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
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
absent after the Flesh do not think but that he is present here in the midst of you in Spirit knowing what is said of him seeing our Thoughts trying the Reins and the Heart I pass by St. Chrysostom in silence In Joan. Homil 71 74 77. for although in several of his Homilies upon St. John he establisheth the Absence of our Saviour as to his human Nature yet because he doth not express himself in so strong and clear Terms as others I will omit alledging his Testimonies to go on unto St. Austin August de veâ—lâ— Dom. serm 60. Id. tract 50. in Joan. which leaves us no ground of Suspicion He indeed is with us saith he by his Divinity but if he had not departed from us corporally we should always see his fleshly Body and should never have believed spiritually And elsewhere what he said Behold I am with you always unto the end of the World that saith he is accomplished according to his Majesty his Providence his ineffable and invisible Grace but according to the Flesh which the Word had taken according to which he was born of the Virgin c. Id. in Joan. tract 78. You shall not have me always with you for why because he conversed forty Days with his Disciples in his bodily Presence then he ascended up into Heaven they conducting him in seeing not following of him and he is not here for he is there at the right Hand of his Father and he is here for he is not departed as to the Presence of his Majesty Besides we have Jesus Christ always by the Presence of his Majesty but after his bodily Presence it was very well said unto his Disciples Ye shall not have me always for the Church had him a few days in his bodily Presence now she embraceth him by Faith and sceth him not with corporal Eyes And again in another Place he affirms that according to his Godhead he forsook not those which he left as Man that he departed as to what regarded his Manhood in that whereby he was but in one Place but that he stayed as to that whereby he is God August in Joan. tract 92. Id. ib. tract 102. Ibid. tract 107. Id. Sâ—rm 120. de divers c 7. in regard of that whereby he is every where The same St. Austin again He was saith he to go and leave his Apostlâ—s according to his bodily Presence but he was to be with all his to the End of the World by the Presence of his Spirit And elsewhere He left the World by the Departure of the Body he went unto the Father by the Ascension of his human Nature but he hath not left the World in regard of the Presence of his Providence And in another Treatise He recommended saith he unto his Father those which he was about to leave as to his bodily Presence In fine he assures us That in regard of the Presence of his Divinity he is always with the Father but in regard of his bodily Presence he is now above the Heavens at the right Hand of the Father Cyril Alex. in Joan. 13.33 p. 747. Ib. in c. 16. 16. l. 11. in c. 17. 12. p. 933 973. Id. ib. in c. 16.6 l. 10. p. 916. although that he is in the Heart of Christians by the presence of Faith St. Cyril of Alexandria doth he not say That although he be absent from us as to the Flesh nevertheless he governs all Things by his Divine Vertue and is present with those which love him And elsewhere in the same Treatise That although he be absent corporally yet he dwelleth in the Saints by his Spirt that he is not gone but after the flesh but that he is always present by the Vertue of his Divinity And again having laid it as a certain Truth That Jesus Christ going to his Father yet staid with the Apostles by the effectual Operation the Grace and Power of the Spirit He saith besides all that I eo 1. Serm. 2. de Ascens c. 2. It is not to be doubted but that he departed and absented himself as to his Flesh and the Presence of his Body Pope Leo the first Our Lord Jesus Christ saith he being gone up to Heaven in the Presence of his Disciples forty Days after his Resurrection he put an end to his bodily Presence to remain at the right Hand of his Father Ib. c. 4. until the Time divinely appointed for the gathering the Children of the Church was accomplished and until he comes to judge the quick and the dead in the same Body wherein he ascended And again Jesus Christ entred into the Glory of the Majesty of his Father Id. Serm. de Nativit sua Mâ—â—im Taurin Hom. 4. de Sepult Dom. and began to be more present by his Divinity in a more ineffable manner being departed according to his Humanity And again He is absent in regard of his Flesh whereby he may be seen but is present as to his Divinity whereby he is always intirely every where St. Maximus Bishop of Turin We should not now saith he anyâ—more seek the Saviour in or upon the Earth if we could touch or find him Fulgent l. z. ad Trasim c. 17. Id. de Baptis Aethiop c. 3. Id. de Incarn Grat. Christâ— c. 10. but according to the Glory of his Majesty to say with the Apostle St. Paul Now we know Jesus Christ no more after the Flesh St. Fulgentius Bishop of Rusp in Africa declares That according to his bodily Substance he left the Earth when he went up into Heaven but according to his Divinity and immense Substance he never left the Earth nor Heaven And elsewhere As to his Body he is gone up to Heaven but as to his Divinity he staid with his upon Earth that he ascended into Heaven as to his Body in his Disciples Sight but that he forsakes not his upon Earth Vigil Taps l. 1. contra Eutych c. 6. Ibid. in regard of his Deity Vigilius of Tapsus an African Bishop also The Son of God saith he hath left us as to his human Nature but as to his Divine Nature he said Behold I am with you always unto the End of the World And two Lines after He is with us and he is not with us because those which he hath left and from whom he departed in regard of his bodily Presence he hath not left nor forsaken them as to his Divine Nature as to the Form of a Servant which he removed away from us carrying it into Heaven Id. contra Eutych l. 4. cap. 14. he is absent from us but he is present in Earth by the Form of God which departeth not from us And elsewhere in the same Work Whilst his Body was on Earth certainly it was not in Heaven and now that it is in Heaven certainly it is no longer on Earth and it is so true that it is not there that it is according to it that we look
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
besides what they have already told us of the local presence of Christ in Heaven and his absence from Earth in regard of his Body and his Human Nature the presence whereof they have constantly opposed unto the Presence of his Divine Nature they have formally declared themselves against the Polutopie of his Divine Body I mean against his presence in divers places at one and the same time Fulgent ad Trasim l. 2. c. 17. for they positively say That the Human Nature of Jesus Christ is local absent from Heaven when he is upon Earth leaving Earth when it goes up to Heaven that he is every where as God but that he is in Heaven as Man and that he is in a certain place in Heaven Aug. Fp. 57. sub finem Ep. Id de Civ Dei l. 22. c. 29. Id. tract 31. in Joan. Vigil contr Eutyck l. 4. c. 14. after the manner of being of a true Body That there is no corporal Nature that can be wholly and intirely in Heaven and wholly upon Earth at once That Jesus Christ as Man according to the Body is in one place and that he so departs from a place that he is no longer in the place from whence he parted when he is gone to another place That when the Body of the Lord was upon Earth it was not in Heaven and in like manner being now in Heaven doubtless it is not upon Earth and that 't is so certain it is not there that in regard of it we look that Christ shall come from Heaven Bertram de Nativ Christ c. 3. t. 1. Spicileg Dacher p. 323. That altho Jesus Christ is every where present according to the property of his Divinity he is but in one place according to the dimensions of his Body because that which is local is not in all places but it goes unto some other place when it hath left the place where it was before Just Mart. Apolog. 2. p. 82. Therefore St. Justin Martyr proved it as an Article of the Faith of Christians in his time That the Father Creator of the World having raised the Christ from the Dead was to raise him up to Heaven and there to keep or retain him until he had slain the Devils his Enemies and that the number of the good and vertuous which he foreknew should be accomplished that is to say until the day of the general Resurrection this is what the Protestants say Secondly according to the Doctrine of the Latins the Body of Jesus Christ must exist in the Sacrament after the manner of a Spirit invisibly and without occupying any space if the Fathers were of this Opinion they would not have failed to have left us proofs in their Writings or if they were obliged to say the contrary of Bodies in general and when they considered them in the Order of Nature they would doubtless have brought some exception touching the glorious Body of our Lord Jesus they were too prudent and too wise to forget so considerable a Circumstance the silence whereof might have been of very dangerous consequence and have done notable prejudice unto their Doctrine so that having exactly considered what they have said of Bodies in general and in regarding what they be naturally it appears they have made no Exception for the Body of Christ it follows then of necessity as the Protestants say that they believed not that it could exist after the manner of a Spirit that is to say invisibly and without filling a space according to the measure of its dimensions this is what I could discover in the Monuments of Ecclesiastical Antiquity which we have remaining touching this Question which is that the Holy Fathers testify That 't is impossible that that which hath neither Bounds Cyril Alexan. de Trinit c. 3. t. 6. Aug. l. 83. quaest q. 51. t. 4. alibi Fulgent deâ— de ad Pet. c. 3. nor Limits nor Figure and which cannot be handled nor seen can be a Body That all Bodies be they what they will take up space and place by its compass And that every thing continues in the state wherein God put it when he made it it not being the property of a Body to exist after the manner of Spirits The Protestants think it was in these kinds of Occasions that the ancient Doctors of the Church ought to have 〈◊〉 if they had any other Opinion of the Body of Christ and that altho they so determined the manner of existing of Bodies yet that they acknowledged another wholly peculiar unto the Body of Christ after the Resurrection after the which he may be in the Sacrament after the manner of a Spirit invisibly and without taking up of any space and without that each part of this Divine Body should answer unto each part of the place which should be proportioned unto its greatness and compass Nevertheless the Truth is say they that no such thing hath ever been found in their Writings and that no exception can be found for the Body of our glorious Redeemer Shall we say that they have therein wanted Wisdom and Conduct but they think this would be to stop the course of their Glory and to slander the great Reputation they have acquired in the Church of God that it would render them useless in the Controversies which divide Christians in the West because upon each point in dispute some of either side may tax them with the like thing and make them Parties It were much better say they to confess sincerely that they believed not that the Body of Jesus Christ could exist after the manner of a Spirit nor any other manner than as Bodies are wont to exist because that after his Resurrection he would have his Apostles know by seeing and feeling that he had a true Body In the third place it is another Consequence of the Belief of the Latin Church that the Body of Jesus Christ which was formed so long agoe in the Womb of the Virgin by the Power of the Holy Ghost is made every day by pronouncing these Words unto which the Latins attribute the Consecration of the Sacrament I will not here examine the divers Means by which it is pretended to be done my design not permitting it because I compose an Historical Treatise as far as the Subject will permit me and do endeavour as much as possible may be to avoid any thing that savours of Dispute and Controversy I will then only say that if the Holy Fathers were of the belief of the Latin Church touching the Sacrament of the Eucharist they could not avoid allowing as true this third Consequence which necessarily depends of it Yet nevertheless having read their Works I find they held for an undoubted Maxim Athenag legat pro Christ Tertul. contr Hermog c. 19. Just Martyr sect 17.23.43.59 p. 44. Orig. in Exod. Hom 6. Hilar. l. 12. de Trin. in Psal 138. Athanas contr Aâ—riau orat 3. That what is made was not
Whence they conclude that seeing the Bread of the Sacrament is not by Honorius his saying the natural Body of Jesus Christ but as it is his mystical Body that is to say the Church for he makes no difference betwixt them it cannot be it properly and by an Idendity of substance as it is spoken but only in Mystery and in Sacrament If there were only occasion to shew who they were that admitted not of the Doctrine of the Real Presence we might here instance in Robert de Duitz nere Cologne because it is certain by the confession of both sides that he believed it not but because we also search the Testimonies of those which followed the Opinion of the Adversaries of Paschas which was that of Berengarius of which number we cannot affirm that Robert was we will leave him as a man that was neither a follower of Paschas nor of his Adversaries but a Disciple of John Damascen and of Remy of Auxerr teaching as they did the Assumption of the Bread by the Divinity to make by this Union with the Divinity one sole Body with the Body of Jesus Christ It is not the same with a certain Abbot called Francus of whom the Centuriators of Magdebourg observe Centur. 12. c. 5. That he had no sound thoughts touching the Communion affirming that the real Body of Jesus Christ was not in the Sacrament One would fain know who this Abbot was of whom the Centuriators say nothing else and to say truth it is very hard precisely to determine it but because positive Proofs are wanting Conjectures that have likelihood and probability may the better be admitted therefore I will not fear speaking what I think of him I conceive then that it was Franco Abbot of Lobbes in the Country of Liege There were two of this name in that Monastery one of which lived in the time of Lewis the Son of Charles the Bald and he was reckoned the twelfth Abbot but it cannot be him we seek for because the Centuriators place him towards the middle of the XII Century therefore we must rather insist upon the other who succeeded unto Lambert about the Year 1153. which is just the time designed by the Centuriators for Lambert succeeded unto Leonius Anno 1140. and governed the Monastery thirteen years De gestis Abbatum Lob. t. 6. Spicil p. 621 622 628 629 630 631 633. so that our Franco or Francus was chosen in his place Anno 1153. or 1154. he was Head of the Monastery eleven years And I the rather am induced to believe that the Centuriators speak of this Franco Abbot of Lobbes because that he spake nothing of the Sacrament but what two of his Predecessors Folcuin and Hertiger had taught before in the X. Century as we have declared in writing what passed in that Age upon the Subject of the Sacrament In the time that Franco was Abbot of Lobbes Gautier of Mauritania was Prebend of Anthona and he was chosen to go to Rome to defend the Cause of the Prebends of Anthona against the Abbot Franco for a Prebendary which the Friars of Lobbes laid claim unto as having been time out of mind in the Disposal of their Abbots But so it is that this Gautier is styled in the Continuation of the History of the Abbots of Lobbes Ubi supra p. 631. The most eminent and chiefest of all the Doctors of France Also from Prebend of Anthona he became Bishop of Laon. But that matters not See here how he speaks of the Presence of Jesus Christ whilst he was Bishop in a Letter which he wrote touching the Mystery of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ and wherein expounding these words of the 3d. of St. John Galterus Episcopus Laudun Ep. 2. t. 2. Spicil p. 464. No man ascended up into Heaven but the Son of Man which came down from Heaven he speaks after this manner By the Son of Man we are here to understand the Word made Flesh that is to say the Son of God which was omnipresent and not the Body and Soul that is to say the Humane Nature which he had taken and which was not yet ascended into Heaven for the Flesh which he had assumed was not present in all places but in shifting place it went fom one place unto another which our Saviour sheweth in saying unto his Apostles I am glad for your sakes that I was not there The Angel declares the same unto the Women saying You seek Jesus who was crucified he is risen he is not here From thence it is saith he that St. Gregory saith He is not here by the presence of his Body which nevertheless was never absent in regard of the presence of his Majesty And elsewhere Id. ibid. Ep. 2. p. 468. The Son of God saith he is on Earth by the presence of his Divinity although he is in Heaven at the Right Hand of the Father by the presence of his Body and of his Divinity which he himself declared being ready to ascend up into Heaven in the presence of his Disciples saying I am with you unto the end of the World Which words St. Gregory thus expounds The Word made Flesh remains and he departs he goes in regard of his Body but he remains in regard of his Divinity And in all the rest of the Epistle he proves by Authority of the Scriptures and of the Fathers the Omnipresence of the Divinity of Jesus Christ in opposition unto his Humanity which he hath so represented unto us to be in one place that it could not be at the same time in another We may add unto these Witnesses that which Father Chifflet gives us in the Preface which he hath made unto the Confession of Faith which he attributes unto Alcuin Tutor unto Charlemain where disputing against the Disciples of St. Austin followers of Jansenius he saith that he might apply unto them what Hugh Metellus Prebend of Thoul had said above five hundred years ago unto Gerland Sacramentarian of the Sect of Berengarius You relie upon the words of St. Austin Chiffict Jesuita in praefar ad confess Alcuin do not put your dependance upon them he is not of the same Opinion you are of you are much mistaken You assure us with St. Austin that the words of Jesus Christ unto his Disciples are figurative for they declare one thing literally and they signifie another thing you affirm what he affirmed but you do not believe what he believed It may then be concluded from what hath been said and particularly from the words of this Prebend of Thoul that at the beginning of the XII Century those which were called Berengarians maintained a Doctrine contrary unto that which was established by the Decisions of Councils which several Popes caused to be assembled against Berengarius in the XI Century But all these Testimonies are nothing in comparison of what happened in the persons of those called Albigensis who refusing to submit and acquiess unto the
designed to ordain Reader Dominico interim legit nobis id est auspicatus est pacem dicit dedicat lectionem which Mr Rigaut did not understand no more than Mr Lombert who followed the Sentiment of Mr Rigaut in the fair and exact Translation which he hath given us of this Father 5. Upon the Letter of the Council of Antioch which condemned Paul of Samosatia 6. Upon the Tenth persecution which shall be found more exactly describ'd than in all the former Histories because Monsieur L'ARROQVE hath borrow'd great helps from Lactantius his Treatise de Mortibus Persecutorum published of late by Mr Baluze 7. De Sacerdotibus secundi Ordinis Archidiaconis 8. De Ordinibus ex quibus Episcopi sumebantur 9. De Epistolis Tractoriis 10. De Natura veteris Ecclesiae 11. De Energumenis c. 12. De Paenitentibus eorumque gradibus 13. De Antiquo ritu dimittendi ab Ecclesia Catechumenos Energumenos paenitentes 14. De dupliti Catechumenorum genere 15. De tempore quo obtinere caepit in Ecclesia orientali haec loquendi formula EPISCOPVS DEI GRATIA ET SEDES APOSTOLICAE 16. De pluralitate beneficiorum ut vulgo loquuntur 17. De Nudipedalibus As he from whom we expect these pieces of Ecclesiastical History is endow'd with much wit and learning it needs not be fear'd that they will in his hands lose any thing of their luster and beauty All we have hitherto said refers unto the Wisdom of Monsieur L'ARROQVE which indeed is a very vast and spacious Field but should we speak of the qualities of his Soul we should have much more matter to insist on He had a Soul so sincere as is scarcely to be found in this Age he without envy beheld the merits of other learned persons and esteemed their good qualities he was a great and strict observer of Discipline and contented not himself to declaim in the Pulpit against Vice in general but persecuted it in all places running the hazard of creating himself Enemies by the security of his life he preached by example and discover'd a true Christian Constancy in all the troubles of his life he discharged his Duty with so much exactness that he would never discontinue performing his Function during an Ague which held him ten Months after his being call'd to Saumur I say he would neither discontinue the Duties of his Ministry nor those of his studies although the Physitians told him that a distemper which often had fits of 36 hours would not be removed if he did not give himself some repose The Troubles of the Churches of France these last years were incomparably more grievous unto him than any particular Afflictions unto his own Family could have been and should these Misfortunes continue what Cicero said of another may be said of him Ii rempublicam casus sequuti sunt ut mihi non erepta L. Crasso a Diis immortalibus vita sed donata mors esse videatur THE HISTORY OF THE EUCHARIST PART I. Containing the exteriour Form of Celebration CHAP. I. Wherein is treated of the Matter of the Sacrament THE first thing that presents it self in the Celebration of the Eucharist is the matter of the Sacrament that is to say the Bread and Wine for three of the Evangelists and St. Paul testifie that Jesus Christ took Bread and a Cup wherein there was Wine and that he called the Wine the fruit of the Vine All the Holy Fathers unanimously avouch the same all the Liturgies which are come to our hands depose the same seeing we find these two Elements imployed in this mystery and the form of Celebration proposed unto us by St. Justin Martyr the Author of the Apostolical Constitutions St. Cyril of Jerusalem in his Mystagogicks the pretended Denis the Arcopagite in his Hierarchy and generally all those which have writ on this subject suffer us not to doubt of it as neither doth the defence which the Fathers and Councils have made of offering any thing else but Bread and Wine in celebrating the Sacrament Also all Christians generally agree herein therefore it would be superfluous to stand to prove it seeing the thing is clear and it is granted by all the World and all Christian Societies are agreed on this Subject It will only be necessary to consider that Jesus Christ which is the Wisdom of the Eternal Father and who never did any thing but with a Wisdom and Conduct worthy of himself did not chuse Bread and Wine to make them Symbols of his body and blood but that he was thereunto induced for considerable Reasons Nevertheless I will not now stand to examine the Reasons which obliged him to make this choice I refer that unto Divines whose drift it is to inquire into this matter it will serve our turn to say that our Saviour having a design by means of his Sacraments to raise up the minds of Christians unto the consideration of the comforts they find in his blessed Communion he made choice of Elements which had some likeness and relation unto those things which they were to signifie and represent as for Instance When he instituted the Sacrament of Baptism which is the Sacrament whereby we are born into his Church he made choice of water to be the sign and symbol of it because it is proper to represent the vertue of his Blood and of his Spirit for the purifying of our souls for as water hath the quality of cleansing our bodies from all uncleanness so also the Blood and Spirit of Jesus Christ have the vertue the force and efficacy of washing and purifying our souls from all filthiness and impurities therefore it is that the Apostle calls Baptism the washing of Regeneration â—it 3. that is of our New Birth and for that reason it is that he saith elsewhere Eph. 5. that Christ hath cleansed the Church by the washing of water by the Word in like manner when he instituted the Eucharist which is another Sacrament of his Covenant whereby he gives unto us life after having given us our being he chose Bread and Wine to represent unto us the vertue of his Sacrifice and of his Death and which is the food of our souls For as Bread Wine are food very proper for nourishing the body and for preserving this mortal and perishing life even so his Body broken and his Blood poured out do divinely feed and nourish our souls and do admirably preserve this heavenly and Spiritual life whereof we enjoy even here below some fore-tastes and first-fruits the accomplishment whereof we shall one day receive to our comfort in Heaven And it is in regard of this wonderful effect John 6. that his Flesh is meat indeed and his Blood is drink indeed and that those who eat this Flesh and drink this Blood have life everlasting and that they shall be raised unto glory and immortality in the last day Nevertheless it must be granted that the relation and resemblance which the
is not needful to be done again any more In one of the Homilies of Easter which many attribute unto Caesarius Bishop of Arles the Authour be he who it will there maketh this reflection Caesar Hom. 5. de Pasch speaking of Jesus Christ Because he intended to remove from our sight the Body which he had taken and so place it in Heaven It was necessary that in that day he should consecrate for us the Sacrament of his Body and Blood to the end that we should honour by the type that which had been once offered for the price of our Salvation But S. Basil or at least the Author of the Commentaries upon Isaiah in his Works hath joined both these regards together in Interpreting these words of the first Chapter What have I to do with the multitude of your Sacrifices God saith he rejected the multitude of Sacrifices Basil in c. 1. Es and desires but one which is That every one should present himself to God a living Sacrifice which may be well pleasing unto him offering by a reasonable Sacrifice the Sacrifice of Praise for when the multitude of Legal Sacrifices were rejected as useless he accepted in the last times one only Sacrifice which was offered for the expiation of sin because the Lamb of God took away the sins of the World offering himself an Oblation and Sacrifice of a sweet savour And a little after Having declared that the Sacrifices of the Law are no longer in force Id. ibid. he adds There is one only Sacrifice which is Christ and the mortification of Saints for love of him one only sprinkling that is to say the washing of Regeneration one Expiation of sin to wit the Blood which was shed for the Redemption of the World It was also in the same sense that S. Austin expounding what is said in the Fiftieth Psalm and according to the Hebrews the Fifty first August in Ps 50. Hadst thou desired Sacrifices I would have given them said That David lived in the time when Sacrifices and Beasts and burnt Offerings were presented unto God and he beheld the times which were for to come Do not we behold our selves in those words those Sacrifices were Figures which foreshewed the only saving Sacrifice neither have we been left destitute of a Sacrifice which we may offer unto God which he expounds to be of praises and a contrite heart Now of this constant Doctrine of the Fathers proceeded certain uses which were Religiously observed in the ancient Church as to have but one Only Altar or Eucharistical Table in each Temple of celebrating the Sacrament but once a day unless extraordinary necessity required it as hath been shewed of obliging Believers to Communicate as often as the Sacrament was celebrated as shall be hereafter declared of never celebrating the Sacrament without Communicants as all Liturgies do testifie he that celebrates speaking almost ever in the Plural number And that Oblations were received only of those that were admitted unto the holy Sacrament so that the liberty of presenting his gift was alwaies followed by Communicating Concil Eliberit c. 28. Carthag 4. c. 93 94. Constit Apostol l. 4. c. 5. l. 3. c. 8. Epiphan in Panar extr Ambros Ep. 59 alibi as appears by a great many Canons which are not necessary to be alledged upon a matter which is not contested and which is known unto all that have any knowledge of Ecclesiastical Antiquity which proceeding makes me think those holy Doctors looked upon the Eucharist as a Sacrament of Communion only But 't is time to proceed to the Consideration and Examination of the other parts of the outward Celebration of the Sacrament CHAP. IX Of the Elevation and breaking the Bread WE have Observed in the beginning of the foregoing Chapter that although Jesus Christ had broke the Bread presently after having Blessed and Consecrated it without any other Ceremony intervening betwixt the Consecration and Fraction nevertheless the ancient Christians in process of time introduced some other Ceremonies betwixt these two actions which were not used at the beginning I mean the Oblation of the Symbols and the Elevation Having then treated of the former which is of the Oblation and discovered by that means all the Motives and Reasons which obliged the holy Fathers to give unto the Eucharist the name of Sacrifice and how they explained themselves upon the quality and nature of this Sacrifice Now we must consider the Elevation which followed the Oblation but not very suddainly It is most certain that our Saviour made no Elevation when he Instituted and Celebrated his first Sacrament for none of the Evangelists have made any mention of it the Christians which followed in the next immediate Age practised no such thing as appears by the relation made unto us by S. Justin Martyr of all that was practised in that time in celebrating this August Sacrament the Liturgies of this Divine Mystery which may be seen in the Constitutions which pass in the Apostles name in the Writings of the pretended Denys the Areopagite and in S. Cyril of Jerusalem's Mystagogicks do make no mention of this Elevation So that for four or five Ages of Christianity we do not find that this Ceremony was practised But if we do not find the Elevation of the Eucharist mentioned in the Liturgies of the four or five first Ages of the Church we do therein find another practice very conformable unto the state of the Gospel and unto the nature of the Sacrament I mean the lifting up the mind and heart as S. Cyprian doth expresly teach us The Priest saith he before reciting the Lords Prayer by a Preface doth prepare the Spirits of the Faithful saying Lift up your hearts Cyprian de Orat Dom. that the people being warned in answering Vnto thee O Lord should think only of Jesus Christ An Advertisement found in all the Liturgies which have been since made and also even in that of the Latin Church As for the Elevation of the Sacrament there is some mention made of it in the Liturgy which goes in the name of S. Chrysostome Tab. Chronolog p. 536 537. but cannot be his as the Learned of both Communions acknowledge Therefore those who composed the Office of the holy Sacrament attribute it unto John the Second who was also Bishop of Constantinople but near 200. years after Saint Chrysostome that is towards the end of the VI. Century And I do not conceive that this Elevation appeared before that time so that if it be to be found in any Liturgy which bears the name of any ancienter Authour for instance in that attributed unto S. James I scarce make any doubt but it was forged or at least altered or corrupted But it is nothing to know that after the four or five first Ages of Christianity they begun in some Churches to use the Elevation of the Sacrament if we do not also consider for what end they did elevate
the reading of Ecclesiastical Antiquity have doubtless found by Experience that sometimes one must travel very far and search many large Volumes before one finds what he looks for and I look upon these dry and barren Places to be like Wildernesses and sad unpleasant Deserts which Travellers are sometimes forc'd to pass over with much difficulty and trouble but they have also observed that sometimes are found without difficulty in the Works of the Ancient Fathers places so rich and abundant that I use to liken them unto those fat and fertile Soils which always answer the Husbandman's expectation and which with Interest restore the pains he with some little cost bestowed upon them We may in the number of these latter sort place those Passages where they have pleased themselves in meditating of the Mystery of the holy Sacrament for not content to have told us that its divine Author called the Bread and Wine his Body and Blood I find them ready to tell us that they were his Body broken and his Blood poured out and that as for them they always considered him at that moment not as sitting upon his Throne in Heaven but as hanging upon the Cross on Mount Calvary expiating the Sins of Mankind and for the Redemption of the World This was in all likelihood what St. Cyprian intended when he said Cypr. ep 63. That the Sacrifice which we offer is the Death of our Lord. And what St. Gregory of Nyss when he testifies That the Body of the Sacrifice is not fit to be eat if it be animated Greg Nys in Resur Dom. Orat. 1. August Psal 11. Hom. 2. Id. Quaest super Evang. l. 2. § 38. pag. 152. tom 4. Id. in Psal 110. that i◠if it be living Thence it is that St. Austin speaking of the Disciples of Jesus Christ saith That they suffered the same which those things did which they eat and he gives this Reason that the Lord gave them his Supper he gave them his Passion And again That now the Gentiles all the World over do very religiously receive the sweetness of the Sufferings of our Lord in the Sacraments of his Body and Blood and that we are fed with the Cross of our Lord because we eat his Body Id. de Doctr. Christ l 3 c. 16 He also makes the eating of the Lord's Body consist in communicating of his Death and in profitably representing unto our Memories that his Flesh was broken and crucified for us St. Chrysostom always represents Christ as dead in the Sacrament * Chrysost◠Hom. 51. in Math. Jesus Christ represented himself sacrificed †Homil. 83. The Mystery that is to say the Sacrament is the Passion and the Cross And upon the Acts of the holy Apostles ‖ Hom. 2. Whilst saith he this Death is celebrated c. then is declared a tremendous Sacrament which is that God hath given himself for the World And upon the Epistle to the Romans Hom. 8. Adore upon this Table whereof we are all Partakers Jesus Christ which was crucified for us And upon the Epistle to the Ephesians Hom. 3. Whilest the Sacrifice is carnied out and that the Lamb Christ Jesus our Lord is slain Hom. 14. And upon the Epistle to the Hebrews Our Lord Jesus Christ is stretched out stain And unto the People of Antioch What do you O Man Tom. 1. Hom. 15. you swear by the holy Table where Jesus Christ lieth slain And in the third Book of Priesthood When you see our Lord sacrificed and dead Tom. 4. l. 3. de Sacerdot the Priest sacrificing and praying and all those which are present died red with this precious Blood And in the Homily of the Treason of Judas Tom. 5. p. 464. Have respect for the matter or subject of the Oblation to Jesus Christ who is held forth slain And upon the Name of Church-yard Ida. 5. p 486. C We shall towards Evening see him which like a Lamb was crucified kill'd slain And again You forsake him seeing him put to death And in fine in the Homily touching the Eucharist Id t. 5 pag. 569 A B. in the Dedication or of Penance O wonderful you are not afraid the Mystical Table being made ready the Lamb of God being slain for you c. and the pure Blood being powred out of the Side into the Cup for your Sanctification We will add unto all this Hesychius Priest of Jerusalem who speak after this manner Hes ch in Le l. 1 c. 2. God made the Flesh of Jesus Christ which was not fit to be eaten before his Death I say he made it fit to be our Food after his Death for who is it that desired to eat the Flesh of God if he had not been crucified we should not eat the Sacrifice of his Body but now we eat the Flesh in taking the Memorial of his Passion Id l. 2. c. 6. And again The Cross hath made eatable by Men the Flesh of our Lord which was nailed upon it for if it had not been set upon the Cross we should not have communicated of the Body of Christ This was also Theodor. t. 3. ep 130. I suppose Theodoret's Meaning when he said Our Lord himself promised to give for the Ransom of the World not an invisible Nature but his Body The Bread saith he which I will give is my Flesh which I will give for the Life of the World And in the Distribution of the divine Mysteries in taking the Symbol he said This is my Body which is given for you or as the Apostle saith which is broken And also in giving the divine Mysteries after he had broken the Symbol and that he had divided it he adds This is my Body which is broken for you in Remission of Sins And again This is my Blood which is shed for many for the Remission of Sins Id. ep 145. p. 1026. A Tom 4. Dial. 1. Cyril Hierof Myslag 5. And elsewhere he calls the Eucharist The Type of the Passion of our Saviour St. Cyril of Jerusalem considering before him what was done in his Time in the Celebration of the Sacrament saith among other Things that we therein offer unto God Jesus Christ dead for our Sins that is to say in as much as we pray him to accept in our discharge the Death which he suffered for us and in our room and stead And St. Fulgentius some time after Theodoret in one of the Fragments of the ten Books he wrote against Fabian the Arrian having repeated the Words of Institution of the Sacrament as St. Paul relates them he adds That the Sacrifice is offered to shew the Lord's Death ex lib 8. Fragm 28 and to make a Commemoration of him which laid down his Life for us Amalarius Fortunatus spake the same Language in the IX Century as shall be shew'd in its place In the mean while it is necessary to observe that all Christians confess that
in some sort they may bear the Name of a divine Substance whereas before Consecration they had only a Substance whose Qualities seemed but to nourish the Body and they find nothing therein more harsh than what is said by Ratran Bertram de corp fang Dom. Aug. annot in Job t. 4 ex c. 5. p. 394. Prosper ad Demetr That our Saviour did formerly in the Wilderness change the Manna and the Water of the Rock into his Flesh and Blood And St. Austin that Jesus Christ changeth us into his Body And in fine St. Prosper his Disciple speaking of our Lord Jesus Christ that the Body of Sin is converted or changed into his Body Caesarius himself say they deserves that Right and invites us thus to understand him for in the first place he teacheth in the same Sermon that Jesus Christ intending to transport his Body into Heaven left us his Sacrament to have always his holy Sacrifice in Remembrance who suffered Death for the Expiation of our Sins Because saith he Id. ibid. he was to remove from our Sight the Body which he had taken and place it in Heaven it was requisite he should in that Day consecrate the Sacrament of his Body and Blood to the end that by the Mystery that is by the Sacrament should be honoured what was once offered for the price of our Redemption and that because the Redemption for the Salvation of Man-kind had a continual Progress the Oblation also of the Redemption should be perpetual and that this everlasting Sacrifice should always live and be remembred in the State of Grace Secondly he compares the Change which comes to the Sacramental Symbols unto that which befalls Men in Baptism to shew us that both the one and the other being of the same nature it can be only a change of Vertue and Quality The Man renewed saith he by the saving Mysteries Id. ibid. passeth into the Body of the Church by the Water of Baptism and by the Fire of the Holy Ghost he is made the Bread of the Eternal Body After which he adds Let no Body then doubt but the Original Creatures may pass into the Nature of the Body of our Lord seeing he perceives Man by the Art of heavenly Mercy is made the Body of Jesus Christ As they say the honour of Caesarius is no way to be faved nor any good sense be given his Words but in saying that he intends to shew that as Man regenerated by Baptism is not made the Body of Christ but Mystically and Morally so also the Bread of the Sacrament doth not pass into the Nature of his Body but Sacramentally and Virtually using also the Word Nature for Quality In the same sense as St. Macarius used it Macar Hom. 44. Greg. Nyss in Cant. Hom. 9. Id. Orat. 1. in Christ Resur Id. de Virgin c. ult when he said That the truly Faithful Soul must be changed from this vile Nature unto a Divine Nature to intimate a Divine Quality Gregory of Nyss That we are changed into a spiritual Nature that is to say into a spiritual Quality And again That the Humanity of Jesus Christ is passed into the Divine Nature to signify that it hath been made to participate of the virtue of the Divinity And in fine That we may pass from the Nature and Dignity of Men into the Nature and Dignity of Angels There 's nothing more frequent than these kind of Expressions in all the Monuments of Antiquity I will add unto all these Considerations that I could not find the Homily of Easter now in question amongst many Homilies of Caesarius In Mr. Colbets And St. Victors which I have lately seen in two Libraries which may make it be suspected that it is of some Author much younger than Caesarius In the sixt place the holy Fathers teach that Church Fasts are broken Tertul. de Orat. c. 14. by participating of the Eucharist as Tertullian teacheth Many do think saith he that on Station-days they stay'd there till three a Clock without eating we should not attend Prayers and Sacrifices that is to say the celebration of the Eucharist because that in receiving the Lord's Body the Fast of the Station should be broke I cannot conceive saith the Protestant that those who believed that this Body whereof they speak and which is received at the holy Table was the true and natural Body of Jesus Christ could have this strange Fancy that the Fast should be broken in taking into their Mouths and Stomacks the holy and incorruptible Body of our Lord and Saviour And I cannot imagine those People could be so ignorant to believe it nor Tertullian so patient to suffer such an Indignity without sharply reproving it as it deserved he was too vehement not to do it and if one were much less so than him it would be very hard not to be concerned that People that made Profession of Christian Religion should so outragiously treat the glorify'd Body of Jesus Christ Id. ibid. Let the Reader judg with an unbyassed Mind if he please and he must agree with me that the Latins act very well according to their Hypothesis when they say that they believe the true Body of Christ doth not break the Fast What we say of these first Christians will appear yet more plainly if we consider the Council given them by Tertullian in the same place which is to receive the Sacrament and keep it to take it at Evening when the Station is ended In receiving saith he the Body of the Lord and keeping it you will save both you will partake of the Sacrifice and do the Duty of the Day I conceive I have discovered Marks of this Belief in our France in the VIth Century and to the end those which read this Work may the better judg if I am deceived I 'le here insert the Passage at large it is taken out of the Life of St. Melain Bishop of Phemes and is also found in the Supplement of the Councils of France where we have an Account of an Assembly of Bishops held at Anger 's Anno 530. In supplem Concil Gallic p. 49 50. Almost at the same time saith the Author the Man of God St. Milain and the Elect of God Albin and St. Victor Launus and St. Marsus assembled in the City of Anger 's in the Basilisk of St. Mary Mother of God St. Milain by common consent of the rest celebrated Mass at the beginning of the Fast of Lent and having ended before they went away the blessed Priest gave them in Charity the holy Eucharist with God's Grace and his Benediction But Marsus preferring the Fast of the Day before his Charity and neglecting the Eucharist whereof he should have communicated let fall the Portion he had received of St. Milain into his Bosom Being then permitted to return to their Church and having saluted each other they by the Grace of God began their Journey they had sâ—â—â—â—ce gone ten
Promotion to the Episcopacy with any secular Oath whatever it did before Ordination In the first place I advertise the Reader there is in the Text Conficit corpus Christi sanguinis Sacramentum but it may plainly be seen it should be read Corporis Christi sanguinis Sacramentum and translated as we have done The Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ otherwise it would be Nonsense for what signifies make the Body and the Sacrament of the Blood of Christ From all which they conclude That the Fathers of the Council should have spoken in much stronger Terms if that instead of saying that they made the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ they had said that they made the Body and Blood They think that the Occasion also required it and that their Denial would have been better grounded and they affirm that if an Assembly of Prelates of the Latin Church were in the like Conjuncture they would make no mention and that justly of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ they would speak directly of the Glorious Priviledge of making the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Whence is it then that these Prelates of the Synod of Cressy did not do so it is in all likelihood because they were not of the same Belief Optatus Bishop of Mileva in Numidia aggravating the Crime of the Donatists which had with horrible Impiety thrown down the Sacrament of the Orthodox unto the Dogs speaks of it after a manner which would not be easily pardoned had he believed as the Latins do that it is the very Body of Christ himself What saith he is there more sinful and impious than to throw the Eucharist unto Beasts But what could be weaker than this Expression if this Eucharist were the real Body of the Son of God ought he not to have thundred after another manner against these wicked Wretches Should he not have exaggerated with stronger and more Emphatical Terms the Horror of so fearful an Abomination In a Word ought he not have given it a blacker Term than that of Impious and have painted the enormous Sin of these wicked Wretches with other Colours Can it be thought that a Bishop of the Latin Church should be contented with such a kind of Expression in the like Occasion not at all Wherefore then was Optatus content They can conceive no other Reason but the Difference of their Belief Let the Reader judge if there be any other more probable In the mean while I must tell you that having sometimes meditated of St. Chrysostom's Books touching the Evangelical Priesthood to see how he advanced its Dignity and having applied my self in reading them to endeavour to discover wherein he makes the greatest Priviledge of this Order to consist which with his Eloquence he exalts as much as he thought fit I find that he only attributes unto it the Function of Prayer to obtain by their Prayers the Grace of the Holy Spirit upon the Sacrament Chrysost l. 3. de Sacerdot c. 4 p. 32. vid. p. 31. The Priest saith he is present not bearing Fire but the Holy Ghost he makes long Prayers not to the end that Fire should come down from Heaven to burn the Things offered but to the end that Grace descending upon the Sacrifice should by that means inflame the Spirits of those which are present and make them purer and more bright than Silver tried in the Fire And he saieth this in Opposition to the Sacrifice of the Prophet Elias 1 Reg. 18. when he assembled all the Prophets of Baal to prefer the Evangelical Priesthood 1 Reg. 18. and what is done in the Celebration of the Sacrament much before and above the Priesthood of the Law How is it that this excellent Genius had not bethought himself of saying that though the mystical Sacrificers of the New Testament did not cause to come down from Heaven a material Fire by their Prayers as Elias did to consume the Oblations offered upon the Holy Table but the Heavenly and Divine Fire of the Holy Ghost for the purifying of our Souls They do make moreover the true Body of Jesus Christ by the Force and Vertue of these Words This is my Body Was there ever a more proper and favourable Means and Occasion to advance this Evangelical Dignity and to place what it doth daily do in the Celebration of the Sacrament by converting the Substance of Bread and Wine into the Substance of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ which is infinitely more than what Elias did against Baals false Prophets Every Body knows in what manner the Romish Catholick Doctors do exalt this Dignity and that they never forget when they treat of its Advantages and Priviledges to attribute unto their Priests the Priviledge of making the real Body of the Son of God And I don't wonder any Body should think strange of it if they consider the Doctrine and Belief of the Latin Church how is it possible then that the great St. Chrysostom should have forgotten it that he hath not said a Word of it and that in so presing an Occasion he passed over in silence a Circumstance so remarkable and essential to his Subject Men may say what they please but for my part saith the Protestant I find no other Reason for it but their Difference of Belief St. Austin in his Books against Faustus the Manichean undertaking to advance the Honour and Excellency of our Sacraments above the ancient Sacraments so far as to exhort us to suffer for them with more Vigour and Courage than the three Hebrew Children or Daniel and the Maccabees did for theirs contents himself to say August l. 19. contra Faust c. 14. That it is the Eucharist of Jesus Christ the Signs of things accomplished whereas the ancient Sacraments were promises of things to come Had he believed that our Eucharist is not a Sacrament only but also the Substance of the Body of Jesus Christ and his Flesh also wherefore did he conceal and was silent in this essential Difference from the old Sacraments because his Reputation alone had been sufficiently capable of inflaming our Zeal and of more effectually disposing us unto Martyrdom for its Defence rather than any thing else which he said unto us When we censure we endeavour to represent to the Offender the Greatness of his Fault to make him the more to loath it and all means is used to let him see the Enormity of it especially in raising and advancing the Excellency of the Object which he offended for it is commonly according to the Nature and Quality of the Object offended that the Degree and Greatness of the Offence is proportioned let us then see after what manner the Holy Fathers have demeaned themselves towards them which have offended against the Sacrament of the Eucharist For doubtless considerable Informations may be drawn from these kinds of Censures A Council of Carthage assembled Anno 419.
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
our Saviour gave unto his Disciples in his Sacrament the Figure of his Body and Blood That the Creatures of Bread and Wine pass into the Sacrament of his Body and Blood by the ineffable sanctification of the Holy Ghost That our Saviour hath changed the Legal Sacrifices into Sacrifices of Bread and Wine And that whereas the Ancients celebrated the Passion of our Lord in the Flesh and Blood of Sacrifices we celebrate it in the Oblation of Bread and Wine According to which he testifies in a great many places Homil. de Sanct. in Epiph as hath been seen in the 4th Chapter That Jesus Christ is absent from us as to his Body but is present by his Divinity It is true he saith That the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ is received by the Mouth of believers for their Salvation But after what he hath spoken it is very evident say the Protestants that he speaks not of receiving them in their matter and Substance but in their Sacrament accompanied with a quickning and saving virtue and that if he be not so understood he will be made to contradict himself and to destroy with one hand what he built with the other therefore it is that he distinguisheth the Sacrament and that he declares that the wicked participate only of the Sign and not of the thing signified saying with St. Prosper in the Sentences drawn from St. Austin Id. in 1. ad Cor. 11. He that is not reconciled unto Jesus Christ neither eats his Flesh nor drinketh his Blood although he receiveth every day the Sacrament of so great a thing unto his condemnation It is also true that he often calls the Bread and Wine the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ but he declareth with St. Austin whom he exactly follows Id. in cap. 6. ad Rom. Id. in Marc. cap. 14. That it is by reason of the resemblance they have with the things whereof they are Sacraments And with St. Isidor of Sevil That it is because Bread strengthens the body and Wine increaseth Blood in the Flesh and that for this reason the Bread relates mystically unto the Body of Jesus Christ and the Wine to his Blood And because say they in the matter of Sacraments it is not so much to be consider'd what they be August contra Maxim l. 3. c. 22. saith St. Austin as what it is they signifie because that as Signs they are one thing and yet they do signifie another Venerable Bede makes no difficulty to say That the Bread and Wine being visibly offered another thing must be understood which is Invisible to wit The true Body and Blood of Christ because in effect he will have the Believer raise up his Soul and his Faith unto Jesus Christ sitting at the right Hand of his Father for as he told us before He carried by his Ascension into the Invisible Heavens Beda domui vocem Ju. Id. Hom. de Astil de temp in vigil Pasch the Humane Nature which he had taken In fine he is not afraid to speak of Sacrificing again Jesus Christ for the advancement of our Salvation but all Christians agreeing That Jesus Christ cannot any more be truly Sacrificed he doubtless speaks of offering him by the Sacrament whence it is that he acknowledgeth with St. Austin That Jesus Christ was once offered in himself Let the Reader judge then what advantage the Latins can draw from these latter words of Bedes which they mightily esteem Unto Bede may be joyned Sedulius a Scotchman or more truly an Irishman not him that composed the Easter work who was much later than the other I mean the Author of the Commentaries upon the Epistles of St. Paul which many attribute unto one Sedulius a Bishop in England but originally of Ireland who assisted with Fergust a Bishop of Scotland at a Council held at Rome under Gregory the 2d Anno Dom. 721. I find that the Author of these Commentaries expounding the 4th Verse of the 6th Chapter of the First Epistle to the Corinthians cites a long passage of the 14th Chapter and 19th Book of the Morals of Gregory the First without naming him Now this Sedulius whom we place in the VIII Century until we receive better information furnisheth us with these words which he seemeth to have taken out of Pelagius and Primasius when explaining these words of St. Sedul Comment in 1. ad Cor. C. 11. Paul Do this in remembrance of me he saith He lest us his remembrance as if one going a long Loyage left a Present with his Friend to the end that every time he saw it he should think of his Love and Friendship which he could not look upon without grief and tears if he dearly loved him Whereby he shews that Jesus Christ left us his Sacrament to be in his stead until he comes again from Heaven We read in the Life of the Abbot Leufred Vita Leufred C. 17. in Chron Insulae term about the beginning of the VIII Century that Charles Martell having desired him to obtain of God by his prayers the recovery of his young Son Gryphon he gave him the Sacrament of the Body of Christ In notis Menard in Sacram Greg. And we have seen in the second Chapter by the testimony of a Pontifical Manuscript kept in the Church of Roan that Christians then believed that what was drank in the Eucharist was a thing which might be consumed as that was indeed consumed If we pass from the West into the East German Germ. Constantinop Theor. rerum Eccles t. 12. Bibl. Patr. pa. 402. 403. Patriarch of Constantinople and a great stickler for Image Worship will present himself unto us in the beginning of this same Century and tells us that the Priest prays a second time to the end the Mystery of the Son of God may be accomplished and that the Bread and Wine should be made and changed into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ which the Latins stand upon very much but the Protestants pretend he declares very favourably for them and moreover they observe that it is not certain this piece is that German's which lived in the VIII Century others attributing it to another German that lived in the XII They indeed observe that to shew of what kind the change whereof he speaks is he saith In celebrating the Eucharist Ibid. p. 410. the Oblation is broken indeed like bread but it is distributed as the Communication of an ineffable benediction unto them which participate thereof with Faith He testifies that what is distributed at the holy Table is Bread but Bread accompanied with the Blessing of God and with a Heavenly and Divine Virtue for the Salvation and Consolation of Believers Ibid. p. 408. And in another place he saith That presently after Elevation the Division of the holy body is made but though it is divided into parts it remains indivisible and inseparable and that it is known and found whole and
entire in each portion of the things divided These words can receive no good sense but by understanding them of the Sacrament that is to say of the Bread which is broken in pieces as to its matter and substance but that remains whole and intire as to the vertue of the Sacrament which made the great St. Basil say Basil Ep. 289. t. 3. That to receive one part or several at ae time is the same thing as to its virtue Moreover German will have us consider Jesus Christ as dead in the Sacrament and as pouring forth his precious blood for the Salvation of mankind when he saith Id. Germ. ib. p. 407 409 410. That the Elevation of the precious body represents the Elevation in the Cross the Death of our Lord on the Cross and his Resurrection also That the Priest receiving the Bread alone without the Blood and the Blood also without the Body signifies nothing else but that the Divine Lamb is yet all bloody and that we eat the Bread and drink the Cup as the Flesh and Blood of the Son of God confessing his Death and Resurrection And clearer yet in these words where speaking of the holy Bread which he distinguisheth from Jesus Christ he saith Ibid p. 408. That it is the only Bread wherein is figured and represented the Divine and all-healing Death of him which was Sacrificed for the Lafe of the World because it is the only Divine Bread which is Sacrificed and Offered as the Lamb but as for the other Divine Gifts they be not cut in the form of a Cross with the Knife but they are put in pieces as the members and parts of the body It is the true Commentary of what he saith in the same Treatise That Jesus Christ is always sacrificed because he is so not in himself for that cannot be by the confession of all Christians but in the Sacrament the Celebration whereof doth lively represent unto us the imolation of Jesus Christ upon the Cross Ibid. p. 408. Add unto this that he declares That Jesus Christ drank Wine in his Sacrament as he did after his Resurrection not through necessity but to perswade his Disciples of the truth of his Resurrection And that he desires at the instant of communicating we should lift up our thoughts from Earth unto the King which is in Heaven Now let it be judged after all these declarations what the change can be which he saith is passed upon the Bread and Wine by Consecration if he meant a change of substance or only of use and condition for the former seems unto Protestants to be inconsistent with the Explanations which he hath given us whereas the latter doth not ill accord with it in all appearance German saith That Jesus Christ is seen and felt in the Eucharist but he positively affirms that it is done in his Sacrament that is to say that he is seen and touched inasmuch as the Sacrament is seen and felt which doth represent him Ibid. p. 401. Our Saviour saith he is seen and suffers himself to be touched by means of the ever to be revered and sacred Mysteries I will not insist upon what is said by this Patriarch That the Bread and Wine offered by Believers for the Communion do in some sort become upon the Table of proposition which amongst the Greeks is different from that where the Consecration of the Divine Symbols are made I say they become in some sort the Images and Figures of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ because it is a frivolous conceit and with reason rejected by Roman Catholicks and Protestants But let us lay aside the Patriarch German and prosecute the History of the VIII Century in the same City where German was Patriarch the Metropolis of the Eastern Empire Constantine the 6th commonly surnamed Copronymas Son of the Emperor Leo the third called Isaurus assembled a Council of 338 Bishops Anno 754. The Assembly held full six months during which they quite abolished the Worshipping of Images and by the way Concil Constantinop in Act. Concil Nicaen 2. t. 5. Concil p. 756. clearing up the Doctrine of the Church upon the point of the Sacrament to draw a proof against the same Images they had condemned they left unto us for a Monument of their belief this following testimony Let those rejoyce which with a most pure heart make the true Image of Jesus Christ which desire which venerate and which do offer it for the Salvation of body and soul the which Jesus Christ gave unto his Disciples in Figure and Commemoration And having repeated the words of Institution they add That no other Species under Heaven was made choice of by him nor any other Type that could represent his Incarnation That it is the Image of his quickning body which was honourably and gloriously made That as Jesus Christ took the matter or humane substance in like manner he hath commanded us to offer for his Image a matter chosen that is to say the substance of bread not having any humane Form or Figure fearing lest Idolatry may get in As then say they the Natural Body of Jesus Christ is holy because it is Deified It is also evident that his Body by Institution that is to say his holy Image is rendred Divine by Sanctification of Grace for it is what our Saviour intended to do when by virtue of the Union he Deified the Flesh he had taken by a Sanctification proper unto himself so also he would that the bread of the Sacrament as being the true Figure of his Natural body should be made a Divine Body by the coming of the Holy Ghost the Priest which makes the Oblation intervening to make it holy whereas it was common therefore the Natural body of our Lord endowed with Soul and Understanding was anointed by the Holy Ghost being united unto the Godhead so also his Image to wit the holy bread is filled with the Cup of enlivening Blood which flowed out of his side What renders this testimony the more considerable and worthy to be credited is That these Fathers which represented all the Eastern Church or at least the greatest part of it were assembled about the matter of Images and not about the subject of the Sacrament for had they been assembled upon the point of the Sacrament it may be some uncharitable person might suspect them of pre-occupation or of design but having been assembled upon a very different subject of necessity it must be granted that it is by the by that they inform us of the common and general Opinion and Belief of Christians They would draw from the Eucharist an argument against the use and Worship of Images and to do it the better they were obliged to unfold unto us the Nature of the Sacrament and they explain it in saying That it is the substance of Bread that it is no deceiving Figure of his Natural Body and as they say a little before a Type
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
you that is to say if you participate not of my passion and if you believe not that I dyed for your salvation you have no life in you This is the constant Doctrine of St. Austin He also testifies in the following words that he gloried in being one of his followers The Mystery is the Faith Ibid. as St. Austin saith in his Letter unto the Bishop Boniface As then the Sacrament of the Body of Jesus Christ is after some sort the body of Jesus Christ and the Sacrament of his blood his blood so also the Sacrament of Faith is Faith so we may also say This is the Cup of my Blood of the New and Eternal Testament as if he should say This is my Blood which is given for you he could not say more plainly That the Cup that is the Wine which is in the Cup is the Blood of Jesus Christ as the Sacrament is the thing whereof it is the Sacrament And in another Letter unto one Guntard whom he calls his Son and that he was something dissatisfied because Amalarius did spit presently after having received the Sacrament he saith unto him Id. ad Guntard Ep. 6. p. 196. that he denied not but that we should venerate the Body of Jesus Christ above all other Food It is not at all likely he would have spoken after this manner if he had believed that what is received in the Sacrament is the very Body of Jesus Christ because there can be no comparison betwixt this Divine Body and our Ordinary Food but he might well say so of the Sacrament for the which we should have a more peculiar respect and veneration than for our other meats He explains himself and sheweth that he speaks not of the real Body of Jesus Christ but of his Typical Body when he saith That it belongs to our Lord to pour out his Body by the Members and Veins for our Eternal Salvation Ibid. p. 171. That it is the Body of Jesus Christ which may be cast out in spitting after having received it and whereof some part may be cast out of the mouth Unto all which he adds Having so received the Body of Christ with a good intention I don't intend to argue whether it be invisibly lifted up unto Heaven or whether it remains in our bodies until the day of our Death or whether it be exhaled into the Air or whether it departs out of the body with the blood or whether it goes out at the pores our Saviour saying Ibid. p. 172. Whatsoever enters in at the Mouth goes into the Belly and from thence into the draft only care is to be taken not to receive it with a heart of Judas not to misprise it but to distinguish it savingly from ordinary Food Thence it is that he requires That during Lent all Believers Id. de observatione Quadrages p. 174. excepting such as are Excommunicated should receive the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Jesâ— Christ and that the people should be warned not to draw near the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ irreverently I know not saith the Protestant if after all these Declarations it can be doubted that Amalarius was far from the Opinion of Paschas Id. de offic l. 3. c. 24. Ibid. c. 25. and that when he saith We believe that the plain Nature of Bread and Wine mixed is changed into a reasonable Nature of the body and blood of Jesus Christ That the Church believes it is the body and blood of our Saviour and that by this Morsel the Souls of Communicants are filled with a heavenly Benediction which are passages alledged by the Latins to support their Doctrine He meant not that they passed or as Rabanus told us that they are converted into a Sacrament of his Body and Blood And to say the truth adds he I find he hath so fully explained and cleared his intention that it must be concluded that he believed the Sacrament is not the Flesh it self born of the Virgin as Paschas taught but the Sacrament of this holy Flesh the Bread and Wine by sanctification passing into this Divine Sacrament as he said of the Oyl the People offered Ibid. l. 1. c. 12. That by benediction it is converted into a Sacrament Therefore he gives us to understand that this Sacrament which we receive and that he calls the Body of Jesus Christ because of some likeness as he explained himself by the words of St. Austin is subject unto divers accidents whereto the real Body of Jesus Christ cannot be expos'd particularly of going into the place of Excrements like other Meats Let the Reader judge if he please of this Dispute and Controversie Unto Rabanus and Amalarius I will joyn Wallafridus Strabo who in all probability wrote his Book of Ecclesiastical matters betwixt the years 840. and 849. In Poemate which was the time of his Decease In that he calls Rabanus his Father and Master it may give cause to conceive that he was of one Judgment with him but because meer surmises are not sufficient proof nor convincing Arguments Walafri Strabo lib. de Reb. Eccles c. 16. Bibl. p. 7. t. 10. let us learn from his own mouth what he believed of the Mystery which we examine Jesus Christ saith he gave to his Disciples the Sacraments of his body and blood in the substance of Bread and Wine teaching them to celebrate it in Commemoration of his most holy passion because there could nothing be found more fitting then these species to signifie the Unity of the head and his members for as the Bread is made of several Grains and is reduced into one body by means of Water and as the Wine is pressed from several Grapes so also the body of Jesus Christ is made of the Union of a multitude of believers And a little after he declares That Jesus Christ hath chosen for us a reasonable Sacrifice for the Mystery of his body and of his blood in that Melchisedek having offered Bread and Wine he gave unto believers the same kind of sacrifice And again That as for that great number of legal sacrifices Id. cap. 18. Jesus Christ gave us the Word of his Gospel so also for that great diversity of sacrifices believers should rest satisfied with the Oblation of Bread and Wine As all these passages are exceeding clear so it is very just and reasonable they should serve for a Commentary unto others if it had hapned that Wallafridus had spoken less clear any where else for then should that judicious rule of Tertullians be practised That the plainest things should prevail Tertull. de Resurrect carn c. 19. 21. and that the most certaine should prescribe against the uncertain things which are doubtful should be judged by those things which are certain and those which are obscure by those which are clear and manifest Let us apply this unto what Wallafridus saith in another place which the Latins forget
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
At Troys is solemnized the memory of St. Prudens Bishop and Confessor this Saint was born in Spain endowed with Divine Graces and Illustrious by his Zeal for Religion and his knowledge of the Holy Scriptures having been driven out of Spain by the Saracens and being come into France he drew the Admiration and Love of all men therefore after the Death of Adelbert Bishop of Troys whither he had retired himself and had given proofs of his Vertue and Merit he was Elected and appointed the 37th Bishop of that Church by the common consent of the Clergy and People being so advanced unto the Episcopal Dignity he shined like a Light set in a Candlestick not unto this Church alone but also throughout all France by the example of a most holy Life and by the splendour of Divine Wisdom he was the Ornament and Delight of the Bishops of his time a Defender of the Purity of the Faith and an Oracle of Ecclesiastical Knowledge As for the Deacon Florus he hath transmitted unto us himself evidences of his belief in his Explication of the Mass at least if that be the work of this Florus Deacon of the Church of Lyons who in this Explication is styâ—â—â— Master Florus for Trithemius attributes this little Treatise whereof we speak unto one Florus a Benedictine Friar in the Abby of Trom in the Country of Liege and others make its Author to be the Deacon Florus that wrote against Amalarius and against John Scot upon the Subject of Predestination This latter Opinion seems the most likely and the reason which makes me not to doubt of it is that I observe the Author of this Interpretation of the Mass hath copied ten lines verbatim out of the Book which Agobard Bishop of Lyons under Lewis the Debonair Son of Charles the Bald wrote against Amalarius Vid. Flor. Bibl. Patr. t. 6. edit ult p. 171. unde Eccles c. Et Agobard contr Amalar. c. 13. p. 115. Florus in Exposit Missae Bibl. Patr. t. 6. p. 170. Now there 's much more probability to say that it was written by a Deacon of the same Church then by a Monk of the Country of Liege It being then evident after this remark if I mistake not that this little Treatise is to be attributed unto the Deacon Florus Let us hear what he hath designed to inform us The Oblation saith he although taken from the simple fruits of the Earth is made unto Believers the Body and Blood of the only Son of God by the ineffable virtue of Divine Benediction He seems to make a difference betwixt the Wicked and the Good and saith the Sacrament is made unto the latter the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ but unto the former it is nothing less because they have not Faith a Declaration which as the Protestants say agrees not with the Doctrine of the Real Presence by which the Eucharist is made the Body of Jesus Christ not only unto the Good but unto the Wicked also Florus explains himself very clearly Ibid. when he adds This Body and this Blood is not gather'd in the Ears of Corn and in the Grapes Nature gives it not unto us but it is Consecration that maketh it unto us mystically Jesus Christ is eaten when the Creature of Bread and Wine pass into the the Sacrament of his Flesh and Blood by the ineffable Sanctification of the Holy Ghost he is eaten by parcels in the Sacrament and he remains entire in Heaven and entire in your heart He would say that the Eucharist is naturally Bread and Wine that Consecration makes it the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ which is eaten in Morsels under the Sign which represents him but as to himself he is whole and entire in Heaven as he is whole and entire in the heart of every Believer in quality of a quickning and saving Object embraced by Faith so to find Life and Salvation in partaking of him because it is he that hath merited Salvation for us by his Death and purchased Life for us by his Sufferings And as the Eucharist is the Memorial of this Death and these Sufferings Florus makes no difficulty to say that it is made unto Believers the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ because in participating of this Divine Mystery Faith looks unto him as the only Object of its Contemplation Manducation and Participation Thus much these other words of the same Author import Ibid. p. 171. All that is done in the Oblation of the Body and Blood of our Lord is mystical we see one thing and we understand another what is seen is corporal what is understood hath a spiritual Fruit. Moreover he saith plainly that what our Saviour commanded his Disciples to take and eat was Bread He said unto them of the Bread Take and eat ye all of this Ibid. And speaking of the Cup The Wine said he was the Mystery of our Redemption And he proves it by these words I will no more drink of this Fruit of the Vine In fine expounding these last words of the Mass Whereby O Lord Ibid. thou always createst for us all these good things c. which is a kind of Thanksgiving which in the Latin Liturgy doth follow the Consecration he sufficiently gives to understand that he believed not that the Bread and Wine were changed into the substance of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ seeing he speaks of them as of things which God had created from the beginning of the World which he maketh still every year by Propagation and by Reparation which he sanctifieth and fills with his Grace and Heavenly Blessing which himself interprets to be of Corn and of Wine Thus it is that many do explain the meaning of this Author About the same time that the Deacon Florus wrote at Lyons Christian Druthmar Priest and Friar of Corby and Companion or Ratramn in the same Monastery composed his Commentary upon St. Matthew's Gospel and we should forthwith see what he wrote of the Eucharist if Sixtus Senensis did not stop us a little moment This famous Library-keeper doth accuse Protestants of having corrupted the Text of Druthmar in Reading in the Sacrament whereas he pretends upon the Credit of the Copy of a Manuscript to be seen in the Library of the Franciscans at Lyons that it should be read Subsisting really in the Sacrament The first thing we should do then is to consider the nature of this Accusation for the faith of Sixtus is look'd upon by many as the faith of a Man that approves very well of Expurgatory Indexes and one that hath laid two other Accusations unto the same Protestants Charge which are believed to be false Bibl. Sanct. in Ep. ad Pium V. Id. l. 6. Annot. 72. One is to have corrupted and altered a passage of Ferus a Franciscan Friar concerning the Temporal Power of the Pope although Ferus his Commentary upon St. Matthew wherein the passage in dispute is contained was
printed the first time at Mayans An. 1559. with the Emperor's permission And thereupon the Protestants say That it would be very unjust to accuse them with these kind of Depravations they which have so much complained of Expurgatory Indexes to do themselves what they so highly condemned in other Men. The other Accusation consists in that he charged them with the printing a pernicious Book of Oecolompadius under the Title of Bertram De Corpore Sanguine Domini Ibid. in praesar against the truth of History which informs us as hath been proved that Bertram or Ratramn was the true Author of it Besides say they Wherefore was not this Manuscript of Lyons publickly made known to convince us without reply of this eminent Depravation for it must be confessed that should we be guilty of so great a piece of Malice and so horrible an Infidelity as that wherewith Sixtus Sinensis doth accuse us we should be unworthy the name of honest Men and on the contrary deserve all Mens hatred and scorn But besides Sixtus his Accusation falls upon Sererius a Lutheran Printer had it fallen upon any Calvinist Printer it would have had a little more shew of truth But that a Lutheran that believes the Real Presence should have taken these words out of the passage of Druthmar Subsisting truly in the Sacrament which entirely favours it makes it appear very strange seeing the Interest of them of his Communion require that they should exactly be retained Add unto all these things that whereunto there can be no Reply which is That in the Year 1514. before Luther appeared James Wimfelling of Schelstad caused Druthmar to be printed at Strasbourg sixteen years before Sererius his Edition with License of Maximilian the Emperor and the Arms of Leo the Tenth in the same manner Sererius had printed it though it was by other Manuscripts which as 't is said makes void Sixtus his Accusation against the Lutheran Printer who acted like an honest Man and sheweth that the passage should be read as the Protestants read it and as the latter Collectors of the Library of the holy Fathers have given it unto us In fine say they It only is requisite to read over the whole passage with some caution to know that the Correction of Sixtus cannot subfist and that by consequence his Accusation is groundless And to the end the Reader might do it conveniently I will relate it at large as he hath transmitted it unto us Christian Druthmar comment in Matth. Bibl. Patr. t. 16. p. 361. Jesus Christ took Bread because bread strengthens the heart of Man and preserves life better than any other food he therein establisheth the Sacrament of his Love but this property ought much rather to be attributed unto this spiritual Bread which perfectly strengthens all Men and all Creatures because it is by him that we do subsist and that we have both Life and Being He blessed it He blessed it in the first place because as Man he blessed in his own Person all Mankind and then he gave to understand that the Benediction and Power of the Divine and Immortal Nature was truly in that Nature which he had taken of the blessed Virgin He broke it He broke the Bread which is himself because exposing himself freely unto Death he broke and shatter'd the habitation of his Soul thereby to satiate us according to what he said himself I have power to lay down my Life and I have power to take it up again And he gave it unto his Disciples saying unto them Take and eat this is my Body He gave to his Disciples the Sacrament of his Body for remission of sins and preservation of charity to the end that being mindful of this action they should always do this in Figure and that they should not forget what he was going to do for them This is my Body That is to say in Sacrament And having taken the Cup he gave Thanks and gave it unto his Disciples As amongst all things which are useful to preserve life Bread and Wine are those which do most strengthen and repair the weakness of our Nature it is with great reason that our Saviour would in these two things establish the Mystery of his Sacrament for Wine rejoyceth the heart and increaseth blood therefore it is very fit to represent the Blood of Jesus Christ because all that cometh from him rejoyceth with perfect joy and increaseth all that is good in us In fine like a person undertaking a great Voyage he leaves unto them he loves a particular mark of his Love upon condition that they shall take care to keep it always thereby to remember him so also God spiritually changing the Bread into his Body and the Wine into his Blood hath commanded us to celebrate this mystery to the end these two things may eternally make us remember what he hath done for us with his Body and Blood and that it might hinder us from being ungrateful and unmindful of so great and tender Love Now because we are wont to mix Water with the Wine in the Sacrament of his Blood this Water represents the faithful People for whom Jesus Christ would lay down his Life and the Water is not without the Wine neither is the Wine without the Water because that as he died for us so also we should be ready to die for him and for our brethren that is to say for the Church therefore there came out of his side Water and Blood This passage is taken out of a Commentary where the Author explains these words of the Institution This is my Body by these others That is to say in the Sacrament to signifie that the Bread of the Eucharist is not really the Body of Jesus Christ but only the Sacrament of it Therefore he sheweth that our Saviour gave unto his Disciples the Sacrament of his Body that he commanded them to celebrate the Eucharist in Figure of what he was going to do for them that his Blood is figured by the Wine and that in going up to Heaven he left them this Pledge of his Love to the end that during his absence they should always make Commemoration of his Person and of his Sufferings All which things clearly shew that the spiritual Change whereof he speaks is a Change of Use and of Vertue to import that the Bread and Wine are changed by the Grace of Consecration into the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ as St. Isidore of Sevil Bede and Rabanus hath taught and also changed into its Efficacy and Vertue after the language of Theodotus and of Cyril of Alexandria Whence it is that the same Druthmar explaining these words Ibid. p. 360. C. The Poor ye shall have always with you but me ye shall not have always saith He speaks of the presence of his Body because he was to depart from them for as for the presence of his Divinity it is always present with all the Elect.
Church That it was a Leaden Age an Iron and unhappy Age an Age of Darkness Ignorance Superstition and Obscurity whereas his Adversary esteems it to be an Age of Light an Age of Grace and Benediction For my particular although I know that he which esteems it an Age of Darkness is supported by the Authority of all or at least the greatest number of Historians which have written of it especially of Baronius Gennebrard and Bellarmine and that so far he hath not said any thing of his own And that the reasons of his Adversary which represents it as an Age of Learning and Benediction do not appear unto me of sufficient force to invalidate what he hath established upon the report of Historians I will however make a third party in this rencounter and hold the mean betwixt these two extreams I say that I will not absolutely follow the Historians which represent it wholly dark and ignorant nor the Author of the Perpetuity which represents it all light and glorious For if I do not make it an Age wholly Light neither will I esteem it to be wholly Darkness If I judge it not to be an Age of Grace neither do I conceive it to be one altogether unfortunate If it appear not unto me to be wholly an Age of Benediction neither doth it appear to be only an Age of Malediction In a word if I look not upon it to be an Age of Hillary's of Athanasius's of Basills of Gregory's and of Ambroses or as an Age of Chrisostoms of Jeromes and of Austins yet I do not regard it as an Age of Bareletes of Maillards and of Menots I do not liken it unto a fair Summers day when the Heavens being free from Clouds the Sun shineth in its full force and communicates unto us without any Obstruction his Light and Heat but unto a Winters day which being dark and the Air full of thick Clouds deprives us of the sight of the Sun yet not totally of its Light so that we have still left us sufficient to direct us although it may not be always enough to hinder us from stumbling In like manner say some during the X. Century the Sins of Men having made a thick Cloud betwixt the Sun of Righteousness and them he communicated not unto them fully the Light of his healthful Beams although he imparted unto them sufficient to avoid the Errors which cannot be believed without Ruin and to embrace the Truth the knowledge whereof is necessary to Salvation What likelihood say some is there that having shed forth so much Light upon the IX Century for the defence of the Truth that Men should on a suddain be plunged into Darkness But what likelihood is there also that the same Craces with the same freedom should be continued to be dispensed unto Men when it was seen that they began to abuse them and that the Flesh gaining by little and little the Victory over the Spirit they degenerated insensibly from the truth of their Belief and the purity of their Devotion Nevertheless as God is infinitely good and that he never leaves himself without witness of doing good unto Men however unthankful and ungrateful they be so if he dispensed not sufficient Knowledge unto the Men of the X. Century to oppose the Opinion of Paschas with the same vigour as it was opposed in the IX yet he dispensed them so much as to hinder it from being established all that Age as shall be shewed in the progress of this History But in the first place it will be necessary to relate what is said by William of Malmesbury De gestis Pontific Anglor 〈◊〉 of Odo Arch-bishop of Canterbury who lived in this Age He so confirmed saith he several persons which doubted of the truth of the Body of our Lord that he shewed them the Bread of the Altar changed into Flesh and the Wine of the Cup changed into Blood and afterwards he made them return unto their natural form and rendred them proper for the life of Men. This is the only Author of the X. Century that is come to our knowledge which publickly declared himself for the Opinion of Paschas whereas the Historian's Relation sheweth that there were several that were of a contrary Judgment and who had no small inclination to profess it openly besides the method of this Prelate to make them receive his Opinion seems unto many to be but a story made at random either by Odo himself or by the Friar which wrote the History of it and they heartily wish that Christians would not use these kind of Prodigies to prove the truth of the Doctrines of their Religion saying that Unbelievers are dis-satisfied and those which believe and are enlightned and that are pious can receive no Edification thereby And they make no question but that Paschas rendred his Doctrine suspicious unto most persons by the pretended Miracles that he made use of to establish it because this kind of proceeding shewed plainly that he found neither in the Scriptures nor Traditions Reasons strong enough to defend it seeing he had recourse unto these prodigious Apparitions But whatever this Arch-Bishop of Canterbury could do for the promoting the Doctrine of Paschas in England his endeavours had not all the success he could have wished the contrary Doctrine which had been so well planted in this Kingdom until the Year 883. by John Erigenius one of the greatest Adversaries of Paschas there continuing still and being publickly preached In fine Alfric which some also esteem to be Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and others Bishop of Cride after having been Abbot of Malmesbury a Man learned according to those times in a Sermon under the name of Wulfin Bishop of Salisbury thus spake of the Sacrament In notis Vheloci in histor Bedae Anglo-Sax l. 4. c. 24. about the Year 940. The Eucharist is not the Body of Jesus Christ corporally but spiritually not the Body wherein he suffered but the Body whereof he spake when consecrating the Bread and Wine he said This is my Body This is my Blood He adds That the Bread is his Body as the Manna and the Wine his Blood as the Water of the Desert was If this Sermon was one of Wulfin's according to the Title the Year 840. as we have computed it doth not ill agree with it But if it be Alfric's we must descend lower towards the end of the X. Century Apud Usser de dhristian Eccles success statu c. 2. p. 54. There is another which some cite under the name of Wulfin Bishop of Salisbury and others attribute unto Alfric wherein the Author useth the same Language This Sacrifice saith he is not the Body wherein Jesus Christ suffered for us nor his Blood which he shed but it is made spiritually his Body and Blood as the Manna which fell from Heaven and the Water which flowed from the Rock If these two Sermons are of two several Authors we have already two Witnesses directly
That there is no doubt but the Tholousians and Albigensis condemned Anno 1177. and 1178. were no others but the Waldensis Neither doth Monsieur de Thoul make any difference betwixt them in the sixth Book of his History Which sufficeth to shew that the Waldensis as well as the Albigensis had an Opinion contrary unto the Latin Church upon the point of the Sacrament seeing we fully proved it in regard of the Albigensis from whose Belief and Faith the Waldensis did nothing differ What they say may be read in a Treatise entituled The spiritual Almanack where they give an account of their Faith particularly upon the Subject of the Sacrament for they say in plain terms History of the Waldensis and Albigensis of Paul Perrin l. 1. c. 6. That the bread which Jesus Christ took in his last Supper which he blessed which he broke and gave his Disciples to eat is in its nature true bread and that by the Pronoun This is shewn this sacramental proposition This is my Body not understanding these words identically of a numerical Identity but sacramentally really and truly and not measurably And afterwards The eating of the sacramental bread Ibid. is to eat the body of Jesus Christ in figure Which is just the Language used by the Albigensis in the Year 1120. as hath been shewed But besides their own Confession we have the Testimony of their very Enemies which suffer us to make no question but that they opposed themselves against the Decrees of Councils held under several Popes against Berengarius Radulphus Ardeas an Author of the XII Century or of the XI makes this Observation Hom. in Dom. 8. post Pentec They say that the Sacrament of the Altar is meer bread Caesarius of Heisterback In Dialog They blaspheme the Sacrament of the body and blood of Jesus Christ Contr. Vald. c. 6. to wit because they did not acquiesce unto the determinations of the Latin Church And Reynerus They say that the Body of Jesus Christ is but bread but the proper body they call that the true Body of Jesus Christ De erroribus Begehard Conradus de Montepuellarum Prebend of Ratisbon They blaspheme saith he against the Sacrament saying That the true Body of Jesus Christ cannot be contained under so small a quantity of bread and against the Priests calling them through derision Contra Vald. c. 8. God-makers Evrard of Bethune saith the same They are so far from saying that what Christ called his Body is his Body that they deny it Contra Vald. c. 11. as Successors of Judas Ermengard wrote somewhat to the same effect touching the same Waldensis it is the same Slander which is made against them by Guy of Perpignan Lib. de haeres saying That they denied that the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ was under the Sacrament of the Altar Tom. 2. c. 19. And Thomas Waldensis speaking of Bruno and Berengarius They erred said he like those He observes moreover That when the Host was lifted up they lifted their eyes up unto Heaven saying openly that they worshipped the Body of Christ where it was Contra Vald. c. 10. and not where it was not Coussard a Divine of Paris speaks of them also in these terms They say that the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ is not the real Sacrament but consecrated bread which is called the Body of Jesus Christ by a Figure as it is said that the Rock was Christ Therefore the Inquisitor Emery Director part 2. q. 14. chargeth it upon them as an Error when they said That the Bread is not transubstantiated into the true Body of Jesus Christ nor the Wine into his Blood And because the Albigensis and Waldensis to shew that they could not conceive that the Eucharist was the real Body of Jesus Christ were wont to say that how big soever it had been it could not subsist still because the numbers of Communicants would have consumed it since the time they participated thereof Peter de Vaux-Sernay writes that they taught publickly and infused this Doctrine into the ears of the simple Hist Albigens c. 2. That the Body of Jesus Christ if it had been as big as the Alps had been consumed long since and reduced unto nothing by those which eat thereof And I find in the Chronicle of the Senonian Monastery at the Mount de Vauge in the Diocess de Toul that a Person of Quality upon that very consideration rejected the Doctrine of the Real Presence and Substantial Conversion for being sick of his last Sickness at the end of the XII Century they going about to persuade him that the Sacrament was the real Body of Jesus Christ Tom. 2. Spicil p. 405. And how saith he can that be For if this Body were as big as a great Mountain it would have been eaten by the people a thousand times There be some which observe also that Berengarius was wont to jest by the like words at the Confession of Faith which they would have him make and wherein they made him confess amongst other things Petrus Clunia contra Petrobrus That the Body of Jesus Christ is truly handled by the hands of the Priests that it is broen and eaten by the teeth of Believers I will joyn unto all these Considerations that we find in the History of Roger de Hoveden by the relation of Peter Cardinal of St. Chrysogan and Legat of Pope Alexander the Third in France touching his proceedings against the Waldensis at Tholouse and principally by the Declaration of Henry Abbot of Clervaux upon the same Subject That one of the eminentest amongst them called Peter Moran being pressed to declare ingenuously what he believed concerning the Sacrament of the Altar answered Apud Baron ad An. 1178. That the holy Bread of Life Eternal consecrated by the Ministry of the Priest and by the word of our Saviour is not the Body of Jesus Christ A Declaration which fully justifies that it was the true Belief of the Albigensis and Waldensis and sheweth that they were deceived which said that they did not deny that the Eucharist was the true Body of Jesus Christ but when him that celebrated and consecrated was sinful and unworthy to consecrate for they denied it simply and absolutely without enquiring into the good or bad qualities of him that officiated And the most considerable Doctors of the Latin Communion do confess that they had the same Belief that Berengarius had of the Sacrament and it cannot justly be any way questioned after all the many Testimonies which have been instanced It is true that the Albigensis and Waldensis have been taxed and charged with many reproaches and there has been many grievous Accusations laid to their charge both referring unto their Doctrine and their Manners As to their Doctrine I think that their Belief ought to be judged according to their Confessions of Faith which being publick Declarations of
Reputation who saw it before it was published by Aubertin that it is for certain in the Register I will make no scruple of representing it here in our Language that the Reader might judge of what consequence it is in regard of the matter which we examine See here then what Pope Clement wrote unto this Arch-Bishop In Registr mâ—nuscript Epâ—â—â— Clement â—â— The more sincere our love is unto you the more we have been touched in hearing certain things of you which agree not with the gravity of your Office considering especially that they endanger your Dignity and your Honour I write unto you familiarly and unknown unto any body excepting him that writes the Letter to let you know that I am informed whilst you were in our Court and discoursed with a certain Doctor touching the Sacrament of the Altar you said unto him that the Body of our Lord Jesus Christ was not essentially in the Eucharist no otherwise than the thing signified is in the Sign And that you said moreover that this Opinion is in great esteem at Paris This discourse being secretly whispered amongst some persons and being at last come to our knowledge I was much troubled at it and I could scarce believe that you would have spoken things which contain manifest Heresie and which are contrary to the truth of this Sacrament wherein Faith doth operate with so much the more benefit as it surpasseth Sense captivates the Understanding and subjects Reason under its Laws Therefore I counsel you not to be wiser than you should and not to impute to the Doctors of Paris Opinions which they believe not but that you humbly confess and firmly believe what the Church believeth and what the Saints preach and teach viz. That the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ although he be locally in Heaven is truly really and essentially under the Species of Bread and Wine after the Priest hath pronounced the sacred words according to the usage of the Church And if by hazard you remember him or them unto whom you have said it revoke it either verbally or by writing to the end that those which suppose that you believe what ought not to be believed of this great Mystery might harbour no ill Opinion of you At Viterba the 5th of the Calends of November Anno the 3d. that is of his Popedom which answers unto the Year of our Lord 1268. This Prelate being disheartned at the reading of this Letter and fearing the loss of his Office and Honour denies having spoken what the Pope taxed him with and under obscure and intricate terms made profession of believing what the Church of Rome believed concerning this Mystery yet in such a manner that he saith certain things which agree not very well with this Doctrine In Registro Epist Clemen supra cit Ep. 519. and which seem to testifie that this Archbishop of Narbona dared not freely to declare his thoughts The Body of Jesus Christ saith he is understood four several ways 1. It is so called in regard of the resemblance as the Species of Bread and Wine and that improperly 2. It is taken for the material Flesh of Jesus Christ which was crucified and pierced with a Lance and which was first taken from the blessed Virgin and this signification is proper 3. For the Church or for its mystical Unity 4. For the spiritual Flesh of Jesus Christ which is Meat indeed And it is said of those which eat this Flesh spiritually that they do receive the truth of the Flesh and Blood of our Saviour This Prelate maketh a difference of the spiritual Flesh of Jesus Christ which he proposeth as the Food of Believers from the Flesh of our Lord taken properly and in its true signification I cannot tell if his Opinion and Judgment may not thereby be determined which I leave unto others to do Whereas it is read in the Pope's Letter unto this Arch-Bishop that he said that his Opinion contrary to the Doctrine of the Real Presence was famous and frequent at Paris it is not without great probability if it be considered that two years after that is to say Anno 1270. which was the year of the death of St. Lewis Stephen Bishop of Paris condemned by advice of the Doctors of Divinity those which held 1. That God doth not make the Accident to subsist without its Subject Tom 4. Bibl. Pat. p. 924. because it is of his Essence that it should be actually in its subject 2. That the Accident without a Subject is not an Accident unless it be equivocal 3. That to make the Accident be without the Subject as we believe it is in the Sacrament is a thing impossible and implies a Contradiction 4. That God cannot make the Accident to be without the Subject nor that there should be several dimensions together Maxims which being inconsistent with Transubstantiation declare if I mistake not that those which held them were far from believing it which I refer to the judgment of the Reader contenting my self in warning him Tom. 2. Spicil p. 795. anno 1236. that instead of the Year 1227. which is marked at the beginning of this Anathema it should be the Year 1270. that about thirty years before to wit the Year 1236. there were taken in divers parts of France Flanders Champaigne Burgundy and other Provinces great numbers of Waldensis under the names of Bulgarians and Pifles and that all those which would not renounce their Faith were burnt alive and their Goods confiscated as the Chronicle of St. Medard of Soissons doth testifie where it is observed that before that time it was so practised for three whole years together and that the same course was held the five years following without intermission to wit until the Year 1241. What I have now said of the Letter of Clement the Fourth unto the Arch-bishop of Narban and that of this Prelate unto the Pope and of the Condemnation of certain Maxims which were condemned by Stephen Bishop of Paris will receive much light from the History of what passed in the University of Paris in the Year of our Lord 1304. And see here what it is John of Paris of the Order of Preaching Friars that is of Dominicans taught a manner of existing of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament of the Altar different from that which was commonly received in the Latin Church He does not indeed condemn the manner of existing of the Conversion of Bread into the Body of Jesus Christ which was the Opinion generally received amongst the Latins but he pretends that it is no Article of Faith not having been determined by the Church no more than that which he meant to establish and that therefore it was at every bodies free choice to embrace either the one or the other although he judged his safest and subject unto less inconveniences And he makes it consist in the Assumption of the Bread by the Divinity and in that the substance of
purpose after curious questions fit rather to engender strifes and quarrels than to edifie and instruct Christians I shall only desire the Reader seriously to consider if either or both of these Opinions can agree or hold with the Doctrine of the Latins for those which held that the Mysteries were incorruptible alledge for their reason That the Sacrament is a Confession and Commemoration of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ instead of saying that it is the glorified Body it self of our Lord And the others which affirm that it is corruptible say That the Bread of the Sacrament is the dead Flesh of Jesus Christ which cannot be in the reality of the thing because all Christians do confess that our Lord dyeth no more and that his state of Death and Crucifiction hath been past above XVI Ages ago whereby may be judged the disposition of Zonarus which held of both sides and of the strange manner wherein he explains himself I know not if I should make mention of one Samonas Bishop of Gaza who is placed in the XIII Century for all do not receive his testimony which is wholly favourable unto that of the cause of the Latins seeing he saith in a Dispute against Achmet a Sarrazin Tom. 12. Bibl. patr p. 524 525 526. touching the Eucharist That the Bread and Wine are not the Antitypes of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ but that they are by Consecration changed into the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and that the Division which is made to wit by means of breaking it is of sensible Accidents Were there nothing to be objected in the Nature of a Witness it could not be denied but this Greek Bishop was of the Belief of the Latin Church But the Protestants do deny that ever there was any such Dispute affirming That no Author hath made any mention of this Samonas because at that time there was no Greek Bishop at Gaza nor in all Pallastine being possessed by the Sarrazens having expell'd the Latins which had before setled Bishops of their own Language And in fine because the greatest part of this Writing was taken word for word from the Dispute of Anastatius the Sinaite against the Gaianites whereof mention hath been made in the History of the VII Century Whereunto may be added that this pretended Samonas speaketh formally of the Union of the Bread and Wine unto the Divinity which is just the Opinion of John Damascen as also what he saith Ibid. p. 525. that the Bread and Wine is taken that is to say that the Divinity joyns and unites them unto it self All the Protestants do not indeed say that there was not any Greek Bishop in all Pallastine in the XIII Century but they all agree to say That it belongs to the Roman Catholicks to prove that there was at that time at Gaza a Greek Bishop called Samonas seeing they produce him as a Witness and is such a Witness as no Writer makes any mention of In the same Tome of the Library of the Holy Fathers there is a Confession of Faith made by Nicetas in the XIII Century in favour of those which should be converted from Mahumetism unto the Religion of Jesus Christ wherein he saith Tom. 12. Biâ—â— Patr. p. 53â— That Christians do sacrifice Mystically Bread and Wine and that they participate thereof in the Divine Mysteries He adds nevertheless That he believes they are also truly the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ having been changed by his Divine Power in a Spiritual and Invisible manner above and beyond all Natural comprehension only known unto himself And it is so also saith he that I intend to participate thereof for the sanctifying of Body and Soul for Life Eternal and for inheriting the Kingdom of Heaven This Author saith That what Christians sacrifice and receive at the Holy Table is Bread and Wine that this Bread and Wine are in truth the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ having been changed by his Divine Power not unto all Communicants indifferently but only for them which Communicate with a true and sincere Faith Let the belief of this man be guessed at after all this But now I call to mind that I had almost forgot two Witnesses of the Greek Church of the XII Century one of the Ages whose History we examine in this Chapter to wit Euthymius and Zonarus In Matth. 26. The first saith thus Our Lord did not say These are the Signs of my Body and of my Blood but he said This is my Body and Blood And again As our Saviour Deified the Flesh which he assumed supernaturally so also he changeth these things into his quickning Body Words which Roman Catholicks mightily prize and value thinking that they favour their Hypothesis But it must not be concealed also that in another Treatise Euthymius testifies that he follows the Opinion of Damascen touching the Sacrament alledging to this effect a great passage out of his 4th Book of Orthodox Faith Panopl part 2. titul 21. Now the Opinion of Damascen was neither that of the Roman Catholicks nor the Protestants as hath been shewed in the 12th Chapter And Euthemius seems to assure so much in the words but now alledged when he compares the change befallen unto the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist unto that happened unto the Humane Nature of Jesus Christ when it was taken into the Unity of one person by the Eternal Word besides that in the same place whence both the mentioned passages were taken he said That not the nature of the things proposed should be considered but their vertue which shews that he believed with Damascen that the substance of the Symbols do remain As for Zonarus another Greek Friar we have already seen how he embraced as well the side of those which held that the Mysteries were corruptible as those which supposed them to be incorruptible besides he expoundeth elsewhere the 32. Canon of the Council in Trullo In Concil 6. in Trullo can 32. The Divine Mysteries saith he I mean the Bread and the Cup represents unto us the Body and Blood of our Saviour for giving the Bread unto his Disciples he said Take Eat This is my Body and giving them the Cup he said Drink ye all of it This is my Blood CHAP. XIX An Account or Narrative of the XIV and XV. Centuries DUring the Papacy of Boniface the VIII who had so great a contest with Philip the Fair one of our Kings there was in Italy great numbers of Waldensis who were called Fratelli because they stiled themselves Brethren as the Primitive Christians who frequently so denominated themselves where it was that the whole Body of the Church was called the Brotherhood and what induces me to believe that these Fratellis were Waldensis and Albigensis many of whom retired themselves into the Vallies of Piedmont at the time that Waldo and his Adherents were driven away from Lyons is that an uncertain Author which wrote against
them when they were most spoken of and which is Printed with Reynerius and Pilichdorffius observes amongst other things that they called themselves Brethren Bibl. Patr. t. 4. edit 4. p. 819. By this and other Writings saith he it is necessary to prevent the Hereticks the Waldensis c. amongst them they call the Hereticks Brethren It is then of the Waldensis in all probability that Platina Secretary unto the Popes doth speak in the life of Boniface the VIII when marking the year 1302. that is to say the second year after the Institution of the Jubilees by Boniface In Bonifacio VIII There are some that write that at that time Boniface caused to be dis-interred and burnt the Body of one Herman which was reputed at Ferrara to be a Saint 20 years before but having made a strict inquiry into his Heresie I am inclined to believe that he was of the number of the Fraticelli which Sect increased very much at that time In Clement V. And in the Life of Clement V. at Novara saith he Dulcin and Margret invented a new Heresie which allowed Men and Women to cohabit together and to satisfie their filthy lusts These were called Fraticelli Clement set about suppressing of them and speedily dispatcht thither Soldiers under the conduct of an Apostolical Legat who finding them setled in the Alps destroyed them some by the Sword some by Famine and some by Cold and other Cruelties And as for Dulcin and Margret being taken alive they were dismembred and having burnt their Bones the Ashes was flung into the Air. Decad. 2. lib. 9 ad ann 1307. Blondus saith the same with Platina Sabellius writes that some seem to make a distinction from these latter and the former but in the main speaking of those which were called Fratelli Fraterculi Fratricelli whom as he saith were spread abroad into several Cities of Italy in some whereof there was some remaining in his time that is to say Enead 9. l. 7. in the last Century He reproacheth them of Nocturnal meetings putting out of Candles unlawful lying together the cruel murder of Children begotten and born in these Criminal Copulations In a word all that was charged upon the Primitive Christians although the most innocent and pure of all mankind as hath been observed in our First Part and according unto what is said by Minutius Felix in his Octavius Whereto might be added what is written by Monsieur de Thoul in his History that the same Crimes were imputed unto the Protestants of France when they separated themselves from the Communion of the Latins I say then to return unto those which were called Fratelli that if they were Waldensis as it is most probable they were without great injustice the testimony of Sabellicus a late Author ought not to be preferred before Authors of the same Age and their Enemies who in the precedent Chapter as hath been shewed have declared very favourably of their Life and Conversations what aversion soever they had against them And as touching their Faith they fully acquitted them from all suspition of Arianism or of Manicheanism and declared that they had sound and good Opinions as to what regarded the Essence of God and all the Symbol of the Apostles Creed But let us yet see what this Anonymous Author will tell us which but now informed us Bibl. Patr. Tom 4. part 2. p. 8. 19 820. that they called one another Brethren for having observed That they preached in private unto a few persons in some Corner of a House and for the most part by Night in all likelihood to avoid persecutions he adds That they pronounced pernicious Doctrines against the truth of the Roman Church under a pretext and shew of sweet and holy Doctrines c. Therefore although they teach some truths as these That it is not lawful to Steal nor commit Adultery nor Slander nor Cheat nor Lye c. yet they instill amongst these guilded Sentences the wicked poison of Heretical Articles which have been condemned by the Holy Church of Rome they seduce the ignorant hinder Souls from Salvation and introduce infinite Evils And proceeding afterwards to the particularizing these Heretical Articles condemned by the Church of Rome Ibid. p. 820 821 825 827. they are found to be the same which are disowned by the Protestants at this day for instance The Invocation of Saints Humane Traditions Indulgences and some others as we were informed in the foregoing Chapter and by their Confessions of Faith and by the Testimonies of Writers of their times their Adversaries That they believed of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper the very same that those called Calvinists do believe of it I do not here say any thing of the Bull which Clement the V. made for the observation of the Feast of the Sacrament Instituted by Urban the IV. nor of the Institution of the Procession because I shall be obliged to speak of them when I come to treat of the Worship I will only observe that besides the Waldensis and Albigensis there was at Herbipolis about the year 1340. one Conrad Hagar who as appears by the Bull of Otho Bishop of the place as Hospinian observes confessed that during the space of 24 years Hist Sacram. l. 4. c 13. catalog testium verit l. 18. he had believed and taught that the Mass was not a Sacrifice that it was not profitable unto the Quick nor the Dead and that therefore no body ought to Celebrate it But that was nothing in regard of the noise which John Wickliff Doctor in the University of Oxford and Professor in Divinity made in England about the middle of the XIV Century The Friar Walsingham who hated him mortally for having spoken freely against those of his Order and who represents him as having many followers at Oxford and elsewhere chargeth him amongst other things of teaching In Edwardo III ad an 1377 T. 2. c. 19. 20. That the Eucharist after Consecration is not the real Body of Jesus Christ but the Figure And Thomas Waldensis He believes absolutely saith he that the Natural Bread remains in the Eucharist and that after a kind of Figurative Speech it is the Body of Jesus Christ that the Body of Jesus Christ is only in Heaven as to its nature and substance and in the Sacrament figuratively as John Baptist was said to be Elias the Rock Christ and the seven Ears of Corn seven years And Widford which undertook to refute Wickliff by order of Thomas Archbishop of Canterbury lays down for the first Article he intended to handle In sasciculo rer expetend sugiend p. 96. Apud Usser de success statu Christ Eccles c. 3. That the substance of Bread remains upon the Altar after Consecration and that it ceaseth not to be Bread And Wickliff affirmed in a Manuscript Treatise of Thomas Waldensis which was in the hands of Dr. Usher Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of Ireland That
Age And doth moreover observe that most of the English Prelates connived at what they taught so that being besides favoured by several persons of Quality they made open profession of their Faith so far as they affixed publickly upon the Doors of St. Paul's Church in London certain Theses which were no ways favourable to the Doctrine of the Latin Church nor to its Clergy At the same time there were several Waldensis at the Straits of the Alps which divide France and Italy as we are informed by 1 Contr. Vald. fol. 2. Claud de Cecill Arch-Bishop of Turin and of a Bull of Clement the Seventh granted at Avignion against them in the Year 2 His Bull is in the Chamber of Accounts at Grenoble 1380. and put in Execution by one Francis Borelli Inquisitor of the Order of preaching Friars who persecuted them cruelly for several years and put many of them to death I know not whether the University of Paris intended not to speak of the same Waldensis in the Letter which it directed unto Charles the Sixth in the Year 1394. 3 Tom. 6. Spicil p. 97. complaining amongst other things That the Hereticks which have already began to appear finding none to punish them do make great progress and not only scatter abroad ther pernitious Heresies publickly but also in private The XV. Century proved more fatal unto the Waldensis and Lollards in England for from the first year the Persecution was begun against them in pursuance of an Act of Parliament which gave power to put them to death if they recanted not their Religion as 4 In Hypodig Neustr ad an 1401. in Henrico IV. Walsingham doth testifie But notwithstanding all this they lost not their courage nor abandoned the Doctrine they had until then professed On the contrary the 5 In Henr. IV. same Historian observes that the year following they proposed several Thesis's but privately for fear of the punishment which had been appointed Theses which were nothing favourable unto the Doctrine of the Roman Church which renewed the Persecution against them during which several of them were burnt alive which this Friar saith was done in the Years 1410 1414 1417. even insulting after a most unchristian manner at the death of these people as did also Thomas Waldensis who speaking unto King Henry the Fifth doth mightily commend the continual punishments which was inflicted upon them In Prolog t. 2. doct 11. ad initium prologi saying That Prince proceeded according to the Command of Jesus Christ who nevertheless requires not Consciences to be forced but persuaded and whose Gospel is made up of love and of mildness But whilst these things were acting in England there was in Bohemia infinite numbers of people that made open profession of the same Doctrine for which the Lollards were persecuted in Great Britain for besides the Waldensis which had retired themselves thither a great while before by reason of the Persecution stirred up against them in Picardy as Dubravius Bishop of Olmuz informed us in the precedent Chapter At the beginning of this Century there was made in that Country a considerable Separation from the Roman Church according to the Testimony of the same Dubravius and of Eneas Silvius in their Histories of Bohemia 'T is true this Separation was not alike in all for some only desired the Restitution of the Cup unto the people being of accord in all other points with the Latins and those for this reason were called Calixtins but as for the others they disowned the same Doctrine of the Communion of the Latins which the Waldensis and Wickliffites had opposed and did still oppose and because as some alledge these latter joyned themselves unto the Waldensis which had been setled a long time in this Kingdom and used to assemble themselves in the Mountain of Tabor they were called Taborites as Dubravius hath observed But let us hear what this Prelate intends to say touching this Separation when having spoken of the Jubilee celebrated at Prague in the Year 1400. he adds Unto this time the Christian Religion Lib. 23. hist Bohem. which had been once received by the Bohemians with all the Ceremonies of the Apostolick See had continued stedfast in Bohemia in its purity but after that time it began to faulter and decline as soon as John Hus which in the Language of the Country signifies a Goose began to make a noise amongst the Swans and by his sound to conquer the sweetness of their singing by the assistance of a Faction which made it self considerable In fine the progress was so great that he writes That the Taborites so ordered matters Ibid. l. 24. that in the City of Prague there rested no sign of the ancient Catholick Religion Also the Friar Walsingham testifies that the Emperor Sigismond returned from Constance into his own Territories after the Council had elected Pope Martin the Fifth In Henr. IV. To employ all his strength to ruin the Enemies of Religion and the Heresie of the Lollards which were mightily increased in the Kingdom of Bohemia by the lukewarmness and support of his elder Brother Dubravius proceedeth farther for after the Coronation of Sigismond at Prague Ubi supra l. 26 he proposeth the Tenets of the Taborites but after a manner that is not exactly conformable unto their Confession of Faith by which nevertheless their Belief ought to be judged because it is in those publick Acts that for the most part is declared what is believed in matters of Religion And treating of Moravia upon the Year 1421. he observes that Country was not then infected with the Heresie of the Taborites but in that same year they began there to establish themselves Renewing saith he the ancient Error of the Picards that is to say of the Waldensis to wit that none ought to kneel unto the Sacrament of the Altar because the Body of Jesus Christ is not there having ascended up into Heaven both in Body and Soul and that there remains only the Bread and Wine I know very well that the Bishop of Olmuz chargeth them in the same place of teaching that the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist is such Bread and Wine as each particular amongst the people may take with their own hands that the hand of the Priest is no more worthy then that of a private Lay person And to vomit saith he other Blasphemies against the real Body of Jesus Christ But because the quite contrary doth appear by their Confession of Faith I know not whether it would be reasonable to admit of this Accusation coming from the Pen and hand of an Enemy Eneas Sylvius Cap. 35. who was afterwards Pope Pius the Second speaks of those people at large in his History of Bohemia he relates several things of them agreeing with the Doctrine of the Protestants but he also mentions other things which the Protestants do not approve the which in all probability were unjustly
imputed unto them because there is not the least sign of it to be found Cap. 10 11 12 13. â—bi supra neither in the Confessions of Faith made by the Waldensis inserted by Paul Perrin in their History nor in that of the Taborites Which by the testimony of Eneas Sylvius had embraced the impious and wicked Sect of the Waldensis Of necessity then their Belief must be the same with the Protestants because that of the Waldensis did agree with it as may be judged by all that hath been hitherto spoken But in fine the Question is to know the Belief of the Taborites touching the holy Sacrament but what can better inform us than their own Confession of Faith drawn up in the Year 1431. by John Lukavitz wherein they declare Confess Tabor Joan. Lukavits that their Belief touching the Eucharist is That the Bread remains in its nature true Bread and that it is the Body of Jesus Christ not by a material Identity but Sacramentally really and truly Then they reject the Opinion of those which say That the same Body of Jesus Christ which is in Heaven is also in the Sacrament Ibid. with all its essential and accidental Proprieties Because say they this would be a means to presuppose that the substance of Bread should cease to be and that it should be converted substantially into the Body of Jesus Christ Moreover they formally deny the Adoration of the Eucharist If John Hus was of the same Opinion of those which were called Taborites it must be owned after so express a Declaration as they made that he opposed the Doctrine of Transubstantion If we give credit unto what is reported in the Acts of the Council of Constance we cannot question but that he was contrary unto this Doctrine In fine The Council doth condemn thirty Articles of John Hus in the 1 Concil Constant sess 15. twenty fifth whereof they make him say that he doth approve of forty Articles of Wickliff's the 2 Ibid. sess 8. three first whereof are directly contrary unto Transubstantiation Moreover there is to be found in the Proceedings made against him that he had preached and taught 3 Ibid. sess 15. That after consecrating the Host at the Altar the material Bread did remain that the substance of Bread remains after Consecration and that the Opinion which the Church holdeth of the Sacrament of the Body of Jesus Christ is erronious Therefore Pope Martin the Fifth Ad finem Concil Constant in his Bull of Approbation of the Council doth not fail of representing John Hus as approving the Articles of Wickliff before spoken of Ibid. He declares also that Jerom of Prague was of the same Judgment that is to say in an Opinion contrary unto the Church of Rome which the Council doth also observe in the twenty first 1 Ibid. sess 21. Session And Gobellin Persona Official of the Diocess of 2 Cosmodrom a tat 6. c. 95. Peterborough who lived at that time thought that he ought not to say the contrary after the Declaration of the Pope and of the Council But if we consult the Works of John Hus printed at Noremberg Anno 1558. with his Martyrdom and that of Jerom of Prague for so it is that their death is therein styled we shall find that he always believed the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and that of Concomitance and the reading of Wickliff's Works for whom he had an extraordinary kindness calling him always Evangelical Doctor could never make him alter his mind nor work upon his spirit the same effects which it wrought upon the Taborites In fine in his Treatise Of the Blood of Jesus Christ against the false Apparisions of it which at that time was frequently published in all parts he said Tom. 1. fol. 155 That the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ is in the Sacrament truly and really after what manner soever it ought to be here below in the Church that is to say as appears by the scope of the whole Discourse invisibly and not visibly as the Autors of these miraculous Apparations would have it be believed And in the same Treatise Ibid. he accuseth of Incredulity those which believed not what he said of the presence of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament He supposed Ibid. That Accidents do subsist without their subject in the Sacrament confesseth that there is no contradiction in saying That the Body of Jesus Christ is here sacramentally Ibid. p. 156. Ibid. p. 158. Ibid. fol. 161. and at the same time in Heaven locally He affirms for truth that his Blood is truly and really in the Sacramen confesseth That Jesus Christ is hidden in the Sacrament And amongst many Inconveniences which he fears these feigned Apparitions of the Blood of Christ might produce Ibid. fol. 162. he puts this down as the fifth That it may be there are some which question whether the Blood of Jesus Christ be in the venerable Sacrament because it doth not visibly appear unto them And a little after he saith That we adore the Body and Blood of of Jesus Christ which is at the right hand of his Father and in the venerable Sacrament made by the Priests The same man writeth in his Treatise of the Body of Jesus Christ Id. t. 1. fol. 164. That the Doctrine of Berengarius is a great Heresie He receiveth for a true testimony of St. Austin's a passage of Lanfranc a sworn Enemy of Berengarius which the Canonist Gratian cites in his Decree under the name of St. Austin In a word in this little Treatise he embraceth and follows all that the Latins believe of the Sacrament of the Altar And that it should not be imagined that he changed his Opinion it is to be observed that amongst several little Treatises which he composed during his Imprisonment at Constance Cap. 2. p. 32. t. 1 there is one Of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ written Anno 1415. wherein he teacheth the same Doctrine Ibid. declaring moreover That all that the Church of Rome believes of the venerable Sacrament ought to be believed That he had preached this Doctrine from the beginning unto that day And in fine Ibid. fol. 49. Ibid. fol. 40. c. 3 That he believed Transubstantiation And saith he I never taught that the substance of material Bread remained in the Sacrament of the Altar He adds a little after That the Body and Blood of our Saviour remains in the Sacrament as long as the Species of Bread and Wine do subsist In another little Treatise wherein he examines whether Lay-persons should receive under both kinds he lays it down for a truth That the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ is under both species of the Sacrament that is to say that he is entirely under the species of Bread and entirely under that of Wine He that writ the History of John Hus particularly the conflicts he was to suffer at
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
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