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
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
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
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
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
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
exterminated like so many Witches and Sodomites whereby they were necessitated to desire the protection of this Prince who the better to be informed of the truth of matters Carolus Molilinae in Monarch Franc. sent thither one of his Masters of Requests called Fumee and a Doctor of Sorbon a Jacobin called Parvy who was his Confessor They visited the Parishes and Temples of those people where they found neither Images nor Ornaments for the celebrating of Masses nor any marks of the Ceremonies of the Church of Rome and having strictly examined and informed themselves of the crimes charged upon these Albigensis they found not as much as the least appearance thereof On the contrary it was clearly made evident unto them that those of Merindol and others which made profession of the same Faith were strict observers of the Lord's Day that Infants were baptized by them according to the practice of the primitive Church and that they were well instructed in the Law of God and in the Apostles Creed The King having received the Report of Fumee and Parvy affirmed with an Oath Ibid. That these Waldensis were the best and honestest people of his Kingdom All this hindred not their Enemies from undertaking again to accuse them of several Crimes in the Reign of Francis the First unto whom they presented a Confession of their Faith in the Year 1544. to justifie their Innocency Therein they explain themselves upon the Article of the Sacrament just as the Protestants do at this present But it is time to pass from Provens into Piedmont Claude de Cecil Advers error sectam Valdens fol. 1 2 7 8 9 10 20 61. Arch-Bishop of Turin hath already informed us that the Waldensis had setled themselves in the passage of the Alps within his Diocess upwards of two hundred years before he wrote against them and he wrote above a hundred years ago that they had continued there until his time preaching publickly and defending their Doctrine in Disputes against their Adversaries This Prelate acknowledgeth that in writing against them he undertakes a difficult task seeing that Popes and Princes have employed all means imaginable against them without ever being able to make them renounce the Profession and Belief which they embraced He grants that the covetousness of the Clergy and their ill conduct was the occasion of those people's separation He reckons up most of the Articles of their Belief which are found to agree with those which are received and professed by Protestants Ibid. fol. 55 56 'T is true he doth not speak positively of the Sacrament it may be because he will not stand to examine what the most knowing amongst them said of this Article seeing they are things so high and mysterious that the greatest Divines are scarce able to understand and much less to teach them blaming moreover those of the Latin Church who writing against these Waldensis troubled themselves in vain about the difficulties which attended the subject of the Sacrament As for their life and manners this same Prelate renders them this testimony Ibid. fol. 9. Excepting only saith he what they teach against our Belief and our Religion they lead a purer and more innocent life than other Christians do Ibid fol. 4. And speaking of the holy Scriptures he saith That they believe only what is contained in the Old and New Testament Ibid. fol. 10. Therefore he declares That he will cite nothing against them but what is contained in the holy Canon which themselves saith he do allow of But besides the testimony of this Bishop Apud Thuan. hist lib. 6. Monsieur de Thoul mentions some others which are no less favourable unto them In the first place That a person of Quality in Provens in Francis the First his time mentions them as people which were very constant in serving God and of paying the King and Lords in whose Territories they lived the Tribute and Sums due not failing in the Obedience due unto them Ibid. Secondly he alledges that of William du Bellay Lord of Laugay who in the relation he made of them unto Francis the First according to the Order which he had to that purpose These Waldensis which saith he had been in Provens about three hundred years he could not charge them with any thing but some points touching Religion and which was common with them and the Protestants as not kneeling unto Images of not offering them Candles nor any thing else not praying for the Dead and of celebrating Divine Service different from the Church of Rome and in the vulgar Tongue and some other points of this nature Which is the reason that Cardinal Sadolet unto whom they sent their Confession of Faith agreeing with that of the Protestants Apud Thuan. hist l. 6. declared freely That the other things laid to their charge beside the Heads contained in that Book were nothing but things forged to render them odious and meer fooleries And Monsieur de Thoul himself Ibid. who mentions some of the things which they believed of the same which Protestants do acknowledgeth That they had been charged with other things concerning Marriage the Resurrection of the Dead the state of Souls departed From these Waldensis are lineally descended from Father to Son those which in the Alps whether in France or in the Territories of the Duke of Savoy at Cabriers and at Merrindoll in Provens make profession of the Protestant Religion of whom we have no thoughts of speaking nor of extending any farther this History because that Luther began to appear in Germany Zuinglius in Switzerland in the Year 1517. Farrel at Geneva Anno 1535. and afterwards several others in other places which have all opposed the Tenet of Transubstantiation although they agreed not all about the Article of the Eucharist So that I should here conclude the History of the Doctrine and of the Alterations which have thereupon ensued were I not obliged to speak somewhat of other Churches besides that of the West There is in the Library of the holy Fathers a Liturgy of the remainder of the ancient Christians in the Mountains of the Kingdom of Mallabar in the East-Indies Missa Christian apud Indos t. 6. Bibl. Pat. p. 142. where they speak after this manner Our Lord Jesus Christ in the night in which he was betrayed took the holy Bread into his holy hands listed up his eyes unto Heaven and gave it unto his Disciples saying Take eat ye all of this Bread this my Body The Church of Ethiopia expresseth the Sacramental words in such a manner that they make a metaphorical and figurative proposition as the Roman Catholicks and Protestants do confess for she saith 1 Literae Aetheop Jesuit Alphon. ann 1626. edit Roman an 1628. This Bread is my Body As for the Armenians if we believe Guy of Perpignan and Thomas Waldensis they do deny Transubstantiation 2 Uterque apud Vald. t. 2. c. 30. They teach
the Assemblies of these milerable Creatures which cannot be read without horrour and on this occasion I had rather imitate the modesty of S. Cyrill of Jerusalem than the liberty of S. Epiphanius that is be as wary in writing these abominable Mysteries as S. Cyrill was in Preaching when he was absolutely necessitated to say something of them Nevertheless those who desire to see the particularities of what passed in the Celebration Epiphan hares 26. which these miserable Wretches pretended to make in the Eucharist need only read what S. Epiphanius hath writ in the Heresie of the Gnosticks whilst I shall only mark that when any of the Women which they had debaucht were with Child they used means to make her miscarry and discharge her burthen when they listed then would they take the Infant and pound it in a Mortar with Honey Pepper and other Aromatick drugs after which this Fraternity of Swine and Doggs being assembled each of them would take of this Infant so pounded and would eat of it which done they would make their Prayers unto God and esteemed this Ceremony for a perfect and compleat Sacrament And because these abominable Hereticks assumed the name of Christians they were the cause that Pagans and Infidels imputed unto the whole Christian Church these horrible impieties and it was the end which Satan proposed in raising up these execrable Wretches â—useb hist Eccles l. 4. c. 7. The Devil saith Eusebius making use of these instruments hath in the first place east into Hell like so many slaves those whom they had seduced then he gave unto the Gentiles profest Enemies of our Religion a large and ample Subject and Matter to scandalize and speak evil of the Gospel in as much as this Infamy which took its Original from the Gnosticks was imputed unto all the Christians to disgrace them He also observes that it was from thence the false rumours were raised and spread abroad of their unlawful Copulations wherewith they were asperst of Brethren with Sisters and Children with their own Mothers as also of these barbarous and inhumane Feasts where the flesh of some little innocent Infant was served up as meat and nourishment Epiph. ub sup S. Epiphanius hath also observed that it was a device of the Devil to slander the purity of the Christian Religion and to stop the progress of the Gospel of the Son of God Orig. cor tra Cels l. 2. l. 2. in Rom. Baron ad an 120. â— 125 126 129. Cyrill Hieros Catech. 16. it is also unto the abominable Mysteries of the Gnosticks that Origen imputes the cause of those same Infamous reports and Cardinal Baronius in his Ecclesiastical Annals refers them unto the same cause and confesseth they were their Rise and Original S. Cyrill of Jerusalem in his Catechisms derives these reproaches against Christians and those calumnies wherewith they asperst their Holy Profession not from the Mysteries of the Gnosticks as others did but from those of the Montanists which nevertheless cannot be because S. Justin Martyr who lived before Montanus makes mention of it Nevertheless S. Cyrill imputing something of that kind unto the Montanists we shall be obliged to say something thereof when we shall have done with the Gnosticks in the mean while I shall say two things First That several of the Holy Fathers have in their Writings hinted these false reports which were spread abroad to the disgrace of Christians but without touching the cause that produced them as Justin Martyr and Athenagoras in their Apologies Tatian against the Greeks Theophilus of Antioch in his Books to Autolycus Tertullian in his Treatise to the Nations and in his Apologetick Minutius Felix in his Octavius The Second thing is that although several have spoke of the Gnosticks besides S. Epiphanius as S. Iraeneus Philastrius Bishop of Bresse S. Austin and Theodoret and that the three last have mentioned their abominable Mysteries Nevertheless because S. Epiphanius hath done it more exactly than any of them and that he hath particularly observed all things that were practised in those wicked Assemblies we have followed what he hath written of them But because some of the Fathers have said that the Montanists and Pepusians practised something very like the abominations of the Gnosticks it will be necessary after having treated of the Mysteries of the one to examine and treat of the Mysteries and Eucharist of the others Montanus was an Arch-Heretick born in a Village called Ardaba in a part of Myssia bordering upon Phrygia and not being able to satisfie his Ambition which made him aspire unto the chiefest power in the place of his Birth he suffered himself to be corrupted with the inspirations of the Devil and as if he had been possest with a Prophetick Spirit he undertook to reveal things to come and chose for his Companions Priscilla and Maximilla which he made pass for Prophetesses Some say that he called himself the Paraclete others say that he taught that it was in him the promise was to be accomplished which Jesus Christ made of sending his Spirit after his Ascension into Heaven and not upon the Apostles as the Gospel doth testifie S. Epiphanius and others say that he differed nothing from the Catholicks and the Orthodox as to matter of Doctrine but only as to Discipline which he established more strict and austere than other Christians This severity was so taking with Tertullian that he suffered himself to be surprized and was so obstinate that although he was one of the greatest Wits and learnedst Men of his time yet he called the Catholicks mere Libertines Sensual and Carnal but in fine he left great Numbers of Sectaries and Followers which from him were called Montanists Cataphrygians from Phrygia where they made their chiefest residence and Pepusians from a little Village of that Country called Pepusia but by them called Jerusalem to make it the more famous and to raise the Dignity and Credit of it and it is unto these Followers of Montanus that several have imputed the like Mysteries of the abominable Gnosticks Philast de Haeres l. 4. Bibl. Pat. p. 13. Philastrius in his Catalogue of Heresies chargeth them with Celebrating the Mystery of the Cynicks and the execrable impiety which is committed in murdering a little Infant whose Blood they mingled as he saith in their Passeover and in their Sacrifice Isid Pelus l. 1. Ep. 242. Cyrill Hierosol Carech 16. p. 178. S. Isidore of Damieta mentions somewhat in his Letters but 't is nothing in respect of what S. Cyrill of Jerusalem reports in his Catechisms This Montanus saith he being distracted and out of his wits had the impudence to say that he was the Holy Ghost he that was a miserable a vile wretched Man and full of all mannâ—r of impiety and wickedness which it is sufficient to intimate by some signs ethrough respect which is to be had unto some Women here present he strangled young Children and cut them in
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
standing at the Altar of God that is to say at the Sacrament Table and St. Chrysostom informs us in one of his Homilies that it was so practised even in his time Chrysost t. 1. Hom. 22. de Simult ira p. 260. when he exhorts the Communicants or at least when he observes That they presented themselves at the Holy Table and that they there assisted standing on their legs But because this Sacrament is an Object worthy the respect of a Christian because it is the Memorial of the death of his Saviour and at the same time of his love and charity a bond of his Communion with him and an efficacious means savingly to apply unto him the holy Fruits of his bitter death and sufferings St. Cyrill of Jerusalem Cyrill Hiâ—roâ— Mystag 5. at the end of the IV. Century will have his Communicant approach unto the Holy Table not with the hand open and the fingers stretched out but in supporting the right hand with the left that he receive in the hollow of his hand the Body of Christ or as he says some lines before the Antitype of the Body of Christ that he takes care not to suffer any crum to fall to the ground and that having in this manner Communicated of the Body of Christ he draws near unto the Cup having the Body a little bowed in way of Adoration or Veneration to shew the religious respect with which we should participate of these Holy Mysteries The VI. Can. 101 t. 5. Concil Goarâ— in Euchol p. 150. Oecumenical Council ordained something of this kind to wit that one should present himself at the Communion holding his hands in form of a Cross which the Greeks observed a long while after and their Clergy observe it still at this day but as for the people for some time past they receive the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament both together in a spoon but I do not find that the people which came to the Communion were obliged to set themselves in Posture or Gesture of those which adore until that in the XIII Century the Adoration of the Sacrament was established in the Latin Church for this bowing of the Body which St. Cyrill desires is not properly the posture of him who really doth adore because he which adores prostrates himself on his knees before the Object of his Adoration to shew the motions of the profound humility of his Soul and his self-denial before him unto whom by this action he confesseth that he is but dust and ashes But as for St. Cyrill he only desires a little inclination of the Body in approaching unto the Mystical Table to shew the sentiments of veneration and respect which one ought to have for so great a Sacrament not to insist upon what the Eastern Council above mentioned was content to ordain three hundred years after St. Cyrill that we should go unto the Communion with the hands in form of a Cross without mentioning the bowing of the Body which St. Cyrill himself doth not prescribe unto the Communicant but for the reception of the Holy Cup. John Damaseen who borrowed of St. Cyrill and of the VI. Council what he saith of the posture of the Communicant in his time that is in the VIII Century doth not speak a word of this inclination of the Body Goar in Enchoi p. 1â—0 in Goars Notes upon the Ritual of the Greeks And what yet perswades me that Believers communicated standing in the antient Church and that this custom was always practised in the greatest Christian Communions excepting the Latin which changed this custom in the XIII Century is that besides the Greek Church which is of a very large extent and wherein they Communicate standing the Abassins who also make a very considerable Christian Communion do no otherwise receive the Sacrament Alvar. ubi supr During the time the Communion is distributed saith the same Priest Alvarez they are all standing Now it is most certain that the Christians which are fallen into ignorance as for example the Abassins and the Greeks have not taken away any antient customs but rather have added to the number of those observed by the antient Church which is the usual practice of ignorance so to do and if the custom of Communicating standing be still kept in the Eastern Churches it may also be affirmed it was observed in the West seeing that before the Latin Church had introduced in its service the Elevation of the Host to oblige the people to adore it and by consequence before the people were obliged to receive the Communion kneeling a considerable Body of Christians had separated from her and broke off which Body retained and practised the custom of Communicating standing as do at this time the Protestants of Europe called Calvinists excepting those of Holland who Communicate sitting and those of England who kneel in receiving the Communion but their Doctrine declaring sufficiently what they believe of the Sacrament it is easy to see that their kneeling is not addressed unto what they receive from the hands of the Priest at the Holy Table but only unto Jesus Christ who is in Heaven and whom they profoundly adore in the Act of the Communion as him who hath purchased for them this great Salvation whereof they are about to Communicate in receiving his Divine Sacrament and of himself by means of his Sacrament who dyed for their Sins and is risen again for their justification The same may also be said of the Protestants called Lutherans although their belief in this point is different from the belief of those in England for in that they kneel at receiving the Communion it is a token of the Adoration which they give unto Jesus Christ but it cannot be said without injustice that they address this Adoration unto the Sacrament because they hold and believe that it is the substance of Bread and Wine after Consecration and farther they do not render this Act of Adoration unto Jesus Christ in vertue of what they believe of his presence in the Sacrament because if so then all those in the assembly should kneel during the Celebration of the Mystery and yet it is only him that Communicates that kneels in the moment that he receives the Sacrament But before I leave this circumstance it may not probably be unnecessary to instance some customs that were practised in the antient Church in the act of the Communion for I find that Lay persons after having received the Sacrament at the hands of the Bishop or Pastour did kiss it It is what St. Jorom mentioneth in his Book against John Bishop of Jerusalem Hieron Ep. 62 Is there any one that hath Communion with you by force is there any one that after having stretched out his hand turns away his face and that in receiving the Holy Food gives you a Judas kiss Monsieur de Valois in his Notes upon Eusebiâ—s his History cites these words of Paul the Deacon speaking of the
potest t. 5. p. 125 6. We must not saith he look only upon the Terms but the Scope of him that speaks the cause and occasion of his Discourse and comparing all together find out the sense and meaning of what is therein contained Nevertheless it must be noted this Rule hath its particular use when the Expressions are doubtful and difficult and when by staying at the Terms and following the rigour of the Letter a convenient Sense cannot be given unto what is said or heard except in such a case nothing hinders but looking unto the scope of him that speaks stress may be laid on his Words and much light taken from his Expressions Thus have the Holy Fathers proceeded in examining the Words used by our Saviour in instituting the Sacrament because all they have told us hitherto are only so many Reflections which they have made upon the Words and Expressions of this Merciful Saviour but because they were verily persuaded that Jesus Christ which is Wisdom it self had an end in instituting this Divine Mystery they would know the end and design which he proposed in leaving this precious earnest of his Love unto his Church Do this saith our Lord in remembrance of me for as often as ye eat this Bread and drink of this Cup saith St. Paul you shew the Lord's Death till he come From whence they concluded that the Intention of Jesus Christ in instituting the Sacrament and that of the Church in celebrating it by his Command was by this means to preserve amongst Christians the remembrance of his Death and Sufferings but because his Death doth suppose his Incarnation and Birth and that moreover his blessed Resurrection and Exaltation into Glory ensued thereupon I find they have included in this Commemoration commanded us by Christ the consideration of his Incarnation bitter Death of his Resurrection and of his Ascension into Heaven According to which some of them join unto the consideration of his Death that of his Incarnation as St. Justin Martyr which saith Just Martyr contra Tryph. p. 296. That the Lord commanded us to make the Bread of the Eucharist in remembrance that he made himself Man for those which believe in him and for whom he made himself Mortal and the Cup in remembrance of his Blood But sometimes also considering the Death of Christ as the end of his Conception and of his Birth because he took not our Nature and was born of a Virgin but to die they are content to consider the Sacrament as a Memorial of his Death only Id. ibid. p. 259. In this regard the same St. Justin said That Jesus Christ commanded us to make the Bread of the Sacrament in remembrance of the Death which he suffered for the Souls of those which have been cleansed from all Malice This was also the meaning of Tatian his Disciple Tat. Diates t. 7. Bibl. Pat. when he said The Lord commanded his Disciples to eat the Bread and drink the Cup of the Sacrament because it was the memorial of his approaching Affliction and of his Death There were others who making this Reflection in themselves that the Death of Christ would be of no benefit unto us without his Resurrection which assures us of his Victory over the Enemies of our Salvation and of the Eternal Father's accepting of the Satisfaction he made unto his Justice in our stead and in consideration whereof he delivers us from the Slavery of Sin and the Devil have considered the celebration of the Sacrament as the commemoration of his Death and Resurrection Such was the Reflection of St. Basil Basil de Bapt. c. 2. p. 581. when he observed that What we eat and drink to wit of the Bread and Wine it is to the end we should always remember him who died and is risen again for us Others in fine considering that Jesus Christ was ascended into Heaven and that he had left us the Sacrament as a pledg of his Presence to comfort us in expectation of his glorious Return they thought the consideration of his Death ought not to be separated from that of his Ascension and that as they should think of his Humiliation and Sufferings they should also think of his Exaltation and Glory This was in all likelihood the meaning of St. Gaudent tr 2. l. 2. Bibl. Patr. Gaudentius when he taught That the Sacrament is our Viaticum or Provision for our Journey whereby we are strengthned in the Way until by departing out of this Life we go to him that it is an earnest of his Presence and the portract of his Passion until he come again from Heaven but an earnest and a resemblance which he will have us take in our Hands and receive with the Mouth and Heart to the end we may have engraven in our Memories the great Benefit of our Redemption To thus much also amounts what is said by the Author of the Commentaries In Cap. 11.1 ad Cor. attributed unto St. Jerome That Jesus Christ hath left us the last Commemoration or the last Remembrance as if one taking a Voyage into a far Country would leave a Token with his Friend to the end that when-ever he look'd on it he should be mindful of his Love and Kindness which he cannot do without shedding Tears if he perfectly loved him and that he gave us this Sacrament to the end that by this means we should always remember the Death which he suffered for us Sedulius hath only transcribed this Testimony in his Commentaries upon the same Epistle and upon the same Chapter Primatius an African Bishop declares in the VIth Century that it was his Judgment and he explained himself almost as the other two had done and Christian Druthmer will say the same in the IXth Century as for the Author of the Apostolical Constitutions Constit Apost l. 8. c. 12. he hath joined all these considerations together For he will have us to remember his Passion his Death Resurrection Ascension into Heaven and his second Coming which will be when he comes with Power and Glory to judge the quick and the dead and to reward every one according to his Works The same thing is to be read in the Liturgy of St. Mark and what is found in that which the Latins use at present comes very near it But the Fathers rest not there for I have observ'd that when they speak of the Eucharist as of a Pledge and Memorial they set it in opposition not only of the Truth but even also of the Truth absent so it hath been understood by Gaudentius Sedulius Primasius the Author of the Commentaries attributed unto St. Jerome in the Passages we have alledged whereunto may be joined these Words of the latter In 1 ad Cor. Cap. 11. That we have need of this Memorial all the time which shall continue until he be pleased to come again It is in the same sense Theodoret said Theodoret in 1 ad Cor. c.
Ambr. de fide l. 1. c. 4. Id. in Psal 118. serm 12. Ibid. serm 13. No Body can be his own Image And elsewhere he opposeth the Image and the Sign unto the Substance It is the Image saith he and not the Truth And again These are Signs and not the Substance Gregory of Nazianzen in his Treatise of Faith against the Arrians whereof we have only Ruffin's Translation unjustly attributed to St. Ambrose Greg. Nazian de fid vel orat 49. p. 729. Id. orat 13. 37. Id. orat 36. as appears by St. Austin's 111th Letter The Resemblance saith he is one Thing and the Truth another for Man was also made after the Image and Likeness of God yet he is not God Accordingly he declares elsewhere that the Image never attains to the Original and that the nature of an Image consists in the representing of the Arch-type Gregory of Nyss Brother unto the great St. Basil spake the same Greg. Nâ—ss de anim refur Gaudent tr 2. in Exod. Aug. de Trin. l. 7. c. 1. Theod in Dan. l. 2. c. 2. Claud. de stat anim l. 1. c. 5. The Image saith he would be no more an Image if it were quite the same with that whereof it is an Image It is in the same sense St. Gaudentius said That the Figure is not the Verity but the resemblance of the Verity And St. Austin in his Treatise of the Trinity What can be more absurd than to say that an Image is the Image of it self And Theodoret in his Commentaries upon the Prophet Daniel The Image hath the Features and not the Things themselves Claâ—dian Mammert Priest of Vienna One Thing saith he is the Truth and another Thing the Image of the Truth And we have already heard Maximius Scholar of the pretended Denis the Areopagite saying These things are Symbols Maxim in c. 3. Hieros Eccles but they are not the Substance There be some which treating of the Eucharist with regard to the Body of Jesus Christ have not forborn these kind of Expresons as the Deacon Epiphanius in the second Council of Nice If saith he it be the Image of the Body Synod Nic. 2. Act. 6. Niceph. de cherub c. 6. t. 4. Bibl. Patr. it cannot be the divine Body it self And Nicephorus Patriarch of Constantinople How is it that one and the same Thing is called the Body and the Image of Jesus Christ for that which is the Image of any one cannot be his Body and that which is the Body cannot be the Image because every Image is a thing different from that whereof it is an Image And we shall see in due Time that it was in the ninth Century the Doctrine taught by Ratran Bertram de corp sang Dom. That the Earnest and Image is Earnest and Image of something c. that is that they refer not unto themselves but unto another But what may some say is that all you have observed in travelling in the Dominions of Ecclesiastical Antiquity The Registers of that Kingdom do they contain no other Laws and have you found no other Maximes in its Records Is it possible that the wise and prudent Councellors who in the several Ages have had the Government and Conduct of it have agreed to speak so meanly of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper and consider'd this great and sublime Mystery but as the Image the Figure the Type the Symbol of the Body and Blood of our Lord as if a Believer under the Gospel were to feed his Soul only with empty and vain Figures with Images without efficacy and with Sacraments without any virtue Reader have but a little patience and you shall see that the holy Fathers have not abandoned their Belief unto Scorn or Calumny and that they very prudently prevented the Reproaches which would have been made against them What likelihood is there that Persons of so much Light and Knowledg as the antient Doctors of the Church were should speak meanly of the venerable Mystery of the holy Sacrament they who so valued and commended and highly praised the holy Scriptures which St. Paul calls the Power of God unto Salvation unto those which believe Rom. â— 16 and who have consider'd it as the powerful and efficacious Instrument of the Conversion and Salvation of Men which made St. Justin Martyr writing against Tryphon the Jew to say Just Martyr contra Tryph. We have not believed vain Fables and Words which cannot profit but which are full of the Spirit of God and grow into Grace for as he observed a little before the Words of our Saviour have in them something which command a Respect and Fear and they are able to shame those which turn from the right way whereas those which exercise themselves therein find Comfort and Peace What appearance is there that these same Fathers which have given unto Baptism one of the Sacraments of the New Testament which the Apostle calls the Washing of Regeneration Tit. 3. Gal. 3. and wherein he assures that we put on Jesus Christ such great high and magnificent Commendations and Encomiums calling it the Remedy which drives away all Evils the Death of Sin the Chariot which carries to Heaven the Deluge of Sin the Scattering of Darkness the Key of the Kingdom of Heaven the Inlargement from Slavery the Breaking of Bonds the putting on of Incorruption Grace Salvation Life the Remedy the Antidote that which leads to Immortality the Water of Life the Waters which can extinguish the Fire to come and which bring Salvation the best and most excellent of the Gifts of God and several other Elogies of this Nature I say what likelihood is there that they should have had any meaner lower or less honourable thoughts of the holy Sacrament and that after the Apostle's Declaration 1 Cor. 10. That the Bread which we break and the Cup which we bless are the Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ that they should look only upon this Sacrament as an empty and bare Sign without any effect or virtue without raising their Contemplations any higher Alas God forbid we should ever do them the Injustice as to think so In short if they taught that the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament are Images and Figures they judged them not to be empty Figures which had no other use nor virtue but to set before our Eyes some form that may be like the Original whereof they are Figures like the Images and Pictures which are to be seen in Painters and Carvers Shops they have firmly believed that they are Signs instituted by God and consequently accompanied with his Grace and Benediction which makes them efficacious unto those which receive them worthily and that with holy dispositions draw near unto the Mystical Table And if I mistake not this is what St. Epiphanius means when speaking of this Sacrament he saith Epiph. in pan exposit fid That the Bread is the Food or
them carnally profiteth nothing at all by them It is carnal to be concerned how he came down from Heaven and to account him the Son of Joseph and how he will give us his Flesh to eat These Things I say are all carnal which ought to be understood mystically and spiritually Ibid. And how should they understand what it was to eat his Flesh They should have staid a convenient Time and not have gone away have enquired and not despaired the words which I have said unto you are Spirit and Life that is they be Divine and spiritual they have nothing of the Flesh nor no natural Consequence they are exempt from all these Necessities and above the Law of all things here below When he saith the Flesh profiteth nothing he speaks it not of his true Flesh but of those which understand the Things which are spoken in a carnal Manner And what is it to understand carnally It is barely to look upon the Things which are spoken without judging any farther For Things which are seen are not so to be judged of but to consider all the Mysteries with the Eye of the Understanding And again Those that is the Jews understood carnally and with human Thoughts and these that is the Apostles spiritually and by Faith therefore Jesus Christ said The Words which I have spoken unto you are Spirit Do not think that my Doctrine is subject to the Consequence and Necessity of things spiritual things will not suffer to be subjected unto earthly Laws St. Austin is so copious and abundant upon this Subject that I should fear tiring the Reader if I should undertake to report all that he saith It shall then suffice not to weary you with a long Chain of Passages to make choice of some of the clearest and to this purpose I 'le begin with the famous Testimony which is seen in the third Book of Christian Doctrine Aug. de Doctrin Christ l. 3. c. 16. If it be a Command that forbids any Crime or Wickedness or that commands any Charity or Utility the Proposition is not figurative but if it seems to command any Crime or Wickedness or that it forbids any Utility or Good it is figurative If saith Jesus Christ you eat not the Flesh of the Son of God and drink not his Blood you have no Life in you He seems to command some Wickedness or a Crime it is therefore a Figure which commads us to communicate of the Passion of our Lord and profitably to remember that his Flesh was crucified and broken for us Id. de verb. Dâ—m Serm. 33. tr 25. in Joan. Id. in Joan. tract 26. Id. tract 1. â—n Ep. Joan. Unto this excellent Passage I 'le add these Advertisements which he gives us Prepare not the Mouth but the Heart wherefore do you prepare the Teeth and the Belly believe and you have eaten him And what he saith elsewhere to believe in him is to eat the living Bread he that believes in him eats he is invisibly fatned because he is invisibly regenerated And again Id. in Joan. tract 26. They have shed the Blood of Jesus Christ when they persecuted him and they drank it when they believed And again This is the Bread which came down from Heaven to the end that whosoever eateth thereof should not die that is to be understood as to the Vertue of the Sacrament Ibid. and not as to the visible Sacrament it is to be understood of him that eateth inwardly not outwardly which eats in his Heart and not grinds with the Teeth Again This then is to eat this Meat Id. in Psal 98. and to drink this Drink to dwell in Christ and to have Christ dwell in them And in fine upon the 98th Psalm understand spiritually what I have said unto you you shall not eat this Body which you see and shall not drink the Blood which they will shed that will crucifie me I have given you a Sacrament which being spiritually understood will quicken you and if it be necessary to be celebrated visibly yet it must be understood invisibly Fulgent Serm. de dupl Nativ This was also the Mind of St. Fulgentius younger than St. Austin but an African as well as him and moreover a great Follower of his Doctrine to the end saith he that Man might eat the Bread of Angels the Creator of Angels was made Man feeding both the one and the other and yet remaining intire O how excellent is this Bread which feedeth Angels by the Sight to the end they may be satisfied with him in his Kingdom and which feedeth us by Faith so that we should not faint by the Way Unto these two Africans we may join a third Facund l. 12. c. 1. to wit Facundus Wherefore should he have asked them if they also would forsake him if they had understood what he had said spiritually for in understanding the Mystery they could not have been offended and would not have departed from him But they were asked to the end they should answer That although they had not understood what had been said they might be kept in aw by the Authority of their good Master and that in them he might give us a wholesom Example of Humility and Piety that where Knowledg is wanting we should give place unto Authority In fine St. Peter so answers unto our Saviour's Question that he saith not that he will not depart because he understood the Mystery but because that it self which had been said by such a Master appertained doubtless unto eternal Life For he saith Lord to whom shall we go thou hast the Words of eternal Life and we have believed and known that thou art the Christ the Son of the living God Whereas if he had understood this Mystery he would rather have said Lord we have no need to depart because we believe that it is by believing in thy Body and Blood that we must be saved So that we must not wonder if Philo of Carpace or some other under his Name requires for this Manducation the Lips of Thoughts and the Teeth of Meditations if he esteems it a Divine Banquet If we were permitted to carry on this Tradition we might continue the Proofs until the Separation of the Waldenses and Albigenses Tom. 1. Eâ—â—â— Pat. p. 229. but not to infringe the Rule which we have set we will say no more now deferring to produce the other Testimonies each in the Age wherein they lived After having examined what the Holy Fathers believed of the eating the Flesh of Jesus Christ we must enquire what was their Opinion touching the Communion of the Hypocrites and the Wicked that is if they have judged that wicked Men did in reality eat the Body of Christ or its Sacrament only Origen in Matth. cap. 15. Origen first demands Audience and thus declareth himself No wicked Person saith he can eat the Word it self which was made Flesh for if it were possible for him
Sacraments of his Body and Blood in the Species of Bread and Wine that is to say Gaud. ubi supra p. 16. in the Substance of Bread and Wine For by the Species the Ancients did not understand Accidents without their Subject because they have declared that could not be but they understood the Substance it self of things so that in their manner of Speech the Species of any thing is the thing it self As when St. Aug tract 11. in Joan. Ib. p. 14 Austin speaks of the Species of Baptism to signifie Baptism St. Gaudentius thus continues his Instruction The Creator of Natures himself and the Lord which bringeth forth Bread out of the Earth doth again make his Body of Bread because he can do it and hath promised it and he that made Wine of Water makes his Blood of Wine There was two things which hindred these Neophytes from staggering at these Words the one was That they knew as well as all other Christians that the true Body of Jesus Christ was made a great while ago which made them refer these Words unto the Sacrament The other was That their Catechiser himself obliged them to understand them so when he calls the Eucharist Ibid. 14 16. the Mystery of Bread and Wine and that he saith That the Blood of Jesus Christ is expressed or shewn by the Species of Wine that all Wine that is offered in Figure of his Death is his Blood and that in the Bread is received the Figure of the Body of Jesus Christ Ib p. 14. Ibid. Ib. p. 15 26. And to the end they should not imagine that for being the Figure of the Body of Jesus Christ it ceased to be his Body he declares positively unto them That the Figure is not the Verity but the Imitation or Symbol of the Verity From thence it is that he exhorts them to receive the Sacrament of the Body of our Lord with a Heart full of Zeal and a Mouth that is not languishing and to offer the Sacraments of his Body and Blood in the Species of Bread and Wine Ibid. p. 15. So that when he told them afterwards That Jesus Christ passeth into it that is to say the Bread and Wine they easily conceive that it is in regard of his Efficacy and Vertue wherewith he accompanies the lawful Use of his Sacrament or as he saith himself by the Fire of his Divine Spirit And when he bids them Ibid. p. 15. not to hold that for terrestial which is made celestial it is as if he had said That they should not look at what the Symbols had of earthly and common but to lift up their Souls unto what they have of Heavenly and Divine Ibid. I mean unto the Quality wherewith the Sacrament is accompanied for the Consolation of our Souls Do not boil saith he the Sacrament in the Vessel of a carnal Heart which is naturally subject unto its Passions Ibid. 15 16 this were to account it a common and earthly thing whereas you should believe that it is made by the Fire of the Divine Spirit what it is declared to be For he adds what you receive is the Body of this heavenly Bread and the Blood of this holy Wine because in giving unto his Disciples the consecrated Bread and Wine he said This is my Body this is my Blood Let us believe I beseech you in him in whom we have believed the Truth cannot lye And indeed it would be a criminal Unbelief not to believe what Jesus Christ hath said who is the Truth it self viz. That the Bread is his Body and the Wine his Blood which by the Confession of all cannot be true but in a Figurative and Metaphorical Sense and not properly according to the Letter But St. Gaudentius will not yet have done with his Neophytes he thinks there yet wants something for their Instruction because he hath not yet told them that the Eucharist is a Pledg of the Presence of our Saviour an Earnest which he hath given us to supply his Absence and to comfort us during the Time we are absent from him in setting before our Eyes the Image of the Death which he suffered for us Ibid. p. 16. It is truly saith he this Hereditary Present of the New Testament which he hath left unto you as a Pledg of his Presence in the Night wherein he was betrayed to be crucified it is that Viaticum of our Journey whereby we are nourished by the Way until we go unto him in departing this World for he would that his Benefits should remain with us he would have our Souls to be always sanctified in his precious Blood by the Image of his Passion therefore he commanded his faithful Disciples which whom he established the first Ministers of his Church conticontinually to practise these Mysteries of eternal Life which it is necessary all Priests should celebrate in all Churches throughout the World until Jesus Christ comes again from Heaven to the end that the Priests themselves and all the faithful People should always have before their Eyes the Protraiture of the Passion of Jesus Christ and that carrying him in their Hands and receiving him with the Mouth and the Heart we may have deeply engraven in our Memory the Grace of our Redemption and that we should possess against the Poison of Devils the sweet Antidote of a continual Preservative These Words are sweet and full of Light as well as of Piety but here are others of the same Catechism which made no less Impression upon the Minds of the new Converts and which no less assisted them in understanding of this Mystery In that he commanded saith he to offer the Sacraments of his Body and Blood in the Species of Bread and Wine Ibid. p. 16. it is for a two-fold Reason in the first place to the end the Lamb of God without Spot might give unto the faithful People to be celebrated a pure Sacrifice without Fire or Blood or Boiling the Flesh and that all the World might offer easily and safely then as it is necessary Bread should be made of several Grains of Wheat reduced into Flour by the help of Water and that it be baked by Fire there should reasonably be received in it the Figure of the Body of Jesus Christ who we know made one sole Body of the Multitude of all Mankind Unto these two Catechists I will add a third which was incomparably more famous August Serm. ad Infant ap Fulg. de Bapt. Aethiop it is the great St. Austin who gave this Lesson unto his Neophytes What you see is Bread and it is also what your Eyes do testifie but the Instruction which your Faith desires is That the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ and the Cup his Blood This is said in a few Words and it may be these few may suffice for your Faith but Faith requires to be instructed for the Prophet saith If you believe not
c. 31. in Exod cap. 22. That the Bread and Wine is the undoubted Sacrament of the Body and Blood of the Lord Id. in Sentent l. 1. c. 16. Vide lib. 1. Offic cap. 37. And that it is this Sacrament which Believers offer and which they call an Oblation of Bread and Wine Agreeable unto this Doctrine he speaks elsewhere of the Flesh of Jesus Christ as of the Nourishment of Saints which preserves from Eternal Death and which maketh those that eat it to live Spiritually Id. in lib. 2. Reg. ca. 3. p. 49. and he saith That Jesus Christ ascending into Heaven is gone in regard of his Body but is present according to his Majesty Concil Hispal 2. Concil Eracar t. 4. p. 832. as he said Behold I am with you even to the end of the World And he borrows these words from St. Austin That our Saviour gave unto his Disciples the Figure of his Body and Blood The second Council of Sevil assembled Anno 619. forbids Priests to make the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ in presence of the Bishop The Council of Braga Anno 675. testifies That Jesus Christ gave the Bread apart and the Wine apart He calls that which our Lord gave his Disciples bread And the 16th of Tolledo Assembled Anno 693. Concil Tollet 16. to 5. Concil p. 430. cap. 6. Eligius Noveom in vita ejus l. 2. cap. 15. p. 216. t. 5. Spicil Dacher Ib. p. 217. declares two several times That Jesus Christ having taken a whole Loaf distributed it by parcels unto his Apostles It speaks also of what remains after the Communion as of that whereof too great a quantity may burden the Stomach of him that Eats it The true St. Eloy Bishop of Noyon gave this Precept unto those whom he instructed Let him that is Sick confide wholly in the Mercy of God and receive with Faith and Devotion the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ And forbidding them to Sing the Songs of Pagan he alledges for a reason of this Defence That it is not fit to hear Diabolical Songs proceed out of a Christian Mouth wherein enters the Sacrament of Jesus Christ He retains as may be seen the Ancient Expressions and Doctrine According to which St. Ouen Archbishop of Roan his intimate Friend and Author of his Life which he wrote at large doth observe that as he drew near his Death he said That he would be no longer absent from Jesus Christ Ibid. l. 2. c. 32. p. 264. It was thus the true St. Eloy spake and in so speaking he rejects as false and forged some Homilies that have been published in his name especially the 8th and the 15th the former of these being only a Rapsody composed by several Authors some of which are of the 8th and 9th Centuries whereas St. Eloy died towards the end of the 7th Century Neither doth he that wrote his Life make any mention of these pretended Homilies Thus several do reason CHAP. XII Wherein is examined what passed in the Eighth Century AS Anastatius a Frier of Mount Sinai had rejected the name of Sign or Figure not allowing to say that the Sacrament is only the Sign of the Body of Jesus Christ words which might receive a good Construction as hath been declared in the precedent Chapter so John Damascen surnamed Mansur another Frier of the East extraordinarily given to the worshiping of Images and therefore Anathematized by 338 Bishops Anno 754. bethought himself in the Eighth Century of condemning the terms of Image of Type and Figure but because he stopped not at Expressions but proceeded to the Doctrine it is requisite to see if he therein made any Alteration and if his Innovation favoured the Belief of the Latin Church See here then what he saith Damasc de Fide Orthod l. 4. c. 14. The Bread offered the Wine and the Water are supernaturally changed by the Invocation and coming of the Holy Ghost into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and are not two but one and the same thing Ibid. And a little after The Bread and Wine are not the Type or the Figure of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Ah God forbid but the Body it self of our Lord Deified our Lord himself saying Ibid. This is not the Figure of my Body but my Body not the Figure of my Blood but my Blood And again If some have called the Bread and Wine Figures or Signs of the Body and Blood as St. Basil they spake not after Consecration but they called them so before the Oblation was consecrated As there are two things in these words of Damascen the one regarding the Terms the other the Doctrine we are obliged to examine both to give the Reader all the Information he may expect of us in this matter I will begin with the Doctrine to see if it agreeth with that of the Latin Church If Damascen said that the substance of the Symbols were quite destroyed and that if passed into the substance it self of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ so that there remained no part of the Bread and Wine but the bare Accidents only which subsisted miraculously without their Subject it must be granted that he was of the same Opinion that Roman Catholicks are of at this time and it were very unjust to deny it But if on the other hand he so plainly expressed himself that it cannot be doubted but he believed that the substance of the Symbols remained whatever Change it was that intervened by Consecration it must of necessity be concluded that his Belief upon this Point was not the Belief of the Latin Church The better to succeed in this Enquiry it must be noted that he lays this down for a certain Maxim Id. Dialect c. 1. That the Accident cannot subsist in it self but hath its Being in another Subject Ibid. that the Soul is a Substance and Wisdom an Accident that the Soul being taken away Wisdom also perisheth Ibid. c. 28. That which subsisteth not of it self but hath its Existence in another Id. de Fide Orthod l. 1. c. 17. is an Accident He affirms again That nothing but the Divinity is infinite that Bodies have beginning and ending and a bodily place Ibid. c. 4. and that they may be held that what is invisible and impassible is not a Body All which things do not well accord with the Real Presence Ibid. no more than his restraining the Invisible Presence whereby our Saviour is with us unto the Presence of his Divinity Moreover he affirms positively that the substance of Bread remains and that it nourisheth our Body by turning into our substance Id. l. 4. c. 14. The Shew-bread saith he did represent this Bread and it is the pure and unbloody Sacrifice which our Lord foretold by the Prophet which should be offered unto him throughout the whole World to wit the Body and Blood
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
not that is to say Id. cap. 17. That the Mysteries of our Redemption are truly the body and blood of our Saviour And we shall find say the Protestants that he so explained himself in regard to their Efficacy and their Vertue and of the real and effectual communication of this Body and Blood in the lawful use of this Sacrament and not to say that they are substantially this Body and Blood because that is inconsistent with the Declaration he made just before That the Sacraments of the body and blood of Jesus Christ is the substance of Bread and Wine whereas these things accord very well with saying that although the Sacraments are Bread and Wine in substance yet they are for all that truly the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in Efficacy and in Vertue because they are indeed accompanied with the Vertue and Efficacy of his Divine Body and of his precious Blood the term of truly being opposed not unto figuratively or sacramentally for that would be a contradiction seeing he speaks of Mysteries but it is opposed unto untruth as if the Sacrament were not at all the Body of Jesus Christ unto vainly as if it had only the bare name and nefficaciously as if it had not the virtue And that this is the true sense of the words of Wallafridus it appears by the title of the Chapter entituled Of the vertue of the Sacraments in which Chapter the more to advance the efficacy he with many of the Ancients particularly with Rabanus his Master and with Ratramn his Contemporary interprets the 6th of St. John not of the Flesh and Blood it self of Jesus Christ but of the Sacraments of his Body and Blood or to speak with St. Fulgentius Of the Mysteries of the Truth Fulgent de Bapt. Aethiop and not of the Truth of the Mysteries This is the Reasoning of Protestants At the same time time that Wallafridus wrote his Book Heribald or Heribold Bishop of Auxerr was in great Reputation but because we have that to say of this Prelate as will give a very great weight unto his Testimony we will reserve him for a Chapter unto himself and in the mean while we will say something of Loup Abbot of Ferriers in Gastinais who in that he speaks horably of Heribold as shall be related hereafter may intimate that they were both of one Judgment But these sorts of Inferences are too weak to be insisted upon therefore I will seek for something in his Writings that is more material as in one of his Letters unto Amulus or Amulo Archbishop of Lyons in behalf of Guenilo Archbishop of Sans and of Count Gerrard in speaking of Jesus Christ Lupus Ferratiâ—n Ep. 81. Id. Ep. 40. he said That he raised his Humanity unto Heaven to be always present with him by his Divinity This that he calls Rabanus his Tutor and rendred him thanks for that he took care of instructing him doth no less confirm what he said and gives cause to think that in all likelihood Rabanus had instilled his Opinions into him because most commonly we embrace their Opinions whose Disciples we have been in our Youth especially when they are Opinions received by the Major part of the World Unto which may be added what he saith in the Book of three Questions Id. de tribus quaest p. 208 209. ult edit which Monsieur Baluze proves to be his to wit That God hath subjected spiritual Creatures unto time only but as for bodily things he hath subjected them unto time and unto place and that it cannot be questioned if it be considered that all bodies that have length breadth and depth and which are called solid are never contained but in one place It is evident that he means of being contained circumscriptively otherwise his Opposition would be insignificant being certain that Spirits for instance Angels also fill a place so that whilst they are here they are not there and this is termed to be in a place definitively But to be there circumscriptively appertains only unto Bodies which being made up of several parts are in such manner scituated in the place which they fill that each part of the Body answers unto each part of the place St. Fulgent ad Pet. Diac. c. 3. It not being given unto Bodies to exist after the manner of Spirits to use the terms of St. Fulgentius Seeing then that the Abbot de Ferriers speaks after this manner of the existing of Bodies and that he believes it inseparable from every Corporal Creature without excepting the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist it follows that he believed not this Existence after the manner of a Spirit which is attributed unto him in the Latin Church nor by consequence the real Presence whereupon it depends as one of its necessary Consequences This is what several do infer from this passage The Emperor Charles the Bald being informed that his Subjects were not all of one Opinion touching the Doctrine of the Sacrament thought it necessary to consult some of the most Learned of his Kingdom and such as were of greatest Credit and Esteem Amongst others which he made choice of to write on this Subject he chose two persons whom he esteemed very much the one was Bertram or as he is called by the Writers of that Age Ratramn which is his true name and the other was John Surnamed Erigenius of Scotland that is to say of Ireland according to the Language of our times Their Writings have not had the same fate for those of Ratramn have been preserved unto us but as for those of John they were condemned and burnt two hundred years after at the Council of Verceill And as they were two several Writers so we must also distinguish them in this History and that we speak of each of them severally To begin with Ratramn Priest of the Monastery of Corby and afterwards Abbot of Orbais I say he was a Man so esteemed in his time that all the Bishops of France made choice of him to defend the Latin Church against the Greeks and by the industry of Dom Luke d'Achery a Benedictine Friar we have in our hands the four Books which he composed and are such that when I compare them with that written by Eneas Bishop of Paris in the same Century and in defence of the same Cause I find as great difference betwixt them as betwixt Light and Darkness or at least betwixt the weak Essay of some illiterate person and the accomplished Work of an exquisite Artist because in truth the Work of Eneas is extreamly weak in comparison of that of Ratramn I say of that Ratramn unto whom the Abbot Trithemius ascribes such great Commendations in the XV Century and whom the Disciples of St. Austin Defenders of the free Grace of Jesus Christ so much admired when they made use of what he wrote touching the Doctrine of Predestination Therefore the President Mauguin speaking of him said Mauguin dissertat Hist
time of Charles the Bald by whose Command he wrote it Father Cellot the Jesuit never made any difficulty of this matter freely attributing unto Ratramn the little Treatise whereof we speak and proving by a long Dispute that he was the Fore-runner of Berengarius and of Calvin and that he openly taught that the Eucharist is not the real Body of Jesus Christ which he confirms by the Authority of persons most learned in the Communion of the Latins Allain Despans de Saints du Perron Clement the Eighth which all have had this same Opinion of Bertram and of his Book He observes that Cardinal Bellarmin doth rank him amongst those which have disputed whether the Eucharist is the real Body of Jesus Christ and that it was justly put in the Index of prohibited Books according to the intention of the Council of Trent As for Sixtus de Sienna he found it so contrary unto the Belief of the Latin Church that he took it to be some of the Works of Oecolompadius which the Protestants published in the name of Ratramn It is commonly said that second thoughts are better than the first but Monsieur de Marca seems to go about to give the Lie unto this Maxim by his Conduct for in this French Treatise of the Eucharist a little before mentioned and which he had composed before what we but now examined of his he very judiciously attributes unto Bertram this little Treatise of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and saith That he was consulted on this matter by Charles the Bald This is that whereto he should have held and not to change his Opinion without any solid Ground And it ought not to be said with some that Bertram who was a Friar in an Abby whereof Paschas was Abbot durst not therefore write against him for in the first place who told those persons that Bertram was yet a Friar in the Monastery of Gorby when he wrote against Paschas when probably he was Abbot of Orbais and no way depending upon Paschas And for my part I find much more likelihood of the last than of the former In the second place Wherefore is it that Ratramn should not dare to write against what Paschas writ touching the Sacrament of the Eucharist seeing he feared not in other things directly to oppose one of the necessary Consequences of Paschas his Opinion and plainly to call it Heresie as we have fully made it appear in the 13th Chapter of the second Part of this History It may then boldly and without danger be affirmed after the testimony of so many Learned Men of the Communion of Rome that Ratramn was an Adversary unto Paschas But to make this truth appear in its full lustre it is requisite to alledge some passages of this small Treatise after having shewed that all therein amounted to prove two things one is That the Mystery of the Eucharist is a Figure and not the thing it self and the other That 't is not the same Body which is born of the Virgin Mary as Paschas did teach it was In fine having first of all said unto Charles the Bald Bertram de corp sanguin Dom. That there being nothing better becoming his Royal Wisdom then to have a Catholick Opinion of the sacred Mysteries and not to suffer that his Subjects should be of different Judgments touching the Body of Jesus Christ wherein we know is the Abridgment of Christian Religion he proposed two questions wherein the King desired to be resolved 1. Whether the body and blood of Jesus Christ which Christians do receive with the mouth be made in mystery or in reality And 2. Whether it be the same Body which was born of the Virgin that suffered dyed rose again ascended into Heaven and is set down at the right hand of God the Father Paschas taught That it was the same Flesh as was born of the holy Virgin and his Adversaries on the contrary That it was the Figure and the Sacrament and not the real Flesh If then Ratramn taught That the Eucharist is the Figure and the Sacrament of the Body of Jesus Christ and not the very Flesh it self of necessity it must be concluded that he directly opposed the Opinion of Paschas according to the Declaration made us by the Anonymous Author Id. Ibid. As to what regards the first question see here how it is resolved I demand saith he of those that will not here admit of a Figure and that will have all to be taken simply and in reality I say I would ask of them to what purpose was the change made that it should no longer be Bread and Wine as it was before but the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ for according to the bodily appearance and the visible form of things the Bread and Wine have no change in them and if they have suffered no change then they be nothing else but what they were before And a little after Ibid. there offers here a question which is made by several saying That these things are made in Figure and not in reality and so saying they shew themselves contrary to the Writings of the Holy Fathers And after having alledged two passages of St. Austin one of the third Book of Christian Doctrine and the other of the Epistle unto Boniface he concludes We find that St. Austin saith Ibid. That the Sacraments are other things than that whereof they be Sacraments the Body wherein Jesus Christ suffered and the Blood which flowed out of his Side are the things but the Mysteries of these things are the Sacraments of this Body and of this Blood which are celebrated in remembrance of the Death of our Saviour not only once a year at the Solemnity of Easter but also every day And although there is but one Body wherein our Saviour suffered and one Blood which he shed for the sins of the World nevertheless the Sacraments take the name of the things whereof they be Sacraments and are called the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ by reason of the resemblance they have with the things which they represent as the Death and Resurrection of our Lord which are celebrated yearly on certain days although he suffered and rose but once in himself Those days cannot be brought back again seeing they are past but the days whereon the Commemoration of the Passion and Resurrection of our Saviour is made are called by their names because of the resemblance they have with those whereon our Saviour suffered and rose again In like manner we say our Saviour is sacrificed when the Sacraments of his Passion is celebrated although he suffered but once in himself for the Salvation of the World He saith moreover Ibid. that those which believe the reality make a true confession when they say That it is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ but that they deny what they seem to affirm and that they themselves destroy what they believe for when they
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
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
represents unto us to be purely spiritual Ep. 23. wherein he alledges the words of St. Austin It is a Figure which commands us to communicate of the Passion of our Lord and to represent unto our minds sweetly and usefully that his Body was crucified and broken for us Ep. 1. ad Adeod t. 3. Bibl. Pat. p. 438. A. B Post poeniten mulierum p. 521. E. for I do not regard the Addition that some unadvised hand hath thereunto annexed will the Heretick say And these others of the same Saint Him that dwelleth not in Jesus Christ and in whom Christ dwelleth not doth not indeed eat his Flesh although he eats and drinks the Sacrament of so great a thing unto his Damnation Ibid. p. 522. B. Unto which words in all appearance Berengarius had regard when he said in his Letter unto Richard If the thing were so how should the Doctrine of the Eucharist come to my knowledge which is in the Writings of Bishop Fulbert of glorious Memory Tom 2. Spicil d'Ach. p. 510. and which some esteem to be of this Bishop but it is of St. Austin If it be farther considered that he declares that Jesus Christ is ascended into Heaven and that he hath left us the Sacrament Ep. 1. ad Adcodat p. 437. C. as a Pledge of his Presence that he speaks of what we receive in the Sacrament as of a thing which is broken into very small bits and whereof a little portion is received and that he distinguisheth as Ratramn did Id. Epist 2. p. 440 441. and in the same words the Sacrament which he calls the body of Christ from his true Body If I say all these things be well considered it must presently be concluded that he was contrary unto Paschas Yet nevertheless I would not affirm that he exactly followed the Opinion of his Adversaries not because he speaks of the Transfusion and Change of the Bread into the substance of the Body of Jesus Christ for besides that Id. Ep. 1. p 437 438. he calls this Change a Change of Dignity that is to say of Quality which the Ancients often design by the name of Substance as hath been shewn he compares the Change which happens in the Eucharist unto that which came unto the Manna in the Wilderness and unto that which comes unto Men in Baptism and that he testifies That there is also a Transfusion of Believers into the Body of Jesus Christ Ibid. But I judge so because he seems to me to have embraced the Opinion of Remy of Auxerr which was the same of John Damascen who taught not that the substance of the Symbols was abolished but that they were united unto the Divinity to make one Body with the Natural Body of Jesus Christ as hath been fully shewed And that these were the thoughts of Fulbert it appears if I mistake not by what he saith That the Pledge which our Saviour hath left us is not the Symbol of an empty Mystery but the true Body of Jesus Christ Compaginante Spiritu Sancto Id. ibid. p. 437. or as Remy speaks Conjungente that is to say that the Holy Spirit unites joyns and knits the Sacrament unto the true Body of Jesus Christ in uniting it unto the Divinity Let the Reader judge if I use any violence unto the words of Fulbert and if I vary from his meaning About the time that Fulbert of Chartres flourished Bernon Abbot of Augy wrote his Treatise of things which concerned the Mass to wit about the Year 1030. and Fulbert died in 1027. In this Treatise he speaks of Making and confecrating the Body and Blood of the Lord Cap. 1. 2. t. 10 Bibl. Pat. but the real Body say some and the proper Blood of our Saviour not being possible to be made because it was made a thousand years before Bernon wrote nor be sanctified because it was always holy it must of necessity be understood of the Sacrament Cap. 1. And he shews it plainly when he said That this Body of Jesus Christ is broken Which cannot be understood of his true Body which is not subject unto this Accident and that moreover he declares Cap. 5. That we are refreshed with the Wine which is in the Cup in Type of the Blood of Jesus Christ Nevertheless the Opinion of Paschas establishing it self by degrees Bruno Bishop of Anger 's and Berengarius born at Tours but Arch-Deacon and Treasurer of the Church of Anger 's a Dignity which in former times was not conferred but upon persons of Worth and Learning Bruno I say and Berengarius not enduring that the Opinion of Paschas which they looked upon as an Innovation of the ancient Faith should get possession of the minds of the people opposed it publickly teaching that the Bread and Wine did not lose their substance by Consecration to become the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ but they only became by the Blessing of Sanctification the Sacrament of this Body and Blood The truth is Bruno suffering himself to be overcome with fear became silent a little after for say some it often happens upon these occasions that Men hearken to the Counsels of the Flesh rather than unto those of the Spirit But as for Berengarius he had more strength and courage and opposed himself with more Resolution and Vigour unto the setling of the Doctrine which Paschas begun to teach in the IX Century but without any great success until the XI wherein it also found a great many Opposers I am not ignorant that some Enemies of Berengarius have endeavoured to slander him to render his Belief the more odious but the truth is he was reputed to be a very learned Man grounded in Philosophy and the knowledge of the Liberal Arts and moreover of a holy and unblameable Life A fragment of the History of France from the time of King Robert Tom 4. Histor Franc. de scripror Eccles Platina in Joan. 15. Sabellic Enead 9. l. 2. Chron. tit 16. c. 1. § 20 unto the death of Philip saith That his name was famous amongst the Professors of Divine Philosophy Sigebert saith That he was illustrious for the Knowledge of the Liberal Arts and of Logick Platina and Sabellicus reckon him amongst those which rendred themselves famous by their Piety and Learning Bergomas in the Suppliment of Chronicles upon the Year 1049. observes That he passed a long time in the Judgment of Men to be eminent in Learning and in Holiness Therefore the Arch-Bishop Antonine declares Tom. 2. Spicil p. 747. That he was very learned And the Friar Clarius in his Chronicle of St. Peter of Sans gives him these two Epithets of Admirable Philosopher and Lover of the Poor But in fine the Belief which he maintained upon the Subject of the Eucharist and which was directly contrary unto that of Paschas found the people so disposed to entertain it or rather to declare openly for it so that in all
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
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
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
happened at the end of the IV. Century where he concludes his History I have expresly spoken of legitimate and not forged Writings because I am not ignorant that in the Liturgies attributed unto St. James and St. Mark there is to be seen the custom of Perfume and of Incense at the time of celebrating the Sacrament and there be also Prayers for dedicating it unto God But for as much as the Learned as well Roman Catholicks as Protestants do confess that either they were not the Works of these Servants of God or if they be that they have received many Alterations and that things have been foisted into them unknown unto the first Christians nothing hinders but we may in this number include the use of Incense there being no likelihood that it would have been so late received into the Church if it had been practised by an Apostle and an Evangelist What I say of the Liturgies of St. James and St. Mark I say also of that attributed unto St. Peter wherein we observe the same thing Which example the Christians would not have failed to have observed had all the Liturgies appeared from the beginning As for the Liturgies of St. Basil and St. Chrysostom I would not so positively affirm that what is therein mentioned of the Oblation of Perfume hath been therein inserted since the death of the Authors for although that several things have been thereunto annexed and many things altered and that there be several which even believe that which goes under St. Chrysostom's name is not his but of a more recent Author Nevertheless the Canon of the Apostles which prescribes the use of Incense in the celebration of the Sacrament having been composed before either of these two Doctors of the Church I shall refer it unto others to decide this difficulty although St. Basil upon Psal 115. rejects the Oblation of Incense and I shall content my self in saying that if these two Liturgies are truly St. Basil's and St. Chrysostom's and if what is therein said of the Oblation of perfume hath not been thereunto added since their death there is great cause to wonder that there is no mention at all made of it any where else in the Works of Authors of the times before the Council of Chalcedon at least I have not observed any even in St. Cyril of Jerusalem Mystag 5. who describing particularly enough the form of the celebration of the Sacrament and the dispositions thereunto requisite speaketh not a word of the Oblation of Incense He saith indeed that a Deacon giveth Water to wash his hands that officiated and unto the Priests that be with him that the people are exhorted to give each other the Kiss of Charity to lift up their hearts on high to give thanks unto the Lord that there is mention made of Heaven and Earth of the Sea the Sun Moon and Stars and generally of all Creatures as well reasonable Creatures as Brutes of visible and invisible of Angels and Arch-Angels of Vertues Dominions Principalities Powers Thrones and Cherubims which cover their faces especially those which were seen by the Prophet Esay and which cried one to another saying Holy holy holy is the Lord God of Hosts And after being so sanctified they pray unto God that he will be pleased to send his Holy Spirit upon the Gifts proposed that is to say the Bread and Wine the Consecration whereof the Greeks make to depend upon this Prayer but as for the Ceremony of Incense which we enquire after the least sign of it is not to be found in the whole Catechism As for the pretended Denis the Arcopagite which gave occasion unto this whole Enquiry he began not to appear at soonest until the end of the V. Century or the beginning of the VI. at which time the Perfumes and Incenses were practised in the Service of the Greek Church Tom. 6. Bibl. Pat. I know very well that in the Liturgy which goes under the name of St. Cyril of Alexandria in the Library of the Fathers there is Prayers made for those which furnished the Oblations and Sacrifices the Bread Wine Oyl and Incense and the Vessels used at the Altar So that if it were truly his the introduction of this practice amongst the Greeks should be before the Council of Chalcedon because Cyril was deceased before the Council was convocated But it being very uncertain whether it were Cyril's or whether he was the Author of it or that it hath retained its purity we have not ill assigned unto the Council of Chalcedon the first restimony of this custom amongst the Greeks after the Ordinance of the Canon of the Apostles 'T is true the Request of Ischyrion Deacon of the Church of Alexandria wherein it is spoken of and which is contained in the third Action of this Council seeming to presuppose the establishment of this use but of no long time it may without any inconvenience be said that it began to be practised about the time of the assembling of this Council and probably at Alexandria rather than elsewhere Concil Chalced Act 3. t. 3. Concil p. 247. ult edit according to the Testament of a certain Lady called Peristerie who at her death bequeathed great treasures unto the Church unto Monasteries Hospitals and unto the Poor of the whole Province and also provision to supply the Oblation of Perfume as may be gathered from this Request as also from the time of the death of this Lady which was whilst Dioscorus was Bishop and after the death of Cyril But in as much as this custom of offering Incense unto God at the time of celebrating the Eucharist began to be introduced into the Eastern Church in the V. Century as near as I can judge the Reader will not be offended that I here represent the Prayer which was made unto God in presenting him the Perfume for although it be expressed in divers terms according to the diversity of Liturgies nevertheless because all these Prayers amount in substance unto the same thing this here will be sufficient It is in the Liturgy of St. James I mean Liturgia S. Jacobi in that which goes under his name O Lord Jesus Christ Word of God who offeredst thy self upon the Cross as a holy Sacrifice unto thy God thy Father and thy King which art that Coal of two natures which didst touch with Tongs the lips of the Prophet and didst cleanse him from his iniquities touch also our Understanding Ours I say who are sinners and purifie us from all uncleanness and grant we may present our selves pure and holy at thine Altar to offer unto thee a Sacrifice of Praise And receive of us who are unprofitable Servants this present Perfume in an Odour of a sweet savour Change the ill savour of our Souls and Bodies into a sweet Odour and sanctifie us by the sanctifying vertue of thy Holy Spirit for thou art the only Saint which sanctifieth and communicatest thy self unto the faithful And
Austin that is to say in the V. Century Liber Sacrament in Sabbato Sancto p. 70. 71. And what inclines me to think so is first That in the time of Gregory the first it was practis'd in the Celebration of holy Baptism as it may be seen in his Book of Sacraments whence it may be inferred with great probability that it was also practised in the Celebration of the Sacrament Secondly St. Isidor Archbishop of Sevil who lived in the same time with Gregory although he dyed several years after him speaks formally of it Lib. 7. Etymol c. de Clericis as of a thing already established Those saith he which in Greek are called Acolytes are those which in Latin we call Linkbearers because they carry them when the Gospel is read or when the Sacrifice is offered for then they do light Candles and bear them not to dissipate darkness because the Sun shineth at that time but to express our joy thereby to declare under the Type of a corporal Light that Light spoken of in the Gospel That he is the true Light which enlighteneth every man which cometh into the World Since which time most of those which have treated of Divine Offices have not failed to speak of it and therein to seek as well as in all other things some mystical signification so that it would be but lost labour any farther to follow the traces of this Ceremony which was even at that time generally received amongst the Greeks and the Latins in the East and in the West Therefore may be seen in the Roman Order and elsewhere several prayers for blessing of Torches Candles and Flambeaus which are not necessary here to be inserted One shall suffice for all Ordo Roman t. 10. Bibl. Patr. p. 24. O Lord Jesus Christ bless this Wax we beseech thee and therein pour by the vertue of thy heavenly Cross a heavenly Benediction to the end that by the Sign of the Cross it might receive of thee who hast given it unto men to scatter the darkness of the Night such a force and benediction that in all places where it shall be lighted or set the Devil should avoid tremble and fly for fear with all his Imps from those places and habitations and that he may no more attempt to molest and seduce those that serve thee But having discoursed of the use of Lamps Candles and of Incense the Author of Constitutions called Apostolical obligeth us to speak somewhat of the Sign of the Cross because in his Liturgy of the Eucharist he represents the Bishop making of it when he addresseth himself unto the celebration of the Sacrament It is most certain that the Ancient Christians often made the sign of the Cross at least since the end of the II. Century as Tertullian informs us but before him I do not remember to have observed it a practice those Christians opposed unto the reproach which the Gentiles made them of believing in a Man that had been put to death upon a Cross so that by this sign they would manifest unto their Enemies that they were not ashamed of their crucified Jesus So it is that St. Cyril of Jerusalem explains himself when he said If after being crucified and buried Catech. 4. he had remained in the Grave then we should have cause to be ashamed but he is risen and ascended up into Heaven And elsewhere Id. Catech. 13 Arm your selves against the enemies of this Cross plant for a Trophy against all opposers the Faith of the Cross And when you engage in disputing with Unbelievers touching the Cross of our Saviour first of all make the sign of the Cross and you will put to silence your gainsayers Be not ashamed to confess the Cross of Jesus Christ that is to say of him that was crucified But how frequent soever the Sign of the Cross was amongst Christians I cannot find that during the three first Centuries they commonly used it in the publick Service of Religion and as I only treat at this time of the Sacrament I shall only say that the first places wherein there is any mention of the Sign of the Cross in the celebration of this Divine Sacrament are the Liturgies of the Apostolick Constitutions as hath been declared in this Chapter And this Treatise could not have been written but at the beginning of the IV. Century those attributed unto St. Peter St. James and St. Mark are not as I conceive any Elder having many things in them unknown unto the first Christians As for the Liturgy of Justin Martyr written in the II. Century there is not one word mentioned of it but what I dare not assure of the Sign of the Cross to wit that it doth not appear in the celebration of the Sacrament during the three first Centuries I shall not fear to affirm of the use of material Crosses because there were not yet any used in the Church therefore Tertullian reckons expresly amongst false Opinions Apolog. c. 15. 16. that some Pagans entertained of the object of the Adoration of Christians Minut. in Octav. the fancy of those which thought That they were Worshippers or Admirers of the Cross and in Minutius Felix Cecilius in his Invective against Christians having said That some persons esteemed that the cursed Wood of the Cross was part of their Ceremonies Octavius that excellent defender of Christianity answereth As for Crosses we neither care for them nor Worship them And it is very probable that Christians began not to use Crosses until after it was believed that Hellen Mother of Constantine had found the true Cross of Jesus Christ in the year 326. But if we yet draw nearer unto the Sacrament we shall not find any Cross therein used during all the time which hath been spoken of nor yet later for it doth not appear neither in the Liturgy of St. Justin Martyr nor in those which go under the names of St. James St. Peter and of St. Mark Nor in fine in those of the Apostolick Constitutions of St. Cyril of Jerusalem and of the pretended Dennis the Arcopagite But although the Author of this last lived not at soonest but at the V. Century I know not whether it may be said that the use of Sign of the Cross was not practiced in the publick action of the Sacraments of the Church seeing the contrary appears in the Writings of St. Chrysostom Hom. 55. in Matth. p. 487. Vide t. 5. quod Christ sit Deus pag 840. t. 6. de adorat cruc p. 615. When saith he we be regenerated that is to say Baptized the Cross is there and when we are fed with the mystical food and when we receive Ordination and whatever else we do this Victorious Symbol doth still accompany us But before this excellent Doctor who departed this life Anno 407. I do not find that Crosses were employed in the Service and Worship of Christians and besides the passages of St.
Fourth did institute this Holy Day in that Year if we do not also know that he was inclined thereunto by the desires and upon the Revelations of certain Women of the Country of Liege particularly of a Nun called Eve unto whom he wrote a Letter upon this Subject and another unto all the Bishops the which is contained in the Bull of Clement the Fifth in the third Book of Clementines tit 16. as we are fully informed by John Diesteim Blaerus Prior of St. James of Leige which he composed after having made as he saith an exact enquiry of what had passed in this Institution And to inform the Reader of the nature of these Revelations he adds That the first of these Women called Juliana in praying perceived a marvellous Aparition viz. The Moon as it were at Full but having some kind of Spots Whereupon she was divinely inspired that the Moon was the Church and that the Spot which appeared therein was the want of a Holy Day which as yet was wanting So that she received a Command from Heaven to begin this Solemnity and to pubish unto the World that it ought to be celebrated He saith moreover That this Juliana having communicated her Revelations unto one Isabella this Isabella knowing the troubles Juliana was in upon this Subject she desired of God by earnest Prayers that he would impart unto her the knowledge of these things and that going to visit Eve a Nun of the Church of St. Martins of Leige she no sooner kneeled down before the Crucifix but being ravished in mind she was shewed from Heaven that this particular Holy Day of the Eucharist had always been in the Council of the Soveraign Trinity and that now the time of revealing it unto Men was come for she affirmed that in her Extasie she saw all the Heavenly Host demand of God by their Prayers that he would speedily manifest this Solemnity unto the wavering World to confirm the Faith of the Church Militant I am not ignorant but that there be some which would attribute the cause of this Institution unto a Miracle of Blood which as they say fell from an Hosty in the hands of a Priest as he sang Mass But Besides what Diesteim and after him several others have related unto us we have touching the first cause of this Institution the Declaration of Urban himself which made it For in the Letter which he wrote unto all the Bishops inserted in the Bull of Clement the Fifth he thus speaks We have understood heretofore being in a lower Office that is to say when he was Arch-Deacon of the Church of Leige that it was revealed unto some Catholicks which were the three Women mentioned by Diesteim Juliana Isabella and Eve that such a Holy Day was to be generally celebrated in the Church And in that which he wrote unto Eve We are sensible Daughter that your Soul hath desired with great desire that a solemn Holy Day of the Body of Jesus Christ might be instituted in the Church to be celebrated by Believers unto perpetuity This is the ground and foundation of this Feast and the true cause of its Institution even according to the Testimony of the Life of Juliana the first of these three Women a Testimony whose proper terms is related by Molanus in his Martyrology of Saints in Flanders on the 5th of April But how great soever the Authority of Popes at that time was in the West the Decree of Urban was not observed in all Churches by reason of the newness of the thing therefore Clement the Fifth caused it to be published again about fifty years after as the Gloss upon the Decretal of Clement the Fifth wherein that of Urban is inserted expresly observes But notwithstanding all this it was not hitherto kept as Diesteim informs us in the ninth Article of his Book Although saith he the Apostolical Commands touching the Celebration of the new Holy Day of the venerable Sacrament hath been addressed unto all the Churches yet so it is nevertheless that none of the Churches were careful to give Obedience thereunto excepting the Church of Leige which as soon as it had with honour received the Apostolical Nuncio with the Bulls the Decretals and the Office which he had brought presently as a dutiful Daughter gave Obedience thereunto rejecting the Office which the Virgin Juliana caused to be made and using that which had been composed by Thomas Aquinas And so ever since those Bulls came the Diocess of Liege and no other else hath solemnized this Holy Day until the days of our Lord Pope John the Twenty second who lived in the Year of our Lord Jesus Christ 1315. who published all the Constitutions of Clement and sent them unto the Universities And now if it be demanded of Urban Clement lib. 3 tit 16. si Dominum what profit was made by this Institution he will answer That this Holy Day properly belongs unto the Sacrament because there is no Saint but hath its Holy Day although there is remembrance had of them in the Masses and in the Litanies That it must be celebrated once every year particularly to confound the Unbelief and Extravagance of Hereticks to make a solemn and more particular Commemoration of it to the end to frequent Churches with more and greater Devotion there to repair by attention by humility of Spirit and by purity of heart all the defaults wherein we have fallen in all the other Masses either by the disquiet of worldly cares or by the dulness and weakness of humane frailty and there with respect to receive this Sacrament and to receive increase of Graces Almost the very same thing is to be seen in the Breviary of the Latin Church The Feast of the Sacrament was attended by Procession wherein the Host is born with Pomp and Magnificence Diesteim saith Offic. fir 6. infra Oct. Corp. Christ lect 4. 5. that it was Pope John the Twenty second which introduced this custom But Bossius in his Chronicles and after him Genebrard in his Chronology Book IV. place it much later and say that it began a hundred years after the Institution of the Holy Day to be practised at Pavia from whence it spread it self abroad into all the Western Churches and especially at Anger 's where Berengarius had been Arch-Deacon Upon which several observe that this Institution is directly contrary unto the practice of the ancient Church that very far from carrying in Procession the sacred Symbols of the Body and Blood of our Saviour did administer them the Doors shut even from the III. Century and concealed them not only from Unbelievers and Idolaters but even also from the Catechumeny which were made to go out when this divine Sacrament was to be administred They add that this Procession was very ill resented by many persons that lived in the Communion of the Roman Church In fine Queen Catherine de Medicis wrote unto the Pope in the Year 1561. as Monsieur de Thoul
relates in his History to demand of him Thuan. Hist l. 28. That the Holy Day of the Body of Jesus Christ which had been newly invented might be abolished because it was the occasion of many Scandals and that it was no way necessary for said she this Mystery was instituted for a spiritual Worship and Adoration and not for Pomp and Pageantry And George Cassander in his Consultation addressed unto the Emperors Cassand Consult de circumgest Euchar Ferdinand the First and Maximilian the Second The practice saith he of carrying publickly the Bread of the Sacrament in publick pomp and often to expose it unto the sight of all the World seemeth to have been introduced and received not very long ago contrary unto the practice and intentions of the Ancients for they had this Mystery in so great veneration that they suffered none so much as to see or receive it but the Faithful whom they esteemed to be Members of Jesus Christ and such as were worthy to partake of so great a Mystery therefore before Consecration the Catechumeny the Possessed the Penitents and in a word all those which were not fit to receive were by the voice of the Deacon commanded to withdraw and were turned out by the care of the Door-keepers This practice therefore of thus carrying this Bread ought to be abolished without any prejudice unto the Church on the contrary it would receive great advantage thereby provided the thing were prudently done seeing it is but a late thing and that without this Procession the honour of the Sacrament is nothing lessened and may still at this time be discontinued seeing for the most part this Ceremony seems rather for Pageantry and Shew than for the peoples Devotion By reason whereof continues he Albert Crantz a man of very great Judgment doth commend in his Metropolis Nicholas de Cusa Legat in Germany to have taken away the abuse which was committed in too often carrying about the Sacrament of the Eucharist in Procession upon Holy Days and commanded that it should not be carried out in publick but betwixt the Octave of the Feast dedicated unto the Sacrament And Albert adds a memorable reason for it Because saith he the Heavenly Master instituted this Sacrament for Use and not for Ostentation And as for the Feast it self it is certain it was instituted by Urban not to carry the Sacrament in Procession but to make the Assembly the greater and to the end Men should so well prepare themselves by works of Piety that they might on that day participate of this precious Sacrament and receive it with respect for it is what the words of the Decree do import and if the Institution were duly kept I think there would be nothing absurd in it The silence of the Gentiles and the ancient Disputes of Christians against them and of theirs against the Christians doth very much contribute unto the Illustration of the question which we examine We have seen in the 9th Chapter of the second part that the Pagans as well as Hereticks had a particular knowledge of all that was believed and practised in the Church and that there was scarce one of our Mysteries but they opposed and upon which they made not some opposition against Christians But they never disputed against them upon the point of the Eucharist even not then it self when the holy Fathers reproached them of adoring things which might be stolen away and which must be kept under Lock and Key things which sometimes was given in pawn From whence several do infer That the Adoration of the Sacrament was not practised amongst these Christians there being no probability that the Gentiles would have spared them upon the Adoration of the Sacrament which is subject unto all these inconveniences wherewith they charged their false Divinities They farther observe In octav Orat. pro contra Graec. That when Minutius Foelix and Tatian called it an impious and ridiculous thing to adore what one sanctified the former said unto them You adore the Ox with the Egyptians and you eat him afterwards And that Theodoret wrote Minut. Foel Ibid. Quaest in Genes 9.55 That it is the greatest folly in the World to adore that which one eats They observe I say that these Pagans would not have been without a reply had the Church at that time given unto the Sacrament the Soveraign Worship of Religion seeing it had been very easie for them to have retorted back these shameful reproaches upon this Object of their Adoration and to say unto them that they had not justice to condemn them for that which they eat seeing that Christians did the very same thing And because they never reply'd this unto the Church it is concluded That the Church did not adore the Sacrament And what doth the more confirm these People in this Opinion is That the Heathens of these times do not fail to reproach the Latins That they do eat the God which they Worship as hath been represented in the 9th Chapter of the second Part above recited St. Austin establisheth this Maxim Serm. 12. de Divers That the God which the Christians Worship cannot be shewed with pointing the Finger Do not dispute with me I beseech you saith he and do not importune me in asking me What is the God that I adore for it is not an Idol towards which I may point my Finger and tell you That is the God which I adore Neither is it a Planet nor a Star nor the Sun nor the Moon that I may stretch out my hand towards Heaven and shew you That is the God which I adore He also applies this Maxim particularly unto Jesus Christ Incarnate Serm. 74. de Divers Serm. 120. de Divers Whilest saith he we are in this Body we are absent from the Lord and if it were called in question or denied and that we were asked Where is your God we are not able to shew him Jesus Christ is always with his Father as to the presence of his Glory and of his Divinity As to his bodily presence he is now above the Heavens at the right hand of his Father but he is in all Christians by a presence of Faith It is in this sense that St. Cyril of Jerusalem said Catech. 14. He is now absent in regard of his Flesh but he is present in the midst of us in Spirit The Protestants hence do draw this induction that these Maxims are inconsistent with the Adoration of the Sacrament and that they cannot reasonably be established by persons which make the Eucharist an Object of Divine Adoration because it cannot be denied but that the Sacrament is a visible Object which is apprehended by our senses and by consequence an Object which can be shewed with the Finger and of which it may be said See there the God which I adore They also pretend that the Holy Fathers Disputes against the Ebionites and the Docetes two Sects of Hereticks the former of
Christ is present with the believing Soul by the Intercourse of Devotion Id. 241 Jesus Christ must be sought in Heaven in Communicating Id. 242 The Body of Jesus Christ which was made 1600 Years ago cannot be made every day B. Ch. 5. 251 In what sense the Books of Charlemain condemn the term of Image in respect of the Sacrament B. Ch. 12. 380 John Scot wrote of the Sacrament by Command of Charles the Bald. B. Ch. 13. 403 Adversaries of John Scot upon the Point of Predestination Id. 415 John Scot never accused by his Adversaries to have erred upon the Point of the Eucharist Id. ibid. John Scot enrolled in the number of Saints after his death Id. 413 The Book composed by John Scot by Command of the Emperor Charles the Bald burnt at the Council of Verceil 200 years after viz. An. 1050. Id. 414 L. A Body cannot be in several places at once no not the glorified Body of our our Lord Jesus Christ B. Ch. 5. p. 247 The glorified Body of Jesus Christ cannot exist invisibly and after the manner of a Spirit in one place nor by consequence in the Eucharist Id. 248 The place which containeth is greater than what is contained Id. 251 Two Bodies cannot be in one and the same place and there cannot be Penetration of Dimensions Id. 261 Every part of a Body should answer unto every part of the place Id. ibid. A Body cannot be whole and entire in one of its parts Id. ibid. The Original of using Lamps and Lights in the Celebration of the Eucharist C. Ch. 1. 531 M. THe Flesh of Jesus Christ is to be eaten spiritually and corporally B. Ch. 4. 234 The Wicked do not eat the Body of Jesus Christ but the Sacrament of it only Idem 237 John Hus and Jerome of Prague put to death as Enemies of Transubstantiation although they ever believed it B. Ch. 19. 508 c. What a Mystery doth mean B. Ch. 5. 259 c. N. THe Nature of Bread remains after Consecration B. Ch. 2. 206 Nicholas the First keeps silent during the Disputes of the IX Century B. Ch. 15. 430 The Silence of Nicholas the First no way favourable unto Paschas Id. 431 O. JOhn Damascen his particular Opinion of the Eucharist B. Ch. 12. 365 Paschas Radbert a Friar of the Monastery of Corby near Amiens his Opinion He was after Abbot of the same Convent B. Ch. 13. 385 Opinion of the Adversaries of Paschas Id. 393 c. The Opinion of Paschas is that of Roman Catholicks and the Opinion of his Adversaries that of Protestants which are called Calvinists Id. 405 The Opinion of his Adversaries followed by the greatest Men in the IX Century Idem 430 The Silence of the Popes Adrian the Second and Nicholas the First prejudicial to the Opinion of Paschas B. Ch. 15. 431 The Opinion of Paschas had no advantage over that of his Adversaries during the X. Century B. Ch. 16. 440 It began to be established in the XI Century B. Ch. 17. 451 Berengarius and his Followers Opposition with his several Condemnations which hindred not but he persevered unto his death Id. 455 Berengarius calls the Opinion contrary to his the Folly of Paschas of the People and of Lanfrank Id. 454 Berengarius his Opinion condemned after his death by Urban the Second in a Council held at Plaisance Anno 1095. B. Ch. 18. 465 Those which held this Belief assembled themselves in the Arch-bishoprick of Treves Anno 1106. Id. 466 P. REflections of the holy Fathers upon the words of Institution of the Eucharist B. Ch. 1. 187 How they understood these words This is my Body Id. 188 No Body can participate of himself B. Ch. 5. 262 How the Fathers instructed their Catechumeny B. Ch. 7. 283 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies not only to adore but venerate and respect therefore it is to be explained according to the nature of the Subject in hand C. Ch. 4. 563 c. Q. THe Question of Communicating under both Kinds discussed at large A. Ch. 12. 141 c. Who opposeth not an Error approves it B. Ch. 15. 431 Whosoever recovereth not a Man from Error sheweth that he erreth himself Id. ibid. Whosoever defends not a Truth suppresseth it Id. ibid. The Question of the Adoration of the Sacrament fully examined C. Ch. 4. 563 c. R. THe Christians reproached for sacrificing Bread to God A. Ch. 3. 25 Christians reproached for serving Ceres and Bacchus Id. ibid. Religious Women called the Blood of Jesus Christ common Wine B. Ch. 6. 273 Remy of Auxerr as well as Damascen believed the Union of the Bread unto the Divinity B. Ch. 13. 391 Rupert de Duitz believed the Assumption of the Bread and followed near hand the Opinion of Damascen and of Remy of Auxerr B. Ch. 18. 468 S. THe Sacraments are simple in the Act and wonderful in effect Preface The Sacrifice of Christians is a Sacrifice of Bread and Wine A. Ch. 8. 82 The reason why the Fathers gave the Eucharist the name of Sacrifice but improperly Id. 83 c. They confess unto the Pagans they have neither Altars nor Sacrifices Id. 94 They never oppose the Eucharist unto the Sacrifices of the Law but the Actions of Piety and Christian Religion and the Sacrifice of the Cross Id. 96 The Elevation of the Sacrament to represent the Elevation of Christ on the Cross when begun to be practised A. Ch. 9. 101 The Elevation converted into the Adoration of the Host in the XIII Century Idem 105 There hath been always People in the West which have celebrated the Sacrament without Elevation or Adoration Id. 103 The breaking of the Bread of the Sacrament always practised in the Church even amongst the Latins until the XII Century A. Ch. 9. 106 The Sacraments have no Miracles in them B. Ch. 2. 212 It is unto the vertue and efficacy of the Sacrament that we must refer the Communion which we have with Jesus Christ and our Vinification B. Ch. 3. 230 The Testimony of the Senses is infallible B. Ch. 5. 257 The Use of Flowers practised by the Latins in honour to the Sacrament unknown unto the primitive Christians C. Ch. 4. 573 T. ALtar or Eucharistical Table one and the same thing in the Writings of the ancient Fathers of the Church A. Ch. 5. 44 45. It was for a long time made of Wood in the same form of Tables to eat upon and not in the form of an Altar Id. ibid. There was but one Table or one Altar in a Church Id. 47 The Greeks Muscovites and Abyssins now retain the same Custom Id. 50 What Fraud and Deceipt is B. Ch. 5. 260 The Taborites of Bohemia and their Belief B. Ch. 19. 505 John Hus and Jerome of Prague ever held Transubstantiation Id. 508 V. THere can no Prescription be alledged against Truth Preface The Truth of God must be followed and not the Traditions of Men. A. Ch. 1. p. 1 A Body should be visible and palbable B. Ch. 5. 247 What may be seen and felt is a Body Id. 264 Waldensis their Doctrine Manners and the Persecutions used against them B. Ch. 18. 472 c. Waldensis in Italy in the XIV Century B. Ch. 19. 502 Wickliff his Doctrine and Followers which were very numerous in England under the name of Lollards in the XIV Century Id. 499 The Waldensis of Provence and Piedmont Id. 512 The Original of holy Vestments used in the Celebration of the Eucharist C. Ch. 1. 539 FINIS
consecrated Id. 42 The Eucharist celebrated but once a day in each Church which is also still observed amongst the Greeks Muscovites and Abyssins Id. 49 The matter of the Vessels employed in this Ceremony considered Id. 50 The Celebration and generally all the Divine Service was said in a Language understood by the People A. Ch. 6. 55 Consecration was made by Prayers Blessing and giving of Thanks A. Ch. 7. 65 The time and place of Celebration and of the Communion A. Ch. 10. 110 The Communion was received standing Id. 116 The Greeks and Abyssins do communicate standing Id. 118 The Communion standing Id. ibid. There have been always in the West that did and do communicate so Id. ibid. Certain Customs practised in the ancient Church in the act of communicating Id. ibid. The Communion under both kinds practised in all Christian Churches and also in the Latin Church for above 1000 years A. Ch. 12. 131 The Introduction of the Communion with the steeped Eucharist Id. 135 The Communion under one Kind established at Constans Anno 1415. and confirmed at Trent Anno 1562. Id. 143 144 All Christians except those of the Roman Church communicate under both Kinds Idem 146 The Remainders of the Sacrament burnt in some Churches and eaten by little Children in others A. Ch. 16. 170 Preparations requisite for him that celebrates C. Ch. 1. 521 The Original Use of the Sign of the Cross and of Material Crosses in the Worship of Religion Id. 538 Preparations required of the Receiver in respect of God and Jesus Christ C. Ch. 2. 542 Auricular Confession before receiving the Sacrament was not practised for above eight hundred years C. Ch. 3. 549 D. WHat Doctrines should be retained in the Church A. p. 1 Corruption of Doctrine is commonly the Consequence of the Corruption of Manners A. Ch. 2. 7 The Doctrine of the Council of Constantinople in the Year 754. touching the Sacrament B. Ch. 12. 365 The Doctrine of the second Council of Nice although it censures the Expressions of that of Constantinople yet it condemns not its Doctrine Id. 375 E. BRead and Wine have ever been the Matter of the Eucharist A. Ch. 1. p. 2 Wherefore Jesus Christ chose Bread and Wine and wherein the Ancients placed the resemblance they have unto his Body and Blood Id. 3 The mixing of Water with the Wine and its mystical signification Id. 4 Other mystical Significations in the composition of the Bread Id. 5 The Dispute touching Levened or Unlevened Bread A. Ch. 3. 28 Whence the Bread of the Eucharist came the Form of it with the Changes which happened unto it and at what time A. Ch. 4. 30 c. Who they were that distributed the Sacrament and what they said A. Ch. 11. 121 c. Who they were that had Right to communicate and their Words Id. 123 Women sometimes distributed the Sacrament in Italy and France Id. ibid. The Sacrament never celebrated without Communicants Id. 126 The Eucharist received by the hand of the Communicants A. Ch. 13. 150 This Custom ever practised in the West Id. 154 Communicant permitted to carry the Eucharist home and along with them in Voyages A. Ch. 14. 160 The Eucharist sent unto the Absent and the Sick and by whom A. Ch. 15. 164. Plaisters made of the Eucharist A. Ch. 16. 169 The Eucharist interred with the Dead Id. ibid. The Wine of the Eucharist mingled with Ink. Id. 171 172 The Greeks mix it with warm Water at the Instant of Communicating Id. 172 The Eucharist called Bread and Wine by the Fathers in the act of Communicating B. Ch. 2. 199 The Fathers affirm it is Bread and Wine Bread which is broken Corn Wheat the Fruit of the Vine c. Bread and Wine wherewith our Bodies are nourished Bread the matter whereof passeth the same fate of our common Food Bread which is consumed in the Distribution of the Sacrament things Inanimate Idem 200 201 c. They testifie that the Bread and Wine lose not their substance by Consecration Id. 206 The Participation of the Eucharist breaks the Fast Id. 210 The Eucharist is a Subject whereof one receives a little a bit a piece a morsel Id. 211 The Eucharist is the Sacrament the Sign Figure Type Antitype Symbol Image the Similitude and Resemblance of the Body of Jesus Christ by opposition of the Truth absent B. Ch. 3. 213 The Eucharist is not barely the Sacrament the Sign c. but a Sacrament in the lawful use of it accompanied with all the vertue and efficacy of this divine Body and this precious Blood Id. 220 When the Fathers say 't is Bread and Wine they never mince their words Id. 221 When they say it is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ they use several Modifications unto their Expressions Id. 223 Alterations happened to the ancient Expressions by whom and how B. Ch. 11. 361 When the use of Incense was introduced in the Celebration of the Eucharist C. Ch. 1. 523 The Proof and Trial the Communicant should make of himself before Receiving C. Ch. 3. 542 This Proof comprehends all the Dispositions of the believing Soul in regard of the Sacrament Id. ibid. F. HIm which maketh a thing is before that which is made B. Ch. 5. p. 250 Institution of the Feast of the Sacrament by Urban the Fourth Anno 1264 C. Ch. 4. 579 This Feast for the Novelty of it was not received at first but by the Church of Idem 580 When the Feast of the Procession of the Eucharist was instituted Id. ibid. Several desired that this Feast might be abolished Id. 582 G. AT what time they began to keep the Sacrament for the Sick A. Ch. 15. 165 William of Malmesbury is deceived in speaking of the Conversion of Berengarius B. Ch. 17. 460 H. NO body can dwell in himself B. Ch. 5. 262 History of the VII Century B. Ch. 11. 361 The state of the VIII Century B. Ch. 12. 365 History of the IX Century B. Ch. 13. 385 Continuation of the History of the IX Century B. Ch. 14. 425 The Dignities and Creation of Herribold Bishop of Auxerr Id. ibid. Continuation of the History of the IX Century B. Ch. 15. 430 c. History of the X. Century which was an Age neither of Light nor Darkness but made up of both B. Ch. 16. 439 History of the XI Century B. Ch. 17. 450 History of the XII and XIII Centuries B. Ch. 18. 465 History of the XIV and XV. Centuries B. Ch. 19. 497 I. WE should hold by what was done by Jesus Christ at first A. Ch. 1. p. 1 The Image and Figure cannot be the same thing whereof they are the Image and Figure B. Ch. 3. 218 Jesus Christ is absent from us as to his Humanity and present only by his Divinity B. Ch. 4. 233 The Ancients have only acknowledged two Comings of Jesus Christ Id. 240 The spiritual Presence of Jesus Christ is common with him and the Father Id. ibid. Jesus