shame and Ignominy the other with Glory and Majesty but both visible without ever telling us that there was a third which holds the middle betwixt both whereby Christ descends daily upon the Earth On the contrary the Protestants affirm That Tertullian declares the Nature of a true Descent in a manner which sheweth as they say That neither him nor the Church in his Time believed that a Body could descend from one Place to another without being seen Phantome Tertull. contra Marc. l. 4. c. 7. For saith he writing against the Ghost of Marcion when 't is made it is seen the Eys perceive it it is done gradually and so it requires to ask in what Posture with what Retinue Is it with Violence or moderately Or also in what Hour of the Day or Night it came down Moreover who see it come down who gave an account of it who affirm'd it And again saith he Is it a thing which is not easily to be believed when it is affirmed I declare saith the Protestant that I could never adjust this Declaration of Tertullian's with the invisible Descent of the Body of Jesus Christ in an infinite number of Places and that I should be obliged unto those which would help me to the means to do it For if what the Latins teach be true that the Body of Christ descends every Day upon the Communion-Table in an invisible manner I must be obliged to accuse Tertullian not only of Negligence but also of Stupidity to have spoken so absolutely and without excepting what happens in the Eucharist although I have otherwise a singular Esteem for his great Wisdom and Learning But on the other Hand seeing Tertullian is agreed with the other Doctors of the Church and that he saith nothing contrary to their Testimonies wherein they constantly oppose the Presence of the Divine Nature of our Lord unto that of his human Nature the Presence whereof they formally deny upon Earth I cannot forbear saith he to conclude that they have owned but one sole Presence of the Body of Jesus Christ I mean one visible Presence and that the Invisible Presence of that holy Body never entred into their Thoughts In fine say they it is whereunto amounts all the Declarations which hitherto have been made and whereunto we may also add these excellent Words of St. Austin Aug. in Joan. tract 50. Iâ— in Ps 46. He is gone and he is present he is returned and he departed not from us for he carried his Body unto Heaven but he withdrew not his Majesty from the Earth and these he took away his Body from our Sight but as God he departed not from your Hearts contemplate him ascending believe in him absent expect him as to come but feel him always present by his secret Mercy From hence doth proceed sundry Doctrines that if I mistake not deserve to be considered In the first place when the holy Fathers make a Difference betwixt the corporal Presence
may happen in going about to adjust some ancient expressions with his new Opinion to make his disguise succeed the better He proceeded by way of Explication it shall suffice to say that it seems it may be so gathered from the words of his Letter unto Frudegard Although saith he I have writ nothing in this Book Pasch ep ad Frude p. 1â—25 which I have dedicated unto a certain young Man which might be worthy the Reader nevertheless as I am informed I have excited several persons to the understanding of this Mystery Thence it is that in his Treatise of the Body and Blood of our Lord he speaks of his Explication as of an admirable thing and whereof sufficient heed had not yet been taken Id de corp sang Dom. c. 1. To the end saith he I might yet say something more admirable But the chief is to know wherein his opinion did consist Those that will a little consider his Writings may observe he taught That what is received in the Sacrament is the same Flesh of that which was born of the Virgin Mary Id ibid. and which suffered Death for us Although saith he the Figure of Bread and Wine doth remain yet you must absolutely believe that after Consecration it is nothing but the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ for which reason the Truth it self said unto his Disciples It is my Flesh for the Life of the World and to say something more admirable It is no other Flesh but that which was born of the Virgin Mary that suffered upon the Cross and which is raised out of the Sepulchre So it is that he explains himself also again in the 4th Chapter of the same Book and several times in his Letter unto Frudegard It is the testimony that an Anonymus Author gives us which Father Cellot hath published Aut Anonym l. de Euchar. apud Cellot in append histor Gostech op 7. and which was one of his Adherents Paschas saith he establisheth under the name of St. Ambrose That what is received at the Altar is no other Flesh than that born of the Virgin Mary which suffered on the Cross which was raised out of the Grave and is at present offered for the Life of the World Against which Rabanus in his Letter to the Abbot Egilon sufficiently doth argue In fine we shall be informed by Rabanus and by Ratramn that it was the Opinion of Paschas and that nothing should be wanting to the establishing of his Opinion he wrote two Books of the Virgins being delivered of Child which Books had always gone in the name of Ildefons Archbishop of Tolledo T. 1. Spicileg praes ad Ratiam and are at this time under that name in the last Edition of the Library of the holy Fathers But Dom Luke d'Achery a Benedictine Friar hath informed us by the help of Manuscripts that Paschas was the true Author of them In these two Books he teacheth that the blessed Virgin was Delivered after an extraordinary and miraculous manner and that Jesus Christ was not born after the common course of Nature but that he came out of the Womb of this blessed Maid without any opening and not as Tertullian saith in some of his Writings Lege patefacti Corporis But as Bertram or Ratramn refuted the ground of the Doctrine of Paschas so he also refuted this progress of it by a little Treatise he wrote on purpose on the Birth of Jesus Christ wherein several times he qualifies with the name of Heresie the Opinion which he refutes whereas I do not find that he ever gave this name unto what his Adversary had taught of the Sacrament which gives me occasion to make this conjecture which I freely submit unto the Reader 's Judgment to wit That Paschas having proceeded in what he wrote of the Sacrament by way of Explication and as one that did seek for the true knowledge of this Mystery His Adversaries did not call this Doctrine Heresie how erroneous soever they knew him to be in other ther things because in the Church it was not the custom to call any single error Heresie unless it was attended with Obstinacy But Ratramn having seen the Books of the Virgins Delivery which were written after what he had taught of the Sacrament and as he drew near his Death Ratram de nativit Christ c. 4.5.9 t. 1. Specileg or as he saith himself in the Preface of Dom Luke d'Achery Multo jam senio confectus And having thereby judged That he was not now a man that desired to be instructed but was strongly confirmed in the Opinion he had taught and which he endeavoured to support by establishing the consequences which might best suit with his Principles he made no scruple to render this of which we speak odious in calling it Heresie but after all whatever my conjecture may be Paschas de corp sang Dom. c. 14. it is certain that Paschas omitted nothing that might set off his Opinion not Visions it self and Apparitions of Jesus Christ during the Celebration of the Sacrament not fearing to be jeered that he was the first that bethought himself of speaking of these kinds of Apparitions unknown unto Christians for above 800. years seeing that in effect there is no certain Author found that hath made any mention of them yet that hindred not but Cardinal Bellarmine and Father Sirmond consider'd him as the first that cleared and explained the Mystery of the Sacrament Bellarm. de script Eccles This Author saith Bellarmine was the first that wrote seriously and amply of the truth of the body and blood of our Saviour in the Eucharist And Sirmond Sirmond in vita Paschas operibus ciupraeâ—ixa He first of all so explained the true sense of the Catholick Church that he open'd the way unto all others that have since written of the same matter But so it is that if the belief of Paschas was the Ancient Belief of the Church he deserv'd to be loaden with blessings and thanks for having so happily laboured for the Instruction and Edification of Christians and in all likelihood no body would have dared to contradict or oppose the Doctrine which he published or if any one undertook so to do he should make himself the Object of hatred and aversion unto all the World It is then requisite to know how men carryed it towards him after that he had published his Opinion If we enquire of himself he will inform us that he was accused of departing from the common Belief and of having rashly spread abroad the thoughts of a young head for see here how he writes unto his intimate Friend Frudegard Pasch Ep. ad Frudegard pag. 1632. You have saith he at the end of this little Book the Sentences of Catholick Fathers succinctly noted by which you may see that it was not out of a hasty fit that I formerly meditated these things in my younger days but that I
took them out of the Scriptures and the holy Fathers to teach them unto such as desired to be instructed At the beginning of the Letter Id. ibi p. 1619. 1623. You examine me saith he upon a thing whereof several persons doubt Id. in Matt. l. 12. p. 1094. In his Commentary upon the 26th Chapter of St. Matthew I have treated of these things more at large and more expresly because I am informed that some reproved me as if in the Book of Sacraments which I published I had given unto the words of Jesus Christ more than the truth it self doth allow Ib. p. 1100. And again There are many that in these mystical things are of another Opinion and there are many that are blind and cannot see when they think this Bread and this Cup is nothing else but what is seen with the Eyes and which is tasted with the Mouth Wherefore the Anonymous Author before mentioned Aut Anonym uâ—i supra writes that some affirmed That what is received at the Altar is the same that was born of the Virgin and that others on the contrary denied it and said That it is another thing But having been told by Paschas himself that he had several Adversaries and Opposers We must farther learn of him what was the belief of this great number of Opposers for after having cited the words of Institution Take Eat this is my Body Paschas Ep. ad Frudegard Commentar in Matth. l. 12. he adds That those which will extenuate this term of Body saying That it is not the true Flesh of Jesus Christ which is celebrated in the Sacrament nor his true blood let them hear these words they pretend I know not what as if there was only in the Sacrament a certain vertue of the body and blood of Jesus Christ as if our Saviour had told a lye and that it was not his true Flesh and Blood c. When he broke and gave the Bread unto his Disciples he said not This is or there is in this Mystery a certain Vertue or Figure of my Body but he said This is my Body And a little after I admire that some would now say That it is not the reality of the Flesh and blood of Jesus Christ in the thing it self but in Sacrament a certain efficacy of the body and not the body a vertue of the blood and not the blood a figure and not the truth a shadow and not the substance It cannot then reasonably be after such formal and positive Declarations that the world should think any other Opinion can be attributed unto the Adversaries of Paschas but that of the Protestants of France and of all others of their Communion As the Belief of Paschas is that of the Roman Catholicks to say otherwise were to dissemble to renounce the truth and to be unworthy the esteem and credit of honest men Let it then be granted for certain that in this important point which we do examine Paschas was a Roman Catholick as 't is spoken now a days And that his Adversaries on the contrary were Protestant Calvinists from whence it will necessarily follow that if the followers of Paschas in the IX Century were more considerable and of greater numbers than his Adversaries the Opinion of the Latin Church had the victory over the other but if also the number of his Adversaries was greater their Name more famous and their Reputation better established it must be concluded That the Belief of the Protestants had the Victory it appears that so things are to be understood to do right unto both parties The better to succeed in this design I will begin with those that followed Paschas seeing it was him that obliged his Adversaries to contradict him and oppose themselves unto the Establishment of his Opinion which appeared new unto them and different from the ancient Faith of the Church It cannot be denied but Paschas Radbert had good Endowments as appears by his Works and that he was commended by some Writers of that time as a Man of great Learning and above the common sort Nevertheless as to the Subject in hand I have not observed in what I have read that many persons have declared in favour of him It is out of all question that Frudegard fell into his Opinion after having read his Treatise of the Body and Blood of Christ for in the Letter which Paschas writ him Paschas Ep. ad Frudeg pag. 1620. we therein find these words You say that you believed so formerly he speaks of his Opinion and that you read the same in the Book of Sacraments that I composed Since which time Frudegard having read the Advertisement which St. Austin gives in the third Book of Christian Doctrine of understanding figuratively what our Saviour speaks of eating his Flesh he was very much shaken and if he changed not quite it may be said that he continued in suspence without declaring for or against Paschas It is what he informs us Ibid. when he adds unto his first words But you say that you have since read in St. Austin 's third Book of Christian Doctrine that where it is said it is the body and blood of Christ it is a figurative manner of expression and if it is a figurative speech and a figure rather than the truth I cannot tell say you how it should be understood And you say afterwards And if I believe that it is the same body as that which he took from the holy Virgin his Mother this excellent Doctor that is to say St. Austin declares on the contrary that it is a great crime to wit to believe that it is the real body of Jesus Christ Paschas doth what he can to continue him in the Opinion he had been of before he had read this passage of St. Austin and the better to effect it he alledges this unto him under the name of this great Saint and as being taken out of his Sermons unto the Neophites Ibid. Receive in the Bread what was nailed upon the Cross and in the Cup that which came out of the Side of Jesus Christ Words which for certain are not of St. Austin and which are not to be found in any of his Works which we have in great numbers Paschas 't is true cites them as to the best of his remembrance and I cannot tell if in a matter so important as this it will serve turn to say As I remember or If my memory fail not In the main it not appearing that he satisfied Frudegard in his doubts the surest side we can take in this Conjuncture is to make him neither a Friend nor an Adversary of Paschas but to leave him in his doubts if we would not increase the Sect of Scepticks I will not say the same of the Anonymous Author which Father Cellot hath furnished us and whom we have twice mentioned already in this Chapter for it appears plainly he was
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
in newness of life And if we would know what this Resurrection is which St. Paul requires of a Christian St. Ghrysostom will inform us Hom. 10. in c. 6. Rom. That it is a holy Conversation which proceedeth from the change of Manners the death of Sin the restoring of Righteousness and the entire ruin of the old Life to establish one that is new and wholly Angelical Therefore it is that Theodoret interpreting these same words In c. 6. Rom. gives us this excellent Lesson The Sacrament of Baptism teacheth us to fly from sin for Baptism is a type of the death of our Saviour now by it you participate with Jesus Christ of death and also of the Resurrection you must then lead a new life and agreeable unto him of whose Resurrection you have been made to participate Unto the Remembrance of Christ's Resurrection these holy Doctors joyn also that of his Ascension and Glory therefore it is they say Gaudent tr 2. tom 2. Bibl. Pat. That the Sacrament is the Viaticum of our journey wherewith we are nourished by the way until we come unto him at our leaving this World a pledge of his presence and a portraict of his passion until he comes again from Heaven And in preparing our selves for the Sacrament we cannot make this reflection but that we must bewail his absence but yet comforting our selves with this persuasion that he is sitting on the Throne of his Father as Lord of Heaven and Earth the Master of all things and the Monarch of the whole Universe That it is from thence that he sends forth his Commands into all the World that he dispenseth the Treasures of God that he defends his people that he protects his Church and that he restraineth the pride and insolency of his Enemies but that we must at the same instant be raised with heavenly thoughts divine motions and spiritual affections to be lifted up unto him by holy ejaculations and to contemplate him shining with Glory in Heaven after having meditated on him all covered with shame upon Earth and nailed upon the Cross in Mount Calvary for the expiating of the sins of Men and for the work of our Redemption Therefore the holy Fathers desire we would become like unto Eagles Chrysost Hom. 24. in 1. ad Corinth To fly up unto Heaven that we should have nothing of Earth in us that we should not bend downwards that we should not wallow in the love of the Creatures but that we should incessantly fly towards the things above and that we should stedfastly behold the Sun of Righteousness with an earnest sight and piercing eyes In fine the ancient Liturgies do not from all these Commemorations separate that of his second coming Which maketh us think of that great and last day wherein the Dead shall be raised wherein the Books shall be opened and wherein shall be the universal Judgment to cast the Wicked into Hell and to receive the Good into the felicity and glory of Heaven then there shall be no more want of Sacraments for as Theodoret saith In 1 ad Corinth c. 11. After his second coming we shall have no farther need of the signs and Symbols of the Body because the Body it self will appear but until that time the Celebration thereof is absolutely necessary according to this Observation of the Author of the Commentaries upon the Epistles of St. Paul attributed unto St. Jerom In 1 ad Corinth c. 11. That we have need of this Memorial during all the time which shall pass until he be pleased to come again So that all the Idea's which we have considered do help to form in us Acts of Faith Repentance Hope Charity Humility Gratitude Sanctification Holiness Justice Innocence Purity Joy Consolation and generally all those of Piety and devout Christianity and by consequence all the motions and dispositions which the Soul of a worthy Communicant ought to have towards God and Jesus Christ Now let us see those which it should have in regard of the Sacrament it self CHAP. III. Of the Motions and Dispositions of the Communicant in reference to the Sacrament AS the remembrance which our Saviour commands us to make of him and of his death when we receive the Sacrament comprehends all the Qualifications which we ought to have in regard of God and of Jesus Christ so also the Examination required by St. Paul contains all those which we ought to have in regard of the Sacrament 1 Cor. 11. Let every one saith he prove his own self But it is not sufficient to say that the Apostle enjoyns Communicants unto this Examination we must also know wherein it doth consist to this purpose I say that what St. Paul requires of us is an act whereby we must search our hearts look into every corner of it whereby we examine every part of our Soul we must assure our selves of the state wherein it is whether Faith hath therein taken its place whether Hope lifted us up in expectation of the happiness promised and whether the Love of Jesus Christ and of our Neighbour therein unfolds its vertue and efficacy In a word it is an act whereby we discover whether we be fitting to approach unto the holy Table for in coming thither we protest that Jesus Christ is our Master and our Lord that it is he which hath redeemed us by his Blood and that hath purchased Life for us by his Death And as the Apostle enjoyneth this Law unto all Communicants it may be said that this Trial doth consist in the serious and sincere Examination which every one makes of his Conscience to know in what state and disposition it is Whence it may be gathered that it desires no Witnesses but that it should be done in private and in secret in the presence of God only for there it is that the Sinner calls himself to an account that he reflects upon his life past that he condemns his wicked actions that he groans under the thoughts of his sins that he deeply mourns for the greatness of his offences that he cleanseth his heart and purifies his Soul by the tears of Repentance and by the working of a true Contrition But because the Latin Church defines in the Council of Trent whose Decretes are to be considered as the Confession of Faith of the Latin Church Sess 13. c. 7. That the custom of the Church declares that the necessary proof is that how contrite soever the sinner feels himself he ought not to approach unto the holy Eucharist without having first made his sacramental Confession that it must of necessity be made that without it one receives this Sacrament unworthily unto his death and condemnation We are obliged to enquire what was the Conduct of the ancient Church in this occasion for it is not my intention to examine the matter of Confession in all its parts but only in that which concerns my subject To do it in some order it must