say so saith he they acknowledge that it is not what it was before Ibid. and that the Bread and the Wine have been changed Now we see there is no corporal change passed they must then of necessity confess the change is passed in some other regard than in respect of the Bodies from whence he concludes That they must be constrained to deny Ibid. either that it is the Body or Blood of Jesus Christ which is not to be permitted to say nor even to think or if they confess that it is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ seeing that cannot be without there was a change for the better that this change is passed Corporally Then it follows that it is passed Spiritually that is to say Ibid. Figuratively inasmuch as the Spiritual body and the Spiritual blood of Jesus Christ is under the Vail of bodily Bread and corporal Wine And to inform us clearly of his intention he adds It is not that two several things exist in the Sacrament one whereof is Corporal and the other Spiritual no but it is one and the same thing that in one regard is the Element of Bread and Wine and in another regard is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Ibid. for in regard of what we touch Corporally they be the Elements or bodily Creatures but in regard of what they were made Spiritually they be the Mysteries of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ He also affirms That what we receive outwardly in the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ is proper to nourish the Body And from thence passing to the Examination of the second Question to wit Ibid. whether that which Believers do receive with the mouth daily in the Church by the Mystery of the Sacraments be the same Body that was born of the Virgin Mary that suffered and was buried and which sitteth on the Right Hand of God He thus explains himself These Creatures in regard of their substance Ibid. are after Consecration the same they were before they were Bread and Wine and it is visible that they remain in the same kind although they be consecrated The Change then which passes here by the power of the Holy Ghost is internal what Faith beholds doth nourish the Soul and communicates unto it the substance of Life eternal And again Ibid. The Flesh of Jesus Christ which was crucified was made of the Flesh of the Virgin Mary composed of Bones and Sinews divided by the Lineaments of Members furnished with a reasonable Soul from which it received life and motion But as for the spiritual Flesh which spiritually feedeth the faithful people it is made according to what it is outwardly of Grains of Wheat by the hands of the Baker without Bones and Nerves without diversity of Members without a reasonable Soul or exercising any Life or Motion for all that is in it which communicates Life unto us proceeds from a spiritual Vertue from an invisible Efficacy and from a divine Benediction Therefore it is quite another thing in regard of what appears outwardly from what is believed of the Mystery whereas the Flesh of Jesus Christ which was crucified is not inwardly what it appears to be outwardly because it is the Flesh of a real Man and by consequence a true Body existing in the form of a true Body It must also be considered that the Body of Jesus Christ is not alone represented in this Bread but that the Body of the faithful people is therein figured also Therefore it is that the Bread is made of divers Grains because the Body of the people is composed of many Believers and as the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ mystically the numbers of the people which believe in Jesus Christ are therein also represented mystically and as this Bread is the Body of Believers not corporally but spiritually it is also necessary to understand the Body of Jesus Christ not corporally but spiritually So also it is commanded to mingle Water with the Wine which is called the Blood of Jesus Christ and it is not permitted to offer the one without the other because the People cannot be without Jesus Christ nor Jesus Christ without the People as the Head cannot subsist without the Members nor the Members without the Head and the Water in this Sacrament bears the Image of the People If this Wine sanctified by the Ministry of Priests were corporally changed into the Blood of Christ it would be necessary that the Water which is therein also mingled should be corporally changed into the Blood of faithful Believers for where there is one and the same Sanctification there must be also of necessity one Operation and where this is one and the same reason there will also be one and the same Mystery Now we see there is no Change made in the Water according to the Body therefore by consequence it must follow that there is no bodily Change made in the Wine All that is signified by the Water in regard of the Body of the People is taken spiritually all then that is signified by the Wine in reference to the Blood of Jesus Christ ought necessarily to be understood spiritually Besides the things which do differ in themselves are not one and the same things The Body of Jesus Christ which suffered and is risen again was made immortal and dieth no more Death hath no more Dominion over him he is eternal and cannot die Now this Body which is celebrated in the Church is temporal and not eternal corruptible and not incorruptible it is in the way and not in the Country they do then differ therefore they be not the same then if they be not the same how is it that they call them the real Body of Jesus Christ and his real Blood For if it be the Body of Jesus Christ and that one may truly say so the Body of Jesus Christ being incorruptible impassible and by consequence eternal It must necessarily follow that this Body of Jesus Christ which is made in the Church should be incorruptible and eternal but it cannot be denied but that it is corruptible because being broken in pieces it is divided unto Believers which receive it and being eaten with the Teeth it is swallowed down and goeth into the Belly What we do exteriorly is then another thing from what we believe by Faith what regards the sense of the Body is corruptible but what is believed by Faith is incorruptible What appears outwardly is not the thing it self but the Image of the thing and what the heart feeleth and understandeth is the reality of the thing In fine for the whole Book must be transcribed if all should be alledged that makes directly contrary unto the Doctrine of Paschas Ibid. he thus concludes the whole Treatise Let your Wisdom consider illustrious Prince that we have very clearly proved by the Testimony of the holy Scripture and by Passages of the holy Fathers
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
inanimate that the substance of Bread and Wine remain after Consecration and because one is found amongst them that much varies from this language I represent unto the Reader what some have said to reconcile this Authour with others who have expressed themselves otherwise than he hath done Then re-assuming the thred of my History I make appear that these same Doctors have believed that participating of the Eucharist broke the fast and that they have spoken of what is received in the Communion as of a thing whereof one received a little a morsel a piece a small portion And having seen what they believed and what they said of the things which we receive in the Eucharist I inquire what they taught of the Use the Office and Imploy of the sacred Symbols And they tell us that the Eucharist is the Sacrament the Sign the Figure the Type the Antitype the Symbol the Image the Similitude and the resemblance of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ And the better to instruct us in the nature and force of these expressions they will have us make these two observations First that when they speak of the Eucharist as of a Sign a Figure an Image it is in opposition to the reality which they consider as absent The other is that they constantly hold that the Image and the Figure cannot be that whereof they are the Image and Figure And indeed not to leave their Doctrine exposed unto the stroaks of Calumny they declare that if the Eucharist be a Figure and an Image it is not a bare Figure nor an Image without operation but a Figure an Image and a Sacrament replenished with all the vertue and all the efficacy of the Body and Blood of our blessed Saviour clothed if it may be so said with the Majesty of his person and accompanied in the lawful Celebration with all the fruits and with all the benefits of his death and Sufferings But because the same Fathers who affirm that the Eucharist is Bread and Wine and who say that it is the Sign the Symbol the Figure and the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Saviour do say also That it is his Body and his Blood that it passeth and is turned into his Body and Blood I have not omitted to report the explications which they give us thereupon and to shew which of those sorts of expressions they have limited for by this means it is easie to comprehend their words and intentions Having ended the Examination of their Doctrine I have applied my self unto the search and inquiry of its consequence to know if they believed the eating of the Flesh of Jesus Christ with the mouth of the body the eating of the same Flesh by the wicked as well as by the righteous and the presence of the Lord upon Earth as to his Humanity and how they understood the following Maxims whether a Body can be in several places at the same time whether it can subsist invisibly after the manner of a Spirit without occupying any space whether what hath been done long since can still be done every day whether the Cause can be later than the Effect whether that which containeth ought not to be greater than that which is contained whether Accidents can exist without their Subject whether the Senses may be deceived in the report they make of sensible Objects when there is no defect in the Organ or in the medium or situation of the Object whether a Body ought to be visible and palpable and whether it ought to have its parts so distinguished the one from the other that each part ought to answer the respective part of place whether there may be penetration of dimensions whether one may dwell in himself whether a Body may be all intirely in one of its parts and whether whatsoever is seen and touched and falls under sense be a Body And to the end nothing be wanting to establish the Doctrine of the Fathers in the point of the Eucharist I add unto direct proofs a great many indirect proofs taken from their words and actions whence are drawn several inductions which contribute very much to shew what were their sentiments of this Article of our Faith Then I represent the Alterations and changes happened in the ancient expressions and Doctrine the contests of the Ninth Age whereunto if I mistake not I have given much light by certain considerations which shew as clear as the light which of the two Opinions had the better that of Paschasius or that of his Adversaries The History of the Tenth Age shall be represented in such a manner I hope as will not be displeasing unto the candid Reader seeing it will inform him that in that Age which I consider neither as an Age of Darkness nor of Light but participating of both wherein things passed otherwise than hath been hitherto believed I treat exactly of what passed in the Eleventh Century in regard of Berengarius and his Followers in regard of the Albigenses and Waldenses in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries of Wicklif and the Lollards in England in the Fourteenth Age of the Taborites in Bohemia in the Fifteenth and until the separation of the Protestants with some Observations which I make from Age to Age upon the Greek Church And in the last Part wherein I treat of the Worship I examine the preparations which precede the Celebration I inquire the time wherein Christians began to introduce in the exercise of their Religion the use of Incense and Candles especially at the Celebration of the Sacrament Unto this practice I add that of the sign of the Cross and also of material Crosses the consideration of holy Vestments and of those particularly appointed for this holy Ceremony not forgetting that of Flowers which were used in form of Coronets or otherwise in honour of the Eucharist I make one Chapter of the dispositions requisite for a Communicant in respect of God and of Jesus Christ and another of those which he ought to have in regard of the Sacrament which ingageth me to speak something of Auricular Confession and to inquire whether the Holy Fathers have requir'd it as a disposition absolutely necessary unto a lawful Communion And I conclude the whole Work with the question of the Adoration of the Sacrament which I treat of with some care and exactness to the end the Reader might see what hath been the Belief and practice of the ancient Church on so important a point as this is and when the first Decrees were made for worshipping the Host I know very well there can be nothing of testimony be it never so clear but the subtilty of men will find means to elude and this is it which hath rendred and will render the disputes of Religion immortal many of those who handle them seeking more their own than Gods glory and examining the passages of the Ancients with the prejudices they have been before prepossess'd with Thence it is that beholding them
which is of a vast extent hath constantly unto this day observed and retained this practice James Goar of the Order of Preaching Friers who hath left us the Euchology or Ritual of the Greeks with Notes of a very sound judgment takes much pains in explaining the manner of Consecration practised by the Greek Church endeavouring to give it a sense which may not be contrary to the Latin Church he cites these words of the Liturgy which goes under St. Chrysostom's name 〈◊〉 p â—7 We also offer unto thee this reasonable and unbloody Sacrifice and we beseech thee that thou wouldest send thy holy Spirit upon us and upon the Gifts offered make this Bread the precious Body of thy Christ Upon these words and particularly upon the last Goar makes a very long observation Not. in Euchol p. 140 141. num 138 139. in the first place he observes upon these words send thy holy Spirit That there is a very great difference betwixt the new Editions of this Liturgy of St. Chrysostom's and the antient Manuscripts That some of the late Greeks have from hence drawn some kind of shew of support for their ill opinion touching Consecration Secondly upon these words make this Bread the precious Body of thy Christ That Chrysostom who is the Author of the Liturgy could not believe that Consecration was made by Prayers as some Greeks have vainly supposed seeing saith he he attributes elsewhere unto the words of Christ the vertue of changing the Elements that is the Bread and Wine into his Body and Blood That nevertheless these Prayers used by the Greeks were a Stone of stumbling and 't was by these Prayers not rightly understood that Cabasilas Simeon of Thessalonica Mark of Ephesus Gabriel of Philadelphia and some others have been deceived and have cast the ignorant into Error and 't is not to be denied but the most part of the Greeks have written darkly and dubiously and that gave way unto Error in minds that were unstedfast And in fine hath commended Arcudius and Bessarion both Greeks Latinized the latter of which was present at the Council of Florence under Eugenius the Fourth and was gained by the Latins and the other wrote a great while afterwards of the agreement betwixt the Latins and the Greeks touching the matter of the Sacraments Goar then having praised them as two persons who by their skill and pains removed all the difficulties which were found about the words and form of Consecration adds That to the end we should not labour in doing what was already done what remains is that if any farther light can be given unto other mens labours we should endeavour to do it by new inventions But that it self shews plainly that the Greeks did consecrate otherwise than the Latins Besides the Reader may easily perceive both by what we have said and by the proceeding of Bessarion Arcudius and Goar what is the manner of the Consecration of the Symboles amongst the Greeks it is true that Arcudius used all his endeavours to conform the opinion of the Greeks unto that of the Latins giving for this purpose unto the Liturgies which go in the name of St. Mark St. Clement St. James St. Basil and St. Chrysostom L. 3. de concord cap. 25. ad 33. the most favourable construction he could contrive because they attribute all the Consecration unto Prayers and doth blame Cabasilas Mark of Ephesus Simeon of Thessalonica Gabriel of Philadelphia Samonas Jeremy Patriarch of Constantinople because they taught that the Consecration of Symboles was made by Prayers But this proceeding sufficiently doth shew that the Greek Church never owned any other form of Consecration But to return unto James Goar In Euchol p. 140 141. he saith one thing which ought not to be past over in silence which is That the Greeks which assisted at the Council of Florence agreed that it was unto the words of Jesus Christ that the force and vertue of Consecration ought to be attributed and to confirm what he saith he alledges the Answer they made unto Pope Eugenius which stuck in suspense because they added unto the words of Jesus Christ certain Prayers to demand the Consecration as if it had not been otherwise compleat the Answer I say which was made him in the behalf of the whole Nation by the Bishops of Russia of Nice of Trebizond and of Mitylene as we read in the eighth Tome and 25th Session of the Council of Florence in which Answer Goar still finds some difficulty But if the learned Goar had seen before publishing his Euchology the true History of the Council of Florence by Sylvester Sguropulus great Ecclesiastick of the Church of Constantinople and one of the five Counsellors of the Patriarch and by consequence of the chiefest of the Assembly of the Greeks he would not have said that the four Bishops above-mentioned had answered Pope Eugenius in behalf of the whole Nation Hist Conc. Florent sect 10. c. 1. p. 278. for the truth is the Greek Emperor having at last agreed with the Latins upon four Articles without the knowledge and consent of those of his Nation except it were some few that had been gained by the Court of Rome the Latins demanded of the Greeks they should expunge out of their Rituals and Books of Divine Service this third Benediction in celebrating of the unbloody Sacrifice or in the invocating of the Holy Ghost which the Priest is wont to pronounce saying That these words Take eat this is my Body and drink you all did consecrate the Bread and the Cup and that the Greeks erred very much in using of Prayers and invoking the Holy Ghost after pronouncing the words of our Lord. Whereupon there were several contests between the Emperor of Constantinople and the Latins Ibid. p. 278 279. who said unto them If you would believe as the great St. Basil and the great St. Chrysostom taught thus to consecrate and sanctifie the Divine Oblations you would find in all the Eastern Churches above two thousand Liturgies which thus decide the matter After which the Historian observes That soon after by order of the Pope and the Emperor all the Greeks met at the Popes Palace excepting Mark of Ephesus the most zealous of the whole Nation and that the Question being again re-assum'd there were several debates upon it the Latins using all their endeavours to make the Greeks embrace their Opinions and that the Bishops of Russia and of Nice in behalf of the latter proposed a middle opinion which pleased neither Party which obliged the Emperor to command Mark of Ephesus to set down something in writing touching this Question which he did and he therein shewed that the Holy Fathers taught to consecrate the Divine Oblations Ibid. as saith he all our Priests do consecrate In the Eighth Chapter of the same Section the same Historian who was always present writes That after the signing of the Decree of the union the Emperor sent several
if it be true that the Priesthood according to the Law was abrogated and that the High Priest after the order of Melchisedeck offered a Sacrifice and that for this reason he did it that we may have no more need of another Sacrifice see here how he resolves this difficulty It is manifest unto those that are instructed in Divine matters that we do not offer another Sacrifice but that we do or celebrate the remembrance of that only saving Sacrifice he means that of the Cross for the Lord himself hath commanded us Do this in remembrance of me to the end that by contemplating the Figure we may bring to our minds what he suffered for us thereby to inflame our love unto our Benefactor and to expect the injoyment of good things to come Eulogius Patriarch of Alexandria contemporary and friend unto Gregory the First followed the others steps when he said Eulog apud Phot. Cod. ult That the Sacrament which we celebrate is not an oblation of divers Sacrifices but the commemoration of the Sacrifice which was once offered The same language was used in the Ninth Century seeing that Bertram or Ratramn said That the Oblation which Jesus Christ once offered Bertram de corp Sang. Domini is every day celebrated by the faithful but mystically and in remembrance of his Passion and that nevertheless it is not falsely said that the Lord is sacrificed or that he suffers in these Mysteries because they have a resemblance of this death and passion whereof they are the representations Id. Ibid. c. That the Bread and the Cup do represent the memorial of the death of our Lord and that they are set upon the Altar in type and memory of his death to represent unto our memory what was formerly done and that to the end we thinking of this death he who hath delivered us from death might make us to partake of the Divine Oblation And the Deacon Florus said he not at the same time Flor. in Exposit Miss That the Oblation of this Bread and this Cup is the commemoration and annunciation of the death of Jesus Christ and that the commemoration of the death of Christ is the shewing forth of his love because he so loved us as to die for us If we descend lower Peter Lombard Master of the Sentences will tell us in the Twelfth Century Lombard l. 4. sentent dist 12. litt g. That is called a Sacrifice and Oblation which is offered and consecrated by the Priest because it is the memorial and representation of the true Sacrifice and of the holy immolation which was made upon the Altar of the Cross And Thomas Aquinas in the Thirteenth Century That the Celebration of the Eucharist Thom. sunn part 3. q. 83. part 1. is called the immolation of Jesus Christ because as S. Austin saith unto Simplicius the Images are wont to take their name from those things whereof they be Images and that the Celebration of this Sacrament is a certain representative type of the death of Jesus Christ which is his true immolation therefore the Celebration of this Sacrament is called Immolation Secondly the Eucharist being an act of our duty towards God and towards his Son for the admirable and ineffable benefit of his Death the antient Doctors might also in this regard call it by the name of Eucharistical Sacrifice of Thanksgiving of Prayer and of Acknowledgement This in appearance was the meaning of St. Chrysostom when he said Chrysost in Matth. Hom. 26. That the venerable Mysteries are called Eucharist because they are a commemoration of sundry benefits and because they dispose us always to render thanks unto God And because God is honoured with two very different qualities one of Creator the other of Redeemer we give him thanks that as Creator he gives unto us the Fruits of the Earth and we then consecrate unto him the Bread and Wine as the First-fruits of his Creatures and that in quality of Redeemer he hath given unto us the Body and Blood of his Son and in this regard we consecrate unto him the Bread and Wine as Memorials of the bloody death of our Saviour St. Ireneus observes this use as to the first regard Iren. l. 4. cap. 34. We are obliged saith he to make our offerings unto God and that in all things we should be thankful unto the Creator but that must be done with pure affections and with a sincere Faith a firm hope and ardent Charity in offering unto him the First fruits of his Creatures which are his but it is only the Church which offers unto God this pure Oblation presenting unto him with Prayers of the Creatures which he hath made St. Austin if I be not deceived intended to touch the latter regard when speaking of the Sacrifice of the Cross August l. 20. contr Faust cap. 21. he said That the flesh and blood of this Sacrifice had been promised before the coming of Christ by typical Sacrifices of resemblance that in the passion of Jesus Christ they were accomplished by the truth it self and that after his Ascension they are celebrated by a Sacrament of Commemoration But Justin Martyr hath joyned both together in his Excellent Dialogue against Tryphon Jesus Christ saith he hath commanded us to make the Bread of the Sacrament in Commemoration of the Death which he suffered for those whose Souls have been purified from all malice Just Mart. dialog contr Tryph. p. 259 260. to the end we should neturm thanks unto God for the Creation of the World and the things which are therein for the use of Man And for that he hath delivered us from the wickedness wherein we lay having triumphed over Principalities and Powers by him who in executing the good pleasure of his will was pleased to take upon him a frail Nature In the third place the Holy Fathers considering that the Eucharist serves us now in the room of Mosaical Sacrifices being our outward worship under the dispensation of the Gospel as the Sacrifices were the Jewish Service under the Oeconomy of the Law they have freely called it Sacrifice and rightly to understand in what sense they have given it this Title in the consideration that 't is our Worship and exteriour Service we must consider that they often take this word Sacrifice in a very large extended and improper sence therefore 't is that they apply it unto all the acts of Piety and Devotion and generally unto all things that pertain unto the worship of our Saviour in which they have followed the stile of the Holy Scriptures that so speak in many places David calls the contrite heart Psal 51. a Sacrifice well pleasing unto Almighty God The Prophet calls it Hosea c. 14. Heb. 13. Philip. 4. rendring Calves of our lips which the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews explains The fruit of the Lips which confest the name of God The Apostle gives the name of Sacrifices
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.
Concil Nicaen 2 act 6. assembled at Constantinople against Images in the year 754. Jesus Christ say these Fathers having taken Bread blessed it and having given Thanks he brake it and giving it to his Disciples he said Take eat for the Remission of Sins This is my Body in like manner having given the Cup he said This is my Blood do this in remembrance of me there being no other kind of Thing nor Figure chosen by him that could so fitly represent his Incarnation See then the Image of his quickning Body made honourably and gloriously Here are eleven substantial Witnesses which being added unto the five others which we passed over and shall appear in due time make up the number of sixteen without touching those which may by evident and necessary Consequences be drawn unto the same Testimonyâ— for I have made choice only of those which seemed most evident and of those also some speak in more express Terms than others The Reader may judg if all these Witnesses which speak of Bread Wine Fruit of the Vine of Figure Sign Type Symbol Sacrament of Representation of Fruits of the Earth do not give a figurative sense unto these Words This is my Body This is my Blood And to do it the better let him exactly see if any of these antient Commentators have spoken of Reality of bodily Conversion and of local Presence in interpreting them for say the Protestants they could not pass over in silence so important a Doctrine as that in an occasion which indispensably obliged them to say something of it without rendring themselves guilty of horrid Hypocrisy and Injustice So that if they have not done it and that there appears no such thing in what hath been produced and examined as indeed say they whatever Scrutiny we could make no such thing nor like it doth appear it may be safely and lawfully concluded that all these Fathers have taken these Words not in a proper and literal Sense but in a figurative and metaphorical Sense Moreover all these Reflections of the Ancients upon these Words of the Institution of the Sacrament amount just to the manner of understanding them commanded by the Council of Trent when it forbids to interpret the holy Scriptures Sess 4. contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers Because as 't is explained by Melchior Canus Locor l 7. c. 3. num 10. Bishop of the Canaries who assisted at the Council The Sense of all the Saints is the Sense of the Holy Ghost CHAP. II. Of what the Father 's believed concerning what we receive in the Sacrament and what they have said of it BEsides the many Reflections made by the ancient Doctors upon the Words used by our Saviour in the instituting this most august Sacrament which we have sufficiently enumerated and set down in the foregoing Chapter I find they have said many other things which may direct us unto the true understanding of their Belief which we will enquire into in this second Chapter In the first place they have called the Eucharist Bread and Wine in the very act of communicating There is given unto each of these present Just Mart. Apol. 2. vol. 1. Iâ—en l. 4. c 34. saith Justin Martyr the Bread the Wine and the Water which have been consecrated St. Irenaeus Bishop of Lyons gives it the same Name calling it The Bread upon which Prayers and Thanks have been made And I make no question Contr. Tryph. p. 260. Orig. contr Cels l. 8. Id. ibid. Id. Homil. 5. in Levitic Cyprian Ep. 76. 63 Apud Euseb Hist l. 6 c. 43. prope fin but 't is also for the same reason that our Christian Philosopher I mean St. Justin speaks of the Eucharist of Bread and Wine Origen against Celsus The Bread which is called the Eucharist the Symbol of our Duty towards God And in the same Book The Bread offered with Thanksgivings and Prayers made for the Mercies bestowed on us And in his Homilies upon Leviticus The Bread which the Lord gave unto his Disciples St. Cyprian was of the same Judgment when he called it The Bread of the Lord And in his Treatise of the Cup or in his Epistle to Cecilius he very often calls it Bread and Wine mix'd with Water and saith That the Body of the Lord is not Flower only nor Water only but a composition of these two things kneaded and moulded together and made into the substance of Bread And Cornelius Bishop of Rome writing unto Fabian Bishop of Antioch of what passed in the undue Ordination of Novatian unto the Episcopacy and speaking of the Sacrament in the act of distribution and reception he calls it That Bread From hence 't is that Tertullian disputing against the Marcionites Tertul. contr Marc. l. 1. c. 23. who taught that the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ was not the Creator he reproaches them That they were baptized in the name of another God upon anothers Earth and with anothers Water and that they made Prayers and gave Thanks unto another God upon the Bread of another It is easy to understand that in speaking in that manner to Marcion he presupposed that the Orthodox made their Prayers unto God the Creator upon this Bread that is to say The Bread of the Eucharist And the Author of the Epistle to the Philadelphians under Ignatius's Name Ep. ad Philad saith That there is one Bread broken unto all If we descend lower Conc. Ancyr c. 2. Conc. Neoces c. 13. we shall find that the Council of Ancyrus in the year 314 forbids Deacons that had sacrificed unto Idols To present the Bread and the Cup. And that of Neocesarea of the same Year saith That the Country-Priests cannot offer nor give the Bread in Prayer nor the Cup in the chief Church in the City if the Bishop or the Priests of the City are present Euseb dem l. 5. c. 3. Eusebius Bishop of Cesarea wrote about the year 328. That the Ministers of the Christian Church express darkly by the Bread and Wine the Mysteries of the Body and Blood of Christ It was also the opinion of St. Hilary Bishop of Poictiers Bil. in Matth. c. 30. when he said That the Passover of our Lord was made the Lord having taken the Cup and broke the Bread Macar Hom. 27. St. Macarius followed the same Steps in saying That in the Church one participates of visible Bread to eat spiritually the Flesh of our Lord. Concil Laod. c. 25. The Council of Laodicea assembled about the year 360 ordains That Ministers ought not that is to say the Deacons or rather Sub-Deacons to administer the Bread nor bless the Cup. A Council of Carthage made this Decree Concil Carth. c. 24. That in the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of our Lord nothing else should be offered but what the Lord himself had done to wit Bread and Wine mingled with Water This Decree is the 37th in the Code
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
in vita Chrysost of his Incarnation St. Chrysostom If Jesus Christ be not dead of whom are the consecrated things Symbols Palladius in the Life of St. Chrysostom often useth this term speaking of pouring out the Symbols of communicating of the Symbols of our Lord Theod. 1 Cor. 11. and of burning the Symbols of Mysteries Theodoret After the coming of our Lord we shall have no more need of the Symbols of his Body Id. in Psal 109. And in another Treatise The Church offers the Symbols of his Body and Blood And in his Dialogues he often speaketh thus Id. Dial. 1. Our Lord saith he hath made an exchange of these Names and hath given unto his Body the Name of Symbol and to the Symbol the name of his Body that is to say giving unto his Body the name of Bread and the name of Bread unto his Body calling himself a Vine and his Blood that which is the Symbol of it Ibid. He saith again That our Lord honoured the visible Symbols with the Name of his Body and Blood that the Holy Food is the Symbol and Type of the Body and Blood of our Lord. Id. Dialog 2. And in the following Dialogue he speaks of the Mystical Symbols which after their Sanctification do not change their first Nature Maxim in c. 3. Hier. Eccles And Maximius Scholiast of the pretended Dennis the Areopagite speaking of the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist said These things are Symbols and not the Truth it self Vict. An ioch in c. 14. Mâ—rc Victor of Antioch in his Commentary upon St. Mark calls the Bread of the Eucharist The Symbol of the Body of Jesus Christ The seventh is that of Image but because Image Similitude and Likeness signify the same thing we will comprehend all three under the Name of Image Euseb dem l. 8 a Genes Eusebius Bishop of Cesarea saith That Jesus-Christ commanded his Disciples to make the Image of his Body Trocop in Geâ—es c. 49. Gelaf de duab Christ Nat. Procopius of Gaza upon Genesis He gave saith he unto his Disciples the Image of his Body Pope Gelasius said the same at the end of the fifth Century Certainly saith he the Image or Similitude of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ is celebrated in the Mysteries that sheweth us plainly what we are to believe touching Jesus Christ our Lord even what we profess what we celebrate and what we receive in his Image The Author of the Dialogues against the Marcionites in the Works of Origen keeps the same language when he calls the Bread and the Cup the Images of his Flesh and Blood Orig. Dial. 3. contra Marc. And 338 Bishops assembled at Constantinople Anno 754 say that Jesus Christ hath commanded us to offer the Image of his Body and all along in their Discourse which is very large they constantly and divers times call the Bread of the Eucharist the Image of the Body of our Lord. We may add unto these Testimonies of the antient Doctors of the Church those which say that the Body and Blood of our Lord are signified shewn represented in the Eucharist as having clearly the same force and meaning as the former as when Tertullian saith of the Bread of the Sacrament Tert. l. 1. c. 14. that it is a Bread by which Jesus Christ represents his Body St. Cyprian Cypr. ep 63. that the Blood of Jesus Christ is exhibited by the Wine the which is repeated by the Council of Braga in the second Canon Anno 675. Dion Areop Hier. Eccl. â— 3. Theoph. ep Pasch Ambros de iis qui init c. 9. Apud Bed in 1 Cor. 11. The pretended Denis the Areopagite that by the Symbols Jesus Christ is signified Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria that by the Bread of our Lord his Body is represented unto us St. Ambrose that before the Words of divine Benediction another thing is named after Consecration the Body of Jesus Christ is signified St. Austin that the Infant is not frustrated of the participation of this Sacrament he means that of the Eucharist when he finds what the Sacrament doth signify The Commentary upon St. Paul's Epistles under the Name of St. Ambrose that in eating and drinking in the holy Communion we signify the Flesh and Blood In fine the true St. Jerome imitating Tertullian's Expression Hieron in Mat. c. 26. that Jesus Christ took Bread and Wine that he might also represent that is as Melchisedek had done before the truth of his Body and of his Blood But the more easily to penetrate into the meaning of these Expressions and the better to understand their Force we must relate two things which we have observed in the Writings of the holy Fathers First when they speak of the Eucharist as of a Sign a Symbol a Figure an Image It is in opposition unto the Reality which they consider as absent In this sense they say Maxim 〈…〉 Dionvs Areop p. 68. 75. 6â— that these things are Symbols and not the Truth That the sacred Oblations to wit the Bread and the Cup are Signs of Things from above which are more certain That the things in the Old Testament were the Shadow that those of the New are the Image but that the Substance shall be in the World to come That the Shadow was under the Law the Image under the Gospel and the Truth in Heaven And I believe it was in this sense that the old Latin Liturgies said Lord Ambros l. 1. de Offic. c. 48. Vetus Liturgia apud Bettram in receiving the Earnest of Life Everlasting we humbly beseech thee that we may receive by a manifest Participation what we now have in a Sacramental Image And sometimes after That thy Sacraments O Lord may accomplish in us what they contain to the end we may receive in reality what we now celebrate in shew and appearance The second thing I have observed is that the Holy Fathers unanimously avow that the Image and Figure cannot be the Thing itself whereof they be the Image and Figure As when Tertullian saith Tert contra Marc. l. 1. c 9. That the Image will not be entirely equal unto the Substance for saith he it is one thing to be according to Truth and another thing to be the Truth it self And elsewhere Id. contra Prax. c. 26. Athan. contra Hipocr Melet. Contr. Marcel l. 1. c. 4. Hilar. de Syn. that which is of a Thing is not the Thing it self whereof it is And St. Athanasius that which is like unto a Thing is not the Thing it self whereunto it is like Marcellus of Ancyras if it be not Eusebius himself who disputes against him Never was the Image of a Thing and the Thing whereof 't is an Image one and the same And St. Hilary Bishop of Poictiers No Body is the Image of himself St. Ambrose Bishop of Milan observed almost the same language when he said
Nourishment which we there receive but that the virtue which is in it quickeneth us As if he should say that this quickening doth not proceed from the proper Substance of Bread but from the virtue and enlivening efficacy wherewith our Lord according to his Promise doth accompany the lawful use of his Sacrament What he adds of Baptism doth sufficiently inform us of his meaning when he saith That it is not the Water alone which cleanseth us but that by the Water it perfects our Salvation by the Faith and Energy by Hope and the perfection of the Mysteries and the Invocation of Sanctification St. Gregory of Nysse if I mistake not explains himself fuller when he saith of the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament Greg. Nyss de B. pt Christ That being but common Things and of little worth before Consecration both the one and the other do operate excellently after Sanctification which is or comes from the Spirit It is in the same sense that St. Cyril of Alexandria cited by Victor of Antioch Victor MS. in c. 14. Marc. said That God having pitty of our Infirmities bestows or sends upon the Things presented or offered that is to say the Bread and Wine an enlivening virtue and doth change them into the efficacy of his Flesh It is this same power which St. Cyril in his Epistle to Caelosyrius calls the Virtue and Benediction Cyril Alex. Ep. ad Caeâ—â—â— t. 6. and the quickning Grace It is also the Doctrine of Theophylact as will appear when we examine the Belief of his Age which being beyond the ninth Century permits us not here to insert his Testimony but so it is that this virtue and efficacy whereof we speak Chrysost de Sacerd. l. 3. c. 4. t. 4. Id. de Coem Appel de resurrect Christ t. 5. Theod. Dial. 1. Gelas de duab nat is nothing else but the Grace mentioned by St. Chrysostom when he represents unto us the Priest praying that the Blessing might descend upon the Sacrifice that is to say upon the Sacrament And elsewhere he saith that it is the holy Ghost that gives this Grace and that without it the Mystical Body and Blood are not made And Theodoret a great Admirer of St. Chrysostom witnesseth that our Saviour added Grace unto the Nature of the Bread and Wine It is also for the same reason that Pope Gelasius saith That the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are Things divine and that by them we are made Partakers of the Divine Nature Iâ—d Hispal orig 1.6 And St. Isidore Arch-bishop of Sevil That thâ—s divine Virtue operates inwardly the Benefit of the Sacraments that is to say the Salvation which God communicates unto us by the Ministry of the Sacraments Therefore it is that Raban Arch-bishop of Mayans in the ninth Century will have it called the virtue of the Sacrament and the Nourishment of our Souls But in fine it is unto this efficacy and virtue that is to be attributed all the great Praises which the holy Fathers give unto the Sacrament in the same manner as is imputed unto the power which our Saviour gives unto the use of Baptism whereof the same Fathers have delighted themselves in honouring this Sacrament of our new Birth their design having been to raise and advance the Dignity of these Mysteries and the admirable effects they produce by the Grace Benediction and Vertue which God bestows on them for the Salvation of Men. And it is in relation to this Efficacy and Vertue whereof we have treated that the Fathers call the Eucharist The Body and Blood of Jesus Christ saying that the Bread and Wine pass into his Body and Blood that they change and are transelemented into his Body and Blood They also use other expressions which in effect amount to the same all which the Latins expound to their advantage and which they make the chief ground of their Belief But because these last Expressions at first sight seem inconsistent with what they said unto us before that the Eucharist is true Bread and real Wine Bread which is broken that nourishes the Body which is converted into our Substance Bread which is inamate that is consumed in the celebration of the Sacrament whose Substance remains and that passeth as to its material part by the sordid way of our ordinary and common Food that this Bread and this Wine are the Signs the Symbols the Types the Antitypes the Sacraments the Figures the Images the Resemblances and the Representations of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ not vain Figures and empty and void Signs without any effect and vertue but Signs and Sacraments replenished as may be said with all the Vertue and all the Efficacy of the Body broken and the Blood of our Lord poured out who having instituted them to be the Instruments and Organs of our Salvation doth accompany their lawful use with his Blessing and Grace to bestow upon us the Merits of the enlivening Sacrifice of his Death which Merit ought never to be separated from his Body seeing it was by the sufferings of his broken Body and his Blood poured out that he merited for us this quickning and saving Vertue For this Reason I say it will be very necessary to clear up this Difficulty and to remove this seeming Contradiction I say seeming for I make no question but the Fathers themselves will sufficiently inform us of their Intention and that we shall find in their Works Lights by which we shall safely conduct the Reader to the clear and distinct knowledg of the belief of the antient Church upon this Article of our Salvation Those who are any thing verst in reading their Works doubtless do observe that when they say the Sacrament is Bread and Wine they never intimate that it is a figurative improper and equivocal Expression and that it must not be taken according to the Letter neither do they say that the Sacrament is called Bread and Wine altho it is not so after Consecration because it was so in effect and still retains the Accidents and Likeness For my part I ingeniously confess that I have never found such Cautions or Advertisements in their Works Nevertheless Men having much difficulty to believe those things which resist the Testimony of their Senses and the light of Reason and the Holy Fathers affirming frequently that the Eucharist is true Bread and real Wine if say the Protestants they believed it was not Bread nor Wine though they called it so but the very Body and Blood of Christ they should have been so kind nay 't would have been their Duty to have informed their Readers and Hearers that they might avoid this Stone of Stumbling and Rock of Offence see here already say they a very considerable Information and which will be more if it be considered that when on the other Hand they say that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ c. They fail not to make
Antio in Marc. Seeing our Saviour hath said This is my Body This is my Blood those which offer or present the Bread must esteem after Prayer and Consecration that 't is the Body of Christ and participate of it and that also the Cup is instead of his Blood But I see nothing more positive and formal hereupon than what is said by Proclus Bishop of Constantinople in one of his Orations Proclus Orat. 17. where he exhorts his Hearers to imitate the Piety and Devotion of the wise Men which went to worship the Child Jesus in the Manger at Bethlehem for after having represented unto them that instead of Bethlehem they had the Church instead of a Stable the House of God and instead of a Manger the Altar or Communion-Table he adds instead of the Child we embrace the Bread which was blessed by the Infant And it shall appear in its place that Amalarius was very near of this Opinion when he taught That the Sacrament is that which is sacrificed instead of Jesus Christ But because the Fathers which say That the Bread and Wine are the Body of Jesus Christ say also that they pass and are changed into the Body and Blood they have taken care to explain unto us these latter Expressions as they also have fully done the former for they tell us that when they say That when the Bread and Wine pass into the Body and Blood of Christ they mean that they pass into the Sacrament of his Body and Blood This is the Explication which St. Isidore Arch-bishop of Sevil gives us in these Words Isid Hispal de offic Eccles l. 1. c. 18. The Bread which we break is the Body of Jesus Christ who saith I am the true Vine but the Bread because it strengthenâ— the Body is for this Reason called the Body of Jesus Christ and the Wine because it increaseth Blood in the Body for that cause refers unto the Blood of Jesus Christ now these two things are visible yet nevertheless being sanctified by the Holy Ghost they pass into the Sacrament of the divine Body It was also the Opinion of Bede Bed Hom. deâ— Sant in Epiphan Jesus Christ saith he daily washeth us in his Blood when we renew at the Altar the remembrance of his holy Passion when the Creatures of Bread and Wine pass into the Sacrament of his Flesh and Blood by the ineffable Sanctification of the Holy Ghost Raban Bishop of Mayans was of his mind but we may not speak of him now And when these same Fathers say That the Bread and Wine are changed and converted into the Body and Blood of our Lord they also tell us that it is into the Vertue and Efficacy of his Body It is in this sense that Theodotus said Apud Clem. Alex. p. 800. Vict. in Marc. 14. Manus That the Bread is changed into a spiritual Vertue St. Cyril of Alexandria cited by Victor of Antioch speaks yet plainer God saith he taking pity of our Infirmities communicates into the things offered an enlivening Vertue and changeth them into the Efficacy of his Flesh whereunto amounts what hath been already said by Theodoret Theod. Dial. 1. That Jesus Christ hath honoured the Symbols with the Name of his Body and Blood not in changing their Nature but in adding his Grace unto their Nature It is for that Reason he adds Ibid. That the Lord made an exchange of Names giving unto his Body the Name of Bread and unto the Bread the Name of his Body to the end saith he that those which participate of the Divine Mysteries should not stop at things which are seen but that by the change of Names they should believe the change which is made by his Grace It is just what Ephraim Apud Phot. God 229. Patriarch of Antioch intended by these Words The Sacrament doth not change the outward Form but it remains inseparable from the hidden Grace as it is in Baptism Ammon cat in Joan. 3.5 For as Ammenius saith The material Water is changed into a divine Vertue I think no other sense can be given unto these words of the 338 Bishop assembled in the Council at Constantinople Anno 754 In Conc. Nicaen 2. Act. 6. against Images As the natural Body of Jesus Christ is Holy because it was Deified so also this here which is his Body by Institution he speaks of the Substance of Bread and which is his Image is Holy as being made Divine by an Institution of Grace But we will retrench having voluntarily prescribed our selves this Law to avoid Confusion therefore it shall suffice to observe That from all these Considerations of the Holy Fathers which we have alledged there results two Doctrines from their Writings both which have been their Foundation for the Vertue and Efficacy which they attribute unto the Sacsament the first is that they regard it as a Sacrament which not only barely signifies but which also exhibits and communicates unto the believing Soul the thing which it signifies I mean the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ This is it which made St. Chrysostom say explaining these Words Chrysost Hom. â—4 in 1 ad Cor. The Bread which we break is the Communion of the Body of Christ wherefore did he not say that it is the Participation because he would give something more to be understood and shew a great Union For we not only communicate in that whereof we receive and take but also in that we are united for as this Body is united unto Jesus Christ so are we also united unto him by this Bread This was also the Judgment of St. Macarius when he said Macar Hom. 27. Dionys c. 3. Hier. Eceles That in participating of this visible Bread the Flesh of Christ is spiritually eaten And also of the Author of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy who calls the Bread and Wine the venerable Symbols whereby Jesus Christ is represented and whereby we enjoy him And of Victor of Antioch Vict. Antioch in Marc. c. 14. By the Symbol of Bread saith he we are made to participate of the Body of Christ and by the Cup we partake of his Blood St. Fulgentius had no other meaning when he thus read the words of St. Paul Fulg. de Baptis Aethiop the Breads which we break are they not the participation of the Body of the Lord. And in another place which we find in the Fragments of the ten Books he wrote against Fabian the Arrian he declares himself so fully that nothing can be said more expresly unto the Subject in hand The participation it self saith he of the Body and Blood of our Lord Id. ex l. 8. Fragm 28. when we eat his Bread and drink his Cup intimates this unto us to wit that we should dye to the World from hence it is they oppose the Communion of the Body and Blood of our Lord by means of the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist unto the participation of
must be understood according to the Subject of the Discourse for because they imagined his Discourse was hard and unsupportable as if he intended to have given them his very Flesh to eat to dispose Matters into a spiritual Sense he said in the first place It is the Spirit that quickneth then he adds The Flesh profiteth nothing that is to vivifie He also sheweth what he will have us understand by the Spirit the Words which I speak unto you are Spirit and Life as before Whosoever heareth my Words and believeth in him that sent me hath eternal Life c. Therefore to obtain Life there must be an Appetite for this Word we must devour it by the Ear meditate of it by the Understanding and digest it by Faith Also a little before he called his Flesh heavenly Bread pressing in and above all by the Allegory of necessary Meats the Memory of the Fathers which had preferr'd the Flesh-pots of the Egyptians before the heavenly Vocation And elsewhere he teacheth us the Reasons wherefore these Kinds of Expressions must be taken figuratively when he gives us this general Rule for the Interpretation of the Holy Scriptures If the natural Sence will not admit to wit Id. contra Marc. l. 3. c. 23. Rigalt in unum locum August l. 11. de Gem. ad Litt. c. 1. what the Letter of the Scripture bears it follows that the Expression should pass for a Figure or Metaphor The late Mr. Rigaut very pertinent to this Matter reports the Maxims of St. Augustin If saith he in the Words of God or of any one sent to be a Prophet there is found any Expression which cannot be understood by the Letter without Absurdity it is out of doubt that it should be understood as spoken figuratively to signifie something Orig. in Levit. Hom. 7. f. 2. Therefore Origen also understands the Words of Christ in the 6th of St. John figuratively saying particularly of these If you eat not my Flesh and drink my Blood that it is a killing Letter if it be taken in a literal Sense whereas if we understand them spiritually they kill not but there is in them a quickning Spirit And elsewhere explaining these Words He sleeps not until he hath eat and drank the Blood of the slain He seeks under the Law and the Gospel amongst the Jews and Christians the literal Accomplishment of this Prophecy and not finding it amongst the Jews who were expresly forbidden to eat the Blood nor amongst the Christians which for a long time made a Scruple of eating it particularly in Origen's time he saith Id Homil. 6. in Numb That of necessity we must depart from the Harshness of the Letter unto the Sweetness of the Allegory And having observed that what our Saviour said in the 6th of St. John That to eat his Flesh and drink his Blood had so displeased the carnal Disciples which were with him and forsook him he adds That it is said of the Christian People of the faithful People That they drink the Blood of Christ not only by the Ceremony of Sacraments but also when we receive his Words wherein is Life as he saith himself The Words which I have spoken unto you are Spirit and Life It is he then saith he that is broken whose Blood we drink that is That we receive the Words of his Doctrine He saith almost the same in the 35th Treatise upon St. Matthew Euseb de Theol Eccles contra Marc. l. l. 3. c. 12. Eusebius thus makes our Saviour speak to explain what he saith in the 6th of St. John of the eating of his Flesh Do not think that I speak of the Flesh wherewith I am environed as if you should eat it and think not that I command you to drink sensible and corporal Blood but know that the Words I have spoken unto you are Spirit and Life For it is my Words and my Discourse which are this Flesh and Blood whereof whosoever eateth always he shall be Partaker of Life eternal as being nourished with heavenly Bread Let not then what I have said unto you touching the eating my Flesh and drinking my Blood offend you saith he and let not an unadvised Understanding of what I said unto you of Flesh and Blood trouble you for these Things profit nothing being understood carnally it is the Spirit that quickens those which can underderstand it spiritually Athan. in illud quicunque dixerit verb. contra fil homin St. Athanasius speaks no less clear for explaining these Words of Jesus Christ Doth this offend you what and if you see the Son of Man ascend up where he was before it is the Spirit that quickens the Flesh profiteth nothing the Words which I speak unto you are Spirit and Life Our Saviour saith he spake of the one and the other that is of his Flesh and Spirit and he distinguisheth the Spirit from the Flesh to the end that not only believing what was visible of him but also that which was invisible they might learn that the Things which he said were not carnal but spiritual for unto how many Persons could his Body have sufficed for Meat to become Food for all the World Therefore for that Reason he speaks of the Ascending of the Son of Man into Heaven to withdraw them from carnal Thoughts and to teach them that the Flesh of which he had spoken unto them was heavenly Food and spiritual Nourishment which he was to send them from on high For the Words saith he which I have spoke unto you are Spirit and Life as if he should have said unto them This Body which appears and which is given for the World shall be given as Meat to be distributed as Meat unto each one and to be made unto all a Preservative in the Resurrection to eternal Life Macar Homil 27. And can it be thought St. Macarius was of another Mind when speaking of the Bread of the Eucharist he said That those which should partake of this visible Bread should spiritually eat the Flesh of Christ Cyril Hierosol Mystag 4. Nor St. Cyril of Jerusalem when he observed that the Jews which did not spiritually understand the Things which Jesus Christ had said were offended and forsook him thinking that he commanded them to eat Flesh Nor St. Basil observing that the Faculties of the Soul are called by the same Names as the external Members Basil in Ps 33. and that because our Lord is the true Bread and that his Flesh is Meat indeed it is necessary that the Contentment and Pleasure which is taken in eating Bread should be created in us by a spiritual Appetite Nor the incomparable St. Chrysostom in that excellent Discourse which one of his Homilies upon St. Chrysost Hom. 46. in Joan. John doth furnish us It is the Spirit that quickneth the Flesh profiteth nothing See here what he would say You must understand spiritually these Things which I have spoke of my self he which understands
Testimony but now alledged amongst the things whereof he fears that Truth may be endangered if the Faith of the Senses are mistrusted he mentions expresly the Wine of the Sacrament Tert. de anim Christians saith he are not permitted to call the Testimony of their Senses in question fearing least they should say that Jesus Christ tasted some other savour than that of Wine which he consecrated in remembrance of his Blood He alledges to defend the Fidelity of the Senses the Savour of the Wine of the Sacrament but say they it cannot be imagined that he could have reasoned after that manner if he had believed what the Latins now believe because according to their Hypothesis our Senses are grosly deceived in taking that to be Wine which is nothing less than Wine but another substance infinitely different Shall we then conclude say they that he indiscreetly betray'd his Cause and that he ignorantly chose for a convincing Proof that which was an unsurmountable Difficulty but should we say so we should undoubtedly draw upon us all the Learned who look'd upon him as one of the greatest Wits of his Time whose Mind being so enlightned and his Judgment so solid could not be charged with such a Mistake and not to call his great Reputation in question they had rather conclude according to all appearance that he was not of the belief of the present Latin Church which I refer unto the Reader 's Discretion but that nothing may be wanting to the clearing the question we now treat of and not to make the Holy Fathers contradict one another it must be observed that they considered two things as some say in the Sacrament of Christians I mean the sign and the thing signified As for the thing signified all the World agree that it falls not under the Senses and that so we should not expect that they should render us any Testimony It is Faith that must instruct and give us a Testimony it is of Faith to direct and apply to us the Efficacy and Vertue As to the Signs and Symbols they also say that they have therein also distinguished two things the Substance and their Nature and their Use and Employment that is to say the quality of the Sacraments wherewith they are qualified by favour of the Benediction For example in Baptism they pretend that Water which is the Symbol hath two Relations one of the bare Element of the Nature which keeps its Substance and the other of the Sacrament of Religion which Consecration gives it It is the same in the Eucharist for besides the Nature and Substance of Bread and Wine which are the Signs and Symbols they bear the quality of Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and it is Grace which God adds unto Nature Now to apply this unto our Subject they say that the Senses being Organs purely Natural they cannot lift themselves above Nature nor make us a true report of what doth not depend upon their Laws but whilst they keep within the bounds of their Nature and that they undertake nothing beyond their Strength and the Priviledges granted unto them their Testimony is infallible and their Deposition true and certain therefore when they shew us that the Water in Baptism is truly Water according to its Substance and the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist but Bread and Wine also in regard of their Substance they judge that we ought to believe them after what the Fathers have told us because then they do not pass the limits that God hath set them but when they will pass further and tell us that the Water of Baptism is but bare Water and the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament but bare Bread and Wine we should command their silence because they pass beyond their Bounds and passing beyond the Limits of Nature they take upon them to penetrate into the Mysteries of Grace which have been only given unto Faith to dispose of they also observe that 't is in these occasions that the same Fathers forbid us to hearken unto them or receive their Testimony and that 't is so must be understood the Author of the Book of them which are initiated in St. Ambrose What have you seen Ambros l. 3. de init c. 3. l. 4. saith he I have seen Water indeed but not Water only I also see the Deacons saying Service and the Bishop examining and consecrating for the Apostle hath taught you that before all things you should look not to the things seen which are temporary Ibid. but unto those which are invisible which be eternal and again believe not the Eyes of the Body only what is not seen is most seen because the one is Temporal and the other Eternal and that which is Eternal is not perceived by the Eyes but is seen by the Spirit and by the Understanding And the Author of the Book of Sacraments Apud Ambros l. 1. de Sacram. c. 3. You have seen what may be seen with the Eyes of the Body and human Perception but you have not seen the things which operate because they are invisible those which are not seen are much more considerable than those which are seen because the things which are visible are Temporal and the things invisible are Eternal And because there is this difference betwixt the Believer and the Unbeliever that the Unbeliever hath only the Eyes of the Body and of Nature whereas the Believer hath besides the Eyes of the Body and of Nature those of the Spirit and of Faith St. Chrysostom saith that the Infidel seeth only the substance of the Symbols staying at the exterior of the Sacraments but as for the Believer he understands the Excellency the Vertue and the Meaning that is to say with the Eyes of Faith when he seeth as well as the Unbeliever the matter and substance of the Symbols with the Eyes of Nature and of the Body Câ—rysost Hom. 7. in 1 ad Cor. p. 378. The Unbeliever saith he hearing mention made of Baptism thinks that it is but Water but as for me I do not only look upon what is seen I consider also the cleansing of the Soul which is done by the Holy Ghost he thinks that my Body only is washed and I do believe my Soul is also purified and sanctified for I do not judge by the bodily Eyes of what is seen but by those of the Understanding I hear the Body of Christ named I conceive it after one manner and the Unbeliever understands it after another Which he illustrates by this excellent Comparison An illiterate Person saith he receiving a Letter takes it only for Paper and Ink but a Person that understands Letters finds quite another thing he hears a Voice and speaks with a Person absent and will in his time say what he lists and will make himself to be understood by means of Letters It is the same with the Mysteries for Unbelievers understand nothing of what they hear spoken
to the Persecution of the Heathens It may be saith St. Cyprian that some may fear at the Morning Oblation to make known by the Scent of the Wine that he hath participated of the Blood of Jesus Christ Was ever any Fear so ill grounded or any pannick Fear like this If it had then been believed that what was drank in communicating was the real Blood of Christ where was the Sense of those People to be afraid of a Shadow and to tremble where there was no Cause of Danger Seeing it could not be said that the Blood of Jesus Christ had the same Smell that Wine had and that moreover it is expresly spoken of the Smell of Wine and not of the Odour of the Blood of Christ And what surpriseth them yet more is that those of whom we speak were not private ordinary Persons but Conducters also for St. Cyprian designs such at the Beginning of his Treatise by those which consecrate the Cup of the Lord and distribute it unto the People To say that the Smell of Wine should rest in the Sacrament although there had been no Wine that could not be because the Holy Fathers before declared That Accidents could not exist without their Subjects without ever excepting the Sacrament Moreover when St. Cyprian condemned this Abuse as doubtless he had reason to condemn it wherefore had he not said That those People were the most to blame that could be to take for Wine the proper Blood of Jesus Christ and to think that the Sacrament had the Scent of Wine seeing there was no Wine in it Wherefore had he not alledged against them the Belief of the Universal Church if it held for an Article of Faith that what is contained in the mystical Cup is not Wine after Consecration but the very Substance of the Blood of the Son of God It was say they the only Means that could have been used to have made them ashamed and to have reclaimed them from their Error yet nevertheless St. Cyprian doth not make use of it He contents himself to pity their Ignorance and their Timidity and to blame them that they had not followed the Example of Jesus Christ who had not used Water alone in his Eucharist nor Wine alone but of both The other Christians which celebrated the Sacrament with Water did it by another Motive as Gennadius hath informed us when he told us De dogm Eccles c. 75. That they did so under a Pretext of Sobriety Is it possble that this Thought could ever come into the Mind of a Christian that to drink the Blood of the Lord Jesus was to want Sobriety What were Men made of in those Times say the Protestants Had they common Sense and Reason as we have For we cannot conceive their Proceedings it must be freely confessed if participating of the Holy Cup they believe they drink the pure Blood of the Son of God and not Wine how they could think that under a Pretext of Sobriety that they ought to use only Water therein But wherefore had not the Holy Fathers taken Care better to instruct and inform them herein it had been their Duty and Charity to have cured these Souls from this mistaken Niceness which caused them to err they also did it for they were too zealous and charitable to let themly in Error But how have they done it was it in saying unto them That the holy Liquor in the Sacramental Cup is no longer Wine but the proper Blood of Jesus Christ no at least no such Thing is seen in their Writings to think so On the contrary you would think they take Delight in shewing that it is Wine Id. ibid. For see here all the Answer that Gennadius makes to combate this Abuse There was Wine in the Mystery of our Redemption our Saviour having said I will drink no more of this Fruit of the Vine Prudence is very necessary in the Conduct of Life but I think it is more in matters of Religion especially unto Pastors and Conducters which lead the Way unto others they should take care not to make any wrong Steps I mean not to teach any thing either by Preaching or Writing but what they carefully digest particularly not to urge any Thing against Unbelievers or Hereticks that may reflect upon any of the Mysteries of our holy Religion No body that I know hath accused St. Chrysostom of want of Prudence and to say the Truth for what is known of him great heed ought to be taken of laying any such thing to his Charge Nevertheless it is observed in one Part of his excellent Works one thnig which would certainly be ill relished had he been in the Opinion of the Latins It is a Reproach which he makes unto Laban upon his complaining that he was robbed of his Gods Chrysost Homil 57. in Gen. ad c. 30 31. t 2. O Excess of Folly saith he unto him thy Gods saith he are they capable of being stoln Art thou not ashamed to say Wherefore have ye stolen away my Gods For if this holy Doctor believed that the Bread of the Sacrament after Consecration were no longer Bread but the true Body of Jesus Christ his Saviour and his God it may be said that the Reproach he made unto Laban was neither prudent nor judicious because he might have been answered That the same might befal his God And indeed others before me have observed Alex. Gerald. itiner Romae I dit extr that Alexander Geraldin Bishop of St. Domingo in that Spanish Island complained formerly unto the Emperor Charles the fifth That the Temple of his Bishoprick not being well covered all therein was exposed unto Thieves insomuch saith he that the Body of God it self is not there secure against Robbers against Witches and Sorcerers nor against the Rage of wicked Men. But when we should not have the Complaint of this Bishop all the World knows that what St. Chrysostom saith of the Gods of Laban may befal the consecrated Host One cannot then forbear either to accuse this holy Doctor of want of Wisdom or to say that he did not believe the substantial Conversion of the Latin Church which I will refer to the Readers Judgment whilst I say Theodoret. in Genes Quest 55. that Theodoret a great Admirer of St. Chrysostom should not avoid the same Censure however discreet he was otherwise If he had believed that the proper Body of Jesus Christ which all Christians adore and unto whom they address the Soveraign Worship of their Religion were truly and properly eaten with the Mouth of the Body Id. in Levit. Quest 11. p. 124. For if that were so say they with what Face could he say That it is the highest Folly to adore what we eat And again when he asks this Question Where is there any Man of good Sense that can call that his God which he eateth himself after having offered it unto the true God Had it not been to have exposed himself
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
of Jesus Christ which passeth into the substance of our Body and Soul without being consumed corrupted or passing into the Draft Ah God forbid but passing into our Substance for our Preservation All Christians confess that this cannot be said of the true Body of Jesus Christ as neither can it be said of bare Accidents it must then be understood of the Substance of Bread which is called the Body of Christ because it is the Sacrament of it From thence it is the same Damascen compares the Change which befalls the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist unto that which happens unto the Water of Baptism As in Baptism saith he because Men are wont to wash themselves with Water Id. Ibid. and to anoint them with Oyl God hath joyned unto the Water and Oyl the Grace of the Holy Spirit and hath made it the Washing of Regeneration so also in like manner they being accustomed to eat Bread and to drink Wine and Water he hath joyned them unto his Divinity and hath made them his Body and Blood His Similitude would not be just if the substance of the Symbols did not remain in the Eucharist as well as in Baptism He useth also another which farther illustrates the nature of this Change Ibid. Esay saith he saw a Coal now a Coal is not meer Wood but it is joyned with Fire so the Bread of the Sacrament is not bare Bread but it is joyned to the Divinity and the Body united to the Divinity is not one and the same Nature but the Nature of the Body is one and that of the Divinity united unto it is another Every body may easily understand that the Coal united to the Fire keeps its substance although that by a kind of Change it becomes red and like Fire Therefore by the sense of the Comparison it must needs be that the Bread of the Eucharist doth keep its substance although it be in some sort changed by its being joyned to the Divinity and that so the Change which comes to the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament according to Damascen is quite different from that which is taught by the Latin Church and I think it cannot be any way questioned after what is above said Now if I be asked what was the Belief of Damascen for if it be not the Belief of Roman Catholicks it should in all likelihood be that of Protestants I answer sincerely that as far as I can judge it is not the Belief neither of the one or the other but a particular Opinion of this Friar who believed that the Bread and Wine by the coming of the Holy Ghost were in some sort united to the Divinity which took them unto it self for he useth the term of Assumption as it took the Humane Nature of our Saviour and that by means of this Union to the Divinity they became one and the same Body and not several as he explained himself in the first passage an Unity which depends upon this known Axiom That the things united unto a third are united amongst themselves Methinks the Author declares his meaning plainly enough when having made himself this Question How is it that the Bread is made the Body of Jesus Christ Ibid. and the Wine and Water his Blood He answers The Holy Spirit comes and changes these things in a manner that surpasseth expression and thought The Bread and Wine are taken which is just the term used by the Fathers to represent the Assumption of the Humane Nature of Jesus Christ by the Divinity The Sentiments of Damascen will appear yet plainer if we consider what he saith in his Letter unto Zachary Bishop of Doare and in the little Chapter which follows to wit That the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament are made the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ by way of Augmentation or Increase which befalls the Body of Jesus Christ Thus he establisheth the Subsistence of these two Elements and their joyning unto the natural Body of Jesus Christ but so strict an Union that they make in the shallow Conceit of this Writer but one single Body with the true Body of Jesus Christ Moreover he assures that the incorruptible Body of our Saviour that is to say his glorified Body hath no Blood a Doctrine with which it is impossible to reconcile the Belief of Transubstantiation As to what Damascen saith That the Fathers have given to the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament the names of Figures and Signs before Consecration and not after he apparently deceives himself for do but read what we have alledged in the third Chapter of this second Part where we have established this Tradition by a very great number of testimonies of this holy Doctors The Abbot of Billy a very Learned Man and well read in Ecclesiastical Antiquity could not suffer this presumption of Damascen's without reproving him Billius in Orat. 11. Greg. Naz. p. 632. by as it were giving him the lye Damascen saith he denies that the Bread and Wine are called Figures after Consecration by St. Basil which is evidently false as plainly appears by several places in the Apostolical Constitutions of St. Clement of Gregory Nazianzen and other Authors Bessar Card. de Sacram. Eucharist t. 6. Bibl. patr p. 470. Edit ult Bessareon a Greek by Nation Bishop of Nice and one of those which assisted at the Council of Florence in behalf of the Greek Nation but corrupted by the Latins who honoured him with a Cardinals Cap excuseth Damascen and endeavours to give a good sense to his words By the Figure saith he whereof he speaks in this place he means a shadow which is nothing else but a Figure simply signifying another subject having not at all any force nor power to act or operate like the Sacraments of the Old Testament which were the Figures of the Sacraments of the New But this Explication which is not wholly to be rejected doth not hinder but that the Censure of the Abbot of Billy was very Judicious In fine About the same time Damascen denied it Stephen Stylite no less zealous than him for the defence of Images confessed it when he said to the Emperour Constantine which commanded them to be taken out of Churches Will you also banish out of the Church the Signs or Figures of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Vita Stephan apud Surcum ad 28 Novem. cap. 36. seeing that is an Image and a true Figure But let us yet make some progress in the East and West to know what was the Language and Doctrine of the Church in the Eighth Century As for what concerns the West Bede in Luc. cap. 22. Id. in Psal 3. Id. in Hemil. de Sanct. in Epiph. Idem in Psal 133. t. 8. Id. de tabern l. 2. c. 2. t. 4. if we enquire of venerable Bede he will tell us That the Lord gave us the Sacrament of his Flesh and Blood in the Figure of Bread and Wine And that
tempted by the Spirit of Fornication which they attributed unto Sophronius Patriarch of Jerusalem and a Letter of St. Basil unto the Emperor Julian the Apostate wherein this holy Doctor acknowledgeth and embraceth the Worship of Images a piece also invented by some ignorant Impostor all this in the 4th Session Therefore it is very judiciously observed in the Books of Charlemain that those of Nice seeing the holy Scriptures would not accord with their Errors they had recourse unto I know not what humane Fooleries worthy of shame I 'le say nothing of their denying the Epistle produced under the name of Ibas to be truly his Act. 6. p. 775. against the testimony of the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon and the very confession of Ibas himself In fine it is found that the Fathers of Constantinople have very faithfully retained the Doctrine and Expressions of those unto whom God had committed the conduct of the Church before them for they call the Eucharist an Image Type Commemoration it is the common Language of the Ancients they teach that it is Bread the substance of Bread the Ancients had said so before them as hath been amply related in the second Chapter of this part of our History they call it the Body of Jesus Christ by Institution which amounts unto what their Ancestors said that it is the Typical the Mystical the Symbolical Body the Body by Grace as hath been declared and they also agree with them when they say that the Sacrament is the Image of his Incarnation But as for the Fathers of Nice it is said that if they absolutely departed not from the Doctrine of the Ancients they did at least from their terms and expressions when they denied that the Fathers had called the Bread and Wine after Consecration Types or Figures which appeared so impudent unto those which have given us the Councils that they could not forbear reproving this confidence by this Annotation which they have set in the Margin the Greek Fathers often call the things Sanctified Figures as Gregory Nazianzen in the Funeral Oration of his Sister and in his first Appologetick Cyril of Jerusalem in his 5th Mystagogical Catechism and others The Abbot of Billy hath also blamed as hath been before declared the like temerity in Damascen and certainly with much reason seeing there is nothing more frequent in the Writings of the Fathers than these kind of expressions yet it was upon this false ground that these Prelates of Nice founded their censure against those of Constantinople which had called the Eucharist the Image of the Body of Jesus Ghrist and that on the contrary they said That it is his Body it self Words which the Latins are wont to explain to their advantage although the Protestants do not judge that in the main of the Doctrine Nice was not Diametrically opposite unto Constantinople to understand it aright it must be remembred the chief occasion of assembling both Councils was the subject of Images the Council of Constantinople having abolished the Use and Worship of them And that of Nice having restored both the one and the other it must also be remembred that the Fathers of Constantinople taking from the Eucharist a proof against the Use and Worship of Images they called the Sacrament an Image and declared that it was the only Image which Christ commanded to be made But because the word Image doth at the first hearing form in the mind the Idea of a proper Image and simple Picture that hath no other use nor propriety then to represent unto our Eyes some form like the Original without any way participating of its Operation and Virtue in a word a Picture like to those which be sold in Painters Shops the Prelates of Nice thinking those of Constantinople had in this sense given the name of Image unto the Sacrament as Cardinal Bessarion told us Damascen had done failed not severely to censure them not but that the Fathers of Constantinople had sufficiently enough explained themselves in saying that this Image to wit the Divine Bread is filled with the Holy Ghost But in fine the Prelates of Nice either through Passion to their Adversaries or otherwise for 't is not for me to judge of their thoughts reflected sharply upon those of Constantinople thinking they had taken this term of Image in the sense as we have expressed several things made them think so In the first place they tell us themselves that it was their thought and that they gave no other signification to the word Image As for the Image say they Concil Nicaen 2. act 6. tom 6. p. 800. t. 5. Concil Ibid. p. 799. we know no other but that it is an Image which sheweth the resemblance of its Original whence also it is that it takes the name and that it hath nothing else common with it A little before they had said That what the Image hath in common with the Original is the name only and not the definition And again in another place Ibid. t. 3. p. 353 One thing is the Image and another thing is the Original and a man of sense will never seek the Proprieties of the Original in the Image Secondly Elias of Creet now Candia one of the Fathers of the Council sheweth they think very clearly that the intent of the Council was not to teach that the Bread and the Wine were changed into the substance of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ but only into their Efficacy and Vertue for using the words of St. Cyril of Alexandria before alledged Elias Cretens in Orat. 1. Greg. Nazianz p. 201. he saith That God doth send into the things offered an enlivening vertue and that he makes them to pass into the operation of his Flesh it is in the Greek of St. Cyril into the Efficacy of his Flesh There is yet more the Fathers of Nice being in a humour of reproving and censuring those of Constantinople as to whatever with any weak shew might fall within the compass of their censure it is no force to conceive that they approved what they have not blamed and that they have owned as Catholick and Orthodox the things which they have not censured They say that all reasonable persons will grant if they consider how the Bishops of Nice were affected towards them of Constantinople whose Constitutions and Decrees they publickly revoked now of two things insisted upon by these latter the Prelates of Nice censured but one they must then approve of the other and in approving they must receive it as Catholick and as one of the Articles of their Belief The Fathers of Constanstinople had said that the Eucharist is the Image of the Body of Jesus Christ but they said also That this Image is the substance of Bread here are Adversaries eagerly bent against them Adversaries that spare them not in any thing that strictly examine every thing they do or say either to render them odious or to make them be
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
Ibid. p. 362. A. And upon this also I will no more drink of this fruit af the Vine until the day I drink it new with you in my Father's Kingdom After that time of Supper saith he he drank no Wine until he became immortal and incorruptible after his Resurrection This is the Explication Protestants give unto the words of Druthmar Hitherto we have spoken of Writers of the IX Century out of whom it is accustomed to produce Testimonies to prove that they opposed the Doctrine of Paschas Radbert excepting Heribold unto whom we reserve a Chapter apart But besides these Witnesses which have deposed there be some others whose Testimonies may conduce to the clearing the Subject we treat of therefore we will make no difficulty to receive their Depositions beginning with Ahyto Ahyto Bishop of Basle was so famous for his Holiness of Life for the Light of his Doctrine and for his Wisdom in managing great and important Affairs that Charlemain had a very particular kindness and esteem for him whereupon in the Year 811. he sent him Ambassador unto Constantinople to treat of Peace with the Eastern Emperor as the Annals of France Eginhard Author of the Life of Charlemain the Annals of Fulda Herman Contract and others do testifie This Ahyto who departed this Life Anno 836. left a Capitulary for the Instruction of the Priests of his Diocess which Dom Luke d'Achery caused to be printed three or four years since the Copy of it being sent him from Rome and taken from a Manuscript of the Library of Cardinal Francis Barbarini The same d'Achery observing also that it is to be found in the Manuscript Copies of the Vatican Library Now amongst many other Instructions which he gives unto his Priests in this Capitulary this is to be read Anyco apud Dom. Luc. d'Acher Spicileg t. 6. p. 692. In the fifth place the Priests ought to know what the Sacrament of Baptism and of Confirmation is and what the Mystery of the Body and Blood of our Lord is how a visible Creature is seen in the same Mysteries and nevertheless invisible Salvation is there communicated for the Salvation of the Soul the which is contained in Faith only Ahito speaketh of Baptism and of the Eucharist He distinguisheth in the one and the other the Sign and the thing signified and lays it down for certain that in both of them alike there is a visible Creature without making any distinction betwixt the Creature that is seen in the Eucharist and that which is seen in Baptism it must needs be then of necessity That as by the Creature which is seen in Baptism he understands the substance of Water and Chrism so also by that which is seen in the Eucharist he understands the substance of Bread and Wine and because Baptism and the Eucharist are two Sacraments of the New Testaments Instituted by one Lord Jesus Christ and appointed to render us partakers of his Grace Ahyto attributes unto them both the same effect viz. the Communication of Eternal and Invisible Salvation unto those which receive both the one and the other of these Sacraments with Faith No other sense can be given unto the words of this Bishop neither can it be avoided by consequence to conclude but that his Doctrine was directly contrary unto that of Paschas Unto this Bishop of Basil I will joyn another of Orleans Theodulphu-Aurelian ad Magn. Senon de ordine Baptis c. 18. I mean Theodolph who in the year 817. was of the Conspiration of Bernard King of Italy against the Emperor Lewis the Debonair and who speaks thus in his Treatise of the Order of Baptism There is a saving sacrifice which Melchisedek King of Salem offered under the Old Testament in Figure of the Body and Blood of our Lord and which the Mediator of God and Man hath accomplished under the New before he was delivered up when he took the Bread and the Wine blessing them and distributing then unto his Disciples he commanded them to do those things in remembrance of him it is then this mystical sacrifice which the Church celebrates having left and put an end unto the Ancient Sacrifices offering Bread because of the Bread of Life that came down from Heaven and Wine because of him that said I am the true Vine to the end that by the Priest's visible offering and by the invisible Consecration of the Holy Ghost the Bread and Wine should pass into the dignity of the Body and Blood of our Lord in which Blood Water is mingled either because Water flowed out of the side of Christ with the Blood or that because according to the interpretation of the Ancients as Jesus Christ is figured by the Wine so the People is figured by the Water This Prelate intimates that Jesus Christ accomplished under the Gospel the Sacrifice of Melchisedek which was a Sacrifice of Bread and Wine which he demonstrates by the act of our Saviour who instituting the Sacrament of the Eucharist took Bread and Wine and having blessed them gave them them unto his Disciples with order to commemorate him in the Celebration of this Mystery He declares it is the Sacrifice which the Church celebrates offering Bread and Wine That the Wine in the Cup signifies Jesus Christ as the Water doth the People And that in fine all that befalls the Bread and Wine by Consecration is that they pass he doth not say into the substance of the Body and Blood of our Saviour which he must needs have said if he had believed the real Presence but he saith they pass into the Dignity of his Body and Blood because indeed we should consider them as his Body and Blood for they be in the room and are invested with the Dignity of his Person and accompanied in their lawful use with the vertue and efficacy of his Body broken and of his Blood poured forth According to which he orders in his Capitulary Every Lords day to receive during Lent time the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Id. in capitulari c. 41.44 and prescribes the dispositions with which one should approach unto so great a Sacrament Thus it is that several do understand this passage of Theodolph After the testimony of two Bishops we are obliged to mention an Archbishop of Lyons who lived in the same Century and who in the year 834. was of the number of the Prelates which joyning with the Children against the Father deprived Lewis the Debonair of Crown and Scepter it is easie to perceive that I mean Agobard who undoubtedly was one of the most Learned Bishops of his time and whose Writings as I conceive have more of light and vigour and although he hath not said very much of the Eucharist yet we will nevertheless judge of his belief upon this Article both by his words and by his silence The better to understand of what import his silence is 't is to be observed that Amalarius of whom we
would have rested satisfied to have shewn that if Christians admitted of this custom amongst the Ceremonies of their Religion it was unto the Honour and Glory of the true God whereas Pagans did it unto unto the honour of their Idols and their false Divinities And writing unto his Wife In c. 6. lib. 2. ad uxor She will saith he be incommoded with the smell of Incense at all the Solemnities of the Emperors at the beginning of every new Year and of each Month. She will depart out of the house whose door shall be set with Lawrels and Candles Upon which words Monsieur Rigaut doth fully prove that the ancient Christians would not suffer that the Pagans should fasten Lawrels at their doors nor that they should light Flambeaus in day time And that they had it in detestation as things consecrated unto the honour of false Gods as things injurious unto nature and reason and as the sign of some place of fresh debauchery The same Tertullian demands again in his Apologetick Apolog. c. 46. If there be any one that forceth a Philosopher to sacrifice or to swear or needlesly to light Flambeaus at Noon-day And Arnobius directing his discourse unto the Gentiles Advers Gent. l 5. p 77. ult ed. Your Gods saith he like men look for things they have lost and run through the World with Flambeaus when the Sun shineth in its lustre In the Council of Eliberius in Spain assembled as is supposed Concil Eliber c. 35. p. 37. in the Year 305. there is found two Canons which concerns the Subject in hand The first contains these words We forbid that Candles should be lighted by day time in the Church-yard for the Souls of Saints should not be disturbed Those which obey not this Ordinance shall be suspended from the Communion of the Church In the other this may be seen We have thought good that those which are troubled with unclean Spirits should be baptized if they are Believers and in danger of death let the Sacrament be given unto them forbidding them to light Candles publickly And if they do it contrary to this Prohibition let them be deprived of the Communion But this Council being assembled in a time when the Persecutions against the Christians were not wholly ceased let us examine if after the Empire was fallen into the hands of Christian Princes in the person of Constantine the Great whether the Church acted otherwise than it had done before Lactantius Firmianus was Tutor unto Crispus Son of this Emperor Instit diviner l. 6. c. 2. if we examine him on this matter he will tell us That God hath created so clear and pure a Light for the use of Man that he stands in no need of Flambeaus He doth deride the Heathens That they made Lights unto God as if he were in Darkness and maketh this formal declaration That it cannot be believed that that man is in his right senses which offers the light of Candles and Flambeaus unto him which is the Author and Dispencer of Light And St. Cyril of Jerusalem which flourished at the end of the 4th Century lays it down as a part of Idolatrous Worship Mystagog 1. To light Candles and to burn Incense near unto Fountains and Rivers without saying a word of justifying Christians in the use of Candles and Flambeaus in the exercise of their Worship which in all probability he would not have failed to have done if this practice had been publickly received into the Church not but that they were made use of either on Easter Eves to dissipate the darkness of the Night as Gregory Nazianzen speaks Orat. 2. de Paschat or when Prayers were made or Psalms sung before day as is observed by St. Epiphanius Lib. 3. in fine compendiar doctâ— There is saith he always prayers at Church in the Morning Psalms also is there sung by Candle-light But it matters not what was done by Christians when they assembled in the Night there being a kind of necessity which permitted them not to do otherwise the question is to know at what time they began to introduce the use of Candles and Flambeaus into the Service and Worship of their Religion and to make it one of the Ceremonies of the Celebration of their Sacrament We have already seen that the 4th of the Canons attributed unto the Holy Apostles ordains To offer Oyle for the Laiminaries But the date of these Canons being very uncertain we can conclude nothing certain nor positive of the beginning of this Ceremony besides that it may be said this Decree seems only to regard Nocturnal Assemblies or at least the Eves of Easter which necessarily required the help of Candles Lights and Flambeaus unto which time may be referred the Miracle of Narcissus Bishop of Jerusalem who seeing the Oyl to fail in the Lamps converted Water into Oyl L. 6. c. 9. according to the report of Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History And the Canon of the Apostles joyning the Oyl unto the Incense and mentioning the time of Celebrating the Sacrament it is probable he desires that both of them should be used Histor l. 6. c. 8. Socrates makes mention of certain silver Crosses invented by St. Chrysostom whereupon was set Wax Lights but he declares in the same place that it was for the Hymns which was sung in the Night time unto the honour of Jesus Christ whilst the Arrians dishonoured him by others which were agreeable unto their Heresie and Impiety Sozomen saith Histor l. 8. c. 8 That the Catholick and Orthodox sang their Hymns in causing to be carried before them Crosses of Silver whereon there was Light Flambeaus so this makes nothing to our subject no more then the using of Lights at the Feasts and Funerals of Christians in the days of Gregory Nazianzen and St. Chrysostom in token of their joy for the belief they had of the blessedness and repose of the Dead what they did in Celebrating the Birth day or the day of the Death of Martyrs which the Ancients termed their Birth day doth approach nearer the matter which we examine for St. Chrysostom witnesseth T. 1. hom 71. de S. Phoca that they lighted Flambeaus upon those occasions Nevertheless because Pagans were wont to use the same Customs in their Feasts and publick rejoycings Orat. 2. in Julianum quae est 4. Gregory Naxianzen doth prohibit Christians to use that practice Let us Celebrate saith he the Feast my Brethren not with spruceness of Body and sumptuousness of Apparel let us not strew the way with Flowers nor make a shew before our Doors and let us not make our Houses shine with visible light for so it is that Pagans do Celebrate the Feast of the New Moon Yet not long after some introduced the Custom of lighting Flambeaus unto the honour of Martyrs I say some few for it was not practised by all the Church but she was content to tolerate it to comply with
confessed that they very ill instructed the people which God had committed unto their charge if the Sacrament is a Subject to be adored because all these plain and formal expressions served only to estrange the Mind from the Idea of this Soveraign Worship of Religion in making them conclude it was nothing but Bread and Wine in regard of their nature but otherwise the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ And what confirmed them the more in this thought is that the Fathers never warned them to take their words figuratively when they say that the Eucharist is Bread and Wine but when they call it the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ they use many precautions as hath been shewed in the third Chapter saying that almost all do call the Sacrament his Body that our Saviour hath honoured the Symbols with the names of his Body and Blood that they be his Body and Blood not simply and absolutely but after some sort being so called by reason of the resemblance because they be the Sacraments the Signs the Figures the Memorials of his Person and Death and that they are in the stead of his Body and Blood What need all these Limitations and Illustrations if their design had been that the people should have adored the Eucharist for you would say that they seem to be afraid that they should take it for an Object worthy of this Worship and Homage so much care is taken by them to make them comprehend what sense they should give unto their words when they say that it is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ a precaution absolutely inconsistent with the intention and thought of inspiring unto them the Doctrine of Adoration This is the reasoning of those which admit not of the Adoration of the Sacrament But if from the consideration of the words of the holy Fathers we pass unto that of several things which were practised by the ancient Church in regard of the holy Sacrament and which hath been examined by us in the first Part we may draw Inferences by the help whereof we shall the easier discover the truth of what we do examine For example the Christians for several Ages made use of Glass Chalices in the Celebration of the Sacrament They gave the Sacrament for a long time unto young Children although very uncapable of the act of Adoration They obliged Communicants to receive it in their hands they permitted them to carry it home along with them unto their houses and to keep it as long as they pleased even to carry it along with them in their Travels without ever finding that they gave it any particular Worship whilst they kept it locked in their Chests or Closets They sent it unto the Absent and unto the Sick without any Ceremony not only by Priests and Deacons but even by Lay-persons by Men Women and young Boys Bishops for above three Centuries sent it unto each other in token of Love and Communion without any noise or giving it any homage or honour by the way and without the peoples assembling in the ways by which it passed to receive it as an Object of their Service and Adoration They also sometimes communicated without any scruple of Conscience after Dinner or Supper and so mingled the Eucharist with their other food Were not this to answer very ill unto the soveraign respect which one should have for a Divinity one adores to mingle it in the same Stomach with ordinary food and to communicate standing as they did But besides all these Customs observed in the Ancient Church see here others also observed by them and which have been considered by us in treating of the exteriour form of Celebration In some places what was left of the Eucharist after Consecration was burnt in the Fire in other places it was eaten by little Children which were sent for from School The Sacrament was employed to make Plaisters it was buried with the Dead and sometimes Ink was mingled with the Consecrated Wine and then they dipt their Pens in these two mixed Liquors Can it be imagined say the Protestants that Christians so zealous as they were should Adore the Sacrament seeing it was employed by them unto uses so far distant from this Adoration and so contrary unto the Worship which is due unto God All these Customs could they consist with a Worship of this Nature and with this Soveraign respect which is due only unto the sole object of our Devotion and of our Religion let the Reader judge And the better to judge hereof let him compare the conduct of the Ancient Church in this particular with that of the Latin Church since the XI Century for these kinds of oppositions do not a little contribute unto the Illustrating the matters now in question practices so different upon the same subject not proceeding but from divers principles nor such various effects but from as different causes I ought not to pass in silence the custom of this same Church in turning out of the Assembly all those that could not or would not Communicate I speak of the Catechumeny the Energumeny and the Penitents which could not be admitted unto the participation of this Divine Sacrament and of those amongst Believers which voluntarily deprived themselves of it for it is most certain that all those which remained in the Assembly did communicate both great and small as hath been shewed in the first Part of this Book And nevertheless if besides the use of the Communion for which they confessed the Eucharist had been instituted they believed that the Sacrament was an object of Adoration What did they mean in forbidding those People which were not in a state of communicating the acts of Piety and Christian Humility A thing so much the more strange that the Holy Fathers believed for certain that prayers made unto God at the time of celebrating the Sacrament were more efficacious then those made unto him at other times by reason of the Commemoration which is there made of the Death of Jesus Christ in whose Name and for whose Merits we pray unto him By what principle and motive were they deprived of the fruit and comfort which they might receive from the homage which they would have given unto God at that blessed moment The sinner addressing himself unto the object of this Worship and Adoration I mean unto the Sacrament would have prayed unto it with a flood of tears and with sincere marks of his Repentance and Contrition to grant him pardon of his sins and to seal the Absolution of them unto his Soul The Energumeny would have implored the assistance of his holy Spirit for his deliverance from the slavery of the Devil The Catechumeny would have presented unto him his prayers for the augmentation of his knowledge and to be e're long honoured by being Baptized into his Church and then afterwards to be admitted unto the holy Sacrament And in fine the Believer in the sense of his unworthiness would