that our Saviour having finished the solemnity of the antient Passover and intending to proceed unto the institution of the New I mean of the Eucharist to leave unto the Church an Illustrious Monument of his great Love and Charity he took Bread and having given thanks unto his Father over the Bread that is to say having blessed and consecrated it he brake it into morsels and gave it unto his Disciples saying Take eat also he took the Cup wherein was Wine and having blessed it as he had done the Bread he gave it unto them saying these words Drink ye all of it that in distributing the Bread he said unto them That it was his Body giveâ— or broken for them and giving them the Cup he said That iâ— waâ— his Blood or the New Testament in his Blood shed for many for the remission of Sins and that he would drink no more of that fruit of the Vine until he drank it new in the Kingdom of his Father commanding them expresly to celebrate this Divine Sacrament until his coming from Heaven to shew in the Celebration of it the remembrance of his Person and sufferings whereunto St. Paul doth add the preparations which Communicants ought to bring unto the Holy Table for fear lest this mystery which is intended unto the Salvation and consolation of Men should turn unto their judgment and condemnation if they partake thereof unworthily But because the actions of Jesus Christ do prescribe unto us if I may so speak the manner how we should celebrate this holy Mystery that his words instruct us what we ought to believe and that the preparations which St. Paul requires of us contain in effect all the motions of a faithful Soul that disposes it self to partake thereof motions which as I conceive are again contained either in whole or in part in the commemoration which our Saviour hath recommended to us we have thought fit to follow this Divine pattern and thereupon to erect the platform and Oeconomy of our work For besides that in so doing we shall imitate as much as possible may be the Example of our Saviour Jesus Christ which ought to be our Law and guide we shall also ease the memory of the Readers we shall facilitate the understanding of those things we have to say and we shall lead them safely by the way which in all likelihood is best and plainest unto the clear and distinct knowledge of the constant and universal tradition of the Christian Church upon this Article of our Faith To this purpose we will divide our Treatise into three Parts the first shall treat of the exteriour Worship of the Sacrament and generally of what concerns it and of what is founded as well on the actions of Jesus Christ celebrating as of the blessed Apostles communicating The second shall contain the Doctrine of the holy Fathers the true tradition of the Church which derives its Original and Authority of what our Saviour said unto his Disciples that the Bread which he gave them was his Body broken and the Cup his Blood shed and in that he commanded them to celebrate this Sacrament in remembrance of him and of his death And lastly the third shall examine the Worship I mean the dispositions which ought to precede the Communion the motions of the Soul of the Communicant whether it be in regard of God and of Jesus Christ or in regard of the Sacrament in a word all things which do relate unto it And in each of these three Parts we will observe with the help of our blessed Saviour all the exactness and sincerity that can be in shewing the Innovations and changes that have thereupon ensued THE LIFE OF Monsieur L'ARROQUE IT is with very great displeasure that I insert in my first Essay of this nature an Elogie which nevertheless will render it very acceptable I had much rather have wanted so good a Subject of Recommendation to my first undertaking than to have obtain'd it by suffering so great a loss But seeing Death will not be subject unto our desires let us acquit our selves according to the various conjunctures whether they be pleasing or not Monsieur L'ARROQVE departed this Life at Roven the 31 of January 1684 Aged 65 years born at Lairac a Town not far from Agen in Guien his Father and Mother dying almost at the same time left him very young under the Conduct of his Relations and which is the common Fate of Scholars without much Wealth but his great love for Learning comforted him in the midst of all his Troubles Having made some progress therein under several Masters he advanced the same considerably in the Academy of Montauban and having applyed himself unto the study of Divinity under Messieurs Charles and Garrisoles eminent Professors who also had at the same time the famous Monsieur Claud to be their Pupil in a short time he there made so great a progress in his studies that he was judged worthy of the Ministry He was accordingly admitted betimes and by the Synod of Guyen sent unto a little Church called Poujols He had scarce been there one year but the Gentlemen of the Church of Rome opposed his Ministry which obliged him to make a Journey to Paris He there became accquainted with Messieurs Le Faucheur and Mestrezat who from that very time prophesi'd very advantagiously of him He preached at Charanton with great Success and was so well approved by the late lady Dutchess of Tremouile that she desired he might be setl'd at the Church of Vitry in Britany where she commonly made her residence For several reasons he consented unto the demands of this Princess and went to Vitry where he liv'd 26 years so confin'd unto his Closet that he therein spent 14 or 15 hours each day The world soon became sensible of his great industry by a Treatise which Monsieur L'ARROQVE published against a Minister who having chang'd his Religion caused to be Printed the motives which induced him thereunto By this Answer it was seen the Author had already attained great knowledge in Antiquity joyned with a very solid and clear way of reasoning which was ever the character of the late Monsieur L'ARROQVES Genius Some years after scil in the year 1665 he made a very learned Answer unto the Book of the Office of the holy Sacrament written by the Gentlmen of Port Royal wherein he shewed unto those Illustrious Friars that they had alledged and translated the passages of Antient Fathers either very negligently or very falsly His History of the EVCHARIST which may well be term'd his Master-piece appeared four years after and did fully manifest the merits of this Excellent Person Having compos'd so many Learn'd Volums the Protestants of Paris looked upon him as a Subject very worthy of their choice and resolved to establish him in the midst of them this honest design had been accomplish'd had not his credit and adhering unto the Interests of two Illustrious Persons whose names are
Bread and Wine may naturally have with the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ is a general uncertain and undetermin'd resemblance and which of it self is not sufficient to make them Sacraments of this Divine Body and of this precious Blood It is necessary that the Benediction and Consecration confer upon them this quality and invest them with this dignity which they cannot have by Nature and that setting them apart from the prophane and common uses which they have in Nature it should apply them unto a Religious and Divine use in Grace Nevertheless it may be affirm'd that this likeness and relation which they have by Nature with the Body and Blood of this Divine Saviour were as it may be said the first ground and the first motive of the choice which our Saviour was pleas'd to make of them for what St. Austin said in one of his Letters may well be apply'd unto this matter Aug. Ep. 23. ad Bonif. That if the Sacraments had not some resemblance with the things whereof they are Sacraments they would be no Sacraments The Holy Fathers confirm this resemblance some in the composition of Bread and Wine and say That the Bread is called the Body because it is made of several grains and the Wine the Blood because it is gather'd from sundry grapes This is the Notion of * Comm. in Matth. c. 26. Theophilus of Antioch of †Ep. 76. St. Cyprian and of some others Others ground it in the Effects and say That the Bread is called the Body of Jesus Christ because it doth nourish and strengthen the body and that the Wine is called his Bloud because it increaseth blood in the body and rejoiceth the heart This is the Reason given by St. ‖ Lib. l. deoffie Ecclâ—s c. 18. Isidore Archbishop of Sevil * Comm in Marc. 14. Bede †Lib. 〈◊〉 Inâ—â—â— cleric c. 31. Rabanus and ‖ Comm. in Matth. 26. Christian Drutmer and I make no question but when Jesus Christ chose Bread and Wine to make them Sacraments and Types of his Body and Blood he had regard unto the Effects which they produced And seeing the four Divine Writers which have related in their sacred books the history of the Institution of the Sacrament have not mentioned whether the Wine which our Saviour used in instituting and celebrating the Sacrament was pure or mixed the antient Christians made no scruple to mingle water with the Wine in the Communion The Jewish Rituals as a learned * Buxtâ—â—f 〈◊〉 hist S. 〈◊〉 § 20. person and extreamly well vers'd in the knowledge of the Uses and Customs of that Nation observes left it unto the free will and choice of every person in celebrating the Passover to use pure Wine or Wine mixt with water so that our blessed Saviour accommodating himself as much as he could in the Celebration of his Sacrament with what was practis'd in the celebrating the Jews Passover it seemeth to me impossible considering the silence of the Evangelists and of S. Paul to determine whether the Wine imploy'd in the celebrating of his Sacrament was mixed with water or not Nevertheless it is most certain that the Ancients believed there was water mingled with the Wine and that it was upon this perswasion that they established the custom of so doing a very ancient practice seeing that St. Justin Martyr who wrote about fifty two years after the death of St. John doth expresly mention it for in shewing the manner of celebrating the Sacrament in his time Just Martyr Apolog. 2 or rather 1. he observes positively that there was presented unto the Pastor Bread and a Cup with Wine mingled with Water that after he had blessed and consecrated them all those which were there present received of the Bread the Wine and the Water which had been consecrated Indeed as the first Christians sought not so many mysteries as those which came after I mean that they troubled not themselves in seeking out of Mysteries in most things relating to Religion so they satisfy'd themselves with the innocent practice of this custom and religiously to observe this use with much simplicity but about one hundred years after St. Justin had writ what is above express'd they bethought themselves of seeking a mystery in this mingling of water with the Wine The first if I mistake not that pleased himself to discover a Mystical signification in the Wine and Water in the holy Cup and of the mingling the one with the other was the glorious Martyr S. Cyprian who would that the Wine should represent the Blood of Jesus Christ the Water should shew the believing people and that the mingling the one with the other should shew the indissoluble union which there is betwixt Christ and Believers Cyprian â—p 63. The faithful people saith he is understood by the Water and the Blood of Jesus Christ is denoted by the Wine and when the Water is mingled with the Wine in the Cup the People are united unto Jesus Christ and the body of the faithful are incorporated in him in whom they believed and this mixture of water and wine in the Cup of the Lord is such that those things cannot be any more separated whence it follows that nothing can separate the Church from the Communion of Jesus Christ that is to say the Believers which are in the Church and do persevere faithfully and firmly in what they believed nor hinder but this indivisible Love shall subsist Therefore it is not permitted in consecrating the Cup of Our Lord to offer Wine alone or Water alone for if only Wine were offered it might be said that the Blood was separate from the people and if only Water were offered it might be said the people were absent from Christ but when they are mingled and inseparably joyn'd together then is effected the Spiritual and Heavenly Sacrament St. Cyprian was followed by the * Can. 2. third Council of Braga in the year 675 by †De offic Eccles lib. 1. cap. 18. Isidore by ‖ In Marc. 14. Bede by ‖‖ De Corp. lang Dom. Bertram or Ratramne But in fine the Holy Fathers have thought this mixture so Essential unto the Holy Sacrament that the sixth Oecumenical Council assembled in the year 691 reckon it amongst the Heresies of the Armenians that they celebrated the Eucharist with pure Wine because they justified themselves in this practice by the Authority of St. Chrysostom The Fathers explain the passage of this holy Doctor whereof the Armenians made use to authorize the practice of their Churches and having explain'd it they make this Decree Concil Trullan Can. 32. If any Bishop or other Priest doth not follow the Order left by the Apostles and if they mingle not Water with the Wine to offer the spotless Sacrifice let him be deposed because he declares the mystery imperfectly and by that means introduceth a change in the Traditions But notwithstanding all that the
the true Sacrament is received under one species and that so as to what concerns the benefit such are not deprived of any grace necessary to salvation who receive but under one kind After all which the Council makes these three Canons If any one shall say Can. 1. that by the command of Christ or for necessity of Salvation all Believers in general and each one in particular is obliged to receive both kinds of the holy Sacrament of the Eucharist let him be Anathema If any one shall say Can. 2. that the holy Catholick Church was not moved by just causes and reasons to administer the Communion unto the Laity and Clergy not officiating under the species of Bread only or that she hath therein erred let him be Anathema If any body shall deny that whole Christ Can. 3. the Fountain and Author of all Graces is received under the sole species of Bread because as some falsely suggest he is not received according to Christ's own Institution under both kinds let him be accursed See here exactly whereunto things amounted in the West Whereupon some have made these Reflections In the first place that about 300. years before the use of the Cup was taken away from the people by publick Authority the Albigenses and Waldenses had separated themselves from the Latin Church to make a Body apart which Body hath alwaies practised the Communion under both kinds Secondly that at the time the Council of Constance made her Decree there was in Bohemia besides the Calixtins who only desired the use of the Cup agreeing in all other points with the Church of Rome the Taborites so called from the Mountain Tabor where they had their Assemblies unto whom some joining many of the Waldenses who according to the testimony of Dubravius had sheltered themselves in those parts ever since the XII Century and that there were not only of these Waldenses at that time in Bohemia only but also that there were great numbers of them in England in Provence the Valleys of Piedmont and elsewhere In the third place that when the Council of Trent in our Fathers daies renewed and confirmed the Decree of Constance touching the taking away the Cup from the Laity and Clergy that did not officiate yet it referred unto the Popes disposing and power to grant it unto those whom he should think fitting and upon what conditions he should judge convenient without insisting here upon the liberty our Kings have of Communicating under both kinds In the fourth place that since the Decree of the Council of Trent an infinite number of persons of that same Communion earnestly wished that the use of the Cup which had been taken away might be restored unto the people Those which be any thing curious may read what Cassander hath written a man of the Communion of the Roman Church and very intelligent in Ecclesiastical Antiquity I say in his Consultation Art 22. In his Defence of the Book touching the Duty of a Devout Man page 864. and in his Treatise of the Communion under both kinds and the demand which Catherine de Medicis Queen of France caused to be made unto the Pope in the behalf of France Anno 1561. as is related at large by Monsieur de Thou Hist Thuan. l. 27. in his History In fine that the practice of all Christians is contrary to that of the Latins because they all administer the Sacrament of the Lords Supper under both kinds to wit the Grecians the Melchites or Assyrians the Georgians Circassians and Mingrelians the Muscovites and Russians the Nestorians the Christians of S. Thomas in the Indies before they turned to the Latins which was but in the last Century heither did they renounce their belief or worship to imbrace the worship of the Latin Church till the year 1599. the Jacobites which are exceeding numerous the Cophtites or Christians in Egypt the Abassins under Prester John who is one of the greatest Princes in the World the Armenians and in fine the Maronites until that they submitted themselves unto the Latin Church in Clement VIII his time It is certain there is some difference in the manner of distributing the Sacrament under both kinds amongst these Christian Nations for some of them put the Bread and Wine both together in a Spoon as the Muscovites others administer the Sacrament steeped as the Armenians if we may credit some persons It is said that the Greeks at this time do so heretofore they distributed both kinds separately In effect I see that all agree that the Greeks give the Bread steept Therefore Humbert Cardinal of Blanoh-Selva writing against the Calumnies of the Greeks in the XI Century said That they put the Bread and Wine together as we said the Muscovites do who are of the Religion of the Greeks taking them in a Spoon which the Laity do at this time by relation of Goar in his Notes upon the Eâ—chology but the Clergy receive both kinds separately As for all the other Christians above mentioned they Communicate under both kinds separately unto whom we may join all the Protestant Christians but so it is that there is not any one Christian Communion in the whole World excepting only the Latin but believe that the use of both Symbols is necessary unto a lawful Communion whatever difference there may be amongst them in the manner of administring of it Now it is evident by what hath been said that unto this Communion under both kinds cannot be opposed that called the Communion of the Laity by the Ancients because that means nothing else as the learned on both sides agree but to communicate with the people and not with the Clergy for instance when a Clergy-man was degraded from his Office for some great sin he was reduced to the degree of the common people amongst whom he did communicate and not with the Clergy which is at this time practised amongst the Abyssins and amongst the Protestants but that makes nothing to the communicating under one kind because the people participated of both kinds Nor the peregrine Communion whereof mention is made but very seldom in the Monuments which remain unto us of Antiquity for all the certain knowledge we have of it by reason of the few places that speak of it is that it regarded strangers who came from some other parts unto some Church where they were admitted to receive the Sacrament but after the manner that 't was there celebrated under both kinds If this peregrine Communion may not better be understood of Clergy-men which travelled from one Church to another without Attestations or Certificates in which case they were civilly received by reason of their character but without admitting them unto the Communion of Divine Mysteries almost as S. Chrysostom served Ammonius and Isidorus which also administred unto Theophilus Bp. of Alexandria a pretext for persecuting S. Chrysostome Nor that Believers were suffered to carry home unto their Houses the Bread of the Eucharist
Ambr. de fide l. 1. c. 4. Id. in Psal 118. serm 12. Ibid. serm 13. No Body can be his own Image And elsewhere he opposeth the Image and the Sign unto the Substance It is the Image saith he and not the Truth And again These are Signs and not the Substance Gregory of Nazianzen in his Treatise of Faith against the Arrians whereof we have only Ruffin's Translation unjustly attributed to St. Ambrose Greg. Nazian de fid vel orat 49. p. 729. Id. orat 13. 37. Id. orat 36. as appears by St. Austin's 111th Letter The Resemblance saith he is one Thing and the Truth another for Man was also made after the Image and Likeness of God yet he is not God Accordingly he declares elsewhere that the Image never attains to the Original and that the nature of an Image consists in the representing of the Arch-type Gregory of Nyss Brother unto the great St. Basil spake the same Greg. Nâ—ss de anim refur Gaudent tr 2. in Exod. Aug. de Trin. l. 7. c. 1. Theod in Dan. l. 2. c. 2. Claud. de stat anim l. 1. c. 5. The Image saith he would be no more an Image if it were quite the same with that whereof it is an Image It is in the same sense St. Gaudentius said That the Figure is not the Verity but the resemblance of the Verity And St. Austin in his Treatise of the Trinity What can be more absurd than to say that an Image is the Image of it self And Theodoret in his Commentaries upon the Prophet Daniel The Image hath the Features and not the Things themselves Claâ—dian Mammert Priest of Vienna One Thing saith he is the Truth and another Thing the Image of the Truth And we have already heard Maximius Scholar of the pretended Denis the Areopagite saying These things are Symbols Maxim in c. 3. Hieros Eccles but they are not the Substance There be some which treating of the Eucharist with regard to the Body of Jesus Christ have not forborn these kind of Expresons as the Deacon Epiphanius in the second Council of Nice If saith he it be the Image of the Body Synod Nic. 2. Act. 6. Niceph. de cherub c. 6. t. 4. Bibl. Patr. it cannot be the divine Body it self And Nicephorus Patriarch of Constantinople How is it that one and the same Thing is called the Body and the Image of Jesus Christ for that which is the Image of any one cannot be his Body and that which is the Body cannot be the Image because every Image is a thing different from that whereof it is an Image And we shall see in due Time that it was in the ninth Century the Doctrine taught by Ratran Bertram de corp sang Dom. That the Earnest and Image is Earnest and Image of something c. that is that they refer not unto themselves but unto another But what may some say is that all you have observed in travelling in the Dominions of Ecclesiastical Antiquity The Registers of that Kingdom do they contain no other Laws and have you found no other Maximes in its Records Is it possible that the wise and prudent Councellors who in the several Ages have had the Government and Conduct of it have agreed to speak so meanly of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper and consider'd this great and sublime Mystery but as the Image the Figure the Type the Symbol of the Body and Blood of our Lord as if a Believer under the Gospel were to feed his Soul only with empty and vain Figures with Images without efficacy and with Sacraments without any virtue Reader have but a little patience and you shall see that the holy Fathers have not abandoned their Belief unto Scorn or Calumny and that they very prudently prevented the Reproaches which would have been made against them What likelihood is there that Persons of so much Light and Knowledg as the antient Doctors of the Church were should speak meanly of the venerable Mystery of the holy Sacrament they who so valued and commended and highly praised the holy Scriptures which St. Paul calls the Power of God unto Salvation unto those which believe Rom. â— 16 and who have consider'd it as the powerful and efficacious Instrument of the Conversion and Salvation of Men which made St. Justin Martyr writing against Tryphon the Jew to say Just Martyr contra Tryph. We have not believed vain Fables and Words which cannot profit but which are full of the Spirit of God and grow into Grace for as he observed a little before the Words of our Saviour have in them something which command a Respect and Fear and they are able to shame those which turn from the right way whereas those which exercise themselves therein find Comfort and Peace What appearance is there that these same Fathers which have given unto Baptism one of the Sacraments of the New Testament which the Apostle calls the Washing of Regeneration Tit. 3. Gal. 3. and wherein he assures that we put on Jesus Christ such great high and magnificent Commendations and Encomiums calling it the Remedy which drives away all Evils the Death of Sin the Chariot which carries to Heaven the Deluge of Sin the Scattering of Darkness the Key of the Kingdom of Heaven the Inlargement from Slavery the Breaking of Bonds the putting on of Incorruption Grace Salvation Life the Remedy the Antidote that which leads to Immortality the Water of Life the Waters which can extinguish the Fire to come and which bring Salvation the best and most excellent of the Gifts of God and several other Elogies of this Nature I say what likelihood is there that they should have had any meaner lower or less honourable thoughts of the holy Sacrament and that after the Apostle's Declaration 1 Cor. 10. That the Bread which we break and the Cup which we bless are the Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ that they should look only upon this Sacrament as an empty and bare Sign without any effect or virtue without raising their Contemplations any higher Alas God forbid we should ever do them the Injustice as to think so In short if they taught that the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament are Images and Figures they judged them not to be empty Figures which had no other use nor virtue but to set before our Eyes some form that may be like the Original whereof they are Figures like the Images and Pictures which are to be seen in Painters and Carvers Shops they have firmly believed that they are Signs instituted by God and consequently accompanied with his Grace and Benediction which makes them efficacious unto those which receive them worthily and that with holy dispositions draw near unto the Mystical Table And if I mistake not this is what St. Epiphanius means when speaking of this Sacrament he saith Epiph. in pan exposit fid That the Bread is the Food or
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
deceived that it hapned about they year 630. Hist Miscel l. 18. And because Anastatius wrote some time after there being yet in Egypt an Augustal Prefect it necessarily follows that he wrote about the year 637. And before the year 639. Hist Sarac in Omar that the Sarrazins entring into Egypt expelled the Augustal Prefect and made themselves Masters of the Country Which being granted the Reader may please to take notice that this Anastatius of whom we speak disputing against the Hereticks which held that the Body of Christ could not suffer from the first moment of his Conception brings in the Orthodox making this question to the Heretick Annasâ—at Sin in cap. 23. Tell me I pray the Communion of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ which you offer and whereof you are partakers is it the true Body and Blood of Jesus Christ or common Bread as that which is sold in Markets or only a Figure of the Body of Jesus Christ as the Sacrifice of the Goat offered by the Jews Whereunto the Heretick having answered God forbid we should say that the Holy Communion is the Figure of the Body of Jesus Christ or bare Bread Anastatius replies We believe it to be so and confess it according to Christ's words to his Disciples when in the Mystical Supper he gave them the Bread of Life saying Take Eat this is my Body He also gave them the Cup saying This is my Blood He said not this is the Figure of my Body and Blood He is the first that deviated from the usual Expressions and that denied what all the holy Fathers before him had affirmed and some also after him as we have shewed in the Third Chapter of this Second Part And have shewn that these holy Fathers testifie That when our Lord gave his Eucharist to his Apostles he gave them the Figure of his Body Anastatius then denying what the others affirmed according to the Maxim of Vincentius Lirinensis his Opinion should be rejected as an Opinion private and peculiar to himself and we are firmly and constantly to hold and embrace the publick and universal Belief but because the words of Authors are favourably to be interpreted at least as much as may be some say it should be so done towards Anastatius and that 't is easie to give a good sense unto what he said He declares the Eucharist is the true Body and Blood of Jesus Christ he saith nothing as they think that being rightly understood but is very reasonable because it is most certain that the Sacrament is unto the faithful Soul instead of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ that he truly communicates unto him this broken Body and this Blood poured out for his Consolation and Salvation and that it is changed as St. Cyril of Alexandria speaks into the Efficacy of his Body If Anastatius say they erred in rejecting the word Sign and Figure the Fathers both before and after him having used it it cannot be believed that he hath changed any thing in the ground of the Doctrine they think so for several reasons in the first place he saith it is not simple Bread as is sold in the Markets for thus speaking is to acknowledge that it is Bread which by Consecration hath acquired the quality of an Efficacious and Divine Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ of whom for that reason it takes the name as it hath the virtue and efficacy in its lawful use as when the Fathers say of the Waters of Baptism and the Oyl of Chrisin Cyril Hieros Catech. 3. illum Mystag 3. that it is not common Water and common Oyl they deny not that it is Water and Oyl they only mean that it is Water and Oyl sanctified to be the Symboles of the washing and purifying our Souls by the Blood of Jesus Christ and by the Vertue of the Holy Ghost Secondly He declares that it is not a Figure as the Sacrifice of the Goat which the Jews offered that is a Type and Figure without efficacy and vertue having taken this name of Type and Figure for a Legal Figure and without Operation in which sense it is true that the Communion is not a Figure and bare Type destitute of the truth like the Types and Figures of the Law whereof he produceth an Example in the Sacrifice of the Goat In the third place he speaks of a Body of the Lord Which being kept in a Vessel corrupts in few days Id. Anast Ibid. c. 23. changeth and quite altereth of a Body and Blood which as he saith in another Chapter of the same Treatise may be broken divided Id. c. 13. Ibid. c. 13. and distrihuted in parcels broken with the Teeth changed poured out and drank And in the same Chapter he saith That the Body and Blood distributed unto the People saying The Body and Blood of our Lord God and Saviour is a Visible Body created and taken from the Earth They conclude then that if there was imprudence in his expressions there was no Error in his Doctrine and they are very much confirmed in this Opinion which I freely remit unto the judgment of others if they consider the Doctrine had received no Opposition in the East nor West Maxim in Nol. Dionys Arcop pag. 68. 75. 69. not in the East because in the time Anastatius wrote in his Desert Maximius Abbot of Constantinople whose Name was more famous and his Doctrine more eminent taught That the holy Bread and Cup of Benediction are Signs and sensible Symbols or Types of true things Symbols and not the truth that the things of the Old Testament were the Types those of the New Testament are the Antitypes but that the truth shall be in the state of the World to come This Author faithfully retains the ancient Expressions and Doctrine of those which went before him and he thus defines the word Symbol Id. in Interp. vocum The Symbol is a sensible thing taken for an intelligible thing as the Bread and Wine are taken for the Divine and immaterial Food Not in the West because in the same Age Anastatius lived Isid Hispal de Offic. Eccl. l. 1. c. 18. St. Isidor of Sevil said That the Bread which we break is the Body of Jesus Christ that the Wine is his Blood that the Bread is called his Body Id. Origin l. 6. c. 19. because it strengthens the Body that the Wine resembles the Blood of Jesus Christ because it creates blood in the body Id. voca c. 26. de alleg in Genes c. 12. And that these two things which be visible pass into a Sacrament of the Divine Body being Sanctified by the Holy Ghost That by the Commandment of the Lord we call the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ that which being made of the fruits of the Earth is sanctified and becomes a Sacrament by the Invisible Operation of the Holy Ghost Id. in Genes
entire in each portion of the things divided These words can receive no good sense but by understanding them of the Sacrament that is to say of the Bread which is broken in pieces as to its matter and substance but that remains whole and intire as to the vertue of the Sacrament which made the great St. Basil say Basil Ep. 289. t. 3. That to receive one part or several at ae time is the same thing as to its virtue Moreover German will have us consider Jesus Christ as dead in the Sacrament and as pouring forth his precious blood for the Salvation of mankind when he saith Id. Germ. ib. p. 407 409 410. That the Elevation of the precious body represents the Elevation in the Cross the Death of our Lord on the Cross and his Resurrection also That the Priest receiving the Bread alone without the Blood and the Blood also without the Body signifies nothing else but that the Divine Lamb is yet all bloody and that we eat the Bread and drink the Cup as the Flesh and Blood of the Son of God confessing his Death and Resurrection And clearer yet in these words where speaking of the holy Bread which he distinguisheth from Jesus Christ he saith Ibid p. 408. That it is the only Bread wherein is figured and represented the Divine and all-healing Death of him which was Sacrificed for the Lafe of the World because it is the only Divine Bread which is Sacrificed and Offered as the Lamb but as for the other Divine Gifts they be not cut in the form of a Cross with the Knife but they are put in pieces as the members and parts of the body It is the true Commentary of what he saith in the same Treatise That Jesus Christ is always sacrificed because he is so not in himself for that cannot be by the confession of all Christians but in the Sacrament the Celebration whereof doth lively represent unto us the imolation of Jesus Christ upon the Cross Ibid. p. 408. Add unto this that he declares That Jesus Christ drank Wine in his Sacrament as he did after his Resurrection not through necessity but to perswade his Disciples of the truth of his Resurrection And that he desires at the instant of communicating we should lift up our thoughts from Earth unto the King which is in Heaven Now let it be judged after all these declarations what the change can be which he saith is passed upon the Bread and Wine by Consecration if he meant a change of substance or only of use and condition for the former seems unto Protestants to be inconsistent with the Explanations which he hath given us whereas the latter doth not ill accord with it in all appearance German saith That Jesus Christ is seen and felt in the Eucharist but he positively affirms that it is done in his Sacrament that is to say that he is seen and touched inasmuch as the Sacrament is seen and felt which doth represent him Ibid. p. 401. Our Saviour saith he is seen and suffers himself to be touched by means of the ever to be revered and sacred Mysteries I will not insist upon what is said by this Patriarch That the Bread and Wine offered by Believers for the Communion do in some sort become upon the Table of proposition which amongst the Greeks is different from that where the Consecration of the Divine Symbols are made I say they become in some sort the Images and Figures of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ because it is a frivolous conceit and with reason rejected by Roman Catholicks and Protestants But let us lay aside the Patriarch German and prosecute the History of the VIII Century in the same City where German was Patriarch the Metropolis of the Eastern Empire Constantine the 6th commonly surnamed Copronymas Son of the Emperor Leo the third called Isaurus assembled a Council of 338 Bishops Anno 754. The Assembly held full six months during which they quite abolished the Worshipping of Images and by the way Concil Constantinop in Act. Concil Nicaen 2. t. 5. Concil p. 756. clearing up the Doctrine of the Church upon the point of the Sacrament to draw a proof against the same Images they had condemned they left unto us for a Monument of their belief this following testimony Let those rejoyce which with a most pure heart make the true Image of Jesus Christ which desire which venerate and which do offer it for the Salvation of body and soul the which Jesus Christ gave unto his Disciples in Figure and Commemoration And having repeated the words of Institution they add That no other Species under Heaven was made choice of by him nor any other Type that could represent his Incarnation That it is the Image of his quickning body which was honourably and gloriously made That as Jesus Christ took the matter or humane substance in like manner he hath commanded us to offer for his Image a matter chosen that is to say the substance of bread not having any humane Form or Figure fearing lest Idolatry may get in As then say they the Natural Body of Jesus Christ is holy because it is Deified It is also evident that his Body by Institution that is to say his holy Image is rendred Divine by Sanctification of Grace for it is what our Saviour intended to do when by virtue of the Union he Deified the Flesh he had taken by a Sanctification proper unto himself so also he would that the bread of the Sacrament as being the true Figure of his Natural body should be made a Divine Body by the coming of the Holy Ghost the Priest which makes the Oblation intervening to make it holy whereas it was common therefore the Natural body of our Lord endowed with Soul and Understanding was anointed by the Holy Ghost being united unto the Godhead so also his Image to wit the holy bread is filled with the Cup of enlivening Blood which flowed out of his side What renders this testimony the more considerable and worthy to be credited is That these Fathers which represented all the Eastern Church or at least the greatest part of it were assembled about the matter of Images and not about the subject of the Sacrament for had they been assembled upon the point of the Sacrament it may be some uncharitable person might suspect them of pre-occupation or of design but having been assembled upon a very different subject of necessity it must be granted that it is by the by that they inform us of the common and general Opinion and Belief of Christians They would draw from the Eucharist an argument against the use and Worship of Images and to do it the better they were obliged to unfold unto us the Nature of the Sacrament and they explain it in saying That it is the substance of Bread that it is no deceiving Figure of his Natural Body and as they say a little before a Type
say they that the Consecration being ended the Body of Jesus Christ is not really under the species of Bread and Wine but only in resemblance and in figure and that Jesus Christ did not transubstantiate really the Bread and Wine into his Body and Blood but only in type and in figure One may lay what stress they please upon the testimonies of these two men which may be looked upon but as of one seeing the one transcribed it from the other As for my part I shall only say that I take the present Armenians to be so grosly ignorant that they scarce know what they do believe of this Mystery Prateolus doth positively teach the same thing De haeres l. 1. haer 67. which is also confirmed by the testimony of Thomas Herbert an English man which had been so informed upon the place as he declares in the relation of his Voyage of the Translation of Mr. Wick fort What I say of the Armenians I may almost say of all the Greeks in general for it cannot be denied but they be fallen into very great ignorance of the Mysteries of Christian Religion and have corrupted their primitive Faith by many Alterations Nevertheless Learning having flourished a long time amongst them their ignorance is not so very great as that of other Christian Communions of the East They have had but very few that have written since the Ages which we have examined in the precedent Chapter yet have they had some few as Nicholas de Methona Nicholas Cabasilas Mark of Ephesus and Jeremy Patriarch of Constantinople As for Bessarion I do not put him into the number because he turned unto the party of the Latins who to requite him honoured him with a Cardinals Cap whereas the others died in the Communion of the Greek Church If you would know of them what they believed of the Eucharist they will answer That the Bread and Wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and that after Consecration they are his Body Blood And so far the Roman Catholicks have cause to believe they be of their side But it must be confessed also that they say things which do not agree well with the Hypothesis of the Latins and which make the Protestants conclude that the change whereof they speak is not a change of substance but of vertue and efficacy for not here to repeat what is said by Euthymius in the foregoing Chapter In Matth. 26. That the nature of the things offered is not to be considered In exposit liturg c. 32. 43 t. 2. Bibl. Pat. Graeco-Lat but their vertue And without insisting upon Cabasilas his regarding the Body of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament as dead and crucified for us which by the confession of all Christians cannot be true in the reality of the thing but only in the signification of the Mystery nor in that he saith that all those unto whom the Priest gives the Communion do not receive the Body of our Lord. De Corpore sanguin Christi ibid. Nicholas de Methona doth formally affirm the Union of the Symbols unto the Divinity which is exactly the Opinion of Damascen an Opinion which as hath been shewed doth presuppose the Existence of the Bread and Wine Jesus Christ saith he doth this that is to say communicates unto us his Flesh and Blood by things which are familiar unto Nature in joyning unto them his Divinity and saying This is my Body This is my Blood Jeremy Patriarch of Constantinople saith as the others That the Bread is changed into the Body of Jesus Christ But he adds Respon 1. c. 10 That Jesus Christ for all that did not give the flesh which he carried unto his Disciples to eat And elsewhere Ibid. c. 7. That the Grace of the Holy Ghost doth spiritually sanctifie our Souls and our Bodies are sanctified by the sensible things to wit the Water the Oyl the Bread the Wine and the other things sanctified by the Holy Ghost Which language agrees better with Damascen whom he cites in his second Answer than with the Latins because the first preserves the substance of Bread and Wine but the latter quite destroys it The Cardinal of Guise being at Venice had a Conference with the Greeks and amongst several Questions that he asked them he demanded of them what they believed of the Sacrament Cum Sigismundo Libero de rebus Moscovit Basileae 1571. See here the Answer they made him We believe and confess that the Bread is so changed into the Body of Jesus Christ and the Wine into his Blood that neither the Bread nor the accidents of its substance do remain but are changed into a divine substance Were there no more but this in the Answer of the Greeks it might be said either that they did not well understand themselves or that through complaisance unto the Latins amongst whom they lived they allowed the change of the substance of the Bread in such a manner nevertheless that to shew that they followed not the Opinion of the Roman Catholicks they say That the very accidents do not remain which is inconsistent with the Doctrine of Transubstantiation But because in this Answer they alledge as well the words of Theophelact upon Mar. 14. by which he declares That the Bread and Wine is changed into the vertue of the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ as also several passages of Damascen some of which have already been examined in the 12th Chapter to strengthen their Belief and Opinion we are obliged to believe that the change whereof they speak is quite different from that of the Latin Church It is true that scarce any of them explained themselves as fully as Cyril of Lucar Patriarch of Constantinople who a little above thirty years ago said Cyrillus Constantinop Patriarch confession fidei c. 17. We believe that the other Sacrament which our Lord did institute is that which we call Eucharist for the night wherein he was betrayed taking Bread and blessing it he said unto the Disciples Take eat this is my Body And taking the Cup he gave thanks and said Drink ye all of this it is my Blood which is shed for you Do this in remembrance of me And St. Paul adds As often as ye eat of this Bread and drink of this Cup ye shew the Lord's death This is the plain the true and lawful Tradition of this admirable Mystery in the administration and knowledge whereof we confess and believe the true and certain presence of our Saviour Jesus Christ to wit that which Faith teacheth and giveth unto us and not that which Transubstantiation rashly and unadvisedly invented doth teach If I would write the History of this Patriarch I should be obliged to speak of his Country I mean of the Isle of Crete now Candia of the great affection he had unto Learning the marvellous progress he made therein during his stay in Italy of the Voyage which he made â—â—to
Jesus Christ that he take care that not a crumb of it fall to the ground and having in this manner communicated of the Body of Jesus Christ he should approach unto the Cup having the Body bowed in way of Adoration or Veneration But besides say some St. Cyril doth not desire of his Communicant this inclination of body for Reception of the other Symbol which he represents unto us and doth call it the Body of Jesus Christ such as some crumbs whereof may fall to the ground it is that the Cup unto which he desires he should draw near with this inclination of Body contains a Liquor the moisture of which and the humidity remains as he saith upon the lips which cannot be said of the proper Blood of the Son of God The posture then which he prescribes for receiving of the Cup must necessarily be understood not of an act of Adoration which he doth not teach in any part of his Catechisms unto his Neophites but according to our second Consideration of the Veneration and respect which we ought to have for so great a Sacrament the Greek word used by St. Cyril being to be understood by that of veneration and respect because he speaks of an Object which is not adorable with the Adoration of Latery that is to say of the Sacrament and that besides he would not have said barely Approach with a little bowing the body but he would precisely have commanded to have adored it before receiving of it this action being of too great moment to speak so indifferently of and not to have commanded it after a more exact manner I will ad unto all these reasons that St. Cyril requires nothing of his Communicants but what what St. Chrysostom doth require of his also and yet in stronger terms of his Catechumeny when the time of their Catechising was expired that they presented themselves to be baptized In illud simile est regnum coelor patrifamil t. 6. p. 550. When you shall saith he come into the Closet of the holy Spirit when you shall run into the Marriage-Chamber of Grace when you shall be near unto that terrible and also desirable Pool prostrate your selves as Captives before your King cast your selves all together on your knees and lifting up your hands unto Heaven where the King of us all is sitting on his Royal Throne and lifting up your eyes unto that Eye which never slumbers use these words unto that Lover of Mankind c. Is not this approaching unto Baptism in a way of Worship and Adoration as St. Cyril desired one should approach unto the holy Communion And yet Christians never inferred from the words of St. Chrysostom that the Water of this Sacrament of our Regeneration was to be adored But what I say of the water of Baptism the same Chrysostom requires we should also do of the hearing of the Word of God The King himself saith he will not have his Diadem upon his head In illud ne eleemos vestr sac t. 6. p. 528. but lays it aside in reverence unto God speaking in the holy Gospel What saith he I know his Dignity which hath given me mine I adore his Kingdom which hath been pleased to make me reign And to say the truth we owe the same respect and veneration unto the Word of God and to his Sacraments which we do owe unto him which is the Author of them by giving him the Soveraign Adoration which we are obliged to render him at all times especially when we hear his Word read and preached and when we participate of his divine Sacraments If we descend yet lower than St. Austin we may inform our selves of what hath been practised in the Church since his death upon the Subject of the Adoration of the Sacrament for we have in the Works of St. Ambrose two Treatises touching the same matter made in the behalf of those newly initiated of which the latter entituled Of the Sacraments is more ample than the other We have that of Ecclesiastical Offices composed by St. Isidore Arch-Bishop of Sevil the Book of Sacraments of Gregory the First that made by Maximius Abbot of Constantinople expounding very mystically all the Action of the Sacrament German Patriarch of the same place also employed himself upon the same Subject and hath at large all that long History of Ceremonies practised in an Age which had already departed very much from the simplicity of the primitive times The Book called The Roman Order doth also examine all the particulars of the publick Service practiced in the Church of Rome We have in the IX Century the Treatise of Rabanus Arch-Bishop of Mayans of the Institution of Clerks that of Ecclesiastical Offices of Amalarius Fortunatus that of Walfridus Strabo almost under the same Title that of Florus under the name of Explication of the Mass In fine we have several other Treatises of the manner and order that ought to be observed in the Celebration of the Mass or of the Eucharist which Hugh Mainard a learned Benedictine hath caused to be printed with the Books of Sacraments of Gregory the Great as that he took from the Manuscript of Ratold Abbot of Corby about the Year 986. Another from the Library of du Tillet and which he saith is the Roman Order of the Year 1032. and a third of the Priory of Saluse in Normandy of the Prebends of the Order of St. Austin about the Year 1079. But in all this we do not find one word of the Adoration of the Sacrament no more than the Interpreters and Commentators of the History of the Institution of it which are not a few Moreover the expressions of the ancient Doctors of the Church will not a little contribute unto the illustrating of this matter for if they had a design to have Christians worship the Sacrament before receiving of it or at the instant of communicating methinks they should have spoke in a manner and way which should have possessed them with thoughts and dispositions suitable and which should have made them to conceive of it the same Opinion which one hath for an Object which is truly adorable Nevertheless instead of so doing I find their Instructions tended rather to divert than to incline them unto this Homage In fine I cannot comprehend that the people could dispose themselves unto the Adoration of the Eucharist when they heard the holy Fathers unanimously call it Bread and Wine even in the very act of Communion Wheat the Fruit of the Vine the Fruit of the Harvest and the like things They testifie it is Bread which is broke positively affirm that it is Bread and Wine Bread which nourisheth our Bodies which is inanimate which is digested the substance whereof remains after Consecration in a word Bread subject unto the same accidents with our common food For these are so many formal Declarations which these holy Doctors have made unto us in the second Chapter of the second Part. Must it not be
in the main so also I thought fit to express my Gratitude unto the great Family of the Windhams in particular a Family known to be truly Noble and Great in the number of its flourishing Branches as well as in Riches Honour and approved Loyalty unto their King and Country the true happiness and lasting prosperity whereof shall ever be sincerely wished and desired by Honoured Sir Your most obedient humble Servant Jos Walker THE Author's Preface Translated from the FRENCH THE Controversies about Religion being a kind of War or if you will a sort of Law-Suit wherein both Parties plead their Cause with some heat it seems to me very difficult to write and not let fall some words that may favour the interest of that side for which we are concerned because the flesh corrupts the acts of the Understanding and the old Man never fails to vitiate the purity of the thoughts of the new I do not here speak of those angry Writers who in all their Works do shew an unlimited passion for the Cause which they defend and meditate nothing but disparaging their Adversaries to make their own Party triumph by the Calumnies which they cast upon the others I speak of mild and peaceable Spirits who write with moderation who nevertheless do it not alwaies so successfully but they let drop some things which all do not approve of because their ever remains frailty in man and the innocency of the second Adam hath not a compleat victory over the first What I say is particularly verified in examining the Tradition of the Church upon the Articles of our Faith for both the Roman Catholicks and the Protestants pretending that it is favourable to their Cause each alledge out of the holy Fathers to establish their Belief and Religion This consideration makes me think that the surest way and most edifying means for Christians would be plainly to produce what hath been from time to time received and believed in the Church upon the points in Controversie and Historically without dispute to represent the sentiments of our Ancestors upon all the Articles which are to be examined This is what I have indeavoured to do upon the matter of the Eucharist which is and will be alwaies if God prevent it not by his grace a stone of stumbling and a means which the Devil will never fail to use to keep up amongst Christians that unhappy strife wherewith they are so pleased but which ought to draw tears of blood from those good Souls that are sensibly touched for the glory of God and that without ceasing by their prayers desire that he will give unto all the grace to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace The better to succeed in my design and to represent the Sacrament at large I have divided my Work into three Parts In the first I examine the outward Form of Celebration I prove that Bread and Wine have alwaies been the matter of the Sacrament amongst Christians I hint at the mixture of Water with the Wine in the holy Cup and I endeavour to discover the Original as well as the Mysterie which the ancient Doctors of the Church since S. Cyprian have sought for in this mixture I mention sundry Sects of Hereticks whereof some have changed the matter of the Sacrament others have corrupted the Celebration and lastly others have quite rejected it not suffering that it should be celebrated at all I omit not what S. Ignatius said of certain Hereticks who condemned the celebration nor the Heresie of one called Tanchelin who also denied it but through another Principle I make some mention of the Slanders which the Jews and others cast upon Christians by reason of the Sacrament And I treat of the difference betwixt the Greek and Latin Churches about the using of levened and unlevened Bread Then I consider whence the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament was taken what was the fashion of the Bread with the innovations and changes which have thereupon hapned From thence I proceed to the consideration of the place of Consecration of the matter of the Chalices and Patins that is to say the Vessels which were used in this holy action this consideration is followed with an inquiry of the Language wherein Consecration was made and wherein all the Service was generally performed and from this Inquiry I proceed to the Examination of Ceremonies and of the Form of Consecration I mean the words of Consecration to know whether the antient Church did consecrate by Prayers Blessings and giving of Thanks or by these words This is my Body as is now the practice of the Latin Church Then I treat of the Oblation or the Form of the Sacrifice and I shew the Reasons and Motives which obliged the holy Fathers to give to the Eucharist the name of Oblation and Sacrifice I annex unto the consideration of the Oblation that of the Elevation and of the Fraction and I shew at what time the Latins began to lift up the Host to warn the people to adore it moreover I examine the Distribution and Communion and in the first place the Time the Place and the Posture of the Communicant the Persons who distributed those who communicated with the words of the one and the other and then of the Thing distributed treating at large the Question of the Communion under both kinds I also shew that for several Ages Communicants received the Eucharist with their hand that they were permitted to carry it unto their Houses and to carry it along with them in their Journeys and Travels and that the ancient Christians were so little scrupulous in this matter that sometimes they sent the Sacrament unto the Sick by Lay persons Men Women Acolytes and young Boys and not only so but they made Plaisters of it they buried it with the Dead In some Churches they burnt the remainder of the Sacrament and in others they caused it to be eaten by little Infants Sometimes they took consecrated Wine and mixed it with Ink then they dipt their Pen in these mixt Liquors the more to confirm the Acts they intended to sign In the Second Part I describe the History of the Doctrine of the Holy Fathers upon this weighty Article beginning with the reflections they have made upon the words of Institution and upon the interpretation they have given of these words This is my Body and after these Reflections I represent a great number of Testimonies wherein they call the Eucharist Bread and Wine in the very act of communicating they affirm it is Bread which is broken that it is Corn Wheat the fruit of the Vine Fruits of the Earth and like terms They positively say That it is Bread and Wine Bread wherewith our Bodies are nourished the matter whereof passeth through the natural accidents of our common Food Bread which is consumed in the celebration of the Sacrament They affirm that the Bread and the Cup which we receive at the Lord's Table are things
and not Bishop of Marsellis as Pope Adrian stiles him doth speak for he makes mention of certain persons Gennaâ— l de Dogm Eccles c. 75. That under pretence of sobriety would not celebrate the Eucharist with Wine but with Water only All the attempts of this Enemy of the Salvation of Mankind have proved vain in this regard God hath not suffered him to prevail in this matter over his Church for all Christian Communions have faithfully retained the use of Bread and Wine in the Celebration of the Sacrament insomuch as even in those Countreys where Wine doth not grow they endeavour to imitate the best they can the other Christians who live in those Climates which abound with it For instance the Christians of St. Thomas in the Indies where there is no Wine use dry Grapes brought from Mecha and Ormus and steep them a whole night in Water next day they press them and with the Liquor that comes out they celebrate the Eucharist instead of Wine Ramusio vol. 1. p. 313. aâ—d several others also The Abassins also do in like manner as Francis Alvarez in his Voyage into Ethiopia doth testifie But upon this matter of the Wine of the Eucharist it may not be altogether needless to consider what was the Sentiment of Antiquity touching the two Cups mentioned by St. Luke which were distributed by our Saviour unto his Disciples as is alledged by St. Luke in his Gospel observing also that it was in giving the former that he said I will drink no more of the Fruit of the Vine which he mentions not to be spoken by our Saviour in distributing the latter Now seeing that St. Fulgentius Bishop of Rusp in Africa hath collected the several judgments of those which preceded or were his contemporaries what we find in his Writings shall suffice and I hope the Reader will not be displeas'd to satisfie his curiosity on this matter Fulgent ad â—â—rrand Diacon de quinque quast c â—5 Some persons saith he would have this passage of the Gospel understood viz. That the Lord gave not two Cups but rather they affirm that he said so by way of anticipation and that there was indeed but one sole Cup of which first there is mention made that it should be divided and then that it should be given to the Disciples to drink of it Others there be that affirm That there were two Cups distributed but which opinion soever of them is followed the sense of the one and the other is no way contrary to the true Faith Those which think our Saviour gave two Cups say that it was done mystically and that by the former Cup he would prefigure his Passion and by the second that of his followers Others again have said that the two Cups did represent what had been commanded under the old Testament viz. that whosoever had not celebrated the Passover of the first Month in eating a Lamb should do it the second Month in eating a Kid. As for me adds St. Fulgentius it seems there is here discovered another Mystery which accords very well with the Christian Faith viz. that both in the one and the other Cup ought to be understood both the Old and New Testaments especially seeing the Truth it self hath so plainly declared it unto us that there remains no doubt of it unto those which search the truth For the Lord himself called the New Testament the Cup which he gave us to drink and afterwards Ibid. c. 38. in this part of the Gospel whereof we now dispute we are not permitted to understand any thing else but what we are taught by our Saviours own words who saith This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood and according to this rule whereby the Cup is termed the New Testament is very justly to be understood the Old Testament in the Cup which he gave first The same Lord then which gave unto his Disciples both Testaments gave also both Cups therefore at the same Supper he eat of the Jewish Passover which was to be offer'd and distributed the Sacrament of his Body and Blood which was to be instituted for the Salvation of Believers he eat the Passover of the Jews whereby Jesus Christ was promised to come unto our Passover which he became when sacrificed himself In fine consider what the Evangelist St. Luke relates that he said unto his Disciples for he saith thus When the hour was come he sate down at the Table and the twelve Apostles with him and he said unto them With desire have I desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer he eat therefore the Passover by which he was represented to suffer before he suffered voluntarily for us there is also in the words of our Saviour something which ought diligently to be considered by Believers and wherein may be perceived a difference betwixt both Testaments for St. Luke thus speaketh of the Cup which he first mentioned And having taken the Cup he gave Thanks and said Take ye it and divide it amongst you but speaking afterwards of the Bread and the Cup he saith And having taken the Bread he gave Thanks and broke it and gave it unto them saying This is my Body which is given for you do this in remembrance of me Also he gave them the Cup after Supper saying This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood which is shed for you Of all the opinions or divers Interpretations cited by St. Fulgentius I find his own the most reasonable because in effect St. Luke hath mentioned two several Cups the Paschal Cup and the Eucharistical Cup the former being a Sign and Seal of the first Covenant and the latter the Sign and Seal of the new Covenant If this Evangelist hath not taken notice of our Saviours saying of the Eucharistical Cup I will drink no more of the Fruit of the Vine but only in speaking of the Paschal Cup it is in the first place because he considered our Saviours whole action to be but one Supper at the end whereof he instituted the Sacrament of the Eucharist so that 't is as if he should have made our Saviour say After this Supper and my now sitting at Table with you I will drink no more of the Fruit of the Vine Secondly That although Jesus Christ might have said so of the two Cups the Paschal and Eucharistical yet nevertheless S. Luke seeing the two other Evangelists had not observed it of the Paschal he contented himself to observe it of the Paschal and not of the Eucharistick the Evangelists being accustomed to supply in this manner the omissions one of another I mean that the one observes some things the others had omitted that it might not be thought they had all written of design and by consent CHAP. III. Continuation of the considerations of the matter of the Eucharist wherein is examined what S. Ignatius saith of certain Hereticks which rejected the Sacrament the Heresie of one named Tanchelin who also
carried sundry sorts of meat unto the Monuments of Martyrs and after Prayers they carried them to their Houses ate of them and gave Alms with an opinion that they were sanctified by the merits of the Martyrs But now 't is high time to enquire what was the form of the Bread which was offered for the Celebration of the Eucharist The Apostle S. Paul saies in the tenth Chapter of the first to the Corinthians That we are all partakers of one Bread This makes me think that they offered upon the holy Table a Loaf greater or less according to the number of Communicants the unity of this Loaf representing the unity of the Mystical Body of Christ and this Loaf was broken into pieces to give a share unto each Communicant The Author of the Letter unto the Philadelphians under the name of St. Ignatius gives us no leave to doubt of it for we therein read these words There is one only Bread broke unto all Ign. ad Philad Id. ad Ephes and in that to the Ephesians he speaks after this sort of breaking one only Loaf Durandus hath well observed it in his Rational above 300 years ago They offered saith he a great Loaf which served them all Durand Bat. l. 4. c. 53. â—â— 3 It is said the Greeks still observe the same Custom which is very true and also several Christian Communions observe it at this present time that is that they proportion the Bread of the Eucharist unto the number of Communicants whether they offer them whole upon the Table of the Church as it is supposed to be the practice at this day amongst the Abassins or whether it be divided into pieces or parcels before they are offered Epiph. in Anch. Greg. 1. Dial. l. 4. c. 55. These Loaves were of a round form as S. Epiphanus tells us and were like Loaves or Cakes therefore in the Dialogues of Gregory the first they are called Crowns for he makes mention of a Priest that carried to a certain person two Crowns of Oblations therefore a certain Interpreter of the Roman Order in Cassander has this observation Apud Cassan in Liturg. p. 60. That although it appear'd that the form and measure of Oblations did antiently depend on the Zeal and Devotion of each particular person yet we may gather from the works of St. Gregory some marks of this custom And having produced what hath been above alledged of the Fourth Book of his Dialogues he adds These Crowns were like those which Christians were wont to offer unto God at that time for themselves and for theirs Then again saith he it appears of what bigness and form the Oblations of Sacrificers ought to be which they are bound to make of a bandful of Flower and in form of a Crown which is to offer a Loaf of Bread Such were the Oblations which were found in the Grave of S. Othmar in the Eighth Century when Solomon Bishop of Constance opened it Vâ—t O hmar apud Sur. An. â—20 16. Nov. for 't is said That there were found under his head certain pieces of Bread of a round form which are commonly called Oblations At this time many would call them Wafers but then they were still called Oblations and there is no question to be made but those Loaves were for their greatness and bigness proportioned unto the number of Believers which were to Communicate This custom was so well setled that 't is not to be found in the Books of the Ancients that there befell any alteration until the end of the Seventh Century that some Priests in Spain bethought themselves of raising into a round form a little Crust of bread which they had prepared for their own use the which they employed in making their Sacrament But the Sixteenth Council of Toledo assembled Anno 693. provided against this disorder and abuse by the Sixth Canon which contains this excellent Rule Concil 16. Tolet c. 6. It is come unto the knowledge of our Assembly that in some part of Spain certain Priests either through ignorance or impudent temerity do not offer upon the Lord's Table Loaves of Bread fitted and prepared on purpose but as each one is thereto enclined by necessity or carried by inclination they raise hastily and in a round form little Crusts of Bread intended for their particular use and offer them at the Altar with Water and Wine for an holy Oblation and thereupon having alledged the Texts of three Evangelists and of St. Paul the Council doth thus determine In fine what we can collect is That taking a whole Loaf he brake it and blessed it and gave it by Parcels unto each of his Disciples to shew us to do the like for time to come and without doubt to signifie that each morsel is Bread but that all Bread is not a Morsel whence it is that he saith in the following words pointing at him that was to betray him Unto whom I shall give the Sop he it is therefore seeing the words of our Redeemer shew that he took a whole Loaf and not a morsel and that he gave it by parcels unto his Disciples in breaking it after having blessed it and also seeing the Apostle St. Paul mentions that he took Bread and broke it giving Thanks c. is it not to teach us that we should take a whole Loaf and set it upon the Lords Table to be Blessed and not a piece of Bread seeing that our Lord did not so for if man be careful with affection to employ all the diligence he can possible for preserving his Life how much more care and exactness ought he to shew for the purity which ought to be observed in the service of God therefore desiring to set bounds unto this temerity or ignorance we have with a full consent thought fit that the Bread set upon the Table of the Lord to be sanctified by the Ministerial Benediction should be an entire clean and whole Loaf prepared for that purpose Afterwards the Fathers do recommend the use of midling Oblations intending as I conjecture that the quantity of Bread should be proportioned to the number of Communicants to the end that what remains say they may the better be kept or if it be eaten that it should not incommode the Stomach by its quantity and weight and that it may appear that 't is intended rather to feed the Soul than the Body It may therefore easily be conceived that these midling Oblations mentioned by the Council of Toledo are so called in reference to the number of Communicants which were to participate of the holy Sacrament unto whom the Bread offered for the Communion was to be proportioned and that they should not be made too big fearing lest it should be thought that more regard was had unto the matter of the Sacrament than unto the Virtue and to feeding the Body by digestion than to strengthening the Soul by Heavenly and Spiritual Nourishment Yet nevertheless this Decree be very
is so inconsiderable and of little moment that it deserves not our pains to examine It will be necessary to consider that in that which bears the name of St. James although it cannot be his the Priest makes this Prayer at the time the Elements are set upon the Altar or the Holy Table Liturg. St. Jacob. to be blessed and consecrated O Lord our God which hast sent the Bread from Heaven the food of all the World Jesus our Lord Saviour Redeemer and Benefactor to bless and sanctifie us bless we beseech thee this Oblation and receive it upon thy Heavenly Altar remember O Lord thou which art full of love towards mankind those who offer and for whom they have offered and keep us pure and immaculate in this Holy Celebration of thy divine Mysteries because thy great and glorious name O Father Son and Holy Ghost is glorified and praised now and for ever Amen And in that attributed unto St. Mark but not his the Priest praying in the same time but in terms something different Liturg. St. Marc. O Lord Holy Almighty and terrible which dwellest in the Holy Places sanctifie us and make us worthy of this Holy Priesthood and grant that we may minister at thy holy Altar with a good conscience cleanse our hearts from all impurity drive out of us all reprobate sense sanctifie our Souls and Spirit and give us grace with fear to practise the Worship of our Fathers to give us the light of thy countenance at all times for 't is thou which sanctifiest and blessest all things and we offer unto thee Praise and Thanksgiving As for the Greeks they carried the Elements that is to say the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament from the Table of Proposition as they call it unto the Altar or unto the Communion Table where they are to be consecrated with so great Pomp Solemnity and Ceremony that the ignorant people dazled with the Ceremonies forbear not to give unto these Elements before they are consecrated such an honour as doth not belong unto them Cabasil in Liturg. expos c. 24. Cabasilas Archbishop of Thessalonica who wrote in the XIV Century complains of it in the Explication which he makes of their Liturgy and saith those which unadvisedly do so do confound the Elements which are sanctified with those which are not and that from this confusion proceeds the honour which they give unto the Bread and Wine before Consecration which this Archbishop doth condemn But in fine the Elements being so brought and laid upon the Holy Table to be consecrated these same Liturgies inform us that he that officiates after having recited all the History of the Institution of the Sacrament desires of God that he would send upon this Bread and Wine which were offered unto him his Holy Spirit to make them the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and because the Author of the Apostolical Constitutions which were not written until the end of the third Century or the beginning of the fourth doth very clearly represent the manner of this Consecration we will begin with him to shew how this consecrating Liturgy was couched for after having ended the recital of the History of the Eucharist by these words Constitut Apostol l. 8. cap. 12. Do this in remembrance of me for as often as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup ye shew the Lords death till he come He goes on Therefore setting before us his Passion his Death and Resurrection his ascension into Heaven and his second coming which will be when he comes with power and glory to judge the quick and the dead and to reward everyone after their works We effer unto thee O our King and our God according so thy Commandment this Bread and this Cup in giving thee thanks by him because thou hast made us worthy to stand in thy presence to execute this Ministry and we beseech thee O God who standest in need of nothing that thou wouldest favourably behold these gifts which are presented before thee and that thou wouldest therein do thy good pleasure for the honour of thy Christ and that thou wouldest send thy Holy Spirit upon this Sacrifice the witness of the passion of the Lord Jesus to make this Bread the Body of thy Christ and this Cup his Blood to the end that those which partake of them may be confirmed in piety obtain remission of sins may be delivered from the temptations of the Devil filled with the Holy Ghost made worthy of thy Christ and of everlasting life when thou O Lord most mighty shalt be reconciled unto them In the Liturgy of St. James it is said O Lord send thine Holy Spirit upon us Liturg Jacob and upon these sacred Elements which are offered to the end that coming upon them he may sanctifie this Bread and this Cup by his Holy good and glorious presence and that he would make the Bread the sacred Body of thy Christ and the Cup his precious Blood In that of S. Mark We beseech thee O God lover of mankind Liturg. Marc. to send down thy Holy Spirit upon us and upon these Loaves and these Chalices to sanctifie and to consecrate them and to make this Bread the Body of Christ and this Cup the Blood of the New Testament of Jesus Christ our Lord our God our Saviour and our Sovereign King And so in those of St. Basil St. Chrysostome and generally in all excepting the Latin Liturgy at this time used I say in that of the present time for I cannot deny but that it was otherwise antiently and that in all appearance they cut off from this Liturgy I mean from the Canon of the Mass the Prayers which followed as in the other Liturgies the words of Institution by the which Prayers Christians were wont to consecrate the Divine Symbols even in the West during the space of a thousand years And to the end this truth should be made manifest this question must be throughly examined to wit whether the Antients did consecrate by Prayers and Invocations and by thanksgivings or otherwise Jesus Christ the absolute Master of the Christian Religion did consecrate his Sacrament by Prayers Blessing and Thanksgiving as the Divine Writers do testifie making use of two expressions the one of which signifying giving of Thanks and the other to Bless as to their Etymology but as to their sence and meaning they signifie one and the same thing The reason whereof may be that it was the manner of the Jews to conceive their Prayers in terms of Praise and Blessing the first Christians which made the example of Christ their Law and Rule intended not to consecrate any otherwise than he himself had done therefore Justin Martyr speaks of Prayers which the Pastour made after having received the Bread and Wine mingled with Water which was presented unto him Just Martyr Apolog. 2. he calls the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist in the Act of Communion The Bread
and Wine whereon Prayers were made and saith expresly That this food is consecrated by Prayer Iren. l. 4. c. 34. St. Irenaeus saith the same for he also calls it The Bread upon which Prayers have been made the Bread which hath received invocation and that by this means ceaseth to be common Bread and saith that we sanctifie the Creature This is also the Language of Tertullian writing against Marcion Tertul. advers Marc. l. 1. c. 23. for he observes that if Jesus Christ had not been the Son of the Creatour as this Heretick deny'd he would not have given thanks unto another God upon a Creature that had been none of his Strom. l. 1. paedag l. 2. c. 2 It is unto Prayer and Thanksgiving that Clemens of Alexandria refers the Consecration of the Eucharist of our Lord Origen contr Cels l. 8. in Matth. c. 15. therefore Origen calls the Bread of the Sacrament the Symbol of Prayer and that he saith that it is made a sacred and sanctified Body by Prayer St. Cyrill of Jerusalem in his Mystagogical Catechisms The Bread and Wine of the Eucharist before the Invocation of the adorable Trinity is but common Bread and common Wine but Prayer being ended the Bread is the Body of Christ and the Wine the Blood of Christ Lib. 4. Juvencus a Priest of Spain in his Evangelical History which he compos'd in Latin verse Having saith he devoutly prayed Basil de Sp. Sancto c. 27. t. 2. p. 351. The great St. Basil in his Treatise of the Holy Ghost Which of the Saints hath left unto us in writing the words of Invocation for consecrating the Bread of the Sacrament and the Cup of blessing Gregory of Nyssen his Brother In Baptism Christ p. 8 22. Orat. Catech. c. 37. p. 536. The mystical Oyl as also the Wine are of no great moment before Consecration but after the Sanctification of the Holy Spirit they operate excellently both the one and the other And elsewhere The Bread is sanctified by the word of God and by Prayer And elsewhere Ibid. The nature of visible things is transelemented by the virtue of the benediction St. Ambrose Bishop of Milan L. 4. de side c. 5. t. 4. As often as we take the Sacraments which by the mystery of holy Prayer are transfigured into his flesh and blood we do shew the Lords death Optatus Bishop of Milevis in Numidia describing the cruelties and rage of the Donatists against Catholicks and marking particularly against what they shew'd it What saith he is more sacrilegious than to break tear Lib. 6. and destroy the Altars of God whereon you your selves have sometimes offered c. where the Almighty God hath been invoked where the Holy Ghost drawn down by Prayers hath descended Paschal 1. Bibl. Patr. t. 3. p. 87. Theophilus of Alexandria speaking of Origen He doth not consider saith he that the Bread of our Lord and the Holy Cup are consecrated by Prayer and by the coming of the Holy Ghost St. Gaudentius Bishop of Bress in Italy In Exod. tract 2. When our Saviour presented unto the Disciples the consecrated Bread and Wine he said This is my Body in speaking after this manner he shewed that the Bread was consecrated before the pronouncing of these words This is my Body Ephrem of Edessa if the Books published in his name were his The Lord taking Bread into his hands blessed and brake it De natura Dei curiose nonscrutandâ— in type of his immaculate Body and blessed the Cup in figure of his pretious Blood St. Chrysostom in his Homilies upon St. Matthew The Lord gave thanks shewing us how we should celebrate this Sacrament Hom. 82. Graec. And upon the first Epistle to the Corinthians Hom. 24. in 1 ad Corinth The Apostle said the Cup of Blessing because holding it in our hands we offer unto God Hymns and Praises and do praise him S. Jerom in his Letter unto Evagrius reproving the pride and vanity of the Deacons which rashly advanced themselves above the Priests Who can endure saith he Epist 83. that the Ministers of Tables and of Widows should raise themselves being swelled with pride above thofe which by prayers do make the Body and blood of Jesus Christ And elsewhere he saith That prayer is thereunto necessary St. Austin in his Letter unto Paulinus In Sophon â—3 Epist 59. We mean by prayers those which we make in celebrating the Sacraments before we begin to bless what is upon the Lords Table and by Benedictions those which are made when they are blessed and sanctified and broke in pieces to be distributed And in the Books of the Trinity We call that only the Body and blood of Jesus Christ Lib. 3. c. 4. which being taken from the fruits of the Earth is consecrated by prayer And elsewhere writing against the Donatists which rejected the Sacraments consecrated and administred by Sinners What then saith he De Baptism l. 5. c. 20. doth God hear an homicide praying either on the Water of Baptism or on the Oyl or upon the Eucharist And in fine in another place Serm. 87. de divers it is not all sorts of Bread that is made the Body of Christ but that which receives the blessing of Jesus Christ S. Cyrill of Alexandria doth very frequently call the Eucharist Glaphir in Genes Exod. Levit. in Joan. Eulogy that is Blessing because there 's no doubt but that 't is consecrated by Blessing and Prayers And that blessing is all one in St. Cyril's sense with Sanctification and Consecration he shews plainly Contra Anthropomopth c. 12. when he saith elsewhere We believe that the Oblations made in the Churches are sanctified blessed and consecrated by Jesus Christ Theodoret who was not always of St. Cyril's mind yet agrees with him fully in this matter Dialog 2. What do you call the Oblation which is offered before the Invocation of the Priest A Food made of such Seeds And what do you call it after Consecration The body of Jesus Christ St. Prosper or some body else in his name in his Treatise of Promises and Predictions Part. 2. c. 2. He affirms at his Table that the Bread is his sacred Body A fragment of a Liturgy attributed unto Proclus Bishop of Constantinople speaking of the Apostles and their Successors praying over the Bread and Wine By these Prayers saith he they looked for the coming of the Holy Ghost to make and consecrate by his Divine presence the bread offered and the Wine mingled with Water into the Body it self or to be the Body of Jesus Christ our Saviour Victor of Antioch in his Commentary upon St. Mark according to the Greek In cap. 14. It was necessary that those which presented the Bread should believe that after Consecration and Prayers it was his Body The supposed Eusebius of Emessa or rather Caesarius Bishop of Aâ—â—â—s or some other for
't is very uncertain whose the Sermon is the words whereof we intend to cite They are consecrated by the invocation of Almighty God De Pasch Hom. 5. Lib. 9. p. 405. and in the same Sermon he attributes it unto sanctification The Sanctification saith he being pronounced he saith Take and drink Facundus of Hermiane The Lord called his Body and Blood the Bread which he had blessed and the Cup which he gave unto his Disciples Gregory the first Bishop of Rome Epist l. 7. What we say of the Lords Prayer presently after invocation it is because the Apostles were wont to consecrate the host of the Oblation Epist 63. by that Prayer only Which some have observed after him that have written of Ecclesiastical Offices as Amalarius Lib. 4. Cap. 26. Walafridus Strabo cap. 20 and Berno cap. 1. Isidore of Sevill De Eccles offic l. 1. c. 15. St. Peter first of all instituted the order of Prayers by the which are consecrated the Sacrifices offered unto God And elsewhere it is called a Sacrifice as a holy action because it is consecrated by mystical Prayer in remembrance of the passion which our Lord suffered for us The Books of Charlemain touching Images The Sacrament of the Body and blood of our Lord c. is consecrated by the Priest by the invocation of the name of God De Instit Cler. l. 1. c. 32. Rabanus Maurus The Lord first of all consecrated by Prayers and Thanksgiving the Sacraments of his Body and Blood and gave them unto his Disciples which his Apostles imitating practised afterwards and taught their Successors to do so likewise which the whole Church doth now practise all the World over Ibid. c. 33. And again As the Body of Jesus Christ was embalmed with sweet Spices was duely put into a new Sepulchre so in like manner in his Church his mystical Body being prepared with the perfumes of Holy Prayer it is administred in sacred Vessels by the Ministry of Priests Serm. 11 t. 4. Bibl. Patr. part 2. to the end Believers might receive it Egberâ— against the Cathari in the XII Century seems also to refer the Consecration unto the Benediction although his Doctrine is quite different from that of Rabanus Had we no other testimonies but these above-mentioned and which are frequently alledged they were doubtless sufficient to prove that in the Primitive Church the Consecration of the Symbols of the Eucharist was performed by Prayers and giving of Thanks but because the thing is of great importance the Reader will not be displeased if I joyn the following testimonies unto the former To begin with St. Fulgentius who in the Fragments of his Books against Fabian saith Ex libro 8. p. 202. You have imagined touching the Prayer by the which at the time of Sacrifice the Descent of the Holy Ghost is implored that it would seem to imply that he is locally present and a little after The Holy Spirit doth sanctifie the Sacrifice and Baptism by his Divine Vertue Macarius Bishop of Antioch in the eighth Act of the VI. general Council We saith he Tom. 5. Concil p. 99. E. draw near unto the mystical Blessings and are sanctified being made partakers of the holy Body and of the precious blood of Jesus Christ the Saviour of all The XVI Council of Toledo assembled Anno. 693. saith Can. 6. t. 5. Concil p. 430. C. That the Apostle taught us to take a whole loaf and to put it upon the Table or Altar to be blessed And again Our assembly hath appointed by a general consent that there should be presented at the Lords Table an intire and good loaf to be consecrated by the Ministerial benediction A Council of Constantinople composed of 338. Bishops assembled Anno. 754. said That the Lord would that the Bread of the Eucharist Act 6. Concil 2. Niceni t. 5. Concil p. 756. as a true figure or image of his natural Body being sanctified by the coming of the Holy Ghost did become his Divine Body and would you know how The Priest which makes the Oblation say the Fathers interposing to make it Holy whereas it was common to wit by his Prayers whereby he begs of God the presence of the Holy Ghost George Pachimer In Epist 9. t. 1. p. 290. Paraphraser of the pretended Denys the Areopagite declares That the mysteries are consecrated upon the Holy Table by Blessing the Bread and the Holy Cup. In the antient Formularies of an uncertain Author published by the late Monsieur Bignon C. 8. p. 121. ult edit the Author whereof lived in the days of Louis the Debonnair we find that this Prince to honour the Church ordered that all those should be set free and at liberty that were admitted into holy Orders and saith he who consecrate by the intervention of their Prayers De ordine baptism tit 18. the Body and Blood of our Lord. Theodulph Bishop of Orleans by the invisible Consecration of the Holy Ghost Pope Nicolas the first writing unto the Emperor of Constantinople Tom. 6. Concil p. 489. attributes the Consecration unto the benediction and Sanctification of the Holy Ghost Which words are found cited in the IV. Act of the Council assembled against Photius Ibid. p 738. which the Latins call the VIII Oecumenical Council The Council of Cressy assembled Anno. 858. saith Tom. 3. Conc. Gall. p. 129. That Consecratton is made by Prayer and by the sign of the Cross Charles the Bald King of France and Emperour of the West writing unto Pope Adrian the second complaining of some sharp and bitter words which this Pope used against him writes unto him amongst other things We cannot think that such words can proceed out of your mouth Supplem Conc. Gal. p. 265. as make the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ by devout and holy Prayer Hugh Maynard a Benedictine Frier alledges in his notes upon the Books of the Sacraments of Gregory the first two Manuscripts of the Library of Corby viz an old explication of the Canon of the Mass and an ancient Treatise of the Mass in both which the Consecration is attributed unto Prayers In the former of these Manuscripts are found these words by Maynard's relation The Sacrifices are those which are consecrated with Prayers P. 12. P. 13. and in the other Sacrifices that is things made holy because they are consecrated by mistical Prayer Which words as is observed by this learned Frier were upon a matter taken out of S. Isidore lib. 6. Orig. c. 19. Ratherius Bishop of Verona in Italy in the tenth Century in his Treatise of the contempt of Canons Tom. 2. Spicil p. 183. first Part. The Oblation saith he which is to be presented and distributed unto the People is consecrated chiefly by the Prayer wherein we say unto God Our Father which art in Heaven Which in all likelihood he borrowed from Gregory the first In fine the whole Greek Church
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
adored by the people seeing there is no mention of lifting up the Sacrament in the Western Church before the XI Century as for the Eastern Church he confesseth that they elevated the Sacrament but after the Lords Prayer and some other Prayers at the very instant of Communicating and he proves it by the Liturgies of St. James St. Chrysostom by Anastasius the Sinaite by George Codin and by the Author of the life of St. Basil attributed unto Amphilochius but which in all likelihood was not his and he observes that the Christians of Ethiopia practise the same Ceremony which is quite different from the Elevation of the Latin Church it being only done to call the People to the Communion in saying Holy things are for the Saints and not to have them adore the Eucharist as amongst the Latins Therefore it is that whereas the Elevation of the Latin Church is joyned immediately after Consecration which according to their belief changing the Bread and Wine into the substance of the Body and blood of Christ renders that which that he celebrates holds in his hands an Object of Sovereign Adoration whereunto those which be present are invited by the elevating the Host presently after it is consecrated That of the Greek Church was not done till a good while after Consecration and as they were ready to communicate so that the intent of it was only to call Believers to the participation of the Sacrament But Maynard rests not there he answers as Goar doth those which wrest some words of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy under the name of Denys the Areopagite to prove that in his time there was an Elevation of the Sacrament joined unto Consecration in the Greek Church and he very judiciously observes that this pretended Denys speaks only of a Ceremony observed amongst the Greeks which is that they kept the Divine Symboles hid and covered until the very instant of communicating and that then they were uncovered to be shewed to the people to have them come to the holy Table in shewing them and although the Author but now mentioned speaks of this action yet there is not to be found any Elevation of the Host presently after Consecration in any of the Greek Liturgies I will add unto all this one thing very considerable which is That it appears by the antient customs of the Monastery of Cluny written about the end of the eleventh Century That even to that time the Elevation was not practised in the extent of the Latin Church not so much as that at first mentioned by Ives of Chartres Antiq. consue Cluniac Monast t. 4. Spicil Dach l. 2. c. 30. which tended only to represent the Elevation of the Body of Jesus Christ upon the Cross For in the thirtieth Chapter of the second Book of these customs of the Congregation of Cluny is exactly not to say scrupulously shewn all that was then practised in this famous Monastery nevertheless there is not one word said of the Elevation of the Eucharist only that 't is observed in one place That when he that celebrates saith throughout all Ages Ibid. p. 143. c. the Deacon lifteth up the Cup alittle it may easily be seen this little raising the Cup is nothing like the Elevation which we examine and that it was a little Ceremony quite different from what is at present called Elevation But if any ask me at what time they began in the Latin Church to turn the Elevation made in several parts of the West to represent the Elevation of our Lord on the Cross unto the adoration of the Sacrament practised after the Eleventh Century I affirm That William Durand towards the end of the Thirteenth Century was the first as far as I can discover who referred Adoration to the Elevation of the Host in his Rational of Divine Offices for amongst several reasons of this Elevation he alledges this last Duran Rat. Divin Oâ—lic l. 4. de pâ—rt can fol. 169. n. 51. contrary to the constant Doctrine of antient Interpreters of the Liturgy we have spoken of In the fifth place saith he the Host is lifted up that the people might not anticipate the Consecration but knowing thereby it is made and that Christ is come on the Altar they should how down to the ground with reverence It was also in this Thirteenth Century that Honorius the Third and Gregory the Ninth made their Constitutions for adoring the Sacrament after Elevation as shall be shewn in the third part of this Treatise where we are to discourse of the Worship and by consequence examine the question of Adoration In the mean time it is not amiss to observe that before any Elevation of the Sacrament was practised in the West Berengarius was spoken of in the World and his followers were dispersed into all parts in great abundance and the Albigenses and Waldenses which soon followed him had separated themselves from the Communion of the Latin Church a great while before the Adoration of the Host and the Elevation therewith enjoyned and by consequence there have always been Christians in the West who never practised Elevation nor Adoration in their Eucharist not to instance Christian Communions in the East and elsewhere which likewise never practised it After Elevation comes the fraction which in the Sacrament of Jesus Christ and in that of the primitive Christians immediately followed For the holy Writers testifie That the Lord had no sooner blessed the Bread but he brake it to distribute it and because the Hebrews Loaves were flat and spread round and something long like our Cakes and Biskets and for that reason were easily broken without any need of a Knife to cut them therefore the holy Scripture still mentions the breaking of Bread and not cutting Bread it is therefore not to be questioned but the Lord in celebrating his Supper made use of that sort of Bread and broke it after the manner of the Jews to distribute it to his Disciples Nevertheless seeing the Apostle St. Paul expresly observes of the Bread of the Eucharist that we break it The Bread which we break and that the Lord explaining this Mystery saith positively of the Bread That it is his Body broken for us he would teach us that this fraction of Bread is neither superfluous nor useless but that it makes part of the Sacrament and that it therein represents unto us the sufferings of Jesus Christ particularly those of his Cross it was the signification which Theodoret searched therein in his Dialogues Theod. Dial. 3. p. 147. when he saith O. Remember what the Lord took and broke and by what name he called that which he had taken E. I will speak mystically by reason of those which are not initiated he means that he will not name the Bread After that he had taken and broke it and distributed it to his Disciples he said This is my Body which is given for you or which is broken according to the Apostle and again
have always the Sacrament ready to Communicate Sick Folks be they old or young that they may not dye without Communicating Gautier Bishop of Orleans prescribes the same unto his Priests in his Capitularies of the year 869. And Riculfe Bishop of Soissons unto his in the year 889. proving the necessity of Communicating Infants which he will have to be given presently after Baptism by the same words whereby S. Austin proves it The Book of Divine Offices called the Roman Order was written as some think at the end of the Eighth Century or the beginning of the Ninth and as others think in the Eleventh In that Book this Decree is to be seen Ord. Rom. t. 10. Bibl. Pat. p. 84. Care is to be taken that young Children receive no Food after they are Baptized and that they should not give them Suck without great necessity untill they have participated of the Body of Christ Greg. lib. Sac. p. 73. Nevertheless in S. Gregory's time it was not forbidden to give them Suck but at the end of the Eleventh and beginning of the Twelfth Centuries this pity was shewed unto these poor Infants and for the difficulty there was in making them swallow Bread they were communicated with the blessed Wine only Pasch 2. Ep. 32. t. 7. conc patr 1. p. 530. So it was enjoined by Pope Paschal the Second who succeeded unto Vrban the Second Anno 1099. according to Cardinal Bellarmin's computation and this custom continued after his death as Hugh of S. Victor testifies who lived in the Twelfth Century in his Ecclesiastical Books of Ceremonies Sacraments Offices and Observations L. 1. c. 20. t. 10. Bibl. Pat. p. 1376. Vnto Children new born saith he must be administred with the Priest's Finger the Sacrament in the species of blood because such in that state do naturally suck And he saith It must be so done according to the first Institution of the Church he laments the Ignorance of Priests who saith he retaining the form and not the thing give unto them Wine instead of Blood which he wished might be abolished if it could be done without offending the ignorant Nevertheless this practice of giving a little Wine unto young Children after Baptism continued a long time in divers parts of the Western Church Lindan Panop l. 4. c. 25. as appears by the words of Hugh of S. Victor and some have observed that not much above one hundred years ago the same thing was used and practised in the Church of Dordrecht in Holland Apud Arcad. de concord l. 3. c. 40. before it embraced the Protestant Reformed Religion In fine Simon of Thessalonica Cabasilas Jeremy Patriarch of Constantinople and Gabriel of Philadelphia also defend this necessity of Communicating not only of persons of discretion but also of young Children This Tradition thus established there only rests to finish this Chapter to speak something touching the words of the Distributer and of the Communicant When the Lord gave unto the Disciples the Sacrament of Bread he said This is my Body and in giving them the Symbole of Wine This is my Blood or this Cup is the New Testament in my Blood but we do not find that the Apostles said any thing In Justin Martyr's time Apolog. 2. the Distributer nor the Communicant said nothing but the Deacons gave unto the Believers Bread and Wine which had been consecrated Serom. l. 1. p. 271. and it may be collected from Clement of Alexandria that it was so practised at the end of the Second Century Some time after it was said unto the Communicants in giving them the Sacrament the Body of Christ the Blood of Christ and the Receivers answered Amen as may be read in the Apostolical Constitutions S. Ambrose S. Cyril of Jerusalem S. Austin and elsewhere but it must also be observed that they said unto them Ye are the Body of Christ and that unto these words they answered Amen as they had answered in receiving the Sacrament as is restified by S. Austin in his Sermon unto the new Baptized in S. Fulgentius In the days of Gregory the First and after they said in distributing the Eucharist The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ keep ye unto Life everlasting The Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ redeem ye unto Life everlasting But I do not find that Believers answered so punctually Amen Such Liberty the Church hath used in this circumstance of distributing the Sacrament Amongst the Greeks they say unto the Communicant In Euchol p. 83. Servant of God you do Communicate of the holy Body and precious Blood of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in remission of Sins and unto Life everlasting But 't is time to consider the things which were given unto Believers when they did participate of the Sacrament and it is wherein we will employ the following Chapter CHAP. XII Of the things distributed and received WHat was distributed unto Believers in Communicating were the things which had been Blessed and Consecrated to be made the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of our Lord. I will not now examine the change which Consecration may thereunto bring this not being the place to treat of the Doctrine of the holy Fathers which shall appear in the second part of this Treatise it will suffice here to enquire if Christians have always participated of both Symboles and if they have ever been permitted to Communicate under both kinds as is spoken or under one kind only As for the Symbole of Bread it is an undoubted truth that it hath always been given to Believers in all Christian Communions in the whole world and there hath never been any contest on this subject at least in what regards the thing it self I mean the matter of fact not to speak of the difference touching the quality of the Bread which ought to be used in this Mystery The greatest difficulty then is to know the practice of the Church in the species of Wine we are indispensably forced to treat of the Communion under both kinds and to lay before the Readers eyes the practice of Christians with the changes and innovations which have therein happened Jesus Christ who distributed the Bread unto his Apostles gave unto them also the Cup and expresly commanded them all to drink of it as S. Matthew hath written S. Mark hath said that they all drank of it The Christians immediately following the Apostles practised the very same but because it would make a whole Volume to collect the passages of the Ancients to prove the certainty of this matter and besides both Roman Catholicks as well as Protestants confess That Jesus Christ did institute this Sacrament under both kinds That the Apostles taught so and that it was so practised by the primitive Church for a long time as I think it may suffice to prove this Tradition from age to age by some of the clearest passages and to follow it until its abolishing at the Council of
Constance and from that time until the Council of Trent Justin Martyr affirms Apolog. 1. that in his time there was distributed Consecrated Bread and Wine unto all the Communicants Ep. ad Philadelph The pretended Ignatius tells us of one only Cup distributed unto all And S. Irenaeus disputing against certain Hereticks who denied the Resurrection of the Body Advers haer l. 5. c. 2. How saith he do they deny that the Body is capable of the gift of God which is life eternal which is nourished with the Blood and Body of Christ L. 4. c. 34. And again How do they again say that the Body corrupteth that is to say with a final corruption and that it receiveth not life to wit in rising again being nourished with the Body and Blood of Christ Hom. 16. Origen on the Book of Numbers What is this people which are wont to drink Blood the Christian people the faithful people follow him who said If you eat not my Flesh and drink not my Blood you have no life in you because my Flesh is Meat indeed and my Blood is drink indeed And to shew that he speaks of the Sacramental Communion Hom. 14. in Matth. he adds It is said that we drink the Blood of Jesus Christ not only in the Celebration of the Sacraments but also when we receive his words And elsewhere he speaks of unadvisedly taking the Bread of our Lord and his Cup. The blessed Martyr S. Cyprian Ep. 63. hath written a Treatise expresly of the Sacrament of the Cup as S. Austin calls it where he amply proves this Communion which we examin and in another place writing with his Brethren unto Cornelius Bishop of Rome touching the resolution they had taken to admit into the unity of the Church those who had flinched in times of persecution and speaking of the excellent Motive which they found in communicating of the Cup to incourage Christians unto Martyrdom see here what they said Ep. 54. How should we incourage them to shed their blood for the confession of the name of Jesus if going to the Combat we should deny them the Blood of Christ Or how should we make them fit to drink the Cup of Martyrdom if we do not admit them first to drink in the Church the Cup of the Lord by the right of Communication And in his Treatise of those that had fallen during the persecution of the Church he saith P. 175. ult edit That the Deacon presented the Cup unto them who were present as Justin Martyr also hath taught us The Councils of Ancyra Anno 314. Apud Athanas Apolog. p. 732. in the second Canon and that of Neocaesarea the same Year in the XIII Canon inform us also the same thing as also a Synod of Alexandria Assembled during the Persecutions stirred up by the Arrians against S. Athanasius Thence it is that Leo the First In natal ejus c. 2. L. 1. contr Parmen speaking in the V. Century of S. Vincent Levite that is to say Deacon and glorious Martyr saith That he administred the Cup unto the Christians for their salvation Optatus Bishop of Milevis in Numidia observes the same of Cecilian as he was yet but Deacon of the Church of Carthage and writes also that what drew on him the hatred of Lucilla a powerful and factious Woman who by her Riches and Credit supported the Party of the â—onatists against Cecilian promoted to be a Bishop was That Cecilian performing the Office of a Deacon pronounced a severe Sentence against her because in presenting her the Cup she kissed the Bone of some dead person or Martyr before she put her lips unto the Cup of the Lord. Mystag 5. p. 245. vide p. 244. L. de Baptism c. 3. S. Cyril of Jerusalem in his Mystagogicks Aster having communicated of the Body of Christ draw near unto the Cup of his Blood c. S. Basil said the benefit of the words of the Institution of the Eucharist is That eating and drinking we should alwaies have him in remembrance who Died and is Risen again for us And elsewhere Ep. 289. It is a thing good and profitable to communicate daily and to participate of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ The Liturgies also which go in his name may be here alledged and all the others which are now remaining from which it is easie to collect the use and practice of communicating under both kinds S Chrysostom in his Homilies upon S. Matthew Hom. 32. Graec. p. 319. E. The same Table is offered unto all the same Drink is given unto all but not only the same Liquor but it is also given unto us all to drink of one and the same Cup for our Father injoining us to love one another he so ordered it that we should drink of the same Cup And upon S. John speaking of the Water and Blood which came out of Christs side Hom. 85. Graec. The Mysteries do from thence take their Original to the end as oft as ye approach unto the terrible Cup ye should draw near as if it were to drink out of his side it self And upon the Second to the Corinthians Hom. 18. There are certain times when there is no difference betwixt the Priest and those over whom he doth preside as when they are to participate of the terrible Mysteries for we are all equally admitted there it is not as under the old Law the Priest ate some things and the people other things and the people were not permitted to eat of what the Priest did eat but now it is otherwise for one Body and one Cup is offered unto all S. Austin in his Questions upon Leviticus The Lord saying L. 3. c. 57. t. 4. If you eat not my Flesh and drink my Blood you have no life in you What was the reason of so strictly prohibiting the people from the Blood of the Sacrifices offered for sins if those Sacrifices did represent the only Sacrifice wherein the true and full remission of sins is made nevertheless no person is hindred from taking this Sacrifice for his nourishment but rather all those who would be saved are exhorted to drink it Leo the First in his Lent Sermon speaking of the Manicheans who not to appear what they were frequented the Assemblies of Believers and did also participate with them of their Sacraments Serm. â— c. 5. To hide saith he their Infidelity they have the impudence to assist at our Mysteries they so dispose themselves in the Communion of the Sacraments to shelter themselves the better they receive with an unworthy mouth the Body of Christ but they absolutely refuse drinking the Blood of our Redemption Therefore we give your Holiness notice of it to the end this kind of men may be known by these marks and that such other Sacrilegious Dissimulation hath been discovered may be marked and that being forbidden to be present in the Society
of the Saints they might be expell'd by the Priestly Authority In the Tenth Action of the Council of Chalcedon Assembled An. 451. there is a request of the Priests of the Church of Edessa against Ibas their Bishop wherein they complain of many things T 3. Concil p. 382. F. ult edit but more especially That when the Commemoration of Martyrs was made there was no Wine given to offer at the Altar to be Sanctified and distributed unto the people except it were a very little and that bad and muddy just newly prest and made Pope Gelasius at the end of the V. Century De consecr dist 2. Ep. ad Major Joan. in Gratians Decree We have been informed saith he that some persons having only taken part of the holy Body do refrain the Cup of the holy Blood which persons doubtless it being said they are hindred by I know not what Superstition ought to receive the whole Sacraments or be quite excluded from them because that the dividing of one and the same Mysterie cannot be done without Sacriledge Fragm 28. contr Fabian L. 2. de vita sua c 15. p. 216. S. Fulgentius said That we participate of the Body and Blood of Christ when we eat of his Bread and drink of his Cup. S. Eloy Bishop of Noyon in the VII Century requires That the sick should with Faith and Devotion receive the Eucharist of the Body and Blood of Christ T. 4. Concil p. 503. The Third Council of Toledo Assembled Anno 589. in the second Canon Ordains That the peoples heart being purified by Faith they should draw near to eat the Body and Blood of Christ Which the Fourth held in the year of our Lord 633. in the 7. and 8. Canons called Ibid. p. 584 587. To receive the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ And in the Eighteenth Canon it makes this Rule for reforming a certain abuse crept into the Church in the celebration of this Sacrament Some Priests communicate presently after saying the Lords Prayer and then give the Blessing unto the people which we forbid for the future but that after the Lords Prayer and the conjunction of the Bread and the Cup the blessing be given the people and that then the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Lord be received in this manner that the Priest and Deacon communicate before the Altar the Clergy in the Quire and the people without the Quire From which words it appears That in Spain in the VII Century the Communion of the Laity did nothing differ from that of the Priest who Officiated as to the manner but in respect of the place only Also the XI Council of Toledo Ib. p. 825. Assembled Anno 675. in the Eleventh Canon plainly speaks also of the Communion under both the Symbols of Bread and Wine when it forgiveth such as being very sick through weakness refuse the Eucharist not through infidelity But because they cannot swallow it down except it be what they drink of the Lords Cup. Thus far it was the practice of the Church to administer unto Communicants both Symbols severally apart It is true that at the same time of this XI Council of Toledo some going about to change this wholsom custom and to administer the Bread steept in the Consecrated Wine the Council of Braga in Gallicia made a Decree to stop the current of this practice but before we alledge this new Decree it must be observed That the Church by a charitable condescension suffered the Eucharist steeped to be given unto very weak and sick persons and to young Children who were of a long time admitted to the participation of the Sacrament as hath been shewn We have an instance of the first in the old Man Serapion a Penitent and Bed-ridden for as I perceive in the Third Century the Eucharist was administred to no sick folks but such as were of the number of the Penitents and in danger of Death And we read in Eusebius that a Priest of Alexandria following the example of Denys his Bishop sent by a young Boy a bit or little parcel of the Eucharist Euseb Hist Eccles l. 6. c. 44. commanding that it should be steept and put into the old Mans mouth that he might swallow it As for young Children it appears that it may be collected both from S. Cyprian in his Treatise of those that were fallen and yielded during the time of Persecution Dimid temp c. 6. and of the counterfeit Prosper in what he hath written of Promises and Predictions that it was so done to such as were very weak I say it may seem to be gathered for the thing is very dubious in S. Cyprian who teacheth us that the Communion was given unto little Children but he doth not positively say that the Bread was steept in the Wine the pretended Prosper speaks more formally In a word it is evident that this kind of Communion was not practised but in great necessity De commun sub utraque spec p. 1027. and also as Cassander hath judiciously observed Those persons who steeped the Bread in the Wine did plainly shew and declare how necessary they believed both Symbols were to make a lawful Communion I say this sort of Communion was not practised I mean that the Bread was not steeped in Wine but upon great necessity In fine Hugh Maynard a learned Benedictine speaking of the Council of Clermont under Pope Vrban the second as 't is reported by Cardinal Baronius he collects that according to the intent of the Council may be given in a Spoon unto sick Persons ready to dye the Body of our Lord steeped in the Blood that they might swallow it the easier And to shew that the Eucharist was not so administred but unto such as were very weak he makes mention of a Manuscript of St. Remy of Rheims Of the anointing the sick written towards the end of the X. Century upon which he observes that when the Sacrament was administred unto such as were not extream ill it was said unto them separately The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ keep you to life everlasting the Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ ransom you unto life everlasting which words saith he make a separate and distinct reception But as for those who were as 't were at the point of death these two expressions were joined together saying The Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve thy Soul unto everlasting life because saith he there was given unto the sick Person in a Spoon the Body of the Lord steeped in the holy Blood Now to return to the Council of Braga in Gallicia it was assembled in the year of our Lord 675. and in the second Canon which Gratian Ives of Chartres Cassander and several others mis-alledge as a Fragment of an Epistle of Pope Julius to the Egyptians I say in the second Canon it reproves divers abuses and amongst others that of administring the Sacrament
Christ where the Reader may observe if he please that the case is by way of permission and farther of a permission grounded not upon the authority of a Council but upon the necessity that is alledged of the fear or danger of effusion something of like nature is to be found in the antient customs of the Monastery of Cluny which were written after the death of the Abbot Odilon who dyed about the middle of the XI Century but in such a manner as appears that this custom was peculiar to the Congregation of Cluny the other Churches distributing both Symbols severally L. 2. c. 30. p. 146. t. 4. spicil Vuto all those unto whom he gives the holy Body say these antient customs he first wets or steeps it in the Blood but in the Margent they make this observation Another Manuscript adds Although this be contrary to the practice of other Churches because some of our Novices are such slovens that should they receive the Blood by it self they would not fail of being guilty of some great neglect Non remaneret Which words Cassander alledged in his Treatise of the Communion under both kinds for he saw the Manuscripts before the customs were Printed as they have been within this six or seven years past but it appears by the words above alledged that in most Churches the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament were given apart and distinct from one another In the year 1095. Vrban the Second held a Council at Clermont in Auvergna that made a Decree which is variously reported Cardinal Baronius in his Ecclesiastical Annals gives it us in these terms T. 11. ad an 1095. That no Body presume to Communicate at the Altar without receiving the Body apart and also the Blood by it self unless it be by necessity and with precaution This necessity regards the sick above-mentioned and this care or precaution refers in all likelihood to the danger of spilling which might happen more especially at great and festival Communions by reason of the great number of people that comunicates and doubtless it was upon such occasions that John Bishop of Auranch intended it should be permitted to give the Sacrament steeped unto the people if it were not better to refer unto the same subject that is to say unto sick bed-rid Persons both the necessity and precaution of the Canon in Baronius In a word Oderic Vital in his ninth Book of his Ecclesiastical History upon the year 1095. upon the relation of Maynard in his Notes upon the same Book of Sacraments of Gregory thus represents unto us the Canon Page 379. That the Body of the Lord be received separately and also the Blood of the Lord he speaks neither of necessity nor precaution and without that the Canon is clear and intelligible and without any difficulty it is no easiy matter to judge in what manner the Council exprest it self it only can be said that it seems to express it self as Oderic Vital saith if it be considered in the first place that 't was in this Council of Clermont the Croysade was granted for recovering the Holy Land Secondly that it appears by a Letter written from Antioch by the Adventurers four years after the Council that is to say in the year 1099. and directed unto Manasses Archbishop of Rheims that the Christians resolving to make a sally upon those which held them closely besieged in Antioch did first Communicate but under both Symbols distinctly These things being heard T. 7. Spicil p. 195. the Christians being purified by cenfessing their sins and strongly armed by receiving the Body and Blood of the Lord and being prepared for the combat they marched out of the gate Unto which may be added that a little before the Council of Clermont most Churches did Communicate as we have been informed by the antient customs of Cluny under both kinds distinctly But Paschal the Second who succeeded unto Vrban Anno 1099. commands both Symbols to be distributed separately Pascal 2. Ep. 32. t. 7. part 1. p. 130. except it be unto young Children and such as are at the point of death for unto such he gives liberty they should be communicated with the holy Wine only because they cannot swallow down the Bread And about the same time the Micrologue observes that the Communion with the steeped Sacrament Cardinal Humbert against the Greeks t. 4. Bibl. patr part 2. p. 217. A. Microlog c. 18. is no lawful Communion and proves it by the authority of the Roman Order It appears also that about fifty years before this Council of Clermont the steeped Sacrament was not always given unto Persons ready to depart this life but the holy Bread and the sanctified Cup apart at least nothing hinders but it may so be gathered from the Chronicle of Fontanella otherwise St. Wandrill in Normandy for speaking of Gradulph one of its Abbots who dyed in the year 1047. C. 8. t. 3. Spicil p. 268. it saith That being at the point of death and having received the Communion of the Body and Blood of the Lord he dyed Nevertheless the best and most holy things absolutely degenerate from their institution let us see the manner that the Communion with the steeped Eucharist was introduced and established in several places but not universally We have a Letter of Ernulph or Arnulph or if you please of Arnold at first a Monk at S. Lueiens of Beauvais then at Canterbury in Lanfranck's time afterwards made a Prior by Anselm a little after Abbot of Burk and at last by Radulph Bishop of Rose now Rochester in England he died Anno 1124. T. 2. Spicil p. 432. in this Letter which he writes unto one Lambert who demanded wherefore the Sacrament was then given steept seeing our Saviour gave the Bread and Wine distinctly he approves this new manner of giving the Sacrament although he owns that Jesus Christ distributed it otherwise and he likes it for the danger of shedding especially upon Festival daies because of the great numbers of persons that then use to communicate also he touches the inconvenience might happen by reason of men that have long and great Beards representing that if at their Meals they wet their Whiskars in the Liquor before they receive it in their mouth it may be feared they do the same in the Consecrated Wine if they are admitted unto the Sacramental Cup which he accounts a great crime which he chargeth upon the Communicant and also him that celebrates besides to strengthen what he saith of the danger of effusion upon solemn Festival daies when great numbers of Men and Women must be communicated of all sorts and conditions he observes that he that officiates will be still in danger of spilling something out of the Sacred Cup let him take never so much care and caution in distributing it because he often runs the hazard of this effusion when he is about to drink of it himself which cannot be done as he
every one should and ought with all diligence and fidelity to contribute his Endeavours and improve the Talent which our Lord hath committed unto his trust This is what I have endeavoured to do hitherto and which I intend to do for the time to come if it be not with all the Delight and Ornament the Reader could wish at least it shall be with all the Sincerity which can be expected from one who believes to have well bestow'd his Labour and Pains if his Endeavours would create in the Minds of Christians divided by various Opinions in Religion more tender Inclinations of Love and Charity and greater Desires unto Peace and Concord We have already seen all that relates unto the outward Form of the Celebration of the Sacrament with the Alterations thereunto hapned in succession of time now we must endeavour to discover what hath been believed of this Mystery in this large and spacious Country but to do it the more orderly and to shew with more ease and clearness the History of the Innovations which have happened as well in the Expressions as in the Doctrine we will extend our Proofs as to the Expressions but unto the seventh and eighth Centuries at which time they suffer'd some Attempt and as to the Doctrine unto the ninth supposing it received some Alteration in the beginning of that Age. CHAP. I. The Reflections made by the Fathers upon the Words of the Institution of the Sacrament THE holy Fathers had so great a Love for Jesus Christ and Veneration for all his Institutions that they took a singular pleasure in meditating upon this great Mystery and in making divers Reflections upon this divine Institution Our Lord said of the Bread which he had taken which he blessed and which he broke That it was his Body and of the Wine that it was his Blood The antient Doctors of the Church considering this Expression of the Son of God have declared with a common Consent and as it were united Suffrages that Jesus Christ called the Bread and Wine his Body and his Blood Our Lord said St. Irenaeus Iren. l. 5. c. 2. Tatian tom 7. Bibl. Patr. has assured that the Bread was his Body Tatian in his Harmony upon the Evangelists saith That he testified that the Bread and the Cup of Wine were his Body and Blood Tertullian Tertul. l. 5. contr Jud. c. 11. l. 5. Carm. cont Marc. Origen in Matth. Hom. 35. Cyprian Ep. 75. ad Magn. That he called the Bread his Body and that he said of the Bread and of the Fruit of the Vine This is my Body and my Blood poured out Origen in one of his Homilies upon St. Matthew That he confessed the Bread was his Body And the blessed Martyr St. Cyprian That he called his Body the Bread which was made of the collection of several Grains The Author of the Commentaries upon the Evangelists which go in the Name of Theophilus of Antioch though 't is not certain whether they be his for all they are attributed unto him in the Library of the Fathers this Author I say has expressed his thoughts almost as St. Cyprian had done saying That Jesus Christ called his Body Theophil Antioch in Matth. the Bread which is made of the collection of divers Grains and his Blood the Wine which is pressed out of several Grapes and this he saith in explaining the Words of the Institution of the Sacrament This is my Body this is the Cup of my Blood Eusebius Bishop of Cesarea in Palestin had no other meaning I think when he said Euseb Dem. lib. 8. That the Lord commanded to make use of Bread for the Symbol of his Body Nor St. Cyrill of Jerusalem in these Words Cyrill Hie of Mystag 4. Our Lord spake and said of the Bread This is my Body Nor the Poet Juvencus when he declares Juvenc l. 4. de Evang. Hist That our Saviour giving the Bread unto his Disciples taught them that he gave them his Body Nor in fine an unknown Author in the Works of St. Athanasius which saith De Dict. Interp. Parab 9.72 That our Lord called the Mystical Wine his Blood St. Epiphanius hindered by the Scruple which the Fathers made of calling the Symbols of the Eucharist Bread and Wine contented himself to intimate unto us that Jesus Christ did assimilate his Body unto a Subject round as to its Form Epiphan in Anchor and without sense as to its Power having no manner of resemblance unto the incarnate Image nor with the proportion of Members Gaudent tract 2. in Exod. St. Gaudentius observes that our Lord in giving the consecrated Bread and Wine unto the Disciples said This is my Body this is my Blood It is also the Observation of the Author of the Apostolical Constitutions who makes Christ say of the Bread which he broke Const Apost lib. 8. c. 12. and gave unto his Disciples This is the Mystery of the New Testament Take eat this is my Body St. Chrysostome is no less clear Chrysost in 1 Co. Hom. 24. Hieron cp 4 ad Hidib 92. What is the Bread saith he it is the Body of Jesus Christ. St. Jerome also follows the same way seeing he assures That the Bread which our Lord broke and gave unto his Disciples was his Body and the Cup his Blood and that he proves it by these Words This is my Body St. Austin in the Sermon unto the new baptized August apud Fulgen. de Baptis Aeth cap. vet Cyril l. 12. in Joar 20.26 27. saith expresly That the Bread is the Body of Christ and the Cup is the Blood of Christ St. Cyrill of Alexandria was doubtless of the same mind for in his Commentary upon St. John he makes Christ say Of the Bread which he broke and distributed this is my Body which is given for you in Remission of Sins We may descend lower and carry further the Proof of this first Reflection were we not prevented by the Rule which we prescribed and of the Resolution taken of avoiding as much as possible may be the repeating of the same Testimonies It shall then suffice to inform the Reader that 't is a certain Truth owned by all Men both Protestants and Roman Catholicks that when there is a Dispute of two Subjects of a different Nature it cannot properly be said that the one is the other when therefore these sorts of Propositions meet in Discours of necessity recours must be had unto the Figure or Metaphor What the Fathers have deposed is considerable yet I do not think it sufficient nor that it is all which they have to say unto us If we examine anew these faithful Witnesses I doubt not but they will speak again and that they will inform us of other Truths besides them above-mentioned and that they will not leave us ignorant how they understood the Words of the Institution of this angust Sacrament Those which have diligently applied themselves to
11. After his coming we shall have no need of Signs or Symbols of his Body because the Body it self shall appear It was also the meaning of St. Austin if I mistake not when he said Aug. Serm. 9. de divers Id. in Psal 37. That we shall not receive the Eucharist when we are come unto Christ himself and that we have begun to reign Eternally with him he said also elsewhere That no Body remembers what is not present A Maxim grounded upon the Light of Reason De memor reminisc c. 1. De Invent. l. 2. for 't is by this Principle the Philosopher said that the Memory is not of things present and the Prince of Eloquence That the Memory is that whereby one remembers things which are past I never think of these Words of the Institution of the Sacrament This is my Body but I deplore with grief and sorrow of Heart the State of Christians which have made the Sacrament which our Saviour instituted to be the Bond of their Love and Union the occasion of their Hatred and the sorrowful matter of their sad Divisions and as I should be over-joy'd to contribute any thing to disabuse those which are in Errour by giving the Words the Explication which they ought to have I thought one of the best means to effect it was diligently to search in what sense the Holy Fathers have taken them and in what manner they understood them for I make no question but a belief agreed upon by Christians at all times and universally received at all times in all the Climates of the Christian World is Catholick Orthodox and by consequence worthy to be retained in the Church as an Apostolical Truth Therefore I have applied my self unto this Inquiry to endeavour to find in their Works their true and real Thoughts and because for the most part in their Homilies and popular Exhortations they are transported with the fervour of Zeal and the motions of Piety which often made them use Hyperbolical Expressions fit for the Pulpit and suitable unto Orators which should be pathetical and feeling I have not stopt at these sorts of Works I have chiefly examined Commentaries and Expositions where for the most part they speak Dogmatically and in cold Blood and the true and genuine Thoughts of those which write or expound may be seen And but that I mean exactly to keep within the Bounds prescribed at the beginning of this second Part I might continue my Inquiry unto the XIIth Century which would give us the Testimonies of Zonaras a Greek Canonist and of Rupert de Duitz as the IXth doth those of Raban of Christian Druthmar and of Bertram Laying then aside these five Testimonies not to infringe the Law I willingly imposed on my self I 'le begin vvith Clement of Alexandria Clem. Alex. Paedag. l. 2. c. 2. who lived at the end of the second Century Jesus Christ said he blessed Wine saying Take drink this is my Blood the Blood of the Vine the holy Liquor of Joy represents by Alegory the Word to wit with regard to his Blood which was shed for many for the Remission of Sins From Clement of Alexandria I will pass unto Theophilus of Antioch Theoph. Anti. och in Matth. who wrote in the same Age When Jesus Christ saith he said This is my Body he called Bread which is made of many Grains his Body whereby he would represent the People which he hath taken unto himself Tertul. l. 4. contr Marc. c. 40. Cyprian ep 76. The third shall be Tertullian which saith That Jesus Christ having taken Bread and distributed it unto his Disciples he made it his Body saying This is my Body that is to say the Figure of my Body The fourth is St. Cyprian When the Lord saith he doth call the Bread made of several grains of Wheat his Body he signifieth thereby the faithful People whose Sins he bore inasmuch as it was but one Body The fifth is St. Jerome Hieron Com. in Matth. c. 26. who dyed in the year of our Lord 420 As they were at Supper saith he Jesus took Bread blessed it and brake it and gave it to his Disciples and said Take eat this is my Body And taking the Cup he gave Thanks and gave it unto them saying Drink ye all of it for this is my Blood of the New Testament for the remission of Sins When the Typical Passover was accomplished and that Jesus Christ had eaten with the Apostles the Flesh of the Lamb he took Bread which strengthneth Man's Heart and proceeds on to the true Sacrament of the Passover to the end that as Melchisedek Priest of the most High God had offered Bread and Wine to represent him so he also should represent the Truth of his Body and of his Blood The sixth is St. Austin contemporary with St. Jerome and dyed about eleven years after him The Lord made no difficulty to say August contr Adim c. 12. This is my Body when he gave the Symbol of his Body The seventh is Theodoret Our Lord saith he made an Exchange of Names Theod Dial. 1. and gave unto his Body the Name of the Symbol and unto the Symbol the Name of his Body and in the same place tells us in Truth whereof the Holy Food is the Sign and Figure Is it of the Divinity of Jesus Christ or of his Body and Blood Id. ibid. It is evident 't is of the things whereof they have their Names for the Lord having taken the Sign said not This is my Divinity but This is my Body and afterwards This is my Blood The eighth is Facundus Bishop of Hermiana in Africa who assisted at the Fifth Oecumenical Council about the middle of the sixth Century Facund l. 9. p. 404 405. We do call saith he the Sacrament of the Body and Blood which is in the Bread and consecrated Cup the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ not that the Bread is properly his Body and the Cup his Blood but because they contain in them the Mystery or the Sacrament of his Body and Blood From whence it is also that the Lord himself called the Bread and the Cup which he blessed and gave unto his Disciples his Body and his Blood The ninth is St. Isidor Bishop of Sevill in Spain Isid Hist oâ—igin l 6. c 19. We call saith he by the Command of Christ himself his Body and Blood that which being sanctified of the Fruits of the Earth is consecrated and made a Sacrament The tenth is Bede that bright Star of the English Church which finished his Course Anno 735. Beda Commâ— in Marc. 14. Jesus Christ saith he said unto his Disciples This is my Body because Bread strengthens the Heart of Man and Wine doth increase Blood in the Body it is for this reason that Bread represents mystically the Body of Jesus Christ and the Wine his Blood The eleventh is a Council of 338 Bishops Concil Constantinop in act
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
he plainly shewed his own self in saying unto his Disciples I will no more drink of this Fruit of the Vine until I drink it with you in my Father's Kingdom St. Cyprian said the same for having repeated these same Words of our Saviour he saith s Cypr. ep 63. That we find that what our Saviour offered was a Cup mingled with Water and that what he said to be his Blood was Wine Nothing can be seen more formal to this purpose than what is read in t Aug. ad Infan apud Fulg. de Bapt. Aet c. ult Theod. Dial. 1. Prosp de promis praed part 1. c. 2. Facund l. 9. c. ult St. Austin's Sermon unto the new Baptized related intirely by St. Fulgentius where speaking unto them of the Sacrament which they saw upon the holy Table What you have seen saith he is Bread and a Cup as your Eyes do testify Theodoret who was present at the Council of Calcedon The Lord saith he in distributing the Mysteries did call the Bread his Body and the Wine his Blood We may also say the same thing of the counterfeit Prosper which saith That the Lord did declare at his Table that the consecrated Bread was his sacred Body Of Facundus which saith The Lord himself called the Bread which he had blessed and the Cup which he gave his Disciples his Body and his Blood And in fine of Maxentius a Religious Person and afterwards Priest of the Church of Antioch in whose Dialogues we read That the Bread whereof the Universal Church doth participate Maxent cont Nest dial 2. in remembrance of the Death of our Lord is his Body But this is not yet all they have to say unto us there is found in their excellent Works several other things which lead us as it were by the hand unto the Knowledg of what we search for In the first place they declare our Bodies are nourished with what we receive at the Lord's Table as Justin Martyr who speaks of the Eucharist Just Mart. Apol. 2. Iren. l. 4 c. 34. l. 5. c. 2. Aug. serm 9. de divers Isid Hispal apud Bertram de Corp. Sang. Dom. Ibid. as of a Food wherewith our Flesh and Blood are nourished by Transmutation St. Irenaeus doth depose that our Flesh is fed with it that our Blood our Body and Flesh are nourished increased and do subsist by it St. Austin saith that it is Bread which fills the Belly St. Isidore Arch-bishop of Sevill that the Substance of this visible Bread doth nourish the outward Man and satisfies it Or as Ratran who hath transferr'd to us his Words not any more to be found in Isidore's Works now printed that all that is outwardly received in the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Lord is fit to feed the Body The Fathers of the sixteenth Council of Toledo in the Year 693 Conc. Tolet. 16. c. 6. speak of the Remainders of the Sacrament as of a thing that a quantity of it may incommode the Stomach That was also the Belief of Raban Arch bishop of Mayence in the ninth Century and of the Taborites in Bohemia in the fifteenth as shall be demonstrated in time and place convenient Secondly there are some of them that positively affirm that what is distributed at the holy Table is Bread the Matter whereof after we have taken and eat it doth pass by the common way of our ordinary Food Origen teacheth so in plain terms when expounding these Words of the 15th Chap. of St. Mathew Origen in Math. 15. That it is not what entreth into the Mouth defileth the Man he saith If what enters in the Mouth goes into the Belly and is cast into the Draft the Meat which is sanctified by the Word of God and Prayer goeth also into the Belly according to the gross part of it and afterwards into the Draft but by reason of Prayer made over it it is profitable according to the proportion of Faith and is the cause that the Understanding is enlightned and attentive unto what is profitable and 't is not the Substance of Bread but the Word pronounced upon it which is profitable unto him that eateth it not in a way unworthy of the Lord. This Doctrine was also taught in the ninth Century by Raban Arch-bishop of Mayence and by Heribold Arch-bishop of Auxerre and I think I lately hinted that Amalarius Fortunatus who liv'd in the same Century was of this Judgment which shall be examined when we come to inquire into the Belief of the ninth Century Father Cellot the Jesuit attributes the same Doctrine unto the Greeks Append. Miscel op 7. p. 564 It is true this Doctrine was not the Opinion of all the antient Fathers of the Church therefore I said at the beginning of this Observation that there were some of them that did believe so in effect St. Cyril of Jerusalem saith Cyril Hieros Mystag 5. That the Bread of the Sacrament doth not go into the Belly and is not cast out into the Draft but that it is disperst throughout the Substance of the Communicant for the good of his Body and Soul The Author of the Homily of the Eucharist for the Dedication in St. Chrysostom's Works saith almost the same with St. Cyril Serm. de Euchar in Encoen apud Chrysost t. 5. pa. 596. Take no heed that it is Bread think not that it is Wine for they are not cast out as other Meat God forbid you should once think so for as when Wax is cast into the Fire nothing of its Substance doth remain or there remains no superfluity or it leaves not behind it neither soot nor cinders in like manner here imagine that the Mysteries are consumed with the Substance of the Body We may add John Damascen unto these two Authors Damasc l. 4. Orthodox fid cap. 14. who speaks thus The Shew-bread did represent this Bread and it is this pure Oblation and without Blood which the Lord fore-told by the Prophet which should be offer'd unto him from the East unto the West to wit the Body and Blood of Christ which should pass into the Substance of our Soul and Body without being consumed without being corrupted or passing into the Draft O God forbid but passing into our Substance for our Preservation These three Testimonies as every one doth see differ from Origen which indeed was also the Opinion of Raban Heribold and Amalarius but if they were not of the Opinion of Origen they were of that of St. Justin Martyr Irenaeus St. Austin St. Isidore of Sevil of the sixteenth Council of Toledo Ratran and others I mean that if they believed not with Origen that the Bread of the Eucharist as to its material Substance was subject unto the shameful necessity of other common Food they believed with the others that it turned it self into our Substance that our Bodies were nourished by it and that they were increased and strengthned by it and so
their Difference with Origen was only in the Circumstance whether or no the holy Bread went unto the Place of Excrements Origen holding the Affirmative the others the Negative but as to the Ground of the Doctrine I find them all agreed and that all of them teach that what we receive at the Lord's Table is the Substance of Bread which some subject to the same fate of our common Food that goes into the Belly and from thence into the Draft others think this Bread doth pass into our Substance and if it feed our Souls by the virtue wherewith God accompanies it after Consecration and lawful Use of the Sacrament it also nourisheth and increaseth the Body by its proper Nature without turning into Excrements And the latter as I conceive are inclin'd unto this Opinion the rather because receiving but very little Bread and Wine in the Sacrament they made no difficulty to believe that it all turns into our Substance In the third place the holy Fathers testify that this Sacrament is consumed Aug. de Trin. lib. 3. c. 10. The Bread saith St. Austin which is made for that purpose is consumed in taking the Sacrament And again in the same Chapter What is put upon the Table is consumed the holy Colebration being ended Commonly there was no more alledged but this Passage of St. Austin to prove that the antient Christians believed that what was received at the Sacrament was of such a nature as to be in effect consumed Wherefore I hope the Reader will not be displeas'd if I lead him farther and make it appear this manner of Speech was us'd in the Church a long time after St. Austin's Death These Considerations we make upon the Doctrine of the holy Fathers are of such importance that we endeavour to find out in all Ages of the Christian Church what Foot-steps they have left us of it in their Writings Hugh Maynard in his Notes upon the Books of Sacraments of Gregory the first alledgeth and wholly transcribes a Pontifical Manuscript which is kept in the Church of Rouen and is as far as I can guess near to the eighth Century and probably of later times in this Pontifical the whole Ceremony of holy Thursday is represented and amongst many other Observations this is to be read When the Bishop washeth his Hands In Not. Menar in Sacram. Greg. p. 84. and the Deacons go unto the Altar to uncover the holy Things and that the Bishop comes to the Altar separates the Oblations to break them that he takes some of the whole ones to keep until next day the Day of Preparation and that they communicated without the Blood of the Lord because the Blood was wholly consumed the same Day It may be easily seen that the Blood mentioned by the Pontifical is not the proper Blood of Jesus Christ for all Christians unanimously confess that the real Blood of our Lord which was shed upon the Cross for the Salvation of Mankind is shed no more and is not in a state of being consumed in the Celebration of the Sacrament then saith the Protestant he must needs speak of a Typical and Figurative Blood I mean of the Mystical and Sanctified Wine which Believers drink at the holy Table and which is subject unto the fate of being consumed No other Explication can be given unto the Words of the Pontifical above-mentioned which doth not ill suit with those of St. Austin and I promise my self that the tenth Century however dark and ignorant it be represented by Historians will furnish us with another Witness an Abbot of a famous Monastery which will speak of the other Symbol what the Pontifical hath said of the Symbol of Wine In the fourth Place They avow that the Sacrament of the Eucharist is an inanimate Subject as Theophilus Arch-bishop of Alexandria for refuting the Opinion of Origen who denied that the holy Ghost exercised any Operation upon Things that have no Soul he speaks thus In affirming this he doth not consider Theop. Alex. Pasch 1. Bibl. Pat. t. 3. p. 87. that in Baptism the Mystical Waters are consecrated by the holy Ghost which descends and that the Bread of the Lord whereby the Body of the Lord is shewn forth and which we break for our Sanctification and the holy Cup which with the Bread is set upon the Table of the Church and which are things inanimate are sanctified by Prayers and by the coming of the holy Ghost St. Epiphanius was not far from this Belief when comparing the Bread after Consecration with the Body it self of our Saviour he said Epiphan in Anchor That the one is round as to its Form and insensible as to its Power but the other hath the Features and Lineaments of a Body and is all Life Motion and Action To thus much also amounts their Belief that the Change in the Sacrament concerned not the Nature of the Bread and Wine to change them into another thing but only to add unto them the Grace which they had not before that is to say a quickning and sanctifying virtue in the right use of the Sacrament Theod. dial 1. Jesus Christ saith Theodoret hath honoured the visible Symbols with the Name of his Body and Blood not in changing their Nature but in adding the Grace In the fifth place These same Fathers affirm that the substance of Bread and Wine remain after Consecration it is the Judgment ment of St. Chrysostom Chrysost ep ad Caesar The Bread of the Sacrament saith he is called Bread before it is sanctified but Divine Grace having sanctified it by the Ministry of the Priest it is no longer called Bread but it is judged worthy to be called the Body of Christ although the Nature of Bread remains Monsr de Marca in his French Treatise of the Eucharist Pag. 12 13. of the last Edit pag. 9. doth agree That until St. Chrysostom the Fathers believed that the Bread did not change its Nature after Consecration Moreover he confesseth for truth the Letter of St. Chrysostom unto Caesarius As also the Abbot Faggot doth in his Letter unto Monsr de Marca Son to that Illustrious Prelat and President of the Parliament of Paris he therein further informs us that this Letter of St. Chrysostom is in the custody of Monsr Bigot who in his Voyage into Italy found it in the Library whence Peter Martyr of Florence formerly procur'd it I mean in the Library of the Duke of Florence so that for the future there ought not to be any farther Contest of the validity of this Letter because the true Author of it cannot be unknown Theodoret a great admirer of St. Chrysostom Theod. dial 2. tells us That the Nature of the Symbols is not changed And in another of his Dialogues The Mystical Symbols saith he after Consecration do not change their proper Nature for they continue in their former Substance Gelas de duab in Christ natur ad Nestor â—ueych in
Adim c. 12. is that of Sign St. Austin saith That our Lord made no difficulty to say This is my Body when he gave the Sign of his Body The third is that of Figure Tertul. contr Marc. l. 4. c. 40. according to which Tertullian said That Jesus Christ made the Bread his Body in saying This is my Body that is to say the Figure of my Body Id. l. 3. c. 19. and in the foregoing Book he said That our Lord gave unto the Bread the Figure of his Body St. Gaudentius Bishop of Bress Gaud. tract 2. in Exod. Aug. in Psal 3. said That the Wine is offered in Figure of the Passion of our Lord that is to say of his Blood And St. Austin declares that Jesus Christ in his first Sacrament recommended and gave unto his Apostles the Figure of his Body and Blood It was also the Opinion of the Author of the Treatise of the Sacraments L. 4. de Sacram. apâ—d Ambros falsly attributed unto St. Ambrose when he calls the Oblation of the Eucharist The Figure of the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ This Passage also is alledged by Paschas Rathbert â—ede in Luc. c. 22. in his Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord. Venerable Bede who died Anno 735 spoke the same Language for in his Commentary upon the Gospel according to St. Luke he saith That instead of the Flesh and Blood of the Jews Passover Our Lord substituted the Sacrament of his Flesh and Blood in the Figure of Bread and Wine Id. in Psal 3. And upon the 3d Psalm he repeats the Words of St. Austin and saith That our Lord in his Sacrament gave unto his Disciples the Figure of his Body and Blood This Expression continued longer in the Latin Church seeing Charlemain who lived until the Year 814 used it in one of his Letters unto Alcuin De Ration Sepâ—â—uzg ad Alcuin wherein he treats of the Reason of the Septuagesima Our Lord saith he Supping with his Disciples broke Bread and also gave them the Cup for the Figure of his Body and Blood and left them a great Sacrament for our Benefit Christian Druthmar will employ the same Word in the IXth Century The fourth is that of Type Eâ—â—r de natur Dei non serut in this sense Ephrem the Syrian saith in the IVth Century That our Lord taking Bread into his Hands broke it and blessed it for a Type of his immaculate Body and that he blessed the Cup and gave it to his Disciples for a Type of his Blood Cyril Hiâ—ros Mystag 4. St. Cyril of Jerusalem In the Type of the Bread is the Body given unto you and the Blood in the Type of Wine St. Gregory of Nazianzen Greg. Nazian Orat. 42. vol. 2. de Pasch We are made Partakers of the Passover and nevertheless typically although this Passover is more manifest than the old one for the legal Passover I dare affirm was an obscure Type of another Type that is to say of the Eucharist And again Id. Orat. 17. p. 273. Hieron in Jerem. c. 31. Id. l 2. contr Jovin Ibid. Theod Dialog 3. Id. Dialog 1. he calls the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament The Types of his Salvation St. Jerome in his Commentary upon Jeremiah The Type of the Blood of Jesus Christ is made with Wine And again Jesus Christ offered not Water but Wine for a Type of his Blood And again The Mystery which our Lord expressed in Type of his Passion Theodoret speaking of the Holy Bread calls it The venerable and saving Type of the Body of Jesus Christ And in another place he said That the Eucharist is the Type of the Passion of our Lord and that the Holy Food is the Type of his Body and of his Blood The fifth is that of Anti-type Const Apost l. 5. c. 13. the Author of the Apostolical Constitutions saith That our Lord gave unto his Disciples the Mysteries Anti-types of his Body and precious Blood Judas not being there present And again He calls the Eucharist Ibid. l. 6. c. 29. Ibid. l. 7. c. 26. the Anti-type of the Royal Body of Jesus Christ And again he affirms That we celebrate the Anti-types of the Body and Blood of our Lord. St. Macarius Macar Hom. 27. There is offered in the Church Bread and Wine the Anti-type of his Flesh and of his Blood Eustatius Bishop of Antioch Act. 6. Cenc Nicaen 2. expounding these Words of the 9th Chapter of Proverbs Eat of my Bread and drink the Wine which I have mingled by the Bread and Wine saith he he meaneth the Anti-types of the bodily Members of Jesus Christ Basil Liturg. St. Basil in his Liturgy We beseech thee presenting the Anti-types of the Body and Blood of thy Christ St. Gregory of Nazianzen Greg. Nazian de obiâ—u Gorgon vel Orat. 11. Id. Orat. 1. Cyril Hierosol Mystag 5. Theod. Dial. 2. Id. Dial. 3. extr his intimate Friend to express both parts of the Eucharist saith The Anti-types of the precious Body and Blood And in his Apologetick he considers the Sacrament as The Anti-type of great Mysteries St. Cyril of Jerusalem saith That we eat the Anti-type of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Theodoret The Divine Mysteries saith he are the Anti-types of the true Body And elsewhere He speaks of participating of the Anti-types of the Body Now the words Types and Anti-types are nothing else but the Form the Expression and a Representation and they signify almost the same as the word Figure doth The sixth is that of Symbol which signifies a Sign Signal or Mark as Grammarians say so in the Apostolical Constitutions Consâ—â—t Apost l. 6. c. 23. there is mention of a Sacrifice which is celebrated in memorial of the Death of Jesus Christ and which was instituted to be the Symbol of his Body and of his Blood Dionvs Hier. Eccles l. 9. The Author of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy under the Name of Dennis the Areopagite declares That Jesus Christ is signified and that we partake of him by the venerable Symbols Ibid. And again he observes That the Bishop that officiates washeth his Hands before the sacred Symbols and that this washing is done before the most holy Symbols as in the Presence of Christ himself Euseb demonst l. 1. c. 10. who knows our most secret Thoughts Eusebius saith we have received or learned to make the Memorial of this Sacrifice of our Lord upon the Table with the Symbols of his saving Body and Blood Ib. l. 8. a Gen. And in the same Treatise he saith That Jesus Christ commanded his Apostles to make use of Bread for a Symbol of his Body and accordingly he calleth the Wine the Symbol of his Blood Ibid. and testifies that our Lord himself gave unto his Disciples the Symbols of the Divine Oeconomy that is to say Chrys Hom. 83. in Matth. Palled
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
certain Observations which suffer us not to be ignorant after what manner they understand it to be so Aug. Serm 53. de verb. Dom. For in the first place they make this Observation Almost all saith St. Austin call the Sacrament the Body of Christ And again Id. l. 3. de Triâ—it c. 4. We call nothing the Body and Blood of Christ but that which being taken from the Fruits of the Earth and consecrated by mystical Prayer is received by us for the Salvation of our Souls Isid Hâ—sual Orig. 6. c. 19. And St. Isidore of Sevil By the command of Jesus Christ himself we call his Body and Blood that which being taken out of the Fruits of the Earth is sanctified and made a Sacrament We may also alledge upon this Subject those amongst them who have declared in the first Chapter of this second Part that Jesus Christ in instituting his Eucharist called the Bread and Wine his Body and his Blood and those who in the second affirmed that the Sacrament was Bread and Wine but to avoid repeating the same Testimonies we remit the Reader unto those two Chapters where he may consult those two Observations whilst we shall only say that this Observation being so express and positive gives very much Light and Strength unto the silence we hinted at although it appears plain enough to be understood by several but yet farther they give us notice in the second place that the Sacrament is honoured with the Name of the Body of Jesus Christ The Bread saith St. Chrysostom Chrysost ep ad Caesâ—r Theod. Dial. 1. is esteemed worthy to he called the Body of cur Lord. And Theodoret in one of his Dialogues He that called Wheat and Bread that which is his Body by Nature hath honoured the visible Symhols with the Name of his Body and of his Blood Having a long while meditated saith the Protestant upon these sorts of Testimonies of the Holy Fathers I have been forced to conclude that because one thing which is honoured with the Name of another cannot be truly that same by whose Name it is honoured or that these Holy Doctors which affirm That the Bread of the Sacrament is honoured with the Name of the Body of Jesus Christ knew not how to reason which cannot be said without slandring them or that they believed not that this Bread was really the Body of Jesus Christ He adds that he doth not examine what they should have said but what they did say and he infers that none can dispense themselves from approving what is contain'd in the second Branch of his Dilemma For my part I leave it to others to judg the Inductions which are made from the Passages of these Holy Doctors because it is properly the Interest of Roman Catholicks or Protestants whose Arguments I only alledge But this is not all which the Holy Fathers say for the clearing up of their Intentions They tell us for a third Advertisement that if the Sacrament be the Body of Jesus Christ it is but after a manner and in some sort So St. Austin doth declare Aug. Ep 23 ad Bonif. Id. in Psal 33 Conc. 2. The Sacrament saith he of the Body of Jesus Christ is the Body of Jesus Christ after a manner And elsewhere Jesus Christ accommodated himself after a certain sort when he said This is my Body I have not yet observed that these kinds of Corrections and Restrictions were used when things were spoken of which were truly what they were called but only when the Discourse was of those which were only so improperly and by reason of certain relations which they have unto the Subjects whose Names they bear and in whose consideration there 's no scruple made to say that they are the Subjects themselves not really in the strictness of the Expression but after a sort Quintil. inst Orat. l. 8.3 p. 404. so the most excellent Orators whom we may term the Masters of the Science put this Term after some sort for one of the Tempers which may be used for modifying of Metaphors and figurative Expressions which may be too bold But let us continue our design and hear the famous Theodoret who will furnish us with such pregnant and clear Lights that we shall have no difficulty to comprehend in what sense the Holy Fathers called the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament Theod. dial 1. the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ see here how he speaks The Lord saith he made a change of Names giving unto his Body the Name of the Symbol and unto the Symbol the Name of his Body which he said upon the occasion that our Saviour had called his Body Bread in the 6th Chapter of St. John and the Bread his Body in the Institution of the Sacrament So that his design is to shew that the Sacrament is the Body of Christ as the Body of Christ is Bread seeing he puts no difference in this exchange of Names and that he observes that the Name of the Body of Jesus Christ belongs no more to the Sacrament than that of Bread belongs to the Body of Jesus Christ Tertullian if I mistake not had an opinion much like this long before Theodoret when he said Tertul. conâ—r Marc. l. 3. c. 19. Chrysost iâ— c. 5. Galat. That Jesus Christ called the Bread his Body to interpret the ancient Prophecy of Jeremiah which had called the Bread his Body St. Chrysostom will not a little contribute to the clearing of what we examine for explaining these Words of the 5th to the Galatians The Flesh lusteth against the Spirit and the Spirit against the Flesh He observes that this Word Flesh hath divers improper and figurative Significations and amongst these sundry significations he puts this that sometimes it is taken for the Mysteries or for the Sacraments The Scriptures saith he is wont to call the Mysteries by the Name of Flesh and the whole Church saying that it is the Body of Jesus Christ but nothing can be seen plainer nor more intelligible than these Words of Facundus Facund l. 9. c. ult We call the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ which is in the Bread and consecrated Cup his Body and Blood not that the Bread is truly his Body nor the Cup his Blood Hitherto these Holy Fathers have not ill informed us of the Nature of this manner of Speech that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ but nevertheless they intend not to rest there they will moreover inform us wherefore it is so used in the Church They tell us then in the first place that the Bread and Wine is called the Body and Blood of our Lord by reason of their resemblance It is the Lesson St. Austin teacheth us in one of his Letters Aug. Ep. 23. ad Bonif. If the Sacraments saith he had not some resemblance unto the things whereof they be Sacraments they would be no Sacraments and it is because
of this likeness that they often take the Names of the things themselves as then the Sacrament of the Body of Jesus Christ and the Sacrament of his Blood are after some sort his Body and Blood so the Sacrament of Faith is Faith He means that the Eucharist should be the Body and Blood of Christ by reason of the resemblance which there is betwixt them as the Sacrament of Faith that is to say Baptism is called Faith and as the Fridays before Easter are called the Passion of our Lord and the representation of his Death which is made in the celebration of the Sacrament his Death it self He instanced these two Examples of this kind of Speech in what preceded that which hath been cited I will not here stand to shew that the Fathers ground this resemblance some in the composition of Bread and Wine and others in their Effects because we have done it in the first Chapter of the first part Secondly they say that they are so called because They are the Sacraments the Signs and the Figures which do contain the Mystery I find it was formerly the reason of the Learned Tertullian Tertul. contr Marc. l. 3. c. 19. God saith he hath called the Bread his Body that you might know that he whom the Prophet had anciently represented by the Bread hath now given unto Bread the Figure of his Body And I cannot see that any other meaning can be given unto these Words of St. Austin Our Saviour made no difficulty to say this is my Body August contr Adim c. 12. when he gave the Figure of his Body It is necessary to observe that this Holy Doctor having alledged the Words of Jesus Christ This is my Body at the end of the Chapter he cites these Words of the Apostle The Rock was Christ to shew that what is said in the Old Testament that the Blood is the Life of Beasts ought to be understood significatively to signify that it is the Sign as the Bread is called the Body of Christ because it is the Figure and the Rock Christ because it was the Symbol of Christ The same St. Austin speaks thus elsewhere How is the Bread his Body and the Cup Id. ad Infant apud Fulgent Bed or that which is in the Cup his Blood Brethren these things are called Sacraments because one thing is seen and another thing is understood that which is seen is of a bodily Substance that which is understood hath a spiritual Fruit. I judge it was also the sense of Theodoret when he wrote Theod. dial 1. that our Lord who called his natural Body Wheat and Bread and who also called himself a Vine hath also called the visible Symbols by the Name of his Body and Blood not by changing their Nature but adding Grace unto their Nature Fac. l. 9. â— ult It is in the same sense Facundus said The Bread is not really his Body nor the Cup his Blood but they be so called because they contain the Mystery and for this reason our Lord called them his Body and Blood This is the Explication which St. Ireneus gives unto the Names of Body and Blood wherewith Jesus Christ honoured the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament Iren. l. 5 adver haeres c. 4. It is saith he the Eucharist of the Body and Blood And I know not but St. Eloy Bishop of Noyon Eligii vit l. 2. c. 15. t. 5. Spicileg borrowed this kind of Expression from St. Iraeneus for he makes use of it in the VIIth Century Let him saith he that is sick trust in the sole Mercy of God and let him receive with Faith and Devotion the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Orig. in Matth. c. 15. Chrysost t. 5. Homil. 33. It is also in this sense that Origen calls the Bread the symbolical and typical Body Also St. Chrysostom the mystical Body and Blood Eusebius Bishop of Caesaria doth positively make a difference betwixt the Mystical Body of our Lord be it what it will and his true Body when going to explain what Jesus Christ saith in the 6th Chapter of St. John â—useb de Eccles Theol. l. 3. c. 12. Hiâ—ron in Ezech. c. 41. Bed in c. 14. Mar. 2â— Luc. of the eating his Flesh and Blood he observes That he spake not of the Flesh which he had taken but of his Mystical Body and Blood St. Jerom calls it the Mystery of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ And Venerable Bede thus explains himself The Bread and Wine do Mystically relate unto the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ In the third place they give us for a Reason of this Denomination that the Sacrament is a memorial of Jesus Christ and of his Death but for this third Reason we refer the Reader unto what we have said in the first Chapter of this second Part where we have examined the Reflection which the Holy Fathers have made upon these Words of the Institution Do this in remembrance of me We must then pass unto their fourth Reason which consists as they tell us in that the Bread and Wine are in the place and stead of the Body and Blood of Christ It is very likely Tertullian thought so when he said The Body of Jesus Christ is reputed to be in the Bread Tertul. de Orat. c. 6. This is my Body Corpus ejus in pane câ—nsetur hot est corpus meum Mr. Rigaut is not far from this Opinion when he makes this Observation upon the Words of Tertullian It appears that they may be thus explained by the Sacrament of Bread he recommends his Body as St. Austin lib. 1. quaest Evang. 43. hath said by the Sacrament of Wine he recommends his Blood But whatever Mr. Aug. in Joan. Tract 45. Rigaut's Explication may be St. Austin speaks as I think cleanly enough in one of his Treatises upon St. John where he makes this difference Id. de Civit. Dei l. 18. c. 45. betwixt the ancient People which lived under the Law and those now who live under the Gospel See how the Faith continuing the same Faith the Signs have been changed the Rock was Christ unto us what is put upon God's Table is Jesus Christ He also elsewhere establisheth this Maxim That all those things which do signify seem in some sort to hold the place of the things signified as when the Apostle saith that the Rock was Christ because without doubt it signified Jesus Christ It is in the same sense St. Cyril Hierosol Mystag 4. Cyril of Jerusalem said Let us receive these things with full assurance as the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ for in the Type of Bread the Body is given unto you and the Blood in the Type of Wine Bullinger writing against Casaubon alledges a Greek Text out of a Passage of Victor of Antioch taken out of his Commentary upon St. Mark wherein we find the same Doctrine Victor
condemns by one of its Canons which is the 18th in the Code of Canons of the Church of Africa as we already observed in our first Part the Custom of putting the Eucharist in the Mouth of the Dead Cod. can Eccles Afric Justel c. 18. It hath been resolved saith the Council that the Eucharist should not be given unto the Bodies of the Dead for it is written Take and eat Now dead Bodies can neither take nor eat A Defence which the Council of the East was obliged to renew in the year 691. but in the same Terms of that of Carthage it is something in condemning this Abuse But certainly say some if the Church of the Vth and VIIth Century believed that it is the real Body of the Son of God it was too slightly condemned This Profanation deserved a ruder Censure and deserved a much stricter Prohibition The third Council of Braga in Gallicia assembled Anno 675. censured those which offered Milk instead of Wine for the holy Sacrament and see here the Terms that it useth Council Bracar 3. c. 2 â— 4. Council p. 833. Let them forbear then to offer Milk at the Sacrifice because the manifest and clear Example of the Truth of the Gospel appears plainly to our Eyes which admits not of offering any thing but Bread and Wine The Protestants think that the Censure of the Council had been better applied if it had been represented unto those which dared to offer Milk instead of Wine that it was not Milk but Wine which was to be converted into the proper Substance of the Blood of Jesus Christ and that it is very likely that if the Fathers had believed this substantial Conversion they would not have failed to have done so because the Occasion invited them thereunto The XVIth Council of Toledo assembled the Year of our Lord 693. do censure another Abuse which is That some Priests bethought themselves of offering for the Communion little Crusts of Bread which they raised round from Loaves intended for their own use instead of offering of whole Loaves The Council-reproves this Liberty whereunto it opposeth the Example of Jesus Christ who took an intire Loaf but it said not unto those People that they were to blame slightly to offer bits of Bread without considering that the Bread of the Eucharist is changed into the Substance of the Body of Jesus Christ which nevertheless might have been of great weight unto them On the contrary it commands to offer midling Loaves fearing if they were too big the over-plus which remained after the Communion might by its Grossness and Quantity incommode the Stomach of them which eat it which as 't is supposed drew them quite from any Thought of Reality and conducted them unto the Consideration of the Sacrament In fine when Ratherius Bishop of Verona prohibits at the End of the Xth Century committing the Eucharist unto Lay-persons to be carried unto sick Folks he doth not shew in censuring this Abuse that there is any Crime in putting into prophane Hands the real Body of our Saviour there being none but the Persons which he hath consecrated unto his own Service which ought to enjoy this Priviledge which in all probability he would not have failed to do had he been thoroughly perswaded of the Truth of the real Presence he only commands T. 2. Spicil Dacher p. 261. That none presume to give the Eucharist unto any Lay-man or Woman to be carried unto the Sick But 't is not yet time to end these Proofs the Instructions which the Holy Fathers gave their Neophytes and new Baptised will very likely afford us others For although they never spake against their Judgment not even in their Homilies and popular Sermons where according to the Circumstance of the Times they used some Restriction of not giving the Eucharist the Name of Bread and Wine thinking there might be present some Catechumeny and Persons not initiated which might hear them and in whom the Names of Bread and Wine might have created too low and mean Thoughts of the Excellency of our Mysteries Nevertheless because it is supposed that they have expressed themselves clearer in instructing these young Plants but newly grafted into the mystical Stock of the Church by holy Baptism let us see what Succour we can draw from these sorts of Catechisms wherein to give their Neophytes a great Idea of the Sacrament they forbear not using strong and elevated Expressions but yet in such a manner as they plainly discover in what Way they are to be understood For instance Cyril Hierosol Mystag 5. p. 244 246. St. Cyril of Jerusalem thus speaketh unto his Catechumeny newly Baptised In coming to the Sacrament come not with Hands stretched out nor with the Fingers open but laying your right Hand in the left as being to receive the King and hallowing the Palm of the Hand receive the Body of Jesus Christ in saying Amen And having communicated of the Body of Christ draw near unto the Cup of his Blood not in stretching out the Hands but in bowing by an Act which shews a kind of Adoration or Veneration and of Worship saying Amen sanctifie your selves in receiving the Blood of Christ. Se here a fair and great Idea of the Sacrament but that his Neophyte should carry his Thoughts no farther than he ought he explains unto him in the same place that he speaks of a Body of Jesus Christ of which he may lose some Part of which a Crumb may fall to the Ground and of a Blood whereof a Moisture and Humidity rests upon the Lips and wherewith one may wet the the Eyes Ibid. the Face and other Organs of the Body Having then saith he with assurance sanctified your Eyes by the touch of the sacred Body receive it taking heed thou lose none of it for what you lose of it is as if you should lose one of your Members Tell me if any one should give you Lingots of Gold would you not keep them with all manner of Diligence taking care not to lose any Part of them and not to suffer Damage And should you not take care that there fall not any Crumb of this which is more precious than Gold and than Pearls And afterwards passing to the consideration of the Blood whereof he exhorted him to participate with profound Respect he teacheth him of what Blood he should understand it when he adds Ibid. And as the Moisture and Humidity is yet upon the Lips touching with your Hand the Eyes the Face and other Organs of the Senses sanctifie them and having attended the Prayers give Thanks unto God for that he hath rendred you worthy to participate of these great Mysteries Hitherto our Neophyte hath not been ill instructed but let us again hear how he spake unto him in the foregoing Catechism Id. Catech. Myst 4. p. 237. Ibid. Jesus Christ affirming and saying of the Bread This is my Body who is it that can yet make any doubt of
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
you cannot understand then you may now say unto me seeing you have commanded us to believe explain unto us what it is to the end we might understand for this Thought may be in every body's Mind We know of whom Jesus Christ our Lord took Flesh to wit of the Virgin Mary we know he was nursed in his Infancy that he was fed that he grew that he attained the Age of Manhood that he suffered Persecution of the Jews that he was nailed to the Cross that he there died and was buried that he rose the third Day that he ascended into Heaven when he was pleased to go thither that he lifted up his Body from whence he shall come to judg the quick and the dead and that he is now sitting on the right Hand of the Father How then is the Bread his Body and the Cup his Blood Brethren these things are called Sacraments because one thing is what we see and another is that we understand that which is seen is a bodily Species that which we understand hath a spiritual Fruit If then you would know what the Body of Jesus Christ is hearken to St. Paul the Apostle which said unto Believers You are the Body of Jesus Christ and his Members your Sacrament is laid upon the Lord's Table and you there receive your Mystery You say Amen unto what you are and you thereto subscribe by your Answer It is said unto you The Body of Jesus Christ and you answer Amen be Members then of Jesus Christ that your Amen may be true But why all this to the Bread let us not add here nothing of our own but let us farther hear the same Apostle speaking of this Sacrament We which are many are one Bread and one Body understand this and rejoice for here is nothing but Unity Piety Charity one Bread and one Body although we be many Observe that the Bread is not made of one Grain but of many When you were exorcised you passed as it were under the Mill when you were baptised you were as it were kneaded and when you received the fire of the Holy Ghost you were baked like Bread Be then what you see and receive what you are See here what the Apostle hath said of Bread whereby he sufficiently shews without repeating it what we should believe in regard of the Cup for as to make this visible Species of Bread several Grains are reduced into one Body to represent what the Scripture saith of Believers they were but one Heart and one Soul in God It is also the same of Wine consider how it is one several Grapes are in a Bunch but their Liquor is mingled all into one Body so it is Christ hath represented us so it is he hath made us his and that he hath consecrated upon the holy Table the Mystery of Unity and of our Peace So it was they instructed in the ancient Church the new Baptised they were told that what they see upon the Holy Table was Bread and their own Eyes were called to witness this Truth They were taught that this Bread was the natural Body of Jesus Christ as it was his mystical and moral Body that is to say his Church because it is the Sacrament both of the one and the other and that in the Sacrament must carefully be distinguished the Substance of the Symbols which are visible and corporeal from the Benefit which accrues unto the believing Soul and which is a Thing invisible and spiritual that faithful Believers are although for mystical Reasons the very same thing which they see upon the mystical Table that is to say Bread according to what the Apostle saith we are one Bread and that they do receive truly that which they see mystically Now let the Reader judg if these Catechisms and these Instructions are for the Use of Roman Catholicks or for the Use of Protestants as for my particular I 'le pass unto a new Consideration CHAP. VIII Proofs of the Doctrines of the Holy Fathers drawn by Protestants from some Customs of the Ancient Church THere are two sorts of Language used in the Society and Commerce of Men to communicate unto each other their Thoughts and Intentions I mean Words and Actions The Language of Actions is silent indeed yet nevertheless very intelligible because Actions I speak of those authorized by publick Use are for the most part as significant as Words It is not then to be thought strange if we do relate what Inferences the Protestants draw from certain Customs which were practised by the ancient Church and which we have at large established in the first Part Therefore we will look upon them in this as established and will content our selves in barely mentioning them one after another to infer from each of them what may lawfully be deduced In Africa in St. Austin's time they communicated after Meat Thursday before Easter and in several Churches in Egypt every Saturday in the Year at Evening after having made a good Meal Without speaking of the Church of Corinth in St. Paul's time where some think the same was practis'd what Belief could those People have of the Sacrament of the Eucharist It is no very easie matter to think that they believed it to be the Substance of the Body of Jesus Christ and his Flesh it self else it must be confessed that they were guilty of an horrible Profanation to lodg in a Stomach full of Meats and it may be sometimes even to excess the precious Body of the Saviour of Mankind the only Object of their Worship and Adoration Nevertheless none of the ancient Writers have condemned this Practice those which have treated of it have spoken as of an innocent Custom which had no hurt in it and which moreover was authorized by the Example of Jesus Christ himself Therefore when the third Council of Carthage commanded to celebrate the Sacrament fasting it excepted the Thursday before Easter whereon it permitted to participate every Year after the Meal An evident Proof say some that there was no Crime in this Custom whereas it would have been intolerable if they had believed then the same of the Sacrament as the Latin Church now doth belive of it Therefore no Body can justly blame the Severity of its Laws when it is so strictly prohibited to communicate otherwise than Fasting The ancient Church for a long time used Patens and Chalices of Glass and we do not find that these first Christians ever made any difficulty of putting the Sacrament in Glass-Chalices nor that they were ever blamed that did it On the contrary some of those which used this Practice were commended for it nevertheless we cannot say that these ancient Believers were less circumspect than we are in the Celebration of the Sacrament Wherefore then was it that they feared not so much spilling of it in that Occasion as the Latin Church hath done some Ages past Let this Difference be well considered for saith the Protestant I am much deceived if
upon a serious and impartial Debate it will not be attributed unto the Difference of Judgment it not being to be imagin'd that Christians so good and zealous and fervent for the Religion of Jesus Christ as those were of whom we speak and have had the same Belief of the Sacrament that the Latin Church at this time hath which for some time past doth not suffer the Use of Glass-Chalices that they had not at least used so much Precaution as she doth to consecrate and distribute the Sacrament I mean they would have made it a Scruple of Conscience of putting the Body of their God and Saviour in so brittle a Thing as Glass those which were so careful that none of the sacred Symbols of their Bread and Wine should fall to the Ground The ancient Christians gave the Eucharist to young sucking Children at the Breast a Custom which continued in the West until the XIIth Century and which is still practised in most Christian Communions excepting the Roman Catholicks and the Protestants How came it to pass this Abuse was so long tolerated in the Church if it had been always believed therein what the Latins do believe at present who cannot justly be blamed by little and little to have abolished this Custom One could not without Horror see exposed what was believed to be the Body and Blood of Christ unto the undecent and sad Accidents which oftentimes of necessity happen in communicating of young Children those little Creatures being uncapable by reason of their tender Age of receiving the Sacrament with Respect which is due unto the Body it self of Jesus Christ our Redeemer But wherefore did the ancient Church for so many Ages suffer such an Abuse or at least having tolerated it some time wherefore had she not bethought her self of abolishing it instead of letting it take root in the midst of it Was it not so wise as the Church at this time is Had she less Zeal less Piety and less Prudence had she less love for Jesus Christ or less Veneration for his sacred Person certainly I suppose not This Difference then of Conduct cannot be grounded upon any other Reason but upon the Difference of Faith whilst Christians believed that what they received in the Eucharist was Bread and Wine in Substance but that at the same time they were also the Divine Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Christ the Reasons which moved them to give the Eucharist unto young Children made them pass by the Indecencies which might be feared on the Behalf of these little Creatures But when the Doctrine changed in the West and that in the Latin Church they began to say that it was the very Body and Blood of Jesus Christ this ancient Custom was abolished it not agreeing well with their Belief And indeed we see this Abolition was made about the time when this notable Change happened in their Doctrine And because that in other Christian Communions there is no Alteration happened by any publick Decree in the Tradition of their Fathers upon the Subject of the Sacrament they have innocently retained the ancient Custom of giving the Sacrament unto little Children I confess this Practise is contrary to what St. Paul desires of Communicants which is to examine themselves before they draw near unto the holy Table of which Proof little Children are uncapable But as we do not here treat but only of what was done by the ancient Christians and of what is still practised by several Christian Churches and not of what ought to be done I 'le say no more of it referring the Induction which the Protestants draw from this Practise unto the Judgment of all reasonable Persons which will take the Pains to read this History The Communion under both Kinds was practis'd in the Church until these last Ages wherein the Latins deprived the People of the Use of the sacred Cup for as for all other Christian Societies which hold not Correspondence with her they retain the Custom of administring the Sacrament under both Symbols altho with some little Difference The great Ground of the Latin Church for so doing being through Fear of shedding it But how comes it to pass that this Fear is so lately crept into their Thoughts Whence is it that she her self practis'd the Communion under both Kinds for above a thousand Years without any body scrupling it On the contrary when she began to forbid the Use of the Cup unto the People by a Decree at the beginning of the XVth Century a great many Persons complained of it and whole Countries earnestly desired it might be restored unto them Wherefore did she so long time grant unto her People the Communion under both Symbols distinctly Was there then less cause of Fear of shedding than when they deprived them of this Advantage particularly at the time when in Rome it self they used Chalices of Glass For it must be owned that Glass being a weak thing there was never greater ground to fear spilling than during the time those Chalices were used yet nevertheless when there was most cause of this Fear they suffered the People to participate of the Cup of our Lord as well as of his Bread and when there is less Danger Glass-Chalices being no longer in Use they are refused it Whence say they proceeds such a notable Change which could have no shew of Reason if the Doctrine had not been altered but because wise and prudent Persons do not incline unto these Sorts of Changes without some powerful Motives it must be freely confessed that no other can be found whatever Scrutiny could be made but the Change of Belief And in truth say they again if this Change be not presupposed it will be a very hard matter to forbear censuring those of Lightness which made it a Change I say of the Nature that is of and in a thing which was grounded upon the Authority of Christ himself and the constant Practice of so many Ages Whereas if the prohibiting the Cup be considered as a Consequence of this Change it will not be hard to conceive that the Fear of shedding the real Blood of the Son of God obliged them to forbid unto the People the Use of the holy Cup rather chusing to deprive them of this Comfort and Consolation than to fall into the Inconvenience of some negligent spilling of the Substance it self of the Blood of their Divine Saviour A Fear which hath not seised the other Christian Communions because they have not practis'd any Innovation in this particular or that at least there hath not any been made by any publick Determination In the ancient Church the Eucharist was delivered into the Communicants Hand who with the Hand put it into their Mouth as hath been proved and we may produce Examples of this Practice in the XIIth Century in Flanders At this time in the Latin Church it is put directly into the Communicants Mouth unto whom it is not permitted to receive it
is said That it might well be that the Gentiles transported with Hatred and Malice against the Christians might have given a wrong meaning unto what they had extorted by Torments from the Mouth of some of their Domesticks and that having heard of them that their Masters called the Bread and Wine of the Holy Communion the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ they concluded that it was indeed his Body and Blood and that they did really eat this Flesh and Blood But as it was not just to judg of the Belief of Christians upon the Testimony of their Enemies whose aim was only to slander the Truth of their Religion let us consider a little say they what is contained in the Words of Oecumenius or if you will of St. Irenaeus speaking by the Mouth of Oecumenius In the first place they attribute unto the Ignorance and Stupidity of these Slaves that they thought that the Christians held the Sacrament of the Eucharist for the true Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ because they called it his Body and Blood having heard their Masters say that the Divine Communion is the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ They thought that it was really the Flesh and Blood and said so unto those which examined them Secondly they declare positively That the Pagans had taken it as if the Christians had eaten really this Flesh and Blood which sheweth that the Christians had quite another Opinion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 câ—eâ—â—adire juxta Hesyâ—hium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They understood it it is added as if it had truly been done by Christians And in fine they represent unto us Blandina answering them freely That Christians were so far from eating the Flesh and Blood of their Saviour that they voluntarily abstained and that by a kind of Duty even from Meats and Flesh which was lawful How can it be saith she that those that abstain by Exercise from Flesh which is lawful should endure such things And because Christians never denied a spiritual eating the Flesh of Christ and which is the only eating they have acknowledged or do yet own however they may differ It is evident say the Protestants that when by the Mouth of Oecumenius they deny that they eat the Flesh of our Saviour they understand it of a bodily and carnal eating but as for the Sacrament they did never deny but that they did eat it with the Mouth of the Body I know not if they are deceived in this Discourse but they believe it is very well grounded in the Testimony which we have examined And that nothing may want to clear the Reproach made against Christians of eating human Flesh the Reader may remember if he please what hath been said in Chap. 2. of the first Part that these infamous Reports came not from the Eucharist of Catholicks and Orthodox but from the abominable Mysteries of the Gnosticks and the Carpocratians of whom we treated in the same place It shall suffice to observe here that when the Holy Fathers answered unto this shameful Reproach or rather this black and devilish Calumny it was by a down-right Denial and to shew it was a Thing so horrible and so far distant from their holy Discipline that the very Thoughts of it displeased them without ever making any Exception of the Eucharist The false Devils Just Martyr Apol. 1. vel 2. p. 50. saith St. Justin Martyr caused it to be practised by certain wicked Men for they having killed some body to cloke their Calumny against us they made some of our domestick Servants be put to the Rack or Children or ignorant Women and by cruel Torments they constrained them to say Things against us which they forged and which they themselves did do secretly whereof seeing there is nothing which concerns us we make no matter having the eternal and ineffable God for Witness of our Thoughts and Actions Athenagoras yet speaks more positively Who saith he Athenag legat pro Christ p. 38. of those that are in their right Senses can say that we are Murderers For it is not possible to eat Man's Flesh unless first some one is killed having then invented the former if they are examined of the second if they have seen the things whereof they speak no body is so bold as to say that they have seen them There be some amongst us that have Servants some more some less from whom it were unpossible to hide us but not any of them have inform'd any such thing against us For which of them can charge Murder or eating of human Flesh unto those whom they know are not permitted to stop to see the Execution of those which are thereunto justly condemned Minutius Felix I would saith he Minut. in Octavio see him that saith or thinketh that we be initiated by Murder and the Blood of an Infant do you think it can possible be that so tender a little Body should be appointed to be mangled that any in piercing it with Wounds should shed and pour forth the Blood of a new-born Infant scarce yet a Man no Body can believe it but those that are so bold as to undertake it And a little lower We are not suffered to see nor hear talk of Manslaughter and we so avoid Murder that we do not use nor admit of the Blood of Beasts amongst our Meat Tertul. Apol. c. 9. Tertullian whose reasoning is strong refutes the Calumny of the Heathens by these Words which certainly are worthy of him Let your Error saith he make you blush before Christians which do not as much as taste the Blood of Beasts and therefore do abstain from things strangled and from that of Beasts which have not been slain for fear of defiling themselves with any sort of Blood whatever even of that which is in the Body In fine to prove them you present unto them Puddings made of Blood because you very well know that they are not permitted to do the Things whereby you would make them offend Is it possible you should think that we thirst after Man's Blood we that have an Aversion unto that of Beasts If it be not that we have found it more delicious you should then make use of it to prove them as you do use Fire and Incense for then you would discover them in desiring Human Blood as they declare themselves in refusing to sacrifice and so you may condemn them if they eat of it as you do condemn them when they refuse to sacrifice and by this Means you would want no Human Blood to hear and to condemn the Christians which you keep Prisoners I freely confess saith the Protestant that I cannot apprehend this Proceeding of the Holy Fathers if they did really eat the Flesh of Jesus Christ with the Mouth of the Body after what manner or in what regard soever they eat it and to say the Truth if the Christians of their Times did eat really and truly the very Flesh of Jesus Christ they would
liberty of writing and speaking against the Doctrines of the Church was never greater than in the first Ages of Christianity nor less in the West than since the Condemnation of Beranger I can find no other cause of so various and different proceeding but the difference of Doctrine which until Paschas his time was such that no Body had reason to take up Arms to dispute against it whereas ever since the establishing of his Opinion which altered the ancient Belief there hath been made continual Resistance and Opposition Now I come to the Disputes which the ancient Fathers have had against Hereticks wherein they have imployed the Mystery of the Eucharist The first which troubled the settlement of Christianity were the Saturnians the Menandrians Valentinians Marcionites and others I intend not to burden my Paper with all the Impieties of these Wretches but only to represent those against which the holy Doctors have made use of the belief of the Holy Sacrament and in what manner they have done it I find then there were three horrible Impieties held by these extravagant Persons against which they employed the Holy Sacrament by the first they taught that Jesus Christ had not a true human Body but a shadow of a Body and a meer form void of substance or solidity By the second they said that the Father of Jesus Christ was not the Creator of the World but that the World and all Creatures which we see in it are the effect of Passion of Nature and of Ignorance and not of the Father of Jesus Christ And by the third in fine they said that all these material Creatures should be wholly destroyed and that by Consequence our Bodies being of the number of these Creatures should not be raised being uncapable of receiving supernatural Incorruption nor of participating of the Grace of the Holy Spirit Flesh and Spirit not subsisting both together The Holy Fathers do alledge the Eucharist to refute the first of these Impieties but it is requisite to know how they do alledge it for if they had been in the belief of the Latin Church they would not have failed as the Protestants say to have told these Hereticks that they overthrew the Faith of the whole Church which holds that the Substance of Bread and Wine is turned into the Substance of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ which could not be if he had not a true Body They suppose this would have been the only means to have refuted them and they think the Latins would have used this course had they to do with such Hereticks They say also that the Argument would have been clear and convincing and that 't is to be believed the ancient Doctors would not have followed any other course if they had been of the same Opinions that yet nevertheless they do not argue after that manner to refute the first Error of these Instruments of Satan they only tell them that seeing the Eucharist is the Image and Figure of the Body of Jesus Christ then of necessity he hath a true Body because every Image and Figure doth presuppose the Existence and Truth of the thing that it represents and that it is the reasoning of Tertullian in his Excellent Treatise against Marcion Tertul. adyers Marc. l. 4. c. 40. Jesus Christ saith he made the Bread his Body saying This is my Body that is to say the Figure of my Body now it had not been a Figure if there had not been a true Body for a Shadow and empty Appearance such as is a Spirit is not capable of having a Figure The Author of the Dialogues against the Marcionites in Origens Works reasoneth after the same manner Author Dial contra Marc. inter Orig op Dial. 3. If Jesus Christ saith he had neither Flesh nor Blood as the Marcionites affirm of what Flesh and Blood is it that he hath given us the Images that is to say the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament when he commanded his Disciples to remember him by those things Against the second Impiety they also imply the Holy Sacrament and see here how they do it Tren contr heres l. 4. c. 34. They say The Holy Sacrament is an Acknowledgment which we make unto God under the Title of Creator in offering unto him the first Fruits of the Creatures which he hath made and that it were an injustice to the Father of Jesus Christ if he were not the Creator of the World to offer unto him things which belonged not unto him as if he coveted that which belonged to another and desired to have what was not his own That if the Creatures were the product of Passion of Nature and of Ignorance it were to wrong God instead of giving him Thanks to offer him the Fruits of Passion of Nature and of Ignorance It is after this manner St. Ireneus doth argue to confute the Adversaries which he opposed in shewing them that the Father of Jesus Christ must needs be the Creator of the World because he accepts the Oblations of Bread and Wine which is made unto him in the Eucharist for to say that it is no longer Bread and Wine after Consecration but the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and that 't was so St. Ireneus understood it the Protestants say this would have been yeilding the cause unto these Hereticks who teaching that Jesus Christ was not of the number of the Creatures of this World would not have failed to have inferred that his Father had not been the Creator because our Lord was offered unto him which was not the work of the Creator whereas in saying that there was offered unto him Creatures of this World as these Hereticks owned as well as the Orthodox that there was such offered unto him in the Eucharist he would have put them to silence all the shifts they could have made would have vanished away at the sight of this Truth because they confessed that Bread and Wine are of those Creatures whereof the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ would not have received an Oblation if he had not been the Maker of them Something of this Nature is seen in Tertullian's first Book against Marcion Chap. 14. It remains to see after what manner the Fathers have acted to refute the last Impiety of these Hereticks who denied the resurrection of the Body maintaining that all material Creatures shall be wholly destroyed and reduced to nothing Iren. advers haeres l 4. c. 34. and that the Flesh is uncapable of receiving Incorruption because Incorruption is a Grace of the Spirit which can have no Commerce nor Society with the Flesh We preach in the Eucharist saith St. Ireneus the Communion and Unity of the Flesh and Spirit for as the Bread which is of the Earth receiving the Invocation of God is no longer common Bread but is the Sacrament composed of two things the one Terrestrial the other Celestial so also our Bodies receiving the Eucharist are no more corruptible
make the Bread is meant the Union of the whole Church which is baked into one body by the fire of the Holy Ghost to the end the Members should be united unto their Head c. And by the Wine the Blood of the Passion of our Lord is exhibited and so when in the Sacraments the Water is mingled with the Flower and the Wine the faithful People is incorporated and joyned unto Jesus Christ He follows the steps of St. Cyprian from whence he borrowed the expression And elsewhere he disputeth against Christ's Presence upon Earth Id. in Joan. l. 5. c. 28. He was saith he to continue but a little time corporally with his Church but as for the Poor they were to remain always so that we might always give unto them Ibid. l. 6. c. 34 35. And in the same Treatise If I depart by the absence of my Body I will come by the presence of my Divinity whereby I will be with you unto the end of the World And again in the sense of venerable Bede Ibid. c. 37. It is expedient that I should remove from before your eyes the form of a Servant to the end that the love of the Divinity might sink deeper into your hearts It is necessary I should carry into Heaven this Form which is known unto you to the end you should the more ardently desire to be in that place And according to what St. Austin said in explaining the 6th Chapter of St. John Whosoever eateth my flesh Ibid. l. 3. c. 15. and drinketh my blood dwelleth in me and I in him This eating saith he his Flesh and drinking his Blood is to dwell in Jesus Christ and to have Jesus Christ dwelling in us And so he that dwelleth not in Jesus Christ and in whom Jesus Christ dwelleth not for certain eateth not spiritually the Flesh although he visibly and carnally doth eat the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ but rather he eateth and drinketh unto his Condemnation the Sacrament of so great a thing because being impure he presumed to come to the Sacraments of Jesus Christ which none receive worthily but those that are holy After all this let it be judged which side Alcuin was of Although the Book called the Roman Order is not of any certain date and that the Learned do not agree at what time it first appeared Nevertheless because there be some that judge that it was written about the time that the Books of Images were composed under the name of Charlemain but they are deceived Ord. Rom. de Offic. Miss t. 10 Bibl. Pat. ed. 4. p. 5. the Author being much younger We will make no difficulty of joyning it unto what we have alledged of those Books and of the Works of Alcuin The Sub-Deacons saith he having seen the Chalice wherein is the Blood of our Lord covered with a Linnen Cloth and having heard Deliver us from Evil depart and prepare the Cups and clean Cloaths wherein they receive the Body of the Lord fearing it should fall to the ground and be turned to dust Let it be imagined if that could befall the true Body of Jesus Christ And again Ibid. in the same place The Bishop breaketh the Oblation that is to say the Bread on the right side and leaves the piece he broke upon the Altar He speaks of a Subject that may be broken into bits and pieces Ibid p. 6. And in the following Page The Fraction or as 't is read in the Margin the Consecration being done the youngest of the Deacons taking the pattern from the Sub-Deacon carries it unto the place where the Bishop is to the end he may communicate and having communicated he delivers unto the Arch-Deacon the holy Host which he had bit See again if the Flesh of Jesus Christ could be bit and if it could be said of the real Blood of Jesus Christ what he observes in the same place Ibid. That it is made in the Cup where there is put a portion of the holy Host a mixture of the Body and Blood of our Lord. Ibid. p. 10. And in the same Treatise That the Deacon saith he holding the Cup and the Quill doth stand before the Bishop until he hath taken what he thinks fit of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ I cannot tell if one may take more or less of the true Body of Jesus Christ and whether it depends on the free Will of men to take as they list and as much as they please In fine Ibid. he will have the Deacon take care with much precaution that there be nothing left remaining in the Cup and Plate of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Is it to to be conceived say the Protestants that any drop of the Blood of our Saviour could remain in the Cup or any part of his glorified Body in the Paten In the Roman Order of those times which this Author afterward relates there is to be read what we have alledged of the Cannon of the Mass in the 8th Chapter of the first Part. Whence it is inferred that the Oblation presented unto God was after Consecration an Oblation of Bread and Wine according to the Inference which was made at the end of the 6th Chapter of this Second Part which 't is not needful to repeat again in this place CHAP. XIII Containing the History of the IX Century WHatever change hapned unto the Ancient Expressions relating to the point of the Sacrament nevertheless the Belief of the Church received no alteration during the eight first Centuries the Doctrine still continued sound as I think hath been fully justified hitherto but at last in the IX Century Paschas Radbert a Friar of Corby near Amiens yet bolder than Anastatius of Mount Sina who contented himself in giving an assault unto the ancient manner of Expressions about the year 818. attacked the Doctrine it self the Providence of God permitting that the Innovations which arose in the terms and in the belief took beginning by two Friars which being both of them inclosed in their Cloisters departed in their meditations the one from the Expressions the other from the Belief of their Ancestors I said that Paschas began to write of this matter in the year 818. because it was in that year he composed his Treatise of the Body and Blood of the Lord as may be collected from the Preface to his Scholar Placidus where speaking unto Adelard his Abbot under the name of one Arsenius an old Hermit he sufficiently shews that he wrote in the year that Bernard King of Italy and some others had their eyes put out for conspiring against Lewis the Debonaire and that some Bishops that were of the same Combination were banish'd and depos'd which hapned exactly in the year 818. the Rebellion having begun in the year 817. as the Historians of those times inform us I will not mention that Paschas appears sometimes to be disturbed at what
Jesus Christ And as this Bread and Wine pass into the Body of Jesus Christ so also all those that eat it worthily in the Church are one sole Body of Jesus Christ as himself hath said Whosoever eateth my Flesh and drinks my Blood dwelleth in me and I in him Nevertheless this Flesh which he hath taken and this Bread Id. ibid. in cap. â—1 and the whole Church are not three Bodies of Jesus Christ but one Body And afterwards Although this Bread is brought from several places and that it is Consecrated throughout the whole World by several Priests nevertheless the Divinity that filleth all things filleth it also and maketh it to be one sole Body of Jesus Christ and all those which receive it â—d in Canone Idiss â— t. 6. Bibl. Pat. p. 441. do make this same Body of Jesus Christ which is one and not two And elsewhere As the Divinity of the Son which filleth all the World is one so also although this Body is Consecrated in sundry places and in an infinite number of different days yet they are not several Bodies of Jesus Christ nor several Cups but one sole Body and one Blood with that which he took from the Virgin and gave unto the Apostles for the Divinity fills it is joyned to it and causeth that as it is one so also it should be joyned unto the Body of Jesus Christ and should be one Body of Jesus Christ in verity This Author whoever he was says two or three things which sufficiently inform us of his intention for he saith that the Divinity joyns the Bread unto the Body of Jesus Christ of necessity then he must needs believe that it subsisted still after Consecration because a thing that is not cannot be joyned unto another thing the uniting and joyning of two different subjects presupposeth the Existence of the one and the other he saith also that the Church as well as the Sacrament is one Body with the natural Body of Jesus Christ he affirms it no more of the Sacrament than of the Church he then meant that they were both so after one and the same manner In fine see here how he argues the Natural Body of Jesus Christ the Sacrament and the Church are filled with one and the same vertue and animated if it may be so said with the same Spirit they are not then three Bodies but one the Unity of one Body depending on the unity of the Principle that acts in him So that because the same Principle that acts in the natural Body of Jesus Christ acts also in the Bread of the Eucharist and in the Church they should not be according to this Author but one and the same Body because that though considering them severally they be three different Bodies yet to consider them in the unity of this Principle and in the Numerical Identity if I may so say of the same vertue they become one sole Body This is as far as I can comprehend the Opinion of Remy which though not favouring the Opinion of Paschas yet is not for all that the Opinion of his Adversaries Therefore we will let him stand alone to receive the Depositions of others which present themselves to be heard The first is Rabanus very illustrious for his Dignity and for his Merit Historians vie with each other to celebrate his Praises as of the greatest Man of that Age and unto whom none was to be compared He was first a Friar in the Abby of Fulda then Abbot of the same Monastery and at last Archbishop of Mayance This illustrious Prelate and the most famous Disciple of the great Alcuin Tutor unto Charlemain being informed of the Opinion of Paschas Radbert touching the Sacrament set himself in a posture of arguing and openly opposing himself against it as against a Doctrine that appeared new and strange unto him and contrary to the ancient Belief of the Church This is the Declaration which the Anonimous Author and favourer of Paschas hath made us saying That Rabanus disputed against him at large Autor Anonym ubi supra in his Letter unto the Abbot Egilon But if we had not the Testimony of this Disciple of Paschas we cannot be ignorant of this matter seeing Rabanus himself hath transmitted the thing unto us for in his Penitential which Peter Stuart Professor in Divinity in the College of Ingolstat hath published he speaks after this sort Raban Maur. in Poenitent c. 33 de Eucharist It is not long since some persons holding erroneous Opinions touching the Eucharist of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ have said That it is the Body it self and the Blood of Jesus Christ which was born of the Virgin Mary and wherein our Saviour suffered upon the Cross and rose again from the Dead which Error we have opposed as much as we could and have signified in writing unto the Abbot Egilon what ought to be believed of the Body it self It cannot then be doubted but Rabanus wrote directly against Paschas seeing that the Opinion which he condemns and which he opposeth as erroneous is just that of Paschas as we have plainly demonstrated This Letter is lost either through the length of time or the malice of Men which have lived since that time But 't is sufficient that we do know that he wrote it and by consequence was a great Enemy of Paschas as unhe plainly testifies by several of his other Works which are come to our hands for he teacheth that the substance of Bread and Wine remain after Consecration and that these divine Symbols being received by Communicants part of it turns into their substance and the rest goes as their other ordinary food doth unto the place where Nature dischargeth it self Autor Anonym ubi supra The Anonymous Author already cited several times saith positively That he held the Sacrament to be subject unto this Accident And William of Malmesbury wrote to his Brother Robert in the Preface of the Epitome of Amalarius of Divine Offices which is to be seen in a Manuscript at Oxford Guillelm Malmesbur in All-Souls College I gave you notice saith he that amongst those which have writ of these things there is one that you are to avoid which is called Rabanus which in the Books of Ecclesiastical Offices saith That the Sacraments of the Altar are profitable to nourishment and for that reason are subject to corruption or malady or age or to be cast into the draft or to death it self See how dangerous a thing it is to say to believe and to write these things of the Body and Blood of our Saviour Tho. Waldens t. 1. doctrin in praesat t. 2. c. 19.52 62. Thomas Waldensis testifies the same in divers parts of his Writings where he reproacheth Wicliff That as he teacheth that the Eucharist is digested and passeth into our substance so he might also teach with Rabanus that it passeth into the draft And he instanceth the
and unto Jonas Bishop of Orleans when he sent them to Rome unto Pope Eugenius upon the Subject of the Images he thus begins Tom. 2. Conc. Gall. p. 461. The Bishops Halitgarius and Amalarius are come unto me c. Let us conclude then from what hath been said that Amalarius was in his time in Esteem and great Consideration in Church and State Amalar. de Offic Eccles l. 1. c. 1. And now let us examine what he said of the Sacrament directly or indirectly After saith he that our Saviour had appeared according to his own pleasure unto his Disciples whom he would have to be Witnesses of his Resurrection he ascended up into Heaven and became invisible unto Men as he himself testifies I came forth from the Father and came into the World and now I leave the World and go unto the Father Which is plainly to say I made my self visible unto men returning unto my Father I shall be invisible Although we do not see his bodily presence yet we daily salute him in adoring of him Id. de Ordine Antiphon c. 9. And elswhere We cannot think of the absence of Jesus Christ without sadness But what he is going to tell us is yet more plain and positive Id. de Offic. l. 3. c. 29. because he testifies that Bread and Wine is consecrated and made the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ We saith he call Institution the Tradition which our Saviour left us when he made the Sacrament of his Body and Blood And to the end it should be known what he meant by the word Sacrament he gives us this Definition of it Sacrament that is a holy Sign Id. l. 1. c. 15. He saith moreover that the Sacrament is in the stead of Jesus Christ The Priest bows and recommends unto God the Father that which was offered in the place of Jesus Christ Id. l. 3. c. 23. He distinguisheth what was sacrificed from Jesus Christ himself and considers what is offered and Jesus Christ as two different Subjects whereof the one serves us instead of the other Id. l. 3. c. 25. for it cannot be conceived that a person or a thing can be instead of it self He yet goes farther and declares expresly that that which is offered instead of Jesus Christ is Bread and Wine Id. de Offic. prafat sâ—cunda and that this Bread and Wine are the Sacraments of his Body and Blood The things saith he which are done in the Celebration of Mass are done in the Sacrament that is to say in representing the Passion of our Saviour as himself commanded us saying As often as ye do this ye do it in remembrance of me Therefore the Priest which sacrificeth the Bread the Wine and Water doth it as a Sacrament of Jesus Christ that is in the place of Jesus Christ and represents him the Bread the Wine and the Water in the Sacrament of the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ The Sacraments should have some resemblance of the things whereof they be Sacraments Let the Priest then be like Jesus Christ as the Bread and the Liquor is like the Body of Jesus Christ These words are easie to be understood and need no Commentary because every body may perceive without help of others that Amalarius considers the Act of the Sacrament as a mysterious Representation where the Priest celebrating is in the place of Jesus Christ the Bread Wine and Water instead of his Body and Blood and will have a Relation of Resemblance to be betwixt these things and those whereof they be Sacraments which according to some is plainly contrary unto the Identity taught by Paschas Id. de Offic. l. 3. c. 26. The Oblation saith he again and the Cup do signifie the Body of our Saviour When Jesus Christ said This is the Cup of my Blood he signified his Blood which Blood was in the Body as the Wine is in the Cup. And in another place Id. l. 4. c. 47. Id. l. 3. c. 25. Id. l. 3. c. 24. Ibid. c. 34. Ibid. c. 31. Ibid. c. 35. The Bread set forth upon the Altar signifies the Body of our Lord upon the Cross the Wine and Water in the Cup do represent the Sacraments which flowed out of our Saviours side upon the Cross He calls the Eucharist the Sacrament of Bread and Wine and saith That Jesus Christ in the Bread recommended his Body and his Blood in the Cup. And with Bede that the Apostle recommends the Unity of the Church in the Sacrament of Bread He observes the Bread is put into the Wine Ibid. l. 1. c. 15. And in the passage which gave occasion of the Censure of Paschas and of Florus he speaks of what is received in Communicating as of a thing broken into several peices In fine he affirms that Jesus Christ did drink Wine in his Sacrament Our Saviour said I will no more drink of this Fruit of the Vine until I drink it new with you which the Lesson read the second Sunday after the Resurrection of our Lord sheweth to have been done Peter saying Unto us who eat and drank with him after he was risen from the dead He will have it that this fruit of the Vine which our Saviour drank when he celebrated his Sacrament was of the same nature with that which he drank with his Apostles after his Resurrection But besides all these Testimonies which are commonly alledged out of the Writings of Amalarius we have others for which we are beholden unto Dom Luke d'Achery a Benedictine Friar Rantgarius Bishop of Noyon demanded of him how he understood these words of the Institution of the Sacrament This is the Cup of my Blood of the New and Eternal Testament with this Addition which is in the Canon of the Mass The Mystery of Faith Amalarius answers him by Letter wherein after having spoken unto him of the Paschal Cup he passeth unto the Sacramental and having alledged what St. Luke saith Amalar. ad Rantgar t. 7. Spicile p. 166. he adds This Cup is in figure of my Body wherein is the Blood which shall flow out of my side to fulfil the old Law and after it is shed it shall be the New Covenant He sheweth that the Cup is the Figure of the Body of Jesus Christ because as the Wine of the Sacrament was contained in his Body not to be poured out until his death that he shed it on the Cross for the Salvation of Men and in the same Letter he makes the eating the Flesh of Christ to consist in the Participation of his Death The same Cup saith he is called the Mystery of Faith Ibid. because he that believes that he was redeemed by this blood and that doth imitate his passion is profited thereby unto Salvation and Eternal Life which made our Saviour himself to say If you eat not the Flesh of the Son of Man nor drink his Blood you have no life in
you that is to say if you participate not of my passion and if you believe not that I dyed for your salvation you have no life in you This is the constant Doctrine of St. Austin He also testifies in the following words that he gloried in being one of his followers The Mystery is the Faith Ibid. as St. Austin saith in his Letter unto the Bishop Boniface As then the Sacrament of the Body of Jesus Christ is after some sort the body of Jesus Christ and the Sacrament of his blood his blood so also the Sacrament of Faith is Faith so we may also say This is the Cup of my Blood of the New and Eternal Testament as if he should say This is my Blood which is given for you he could not say more plainly That the Cup that is the Wine which is in the Cup is the Blood of Jesus Christ as the Sacrament is the thing whereof it is the Sacrament And in another Letter unto one Guntard whom he calls his Son and that he was something dissatisfied because Amalarius did spit presently after having received the Sacrament he saith unto him Id. ad Guntard Ep. 6. p. 196. that he denied not but that we should venerate the Body of Jesus Christ above all other Food It is not at all likely he would have spoken after this manner if he had believed that what is received in the Sacrament is the very Body of Jesus Christ because there can be no comparison betwixt this Divine Body and our Ordinary Food but he might well say so of the Sacrament for the which we should have a more peculiar respect and veneration than for our other meats He explains himself and sheweth that he speaks not of the real Body of Jesus Christ but of his Typical Body when he saith That it belongs to our Lord to pour out his Body by the Members and Veins for our Eternal Salvation Ibid. p. 171. That it is the Body of Jesus Christ which may be cast out in spitting after having received it and whereof some part may be cast out of the mouth Unto all which he adds Having so received the Body of Christ with a good intention I don't intend to argue whether it be invisibly lifted up unto Heaven or whether it remains in our bodies until the day of our Death or whether it be exhaled into the Air or whether it departs out of the body with the blood or whether it goes out at the pores our Saviour saying Ibid. p. 172. Whatsoever enters in at the Mouth goes into the Belly and from thence into the draft only care is to be taken not to receive it with a heart of Judas not to misprise it but to distinguish it savingly from ordinary Food Thence it is that he requires That during Lent all Believers Id. de observatione Quadrages p. 174. excepting such as are Excommunicated should receive the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Jesâ— Christ and that the people should be warned not to draw near the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ irreverently I know not saith the Protestant if after all these Declarations it can be doubted that Amalarius was far from the Opinion of Paschas Id. de offic l. 3. c. 24. Ibid. c. 25. and that when he saith We believe that the plain Nature of Bread and Wine mixed is changed into a reasonable Nature of the body and blood of Jesus Christ That the Church believes it is the body and blood of our Saviour and that by this Morsel the Souls of Communicants are filled with a heavenly Benediction which are passages alledged by the Latins to support their Doctrine He meant not that they passed or as Rabanus told us that they are converted into a Sacrament of his Body and Blood And to say the truth adds he I find he hath so fully explained and cleared his intention that it must be concluded that he believed the Sacrament is not the Flesh it self born of the Virgin as Paschas taught but the Sacrament of this holy Flesh the Bread and Wine by sanctification passing into this Divine Sacrament as he said of the Oyl the People offered Ibid. l. 1. c. 12. That by benediction it is converted into a Sacrament Therefore he gives us to understand that this Sacrament which we receive and that he calls the Body of Jesus Christ because of some likeness as he explained himself by the words of St. Austin is subject unto divers accidents whereto the real Body of Jesus Christ cannot be expos'd particularly of going into the place of Excrements like other Meats Let the Reader judge if he please of this Dispute and Controversie Unto Rabanus and Amalarius I will joyn Wallafridus Strabo who in all probability wrote his Book of Ecclesiastical matters betwixt the years 840. and 849. In Poemate which was the time of his Decease In that he calls Rabanus his Father and Master it may give cause to conceive that he was of one Judgment with him but because meer surmises are not sufficient proof nor convincing Arguments Walafri Strabo lib. de Reb. Eccles c. 16. Bibl. p. 7. t. 10. let us learn from his own mouth what he believed of the Mystery which we examine Jesus Christ saith he gave to his Disciples the Sacraments of his body and blood in the substance of Bread and Wine teaching them to celebrate it in Commemoration of his most holy passion because there could nothing be found more fitting then these species to signifie the Unity of the head and his members for as the Bread is made of several Grains and is reduced into one body by means of Water and as the Wine is pressed from several Grapes so also the body of Jesus Christ is made of the Union of a multitude of believers And a little after he declares That Jesus Christ hath chosen for us a reasonable Sacrifice for the Mystery of his body and of his blood in that Melchisedek having offered Bread and Wine he gave unto believers the same kind of sacrifice And again That as for that great number of legal sacrifices Id. cap. 18. Jesus Christ gave us the Word of his Gospel so also for that great diversity of sacrifices believers should rest satisfied with the Oblation of Bread and Wine As all these passages are exceeding clear so it is very just and reasonable they should serve for a Commentary unto others if it had hapned that Wallafridus had spoken less clear any where else for then should that judicious rule of Tertullians be practised That the plainest things should prevail Tertull. de Resurrect carn c. 19. 21. and that the most certaine should prescribe against the uncertain things which are doubtful should be judged by those things which are certain and those which are obscure by those which are clear and manifest Let us apply this unto what Wallafridus saith in another place which the Latins forget
that the Bread which is called the Body of Jesus Christ and the Cup which is called his Blood are Figures because a Sacrament and that there is a great difference betwixt the Body which is by Mystery and the Body which suffered which was buried and rose again This here is the real Body of our Saviour where there is neither Figure nor Signification but the evidence of the thing it self is present The Faithful desire to behold him because he is our Head and because that in his sight consists the joy of our Souls for the Father and him are but one which is to be understood not in regard of the Body which our Lord hath assumed but in regard of the fulness of the Divinity which inhabits in Jesus Christ God-man but the mystical Body is a Figure not only of the true Body of Jesus Christ but also of the believing People for it bears the Figure both of the one and the other Body of Jesus Christ that is to say of Jesus Christ himself which was crucified and is risen again and of the People which are born again in Jesus Christ by Baptism and was raised from the Dead Unto which may be added that this Bread and this Cup which are called the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are a Memorial of the Death and Sufferings of our Saviour as himself hath declared in the Gospel saying Do this in remembrance of me which St. Paul expounds after this manner As often as ye shall eat this bread and drink of this cup you shew forth the death of the Lord until he come It is then our Saviour and St. Paul which teach us that this Bread and Cup that are set upon the Altar are there laid as a Figure or Memorial of the death of our Saviour And as Ratramn opposed himself directly against the Opinion of Paschas so he also refuted the Consequence of this Belief by opposing in his Book of the Birth of Jesus Christ what Paschas had written of the Delivery of the blessed Virgin For in this little Treatise he positively affirms the Locality or the Inclusion of the Body of Jesus Christ within the bounds of the place which it occupieth whereas the Hypothesis of his Adversary imported that it could be in several places at the same time In Spicil d'Acher t. 1. p. 333 In holding these things saith he you wickedly utter a kind of Novelty to cry that there was nothing could hinder our Saviour that he should not be born because no Creature could resist the Creator but that all things that do subsist are open and penetrable unto him Whilst you judge so you judge very prudently but when by this rule you go about to subject the beginnings of the Birth of Jesus Christ you plainly dogmatize as to what regards his Power but as to what regards the property of the Body which he hath taken and his Humane Birth you stray very far from the way of Truth for there is nothing firm nothing that is not penetrable unto the Power of the Will of Jesus Christ But as for the Humanity which he hath taken it was inclosed and shut up in the Virgins Womb that during the time it remained there it was not elsewhere but in a short time it left the Abode of the Virgins Womb and went forth and returned no more thither What is it that he hath shewed by this change of place if it be not that though he be omnipresent by the propriety of his Divinity he was but in one place according to the circumscription of his Body That that which is local as it is not always every where but it goes unto one place when it leaves the other so also also when he goeth from one place to another he at the same time is not at the right hand and at the left neither walketh he before and behind nor above and below So also the Saviour as he was at one time in the Womb of the Virgin according to the Flesh and at another time he was out of it so in going out though nothing could stop him when he would come out nevertheless he made use only of one way for his coming forth and he issued not out by all the parts of the body wherein he had been formed I will not here say any thing of certain Sterconaristes which some pretend to have been opposed by Ratramn and not by Paschas Others say he was one of this Sect himself and others in fine That in disputing against it he varied from the true Sentiments of the Church because we will treat of it in examining the Testimony of Heribold To continue the Course of my History I come to John Erigenius the other Doctor which the Emperor Charles the Bald consulted and whom he commanded to write upon the same Subject He had a singular esteem for him and lived so familiarly with him that some Historians have assured that he made him eat with him at his own Table and lie in his own Bed-chamber I am not ignorant how unworthily he was treated by Remy Archbishop of Lyons and by the Deacon Florus and that Prudens Bishop of Troys and the Council of Valentia did censure some Errors that appeared in some of his Books upon the Subject of Predestination Neither would I undertake to defend all his Expressions and Phylosophical Notions about the state of the Blessed and of the Damned neither can I but confess that the Pen of his Adversaries have been steeped in too smart Liquor to tear the Reputation of this Man unto whom Historians give great Commendations Gulicl Malms de gestis Reg. Angl. l. 2. c. 5. Apud Usser in Sylloge Ep. Hibernic Ep. 24. de Christian Ecclesiar success c. 2. dignifying him with these two glorious Titles of most Learned and most holy William of Malmesbury assures us That he was a very wise Man and very eloquent that he translated out of Greek into Latin at the desire of Charles the Bald the Hierarchy of Dennis the Arcopagite A Translation so acceptable to Anastatius Library-keeper unto the Popes that he wrote a Letter unto King Charles which was inserted in the Preface of this Translation wherein after having admired that a Man born in one of the remotest parts of the World that is in Ireland should be capable of comprehending and of rendring this Hierarchy into Latin he adds That he had heard he was a Saint concluding that it was the work of the Spirit of God which had made him as zealous as he was eloquent Also the fame of his Learning made him be sent for by Alfred King of England where he died Anno 883. or 84. in the Monastery of Malmesbury having received several Wounds by Penknives from young Men that he instructed The Writers also of England observe that having been buried without much honour in the Church where he had been slain there shined a miraculous Light several nights upon his Grave which made the
printed the first time at Mayans An. 1559. with the Emperor's permission And thereupon the Protestants say That it would be very unjust to accuse them with these kind of Depravations they which have so much complained of Expurgatory Indexes to do themselves what they so highly condemned in other Men. The other Accusation consists in that he charged them with the printing a pernicious Book of Oecolompadius under the Title of Bertram De Corpore Sanguine Domini Ibid. in praesar against the truth of History which informs us as hath been proved that Bertram or Ratramn was the true Author of it Besides say they Wherefore was not this Manuscript of Lyons publickly made known to convince us without reply of this eminent Depravation for it must be confessed that should we be guilty of so great a piece of Malice and so horrible an Infidelity as that wherewith Sixtus Sinensis doth accuse us we should be unworthy the name of honest Men and on the contrary deserve all Mens hatred and scorn But besides Sixtus his Accusation falls upon Sererius a Lutheran Printer had it fallen upon any Calvinist Printer it would have had a little more shew of truth But that a Lutheran that believes the Real Presence should have taken these words out of the passage of Druthmar Subsisting truly in the Sacrament which entirely favours it makes it appear very strange seeing the Interest of them of his Communion require that they should exactly be retained Add unto all these things that whereunto there can be no Reply which is That in the Year 1514. before Luther appeared James Wimfelling of Schelstad caused Druthmar to be printed at Strasbourg sixteen years before Sererius his Edition with License of Maximilian the Emperor and the Arms of Leo the Tenth in the same manner Sererius had printed it though it was by other Manuscripts which as 't is said makes void Sixtus his Accusation against the Lutheran Printer who acted like an honest Man and sheweth that the passage should be read as the Protestants read it and as the latter Collectors of the Library of the holy Fathers have given it unto us In fine say they It only is requisite to read over the whole passage with some caution to know that the Correction of Sixtus cannot subfist and that by consequence his Accusation is groundless And to the end the Reader might do it conveniently I will relate it at large as he hath transmitted it unto us Christian Druthmar comment in Matth. Bibl. Patr. t. 16. p. 361. Jesus Christ took Bread because bread strengthens the heart of Man and preserves life better than any other food he therein establisheth the Sacrament of his Love but this property ought much rather to be attributed unto this spiritual Bread which perfectly strengthens all Men and all Creatures because it is by him that we do subsist and that we have both Life and Being He blessed it He blessed it in the first place because as Man he blessed in his own Person all Mankind and then he gave to understand that the Benediction and Power of the Divine and Immortal Nature was truly in that Nature which he had taken of the blessed Virgin He broke it He broke the Bread which is himself because exposing himself freely unto Death he broke and shatter'd the habitation of his Soul thereby to satiate us according to what he said himself I have power to lay down my Life and I have power to take it up again And he gave it unto his Disciples saying unto them Take and eat this is my Body He gave to his Disciples the Sacrament of his Body for remission of sins and preservation of charity to the end that being mindful of this action they should always do this in Figure and that they should not forget what he was going to do for them This is my Body That is to say in Sacrament And having taken the Cup he gave Thanks and gave it unto his Disciples As amongst all things which are useful to preserve life Bread and Wine are those which do most strengthen and repair the weakness of our Nature it is with great reason that our Saviour would in these two things establish the Mystery of his Sacrament for Wine rejoyceth the heart and increaseth blood therefore it is very fit to represent the Blood of Jesus Christ because all that cometh from him rejoyceth with perfect joy and increaseth all that is good in us In fine like a person undertaking a great Voyage he leaves unto them he loves a particular mark of his Love upon condition that they shall take care to keep it always thereby to remember him so also God spiritually changing the Bread into his Body and the Wine into his Blood hath commanded us to celebrate this mystery to the end these two things may eternally make us remember what he hath done for us with his Body and Blood and that it might hinder us from being ungrateful and unmindful of so great and tender Love Now because we are wont to mix Water with the Wine in the Sacrament of his Blood this Water represents the faithful People for whom Jesus Christ would lay down his Life and the Water is not without the Wine neither is the Wine without the Water because that as he died for us so also we should be ready to die for him and for our brethren that is to say for the Church therefore there came out of his side Water and Blood This passage is taken out of a Commentary where the Author explains these words of the Institution This is my Body by these others That is to say in the Sacrament to signifie that the Bread of the Eucharist is not really the Body of Jesus Christ but only the Sacrament of it Therefore he sheweth that our Saviour gave unto his Disciples the Sacrament of his Body that he commanded them to celebrate the Eucharist in Figure of what he was going to do for them that his Blood is figured by the Wine and that in going up to Heaven he left them this Pledge of his Love to the end that during his absence they should always make Commemoration of his Person and of his Sufferings All which things clearly shew that the spiritual Change whereof he speaks is a Change of Use and of Vertue to import that the Bread and Wine are changed by the Grace of Consecration into the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ as St. Isidore of Sevil Bede and Rabanus hath taught and also changed into its Efficacy and Vertue after the language of Theodotus and of Cyril of Alexandria Whence it is that the same Druthmar explaining these words Ibid. p. 360. C. The Poor ye shall have always with you but me ye shall not have always saith He speaks of the presence of his Body because he was to depart from them for as for the presence of his Divinity it is always present with all the Elect.
have insisted already had found something amiss in the Service of the Church of Lyons which so offended Agobard that he wrote a Book on purpose against the four Books of Amalarius touching Ecclesiastical things And he writes it with so high a resentment that Father Chifflet could have wished he had wrote with more moderation And that he had dipt his pen Ep. ad Baluzium Agobardo praefixa after the example of his Predecessors in the Blood of Jesus Christ the Lamb without spot truly meek and humble in Spirit It is then very probable that in the humour Agobard was against Amalarius he suffer'd nothing to pass unreproved except what he thought not fit to be censured and which he approved of himself And indeed by reading his Book it will plainly appear with what exactness he examines all that dropt from the Pen of his Adversary Now 't is most certain he censured not any of the passages which we alledged for proving that Amalarius was contrary to the Opinion of Paschas can it be believed this Man so full of anger and revenge and who wrote not his Book but to censure those of Amalarius and yet touched not any of the testimonies whereof we speak if the belief of Amalarius had not been the belief of the Church or if Agobard had not been of the same Opinion he was on the subject of the Eucharist how could it possible be but that he would have censur'd what Amalarius said How could he have slipt so fair an occasion to have discredited his Adversary as a Man that prevaricated from the belief of the Church upon one of the Capital Articles of our Religion but further he alledges these words of Amalarius which we before cited The Bread set upon the Altar represents the Body of our Saviour spread upon the Cross the Wine and Water in the Cup do shew the Sacraments which did flow from the side of our Saviour upon the Cross Agobard advers Annal. cap. 21. p. 119. but he doth not there apply one word of censure What can be inferr'd from this conduct but that they were both agreed upon this point Now if from the consideration of his silence we proceed to that of his words it is said we shall be confirmed in the belief of what hath been said for he testifies Ibid. c. 13. p. 115. That as there is but one Altar of the Church so also there is one bread of the Body of Jesus Christ and one sole Cup of his Blood He distinguisheth the Bread from the Body of Jesus Christ and the Cup from his Blood as he distinguisheth the Altar from the Church where it is Moreover he declares Ibid. That the Church consecrating by these words he speaks of all the words of Institution according to the Tradition of the Apostles the Mystery of the Body and Blood of our Lord he saith expresly that our Saviour said unto his Disciples Take and Eat you all of this Words which the Deacon Florus borrowed of him with those that follow as we observed not long ago to prove that what our Saviour commanded his Disciples to take and eat was Bread This is what was said of Agobard We have already mentioned in the 7th Chapter of this second Part an Assembly of Bishops of the Diocesses of Roan and of Rhemis at Cressy which furnished us with a Declaration of their belief but because they wrote in this same Century the History whereof we examine it is just that we should here insert their testimony David Blundel in his Exposition of the Eucharist said in Chap. 18. That he separated not from Ratramn and John surnamed Erigenius the greatest part of the Bishops assembled at Cressy anno 858. with out signifying the place where they had given marks of their belief therefore some have thought he had read it in some Manuscripts Nevertheless it is certain that he had a regard unto what we have alledged and unto what we will produce a second time yet in referring the Reader unto the 7th Chapter to ponder the occasion and the words which be these Concil Carisiac t. 3. Concil Gall. p. 129. Extr. It would be an abominable thing if the hand which makes by prayer and the sign of the Cross Bread and Wine mingled with Water the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ that it should after promotion unto Episcopacy meddle in any secular Oath whatever it did before Ordination The Chronicle of Mouson which is in one of the Tomes of the Collection of Dom Luke d'Achery makes mention of one Arnulph and represents him unto us as a Martyr He died as near as can be judged about the end of the IX Century And as he was at the point of death he said unto those that were present Favour me by your compassionate piety and help Chron. Mosomens t. 7. Spicil pag. 627. that I may receive from the hands of the Priests the Eucharist of the Communion of our Saviour He desires to receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist which truly communicates unto the faithful and penitent Soul Jesus Christ our Lord which he plainly distinguisheth from his Sacrament as the thing whereof we communicate from the Instrument by means whereby we do thereof participate He did not then believe with Paschas that the Eucharist was the real Flesh of Jesus Christ It is the Inference that many do make In the last Chapter of the first part we treated of the Custom of mingling the consecrated Wine with Ink and at the end of the 8th Chapter of the Second Part we shew'd the Inferences which is said are lawfully made from it But because of the Examples of this practice which we have alledged there is one of the Year 844. we will make no difficulty of joyning this Testimony unto the former yet it shall be only in the nature of a Historian which relates what passed at Tholouse betwixt King Charles the Bald and Bernard Count of Barcelonia whom this Prince had sent for under pretence of being reconciled unto him but indeed with design to kill him See here what the Historian saith Odo Ariâ—ertus inedit in notis Baluz ad Agobard pag. 129. The Peace having been concluded and interchangeably signed by the King and the Count with the Blood of the Eucharist Count Bernard came from Barcelonia unto Tholouse and cast himself at the King's feet in the Monastery of St. Saturnine near Tholouse The King taking him with the left hand as it were to lift him up he stabb'd his Dagger into his side with the other hand and cruelly murthered him not without being blamed for having violated Faith and Religion nor without suspition of Parricide because it was generally thought Charles was Son to Bernard also he resembled him very much about the mouth Nature publishing thereby the Mothers Adultery After so cruel a death the King descending from his Throne reeking in blood kicking the body with his foot said thus
Church That it was a Leaden Age an Iron and unhappy Age an Age of Darkness Ignorance Superstition and Obscurity whereas his Adversary esteems it to be an Age of Light an Age of Grace and Benediction For my particular although I know that he which esteems it an Age of Darkness is supported by the Authority of all or at least the greatest number of Historians which have written of it especially of Baronius Gennebrard and Bellarmine and that so far he hath not said any thing of his own And that the reasons of his Adversary which represents it as an Age of Learning and Benediction do not appear unto me of sufficient force to invalidate what he hath established upon the report of Historians I will however make a third party in this rencounter and hold the mean betwixt these two extreams I say that I will not absolutely follow the Historians which represent it wholly dark and ignorant nor the Author of the Perpetuity which represents it all light and glorious For if I do not make it an Age wholly Light neither will I esteem it to be wholly Darkness If I judge it not to be an Age of Grace neither do I conceive it to be one altogether unfortunate If it appear not unto me to be wholly an Age of Benediction neither doth it appear to be only an Age of Malediction In a word if I look not upon it to be an Age of Hillary's of Athanasius's of Basills of Gregory's and of Ambroses or as an Age of Chrisostoms of Jeromes and of Austins yet I do not regard it as an Age of Bareletes of Maillards and of Menots I do not liken it unto a fair Summers day when the Heavens being free from Clouds the Sun shineth in its full force and communicates unto us without any Obstruction his Light and Heat but unto a Winters day which being dark and the Air full of thick Clouds deprives us of the sight of the Sun yet not totally of its Light so that we have still left us sufficient to direct us although it may not be always enough to hinder us from stumbling In like manner say some during the X. Century the Sins of Men having made a thick Cloud betwixt the Sun of Righteousness and them he communicated not unto them fully the Light of his healthful Beams although he imparted unto them sufficient to avoid the Errors which cannot be believed without Ruin and to embrace the Truth the knowledge whereof is necessary to Salvation What likelihood say some is there that having shed forth so much Light upon the IX Century for the defence of the Truth that Men should on a suddain be plunged into Darkness But what likelihood is there also that the same Craces with the same freedom should be continued to be dispensed unto Men when it was seen that they began to abuse them and that the Flesh gaining by little and little the Victory over the Spirit they degenerated insensibly from the truth of their Belief and the purity of their Devotion Nevertheless as God is infinitely good and that he never leaves himself without witness of doing good unto Men however unthankful and ungrateful they be so if he dispensed not sufficient Knowledge unto the Men of the X. Century to oppose the Opinion of Paschas with the same vigour as it was opposed in the IX yet he dispensed them so much as to hinder it from being established all that Age as shall be shewed in the progress of this History But in the first place it will be necessary to relate what is said by William of Malmesbury De gestis Pontific Anglor 〈◊〉 of Odo Arch-bishop of Canterbury who lived in this Age He so confirmed saith he several persons which doubted of the truth of the Body of our Lord that he shewed them the Bread of the Altar changed into Flesh and the Wine of the Cup changed into Blood and afterwards he made them return unto their natural form and rendred them proper for the life of Men. This is the only Author of the X. Century that is come to our knowledge which publickly declared himself for the Opinion of Paschas whereas the Historian's Relation sheweth that there were several that were of a contrary Judgment and who had no small inclination to profess it openly besides the method of this Prelate to make them receive his Opinion seems unto many to be but a story made at random either by Odo himself or by the Friar which wrote the History of it and they heartily wish that Christians would not use these kind of Prodigies to prove the truth of the Doctrines of their Religion saying that Unbelievers are dis-satisfied and those which believe and are enlightned and that are pious can receive no Edification thereby And they make no question but that Paschas rendred his Doctrine suspicious unto most persons by the pretended Miracles that he made use of to establish it because this kind of proceeding shewed plainly that he found neither in the Scriptures nor Traditions Reasons strong enough to defend it seeing he had recourse unto these prodigious Apparitions But whatever this Arch-Bishop of Canterbury could do for the promoting the Doctrine of Paschas in England his endeavours had not all the success he could have wished the contrary Doctrine which had been so well planted in this Kingdom until the Year 883. by John Erigenius one of the greatest Adversaries of Paschas there continuing still and being publickly preached In fine Alfric which some also esteem to be Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and others Bishop of Cride after having been Abbot of Malmesbury a Man learned according to those times in a Sermon under the name of Wulfin Bishop of Salisbury thus spake of the Sacrament In notis Vheloci in histor Bedae Anglo-Sax l. 4. c. 24. about the Year 940. The Eucharist is not the Body of Jesus Christ corporally but spiritually not the Body wherein he suffered but the Body whereof he spake when consecrating the Bread and Wine he said This is my Body This is my Blood He adds That the Bread is his Body as the Manna and the Wine his Blood as the Water of the Desert was If this Sermon was one of Wulfin's according to the Title the Year 840. as we have computed it doth not ill agree with it But if it be Alfric's we must descend lower towards the end of the X. Century Apud Usser de dhristian Eccles success statu c. 2. p. 54. There is another which some cite under the name of Wulfin Bishop of Salisbury and others attribute unto Alfric wherein the Author useth the same Language This Sacrifice saith he is not the Body wherein Jesus Christ suffered for us nor his Blood which he shed but it is made spiritually his Body and Blood as the Manna which fell from Heaven and the Water which flowed from the Rock If these two Sermons are of two several Authors we have already two Witnesses directly
represents unto us to be purely spiritual Ep. 23. wherein he alledges the words of St. Austin It is a Figure which commands us to communicate of the Passion of our Lord and to represent unto our minds sweetly and usefully that his Body was crucified and broken for us Ep. 1. ad Adeod t. 3. Bibl. Pat. p. 438. A. B Post poeniten mulierum p. 521. E. for I do not regard the Addition that some unadvised hand hath thereunto annexed will the Heretick say And these others of the same Saint Him that dwelleth not in Jesus Christ and in whom Christ dwelleth not doth not indeed eat his Flesh although he eats and drinks the Sacrament of so great a thing unto his Damnation Ibid. p. 522. B. Unto which words in all appearance Berengarius had regard when he said in his Letter unto Richard If the thing were so how should the Doctrine of the Eucharist come to my knowledge which is in the Writings of Bishop Fulbert of glorious Memory Tom 2. Spicil d'Ach. p. 510. and which some esteem to be of this Bishop but it is of St. Austin If it be farther considered that he declares that Jesus Christ is ascended into Heaven and that he hath left us the Sacrament Ep. 1. ad Adcodat p. 437. C. as a Pledge of his Presence that he speaks of what we receive in the Sacrament as of a thing which is broken into very small bits and whereof a little portion is received and that he distinguisheth as Ratramn did Id. Epist 2. p. 440 441. and in the same words the Sacrament which he calls the body of Christ from his true Body If I say all these things be well considered it must presently be concluded that he was contrary unto Paschas Yet nevertheless I would not affirm that he exactly followed the Opinion of his Adversaries not because he speaks of the Transfusion and Change of the Bread into the substance of the Body of Jesus Christ for besides that Id. Ep. 1. p 437 438. he calls this Change a Change of Dignity that is to say of Quality which the Ancients often design by the name of Substance as hath been shewn he compares the Change which happens in the Eucharist unto that which came unto the Manna in the Wilderness and unto that which comes unto Men in Baptism and that he testifies That there is also a Transfusion of Believers into the Body of Jesus Christ Ibid. But I judge so because he seems to me to have embraced the Opinion of Remy of Auxerr which was the same of John Damascen who taught not that the substance of the Symbols was abolished but that they were united unto the Divinity to make one Body with the Natural Body of Jesus Christ as hath been fully shewed And that these were the thoughts of Fulbert it appears if I mistake not by what he saith That the Pledge which our Saviour hath left us is not the Symbol of an empty Mystery but the true Body of Jesus Christ Compaginante Spiritu Sancto Id. ibid. p. 437. or as Remy speaks Conjungente that is to say that the Holy Spirit unites joyns and knits the Sacrament unto the true Body of Jesus Christ in uniting it unto the Divinity Let the Reader judge if I use any violence unto the words of Fulbert and if I vary from his meaning About the time that Fulbert of Chartres flourished Bernon Abbot of Augy wrote his Treatise of things which concerned the Mass to wit about the Year 1030. and Fulbert died in 1027. In this Treatise he speaks of Making and confecrating the Body and Blood of the Lord Cap. 1. 2. t. 10 Bibl. Pat. but the real Body say some and the proper Blood of our Saviour not being possible to be made because it was made a thousand years before Bernon wrote nor be sanctified because it was always holy it must of necessity be understood of the Sacrament Cap. 1. And he shews it plainly when he said That this Body of Jesus Christ is broken Which cannot be understood of his true Body which is not subject unto this Accident and that moreover he declares Cap. 5. That we are refreshed with the Wine which is in the Cup in Type of the Blood of Jesus Christ Nevertheless the Opinion of Paschas establishing it self by degrees Bruno Bishop of Anger 's and Berengarius born at Tours but Arch-Deacon and Treasurer of the Church of Anger 's a Dignity which in former times was not conferred but upon persons of Worth and Learning Bruno I say and Berengarius not enduring that the Opinion of Paschas which they looked upon as an Innovation of the ancient Faith should get possession of the minds of the people opposed it publickly teaching that the Bread and Wine did not lose their substance by Consecration to become the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ but they only became by the Blessing of Sanctification the Sacrament of this Body and Blood The truth is Bruno suffering himself to be overcome with fear became silent a little after for say some it often happens upon these occasions that Men hearken to the Counsels of the Flesh rather than unto those of the Spirit But as for Berengarius he had more strength and courage and opposed himself with more Resolution and Vigour unto the setling of the Doctrine which Paschas begun to teach in the IX Century but without any great success until the XI wherein it also found a great many Opposers I am not ignorant that some Enemies of Berengarius have endeavoured to slander him to render his Belief the more odious but the truth is he was reputed to be a very learned Man grounded in Philosophy and the knowledge of the Liberal Arts and moreover of a holy and unblameable Life A fragment of the History of France from the time of King Robert Tom 4. Histor Franc. de scripror Eccles Platina in Joan. 15. Sabellic Enead 9. l. 2. Chron. tit 16. c. 1. § 20 unto the death of Philip saith That his name was famous amongst the Professors of Divine Philosophy Sigebert saith That he was illustrious for the Knowledge of the Liberal Arts and of Logick Platina and Sabellicus reckon him amongst those which rendred themselves famous by their Piety and Learning Bergomas in the Suppliment of Chronicles upon the Year 1049. observes That he passed a long time in the Judgment of Men to be eminent in Learning and in Holiness Therefore the Arch-Bishop Antonine declares Tom. 2. Spicil p. 747. That he was very learned And the Friar Clarius in his Chronicle of St. Peter of Sans gives him these two Epithets of Admirable Philosopher and Lover of the Poor But in fine the Belief which he maintained upon the Subject of the Eucharist and which was directly contrary unto that of Paschas found the people so disposed to entertain it or rather to declare openly for it so that in all
purpose after curious questions fit rather to engender strifes and quarrels than to edifie and instruct Christians I shall only desire the Reader seriously to consider if either or both of these Opinions can agree or hold with the Doctrine of the Latins for those which held that the Mysteries were incorruptible alledge for their reason That the Sacrament is a Confession and Commemoration of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ instead of saying that it is the glorified Body it self of our Lord And the others which affirm that it is corruptible say That the Bread of the Sacrament is the dead Flesh of Jesus Christ which cannot be in the reality of the thing because all Christians do confess that our Lord dyeth no more and that his state of Death and Crucifiction hath been past above XVI Ages ago whereby may be judged the disposition of Zonarus which held of both sides and of the strange manner wherein he explains himself I know not if I should make mention of one Samonas Bishop of Gaza who is placed in the XIII Century for all do not receive his testimony which is wholly favourable unto that of the cause of the Latins seeing he saith in a Dispute against Achmet a Sarrazin Tom. 12. Bibl. patr p. 524 525 526. touching the Eucharist That the Bread and Wine are not the Antitypes of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ but that they are by Consecration changed into the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and that the Division which is made to wit by means of breaking it is of sensible Accidents Were there nothing to be objected in the Nature of a Witness it could not be denied but this Greek Bishop was of the Belief of the Latin Church But the Protestants do deny that ever there was any such Dispute affirming That no Author hath made any mention of this Samonas because at that time there was no Greek Bishop at Gaza nor in all Pallastine being possessed by the Sarrazens having expell'd the Latins which had before setled Bishops of their own Language And in fine because the greatest part of this Writing was taken word for word from the Dispute of Anastatius the Sinaite against the Gaianites whereof mention hath been made in the History of the VII Century Whereunto may be added that this pretended Samonas speaketh formally of the Union of the Bread and Wine unto the Divinity which is just the Opinion of John Damascen as also what he saith Ibid. p. 525. that the Bread and Wine is taken that is to say that the Divinity joyns and unites them unto it self All the Protestants do not indeed say that there was not any Greek Bishop in all Pallastine in the XIII Century but they all agree to say That it belongs to the Roman Catholicks to prove that there was at that time at Gaza a Greek Bishop called Samonas seeing they produce him as a Witness and is such a Witness as no Writer makes any mention of In the same Tome of the Library of the Holy Fathers there is a Confession of Faith made by Nicetas in the XIII Century in favour of those which should be converted from Mahumetism unto the Religion of Jesus Christ wherein he saith Tom. 12. Biâ—â— Patr. p. 53â— That Christians do sacrifice Mystically Bread and Wine and that they participate thereof in the Divine Mysteries He adds nevertheless That he believes they are also truly the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ having been changed by his Divine Power in a Spiritual and Invisible manner above and beyond all Natural comprehension only known unto himself And it is so also saith he that I intend to participate thereof for the sanctifying of Body and Soul for Life Eternal and for inheriting the Kingdom of Heaven This Author saith That what Christians sacrifice and receive at the Holy Table is Bread and Wine that this Bread and Wine are in truth the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ having been changed by his Divine Power not unto all Communicants indifferently but only for them which Communicate with a true and sincere Faith Let the belief of this man be guessed at after all this But now I call to mind that I had almost forgot two Witnesses of the Greek Church of the XII Century one of the Ages whose History we examine in this Chapter to wit Euthymius and Zonarus In Matth. 26. The first saith thus Our Lord did not say These are the Signs of my Body and of my Blood but he said This is my Body and Blood And again As our Saviour Deified the Flesh which he assumed supernaturally so also he changeth these things into his quickning Body Words which Roman Catholicks mightily prize and value thinking that they favour their Hypothesis But it must not be concealed also that in another Treatise Euthymius testifies that he follows the Opinion of Damascen touching the Sacrament alledging to this effect a great passage out of his 4th Book of Orthodox Faith Panopl part 2. titul 21. Now the Opinion of Damascen was neither that of the Roman Catholicks nor the Protestants as hath been shewed in the 12th Chapter And Euthemius seems to assure so much in the words but now alledged when he compares the change befallen unto the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist unto that happened unto the Humane Nature of Jesus Christ when it was taken into the Unity of one person by the Eternal Word besides that in the same place whence both the mentioned passages were taken he said That not the nature of the things proposed should be considered but their vertue which shews that he believed with Damascen that the substance of the Symbols do remain As for Zonarus another Greek Friar we have already seen how he embraced as well the side of those which held that the Mysteries were corruptible as those which supposed them to be incorruptible besides he expoundeth elsewhere the 32. Canon of the Council in Trullo In Concil 6. in Trullo can 32. The Divine Mysteries saith he I mean the Bread and the Cup represents unto us the Body and Blood of our Saviour for giving the Bread unto his Disciples he said Take Eat This is my Body and giving them the Cup he said Drink ye all of it This is my Blood CHAP. XIX An Account or Narrative of the XIV and XV. Centuries DUring the Papacy of Boniface the VIII who had so great a contest with Philip the Fair one of our Kings there was in Italy great numbers of Waldensis who were called Fratelli because they stiled themselves Brethren as the Primitive Christians who frequently so denominated themselves where it was that the whole Body of the Church was called the Brotherhood and what induces me to believe that these Fratellis were Waldensis and Albigensis many of whom retired themselves into the Vallies of Piedmont at the time that Waldo and his Adherents were driven away from Lyons is that an uncertain Author which wrote against
It is evident that this respect and veneration hath reference unto the Body of Jesus Christ as the Adoration of the Wise men had which adored him when they saw him in the Manger at Bethlehem as Communicants adore him when they see him not in himself but in his Sacrament whereof he grants them the favour to participate All the World doth confess that Jesus Christ is not any more visible unto the Eyes of Men since his Ascension into Heaven I think that it is so also are to be understood the Adorations spoken of in a Liturgy which is attributed unto St. Chrysostom but cannot be his the Author being much younger than him There be some also which attribute it unto John the Second called the Mute Patriarch of the same Church but about 200 years after St. Chrysostom and yet neither is it very certain that it is of this John To conclude the Copies are very different for in that amongst the works of St. Chrysostom there is no mention made of Adoring but once when the Gospel is carried and when 't is lifted up because then the Choir saith Tom. 4. p. 9â—3 Come let us Worship and kneel down before Jesus Christ excepting that the Priest and Deacon bow the Head in several places in the Liturgy before and after the Consecration and that the People are once warned to bow the Head to give thanks unto God In liturg c. 7. Cassander represents another unto us in his Liturgies of the version of Leo Tuscus wherein there is no mention of Adoration but is not so of two others which we have one in the Library of the Holy Fathers and the other in the Ritual of the Greeks by James Goar of the Order of Preaching Friars for in both these there is frequent mention made of Adoring It is true these sorts of Adorations are there practised before the Consecration and after which plainly sheweth they were addressed unto God and unto Jesus Christ because the Bread and Wine by the Doctrine it self of the Church of Rome are not to be adored until after Consecration The thing will appear yet plainer if we consider the prayers which be there made when they dispose themselves unto the Communion Tom. 4. obser Clarysâ—st p. 618.8 〈◊〉 Pat. t. 2. Gree-Latiâ— p. â—1 Lord Jesus saith the Priest behold us from thy holy habitation and from the Throne of thy Glory and come sanctifie us thou who art in the Heavens sitting with thy Father and art here present with us in an invisible manner be pleased to give us by thy powerful hand thy pure and unspotted Body and thy precious Blood and by us unto all the People This prayer as every body sees hath for its Object Jesus Christ Reigning in Heaven and present unto his faithful Communicants by his Eternal Divinity and by the participation of his Grace Besides that Erasmus whose Translation comes nearer the Greek then that which is in the Library of the Holy Fathers and which we have followed because it is better liked by some Roman Catholick Doctors hath Translated these words Ibid. Be pleased by thy powerful hand to give us thy pure and immaculate Body and thy precious Blood In like manner when the Priest the Deacon and the People do Worship it is in saying three times Lord or as it is in the Ritual of the Greeks O God have mercy upon me who am a sinner which words do shew that this Adoration doth address it self unto God only who is therein expresly mentioned I say the same of the prayer which the Priest makes in taking the holy Bread when bowing his Head before the holy Table he saith I confess that thou art the Christ Ibid. p 32. the Son of the living God which didst come into the World to save sinners whereof I am chief c. After which he beseecheth him that he will vouchsafe to enter into his Soul filled with Passions and into his Body polluted with sin It cannot then be questioned but this prayer hath reference unto Jesus Christ and not unto the Sacrament which cannot enter into our Souls whereas our Saviour doth therein enter and into our Bodies also by the vertue of his Grace and by the efficacy of his holy Spirit for the sanctifying of them both of which Sanctification dependeth their Salvation and their Life As for the Deacons adoring when he cometh unto the Communion of the Cup in saying Ibid p. 8â—3 I come unto the King Immortal it can admit of no other Interpretation for I do not here examine what was the belief of the Ancient Church upon the point of the Sacrament I only inquire what the Ancients have said of the Adoration of Jesus Christ in the Act of communicating not to confound the Adoration of the Master with the Adoration of the Sacrament Therefore unto all the passages which have been alledged I will yet add two others unto which if I mistake not the same Explication ought to be given The first is taken from a fragment of the life of Luke the Anchorite who lived in the X. Century wherein is read these words You should sing Psalms which are suitable unto this Mystery In auctar Francis Combef t. 2. p. 986. and according to the Greek Typical Psalms and which do represent it Or the Hymn called Trysagion with the Symbol of the Creed then you shall three times bow the Knees and joyning the hands you shall with the mouth participate of the precious body of Jesus Christ our God It is easie to see that these three Genuflections have relation unto him to whom the Trysagion was sung that is to say unto God the Father Son and Holy Ghost of whom they begged Grace to communicate worthily I place in the same rank the History of St. Theoctista who having lived 35 years in a wilderness in the Isle of Paros desired a Huntsman whom she met by accident that he would the year following bring her the Sacrament Apud Metaphrast in vit S. Theoctist c. 13. which the Huntsman having done the Saint cast her self upon the ground received the Divine Gift and wetting the ground with her tears she said Lord now let thy Servant depart in peace because mine eyes have seen the Saviour which thou hast given us or as Cardinal du Perron hath translated Because mine eyes have seen thy healthiness After what way soever these words are taken nothing else can lawfully be gathered but that this Maid being transported with a holy joy in that God was pleased to give her the benefit of participating of this Divine Mystery of the enjoyment whereof she had been so long deprived she profoundly humbles her self in his presence in rendring thanks for procuring her so great a benefit and so sweet and solid a Consolation not to speak of Cardinal Baronius his often undervaluing Metaphrastus who relates the life of this Saint But besides this first consideration we must make a second which
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
in a bad light they can never rightly understand what was the true Belief of the Church upon the Controversies wherewith it hath been agitated so many years Nevertheless there is nothing we should more indeavour than to represent and discover the naked truth not caring that men should triumph over us so that truth might triumph over us all It is with this design that I have undertaken to discover sincerely what Christians have believed in past Ages and the Article of the Eucharist which seems to me one of the most essential and which causeth the greatest division amongst Christians in the West But to the end that none may be mistaken in the explication of the testimonies of the holy Fathers and not swerve from their Intentions I will propose some means which seem not to me improper and the practice whereof may be of great use unto all such as desire to be instructed in what they believed In the first place their Works ought to be read without any prejudice I speak of their genuine not forged Works for when one is pre-occupy'd in favour of an Opinion and sets about reading them one shall find what is not intended therein prejudice so darkning the understanding that many times the shadow is taken for the substance and a fallacious appearance for the truth because that prejudice predominates and makes men incapable of rightly judging what they read the Idea of the opinion which prepossesseth us so filling the faculty of the Understanding that it can receive no other impression until we dismiss these prejudices Wherefore the first thing to be done when we set about reading the Monuments which we still injoy of Ecclesiastical Antiquity is well to examine our selves to see if we be free from all sorts of preoccupation For provided we bring unto this study nothing of our own but attention and a sincere desire of knowing the truth we shall gather Fruits full of consolation and joy and we shall doubtless discover what hath been the belief of those ancient Doctors upon the point which we examine Secondly great heed must be taken not to separate what God hath joined together I mean the nature and the matter of the Symbols from their efficacy and from their vertue in their lawful use for then these things are inseparable although they be different one from another for the nature of Bread and Wine is one thing and the grace and vertue which the Consecration addeth unto their nature is another thing and therefore it is that the holy Fathers spake not so honourably of the Sacrament when they consider the substance of the Symbols as when they regard their efficacy and vertue And indeed when they have a design to represent this efficacy they make use of the loftiest and most magnificent expressions to raise the Dignity of this Mysterie and to make us conceive a grand Idea of it and certainly it is with great reason because 't is a thing very worthy our admiration and which I may say doth surpass our understanding that Christ Jesus should accompany his Sacraments with so great a power that he should cleanse our Souls with a few drops of Water and that he should nourish them with a few crumbs of Bread and a few drops of Wine but after a manner so Noble so Heavenly and so Divine that all we can do is to feel the fruits and advantages without conceiving the manner or how it is effected And therein is seen that magnificence of the Works of God Tertul. de Baptis c. 2. which is promised in the effect whereof Tertullian speaks and which he opposeth unto the simplicity of these same Works which appears in the Action and in respect of which Simplicity the Fathers have expressed themselves in terms more humble and not so lofty agreeable unto the nature of Symbols This second means shall be follow'd by a third which is not the least considerable and for the understanding whereof it is necessary to observe that the Holy Fathers have used two sorts of expressions in speaking of the Eucharist by the one they affirm that the Sacrament is Bread and Wine and by the other they say it is the Body and Blood of Christ These two sorts of expressions taken literally cannot agree together nor be both true in relation to one and the same Subject For if the Eucharist be properly the Body of Jesus Christ it is not properly Bread and if it be properly Bread it cannot be understood to be properly the Body of Jesus Christ Nevertheless the Fathers who have said that the Eucharist is Bread have also said that it is the Body of Jesus Christ how shall we then do to give a right sense unto expressions so different and which in appearance are so inconsistent That which we should do is maturely to consider what these Holy Doctors have said for explanation of their meaning and that cannot better be done than by diligently searching their Works that of the two sorts of expressions which they have used they have restrained the one without giving any limitation unto the other for in equity it must be granted that those which they have limited ought not to be explained according to their intention without the restrictions which they have used and that on the contrary the others which have received no limitation should be understood simply and absolutely and in the proper terms wherein they have expressed them and to say the truth had they intended that these two so different expressions should have been understood in the same manner wherefore should they have taken so much care and pains to limit and restrain the one and never heed to take the least care in restraining or sweetning the others Such different proceedings in regard of these kinds of expressions doth it not plainly declare that they intended that they should be differently understood and that there should be given unto those which they have restrained a Figurative and Metaphorical Sense and unto those which were not restrained a proper and litteral Sense that is to say that the former should be taken for Figurative Speeches and the latter for proper expressions and without any Figure If then they have restrained and limited the expressions which do affirm that the Eucharist is Bread and Wine and if they have not limited those which affirm that 't is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ it must be concluded that those which declare that the Sacrament is Bread and Wine are improper and figurative Speeches and that the others which say that it is the Body and Blood of our Lord are proper and literal expressions But if on the other side they have taken exact care to restrain the propositions which say That the Eucharist is the Body of Jesus Christ without adding any limitation unto the others which asserted that it is Bread it must be necessarily infer'd that when they said that the Eucharist is the Body of our Lord they spake improperly and
figuratively and on the contrary that they spake literally and properly when they affirmed that it is Bread and Wine Now the Reader will perceive in perusing this Treatise what manner of speaking these Holy Doctors have used herein for it is enough for me here to propose unto him the means of right understanding them The fourth rule to be observed for the right understanding their testimonies is not to make them clash one against another nor to imbroil them in contradictions for it must be supposed that they were prudent and judicious enough not to contradict themselves and to keep themselves from a reproach which would have been cast on them had that befaln them There are two things in their works relating to the matter we treat of which should be carefully distinguished but in such sort as to take them always in good Sense I mean the ground of their Doctrine and its consequences And indeed the Doctrine of the Holy Fathers having had its consequences as the greatest number of Doctrines have had it is evident that of two explications which may be given unto it there is but one that is true that which shall make a contradiction betwixt the Doctrine and its consequences and the consequences and the Doctrine is false and contrary to their Intention whereas that that reconciles both is lawful and genuine for their Doctrine must be considered with its consequences as a Body whereof all the parts should have a dependance the one to the other and all tend to the same end as so many lines to the center I have examined a great many of these consequences in this History to the end that those who read it may judge if they agree with the foundation of the Doctrine and if the Doctrine and its consequences do favour the substantial change for if the consequences favour this change it will be a great presumption that the Doctrine doth not disfavour it although it should not so positively establish it as the Latins have done But also if all these consequences are directly opposite unto the Doctrine of Transubstantiation it will be a manifest proof that the ground of the Doctrine is no less opposite unto it and that the Antients have not received this Doctrine into the Object of their Faith and that they made it not an Article of their Belief This fourth rule shall be strengthened with a fifth which appears no less important unto me and which only demands that doubtful and uncertain passages ought to be explained by certain passages and the obscure by the clear and manifest ones This is a Maxim of Tertullian's which I 'll not alledge in this place because it is alledged in the Body of the Work but after all there 's nothing more just and reasonable It often befals most Authors to deliver themselves more happily at one time than at another though they treat of the same Subject it happens unto some through neglect or not having well digested their thoughts it being impossible to express themselves clearly on a Subject if the mind have only confused notions of it others do so for reason which may here be said particularly of the Fathers of the Church when they treat of the Sacraments principally of that of the Eucharist for there were certain Times and Places when they explained not themselves so clearly as at other times although they never said any thing contrary to their Sentiments the discipline of their times not suffering them to do otherwise But however the matter hapned it seems very just and equal when the mind of an Author would be known upon a matter which he hath treated in divers Places in some places clearer than at others to have recourse unto those Places wherein he hath most clearly explained himself and by those to interpret the others wherein he expressed himself more obscurely either through inadvertency or for reason more darkly and ambiguously this kind of proceeding is natural unto all Mankind and reason shews 't is the safest way can be taken in these occasions I will not fear to say that 't is the only means to terminate the Disputes and Controversies of Religion because they all arising from the several interpretations given unto passages of the Holy Scriptures and of those of the antient Doctors of the Church they might be easily reconciled if Men would agree that the most clear and intelligible should serve as a Commentary unto the more difficult and obscure Unto all these rules I will add a sixth which shall be the last The Fathers being on this occasion to be considered as witnesses examin'd to learn of them what was the belief of the antient Church touching the Sacrament there 's no question to be made but that the greater number ought to be preferr'd before the less and that the lesser number ought to submit unto the greater things being otherwise alike I mean both the one and the other being of equal Authority and their Testimony alike worthy of belief for instance if eight or ten amongst them should unanimously depose that the substance of the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament is abolished by the Consecration and that there remain only the accidents and appearance which subsist miraculously without any Subject and that there was but one that said to the contrary It is not to be doubted but the testimony of the Ten ought to be preferr'd before one single Person because every one of the Ten is as credible in his particular as he that is alone of his own Opinion and that there is much more likelihood that one single Person may be mistaken in relating the belief of the Church than ten Persons that agree in their Testimonies But by the same reason if Ten be found that testifie that the substance of Bread and Wine remains after Consecration and that on the contrary one single Person shall say it is changed into the substance of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ we are obliged to confess that the belief for the which the ten Persons do declare hath been the true Belief of the antient Church and that the sentiments of this single Person is a particular Opinion which ought to be rejected or at the least if possible endeavour to recover him unto the general Opinion believed amongst the Christians of his time by giving unto his words a more mild Explication and the most favourable Construction that may be I think no Body can reasonably condemn the Means which I have proposed the practice whereof may conduce very much to the right understanding of the Holy Fathers provided we observe them sincerely and no other end be proposed in explaining their Testimonies but what I have had in reporting them in this Treatise that is a love of the Truth Tertul. de Virgin veland c. 1. Against which no prescription can be made neither by length of time by the credit of Persons nor by the Priviledges of Countreys To conclude the Reader may be pleased
designed to ordain Reader Dominico interim legit nobis id est auspicatus est pacem dicit dedicat lectionem which Mr Rigaut did not understand no more than Mr Lombert who followed the Sentiment of Mr Rigaut in the fair and exact Translation which he hath given us of this Father 5. Upon the Letter of the Council of Antioch which condemned Paul of Samosatia 6. Upon the Tenth persecution which shall be found more exactly describ'd than in all the former Histories because Monsieur L'ARROQVE hath borrow'd great helps from Lactantius his Treatise de Mortibus Persecutorum published of late by Mr Baluze 7. De Sacerdotibus secundi Ordinis Archidiaconis 8. De Ordinibus ex quibus Episcopi sumebantur 9. De Epistolis Tractoriis 10. De Natura veteris Ecclesiae 11. De Energumenis c. 12. De Paenitentibus eorumque gradibus 13. De Antiquo ritu dimittendi ab Ecclesia Catechumenos Energumenos paenitentes 14. De dupliti Catechumenorum genere 15. De tempore quo obtinere caepit in Ecclesia orientali haec loquendi formula EPISCOPVS DEI GRATIA ET SEDES APOSTOLICAE 16. De pluralitate beneficiorum ut vulgo loquuntur 17. De Nudipedalibus As he from whom we expect these pieces of Ecclesiastical History is endow'd with much wit and learning it needs not be fear'd that they will in his hands lose any thing of their luster and beauty All we have hitherto said refers unto the Wisdom of Monsieur L'ARROQVE which indeed is a very vast and spacious Field but should we speak of the qualities of his Soul we should have much more matter to insist on He had a Soul so sincere as is scarcely to be found in this Age he without envy beheld the merits of other learned persons and esteemed their good qualities he was a great and strict observer of Discipline and contented not himself to declaim in the Pulpit against Vice in general but persecuted it in all places running the hazard of creating himself Enemies by the security of his life he preached by example and discover'd a true Christian Constancy in all the troubles of his life he discharged his Duty with so much exactness that he would never discontinue performing his Function during an Ague which held him ten Months after his being call'd to Saumur I say he would neither discontinue the Duties of his Ministry nor those of his studies although the Physitians told him that a distemper which often had fits of 36 hours would not be removed if he did not give himself some repose The Troubles of the Churches of France these last years were incomparably more grievous unto him than any particular Afflictions unto his own Family could have been and should these Misfortunes continue what Cicero said of another may be said of him Ii rempublicam casus sequuti sunt ut mihi non erepta L. Crasso a Diis immortalibus vita sed donata mors esse videatur THE HISTORY OF THE EUCHARIST PART I. Containing the exteriour Form of Celebration CHAP. I. Wherein is treated of the Matter of the Sacrament THE first thing that presents it self in the Celebration of the Eucharist is the matter of the Sacrament that is to say the Bread and Wine for three of the Evangelists and St. Paul testifie that Jesus Christ took Bread and a Cup wherein there was Wine and that he called the Wine the fruit of the Vine All the Holy Fathers unanimously avouch the same all the Liturgies which are come to our hands depose the same seeing we find these two Elements imployed in this mystery and the form of Celebration proposed unto us by St. Justin Martyr the Author of the Apostolical Constitutions St. Cyril of Jerusalem in his Mystagogicks the pretended Denis the Arcopagite in his Hierarchy and generally all those which have writ on this subject suffer us not to doubt of it as neither doth the defence which the Fathers and Councils have made of offering any thing else but Bread and Wine in celebrating the Sacrament Also all Christians generally agree herein therefore it would be superfluous to stand to prove it seeing the thing is clear and it is granted by all the World and all Christian Societies are agreed on this Subject It will only be necessary to consider that Jesus Christ which is the Wisdom of the Eternal Father and who never did any thing but with a Wisdom and Conduct worthy of himself did not chuse Bread and Wine to make them Symbols of his body and blood but that he was thereunto induced for considerable Reasons Nevertheless I will not now stand to examine the Reasons which obliged him to make this choice I refer that unto Divines whose drift it is to inquire into this matter it will serve our turn to say that our Saviour having a design by means of his Sacraments to raise up the minds of Christians unto the consideration of the comforts they find in his blessed Communion he made choice of Elements which had some likeness and relation unto those things which they were to signifie and represent as for Instance When he instituted the Sacrament of Baptism which is the Sacrament whereby we are born into his Church he made choice of water to be the sign and symbol of it because it is proper to represent the vertue of his Blood and of his Spirit for the purifying of our souls for as water hath the quality of cleansing our bodies from all uncleanness so also the Blood and Spirit of Jesus Christ have the vertue the force and efficacy of washing and purifying our souls from all filthiness and impurities therefore it is that the Apostle calls Baptism the washing of Regeneration â—it 3. that is of our New Birth and for that reason it is that he saith elsewhere Eph. 5. that Christ hath cleansed the Church by the washing of water by the Word in like manner when he instituted the Eucharist which is another Sacrament of his Covenant whereby he gives unto us life after having given us our being he chose Bread and Wine to represent unto us the vertue of his Sacrifice and of his Death and which is the food of our souls For as Bread Wine are food very proper for nourishing the body and for preserving this mortal and perishing life even so his Body broken and his Blood poured out do divinely feed and nourish our souls and do admirably preserve this heavenly and Spiritual life whereof we enjoy even here below some fore-tastes and first-fruits the accomplishment whereof we shall one day receive to our comfort in Heaven And it is in regard of this wonderful effect John 6. that his Flesh is meat indeed and his Blood is drink indeed and that those who eat this Flesh and drink this Blood have life everlasting and that they shall be raised unto glory and immortality in the last day Nevertheless it must be granted that the relation and resemblance which the
Armenians desisted not to persevere in this practice and always to celebrate the Sacrament with pure Wine until the year 1439. that they sent their Deputies unto the Council of Florence under Pope Eugenius the IVth but they arrived not untill after the departure of the Greeks as appears by the History of that Council transmitted unto us by Sylvester Sguropulus a great Prelate of the Church of Constantinople which was present at all that there happened Nevertheless in the direction given unto those Deputies on the behalf of the said Pope Eugenius but in the name of the Council as if it had still been Assembled which might have been so in regard of the Latines but not of the Greeks who were gone home in this Instruction I say The Armenians were enjoyn'd to conform themselves unto all the other Christians To. 8. Concil p. 866. and to mingle a little Water with the Wine in the oblation of the Cup but there is no great likelihood that this Decree was much regarded in this Christian Communion seeing we find by their Liturgies that they continued in the Custom of not mingling Water with the Wine in the holy Cup. Apud Cassand in Lit. C. 12. But besides this Mystical signification which the Holy Fathers have discovered of this mingling Water with the Wine of the Eucharist I find they have used it to represent the Water and Blood which issued out of the pierced side of Jesus Christ at his passion and when he was on the Cross Concil Trull Can. 32. It is the Doctrine of the Eastern Council before mentioned and which was Assembled in the Hall of the Imperial Palace at Constantinople As for St. Athanasius he resembles this mixture unto the Union of the Eternal Word with the human Nature Athan. in Psal 74. apud Combesis auct Bibl. Pat. t. 2. pa. 435. The mystical Cup of the Communion saith he was given mingled with Water because the pure Wine doth signifie the Divine Nature which is unmixed and in that 't is temper'd with Water it intimates the Vnion which is betwixt us And there is no question to be made but these Holy Doctors pleas'd themselves in searching out these Mystical significations not only in one of the Symbols of the Sacrament but also in the other In fine as they discovered Mysteries in mixing Water with the Wine practised by the Antient Church so they also discovered other Mysteries in making the Bread for they believed that the Bread of the Eucharist being a Body compos'd of sundry grains represented very well the Body of the Church composed of sundry believers united into one Society It is also the Doctrine of S. Cyprian Cyprian Ep. 76. vide 63. When saith he the Lord called his Body Bread composed of sundry grains of Wheat he would denote the believing people which he bore in as much as 't is but one people and when he termed his Blood the Wine which is made of several Clusters of Grapes pressed together and reduc'd to one he again signified the same faithful People composed of sundry Persons in one and the same Body It is the frequent Doctrine of * Serm. ad Infant tract 26. in Joan. Serm. 83. de divers S. Augustin and generally of all the Holy Fathers of †Com. in Matth. Theophilus of Antioch of ‖ Hom. 24. in 1 Cor. S. Chrysostom of * De Off Eccles lib. 1. c. 18. Isidore of Sevil of †Com. in 1 Cor. 10. Bede of ‖ De Reb. Eccles c. 16. Walafridus Strabo of ‖‖ De Instit Cler. lib. 1. c. 31. Rabanus Archbishop of Mayence and of many others but alas at the same time that these Holy Doctors pleased themselves in finding out all these Mystical Significations wherein they took so much delight the Devil who is always vigilant to disturb the peace of the Church and who always finds occasions to worry it failed not to raise her up Enemies even from her Infancy and to spew out from his dark Dungeon sundry sorts of Sects and Hereticks totake occasion either to slander the Innocency of her Mysteries by the Gnosticks or to corrupt their purity by the Montanists and Pepusians if what some have written be true or to gainsay their Utility by the Ascodrupites or to make them pass for dreams and delusions by the Marcosians or to render them odious by the Ophites or to change the matter either by adding of some strange things as the Artotyrites or by taking away the Essentials as the Hydroparastates or Aquarians and this is what we intend to examine in the following Chapter CHAP. II. Wherein is discoursed of sundry sorts of Sects and Heresies only so as may be sufficient to give light unto the present Subject THE first Hereticks which the Devil stirred up to trouble the Church upon the matter of the Sacraments were the Gnosticks that is such as assumed to themselves that proud and insolent Title to perswade the ignorant People that they were possest with great Wisdom and that they were able to dive into the knowledge of the most obscure and difficult Mysteries some derive their Original from the Nicolaïtans others say they had for their Leader an eminent Heretick called Carpocrates but from what Original soever they came it cannot be doubted but it was very pernicious seeing it produced so cursed an off-spring certainly this fountain was very corrupt seeing the streams were so infectious and the Root of this cursed Tree was very venemous seeing the Branches produced no less than the bitter Fruit of mortal Poison an infamous brood as ever was whose Mysteries abounded with Abomination and Horrour therefore were they also called Borborites or Borborians to denote their filthiness and vileness these miserable wretches suffered themselves to be swayed by their own corrupt desires and being Slaves unto their passions and disordered Lusts they polluted themselves frequently with Women which were in common amongst them and coveting nothing more than this filthy practice they were blindly led on by their wicked concupiscence and without any restraint wallowed in the most brutish Actions the very thoughts whereof fills me with amazement and horror But what is most dreadful and strange in the conduct of these Organs of the Evil Spirit is that they acted their greatest abominations in their Assemblies and in the Places where they were accustomed to meet to exercise their Diabolical Religion S. Epiphanius who more exactly than any other of the Antients relates unto us all that passed in the abominable mysteries of these Wretches is ashamed to write and were it not in some sort necessary to be published to render them odious unto all the World he would have forborn to have related the Brutalities and Filthinesses which they were not ashamed to commit As for my own particular although I have learned from S. Paul that all things are puâ—e unto the pure yet I will forbear reciting all the Impurities which were acted in
rejected it but upon another Principle the reproaches of Jews and other Enemies and the difference betwixt the Greek and Latin Churches about Bread leaven'd or unleaven'd SAint Ignatius was a Disciple of the Apostles and particularly of St. John Bishop and Pastor of the Church of Antioch and moreover a glorious Martyr of Jesus Christ for he suffer'd Martyrdom at Rome the first of February Anno 107. or 109. in the Eleventh Year of the Emperor Trajan and if the Epistles which go in his name were truely his it were not to be questioned but that towards the end of the first age of Christianity or at farthest the beginning of the second there were Hereticks which rejected the use of the Sacrament When I mention his Epistles I speak not generally of all those which go in his name but only of the seven most antient seeing 't is above 1300 years since Eusebius saw them and after Eusebius they were cited by some of the Fathers of the Church because it is of these seven that the moderate persons both Roman Catholiks and Protestants seem to make greatest difficulty I mean the Protestants that admit them as legitimate for I find several that question them all and that cannot perswade themselves that they were the genuine Issue of that Illustrious Martyr as Messieurs de Saumaise Blondel Aubertin Daillé this latter having also examined in a particular Treatise all the marks of forgery that he could discover in these Epistles I freely confess my self to be in this Error if it be an Error and that of a long time I have therein observed several things which suffered me not to believe that S. Ignatius had writ them but as this is not the place to shew it and that besides it hath been performed by others it shall suffice to consider what he hath said of these Hereticks Ignat. Ep. ad Smyrn They abstain saith he from the Eucharist and from Prayer because they believe not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ which suffered for our sins and which the Father raised up by his goodness It is a long time since Theodoret cited this passage but instead of these words they abstained from the Eucharist and Prayer he used these they admitted not Sacraments nor Oblations I think the word Oblations is more significant than that of Prayer for there 's nothing more frivolous than to represent unto us those Hereticks as abstaining from Prayer because they owned not the Eucharist to be the flesh of Jesus Christ and I see no connexion betwixt these two things nor that they have any dependance the one upon the other unless some will say that they did not mean generally all manner of Prayer but only that whereby the Symbols of the Sacrament were consecrated and which many think was the Lords Prayer which they suppose the Apostles used for the consecrating this Mystery and therefore it is probable that the Fathers called it the Mystical Prayer and that it was not permitted unto the Catechumeni to repeat it because not having yet received holy Baptism they could not as they supposed call God Father nor participate of the Sacrament whereunto they were admitted immediately after Baptism but in fine these very words make me suspect the truth of the Epistle it might be and I 'll not deny but that towards the end of the third Century there might be Hereticks which did so and that he who forged the Epistle of S. Ignatius living at that time and opposing these Enemies of Christianity hath expresly observed it not considering as it often happens to that sort of men that it was not so in the time of this glorious Martyr under whose name he would cover himself I farther confess that if those Hereticks which I suppose to be the Docetes and Putatives that is those which denyed the Incarnation of Jesus Christ and which only allow'd him an imaginary Body a fantome and shadow of a Body I say I grant that had they acted according to their Hypothesis they would not have allowed of the Eucharist seeing they could not allow it without ruining their abominable Doctrine by an infallible consequence But this is not the place to consider what they ought to have done but what they did now it is most certain that in the time of the true S. Ignatius none of these Hereticks denyed the Eucharist for none of the Antients have observed it which they would not have omitted to do as well those which have treated of Heresies as those which have written particularly against the Hereticks whereof we now treat The first which refused to celebrate the Sacrament were as we have been informed by the Holy Fathers the Ascodrupites which were a Limb of the Impostor Mark and Mark an unhappy Branch of Valentine which Valentine began not to appear till thirty years after the death of S. Ignatius and as for those concerned in the Epistle which we examine how could they abstain from the Eucharist in the time of our glorious Martyr seeing they abstained not from it a hundred years after Tertul. advers Marc. l. 1. c. 14. For Tertullian doth formally tellus that Marcion which was one of the chief of these Hereticks persisted in the use of the Sacrament seeing he declares that the God of Marcion shews his Body by the Bread otherwise the Orthodox could not have drawn from the Sacrament any advantage against them for the truth of his Body and for the incarnation of Jesus Christ for when one disputes with another they must dispute upon common principles and which are acknowled on both sides I should think then and to end the consideration of this matter that these Hereticks which opposed not so much the Sacrament of the Eucharist Lib. 1. de Euchar. c. 1. §. ne auth as the mystery of the incarnation of Christ as Cardinal Bellarmin hath well observed taking notice of the neglect of their Predecessors and seeing they admitted the use of the Sacrament they gave the Catholicks strong Arms to contradict them they abstained from celebrating it as the Ascodrupites had done a long while before them although upon another account but besides these two sorts of Hereticks both which the one after the other rejected the celebrating of the Sacrament of the Eucharist although upon different principles we shall see in the XII Century a new Heretick that towards Flanders and especially in Brabant where he spread abroad his Heresie and the poyson of his pernitious Doctrine it was one called Tanchelin who having a design to ruin the Sacrament of the Eucharist and to forbid the use of it unto all those which he could seduce did so well by his cunning and by the help of the evil Spirit under whom he had enrolled himself that he perswaded the people of Antwerp a great and populous City that the participation of the Eucharist was not necessary unto Salvation wherefore they continued several years without communicating as the
Continuator of Sigebert doth inform us Supplem Chron. Sigeb ad an 1124. We shall not now say any more because that upon another Subject we shall be forc'd to inlarge upon this History which plainly shews that the Devil doth not cease from time to time to make his Attempts against this great mystery of Christian Religion knowing very well that 't is one of the most precious pledges of our blessed Jesus a Divine and efficacious seal of his gracious Covenant and an illustrious Memorial of his Sacrifice and Death wherein we find immortality and life Wherefore having armed Hereticks to combate this Divine Sacrament some after one manner some after another he stirred up the Jews and others to take occasion from the Sacrament to reproach Christians some to say that they had reduced all the Service of their Religion unto an Oblation of Bread or at least that they had invented a new Oblation others that they were worshippers of Ceres and Bacchus and that they religiously adored those imaginary Deities In fine Rabbi Benjamin in S. Isidore of Damieta Isid Pelus l. 1. Ep. 401. urgeth this accusation against Christians That they had invented a new and strange Oblation in consecrating Bread unto God whereas the Law established Sacrifices in the Blood which S. Isidore doth not deny but only saith unto this Jew That he ought not to be ignorant That the Law it self consecrated the Shew-bread And others reproach the Orthodox in S. Austin That they served Ceres and Bacchus August contra Faust l. 20. c. 13. under pretence of the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist whereunto this holy Father only replies That although this be Bread and Wine yet they do nothing refer unto those Heathen Idols It may be collected from a certain place in Tertullian that the Pagans did calumniate Christians for that they celebrated their Mysteries with Bread steept in the Blood of a young Child a calumny occasioned in all likelihood by the abominations of the Gnosticks for I am not certain whether in Tertullian's time there were of those Pepusians which as S. Austin doth report made the Bread of their Eucharist with the Blood of a Child of a year old which they drew from the body of the innocent Infant by pricking it all over with a Needle or some such sharp Instrument Tertul. l. 2. ad Uxor c. 5. But see here what Tertullian writes unto his Wife touching one that had an unbelieving Husband The Husband shall not know what you eat in secret before all other meat and if he knows 't is Bread will not he conclude that 't is that there is so much stir about Upon which words the late Mr. Rigaut makes this observation in his Notes upon Tertullian When you take the Eucharist which you keep in your house shall he not know of it Will not he diligently inform himself what it is you eat in private before all other meat and if he knows it is Bread will not he presently say in himself That 't is that Bread which was said to be steept in the Blood of a little Child which Calumny at that time much troubled the Christians I said expresly that it seemeth it might be thus gathered from the words of this learned African for I would not positively affirm this Induction to be absolutely necessary especially when I consider that Tertâ—llian himself represents unto us the unbelieving Husband suspecting the Christian Wife to go about to poyson him Id. ibid. Will he saith he suffer these things without sighing and without being in doubt whether it be Bread or Poyson Therefore I leave the Reader at his liberty to incline unto which side he please But because a Kingdom divided against it self cannot stand as our Saviour saith in the Gospel and that nothing is more pernicious unto a State than civil and intestine Wars there 's no question to be made but the Devil thought considerably to advance his design when he as it were armed and stirred up the Greek Church against the Latin Church touching the nature and quality of the Bread of the Eucharist the Greeks affirming That it was Leavened and the Latins on the contrary contending for the use of Unleavened Bread It must be granted the Greeks were mistaken in affirming that Jesus Christ celebrated the Eucharist with Leavened Bread for it is certain that when he did celebrate it there was no Leaven at all suffered to be kept amongst the people of Israel Thence it is that the holy Scripture calls those days The days of unleavened Bread What likelihood was there then that our Saviour should use Leavened Bread in his Sacrament seeing there was none in all Judea and that the Jews were not permitted to have any But it also must be confessed that the Latins were not wholly without Blame to be so self-will'd or obstinate in employing unleavened Bread in their Eucharist under a pretence that Jesus Christ used it in his making a general Rule of a particular Occasion which ought not in reason to be insisted upon For inasmuch as our Saviour used unleavened Bread it was through the custom of the time which suffered him not to have any other seeing there was no other in the whole Country But in the main the design of the Son of God being to give us in the Symboles of his Sacrament a Figure of the vertue and efficacy of his Body broken and of his Blood shed for the nourishment of our Souls by the relation they have unto the vertue of these two Elements for the nourishing our Bodies it is very evident that he would have the same Bread used to make his Eucharist and the same Wine which were commonly used for the preserving of life so that if there were any Christian Nation found which used Bread without Leven for their ordinary Food there is no question to be made but they may be permitted to use it for the celebration of the Sacrament and that they ought to make use of it But in all Countreys where Leavened Bread is used for the feeding of Men no other should be sought after for the Sacrament If the Bread be the Sacrament of the Body of Christ it is not so as leavened or unleavened but only as it is Bread fit to nourish us and as broken to represent unto us the painful Death of our Saviour upon the Cross therefore it is that it ought to be used according to the diversity of the places where one resides I say that no other Bread should be used in the Celebration of the Eucharist but the same Bread which is eaten for our common Food and when I say that the Latins are not wholly without blame in so scrupuloully observing the use of unleavened Bread I do not regard it simply but in respect of what hath been practised some Ages past for they used leavened Bread in their Sacrament a great while as other Christian Communions did the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist
being taken from the Offerings which Christians offered upon the Table in the Church at the usual times that they assembled unto the Communion as we shall make appear in the Fourth Chapter which will plainly evidence That these Offerings were of the very same kind of Bread as that which was used in the ordinary actions of Life and if in process of time there ensued any alteration it was not in respect of the nature or quality of Bread as if that of common use was leavened and that of the Eucharist unleavened seeing it was but one and the same sort of Bread all the difference consisted first in that the Bread of the Eucharist was to be of a round form secondly about the seventh Century they began to prepare it expresly and on purpose for the celebrating of the Sacrament as appears by the sixth Canon of the sixteenth Council of Toledo assembled Anno 693. which we will cite at large in the following Chapter by some words of Cardinal Humbert T. 4. Bibl. paâ— part 2. p. 212. l. 3 c. 33. t. 4. Spicil which wrote in the Eleventh Century and of the ancient customs of the Monastry of Cluny written in the same Century whereto there were many Ceremonies multiplied for the preparing the Bread of the Sacrament whereas there was none at all at first because it was not made of set purpose but with the common Bread and even when it was begun to be made of purpose we do not find there was any great Ceremony used about it In fine it was thought good in process of time to make upon the Bread the sign of the Cross unto which Custom Father Sirmond doth apply the third Canon of the second Council of Tours Sirmond de Azymo c. 4 assembled Anno 567. and the first of the fifth Council of Arles held in the year 554. although to my seeming there is nothing very clear in these two Canons for authorising this Custom Also the same Sirmond doth confess in the same place That the Interpretation which he giveth unto the Council of Tours which is the plainest of the two alledged by him is not allowed by all and indeed it is not very likely that the Christians of the West which began not to prepare the Bread of the Sacrament separately from ordinary Bread until about the seventh or eighth Century should have marked it before that time with the sign of the Cross But so it is for certain that the use of leavened Bread in the Eucharist continued still in the Latin Church in the time of Gregory the first Vit. Greg. l. 2. c. 41. as the History of that Woman doth import who admired that this Pope should call the Body of the Lord a Loaf which she knew very well she had made with her own hands And this custom continued not only in Gregory's time but also a good part of the Ninth Century at which time a great difference having broke out betwixt the Greek and Latin Churches we do not find that amongst sundry reproaches and some of them either very light or it may be unjust made by the Greeks against the Latins that they have in any manner touched the question of leavened or unleavened Bread which they would not have omitted if the Latins had used unleavened Bread in their Eucharist as they failed not to condemn this practice in the Eleventh Century at which time this contention was managed with greater heat on both sides a manifest sign that the Latin Church did not begin to use unleavened Bread in the celebration of her Sacrament but in that space of time which passed betwixt the Ninth and the Eleventh Century Sirmond de Azymo Father Sirmond hath at large justified this truth and after his manner confirmed it with such clear and strong reasons and particularly those above-mentioned that nothing can be added unto what he hath said having very solidly refuted what Cardinal Baronius alledged against it and shewn that Hugo Tuscus and Rupert de Duitz were deceived when they imagined as well as Baronius that the Latin Church had always used unleavened Bread in the Eucharist Hist Concil Florent Sguropuli Sect. 10. c. 1. p. 278. In the Council of Florance held under Pope Eugenius the Fourth where was made by Interest of State and Policy a seeming accord betwixt the Greek and Latin Churches it was concluded as to what concerned leavened or unleavened Bread That each Church should retain its own custom viz. That the Eastern Church should make their Eucharist with leavened Bread and the Western with unleavened Bread so that the one should not be obliged to follow the use and custom of the other Raban de instit Cleric l. 1. c. 14. Nevertheless I cannot pass by what Rabanus Archbishop of Mayence wrote in the Ninth Century That unleavened Bread should be sanctified and Wine mingled with Water to make the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ which he proves by the authority of the Book of Leviticus and by the Example of Jesus Christ which used unleavened Bread in the Institution of his Sacrament But it must either be said That this Opinion was a particular Opinion of his own or that he intended only it should be so used the Thursday before Easter exactly to imitate the practice of our Saviour or in fine what I believe to be more probable That this custom began to be introduced into the Diocese of that Prelate if it were not safer to say That this long Observation of unleavened Bread was added unto Rabanus his works which I dare not affirm not being on the place to compare the Printed Copies with the Manuscripts CHAP. IV. Wherein is shewed from whence were taken the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist and what was the form of the Bread with the innovations and changes which ensued thereupon IT is not sufficient to shew that Bread and Wine have always been the matter of the Sacrament of the Eucharist amongst Christians excepting some few Hereticks which had changed it others that had miserably altered and corrupted the Celebration and in fine others which had wholly rejected it though upon several motives and different Principles Neither is it sufficient to have hinted at the reproaches which were made against Christians upon account of the Bread and Wine in this Divine Sacrament and to have examined the great controversy which armed if it may be so said the Greek Church against the Latin Church in the XI Century touching the Nature and quality of the Bread of the Sacrament to know whether it should be Leavened or Unleavened To the end nothing should be wanting unto this consideration we must endeavour to find out from whence was taken the Bread and Wine imployed by Christians in the celebration of their Sacrament I make no question but they proceeded from the liberality of Believers who being inflamed in those happy times with the divine fire of Charity which the Antients
term The mother and root of all Riches the death of Sin the life of Virtue and the way which leads unto Paradise they chearfully with their Goods relieved the necessities of the Church whereof they were Members and in the Communion of which the Lord was pleased by his grace to settle them to make them partakers of his great Salvation S. Luke gives us so clear and full a representation in the second Chapter of the Acts of the Apostles that it cannot be thought of without admiration and at the same time without lamenting and deploring the dulness and coldness of these last times wherein is too plainly seen the accomplishment of the words of our Saviour who foretold That iniquity should abound and the love of many should wax cold But at the beginning of Christian Religion as this charity was in its greatest beauty the whole Church offered unto God upon the Table every Lords day or on the days when they Assembled to participate of this Sacrament of their Salvation and of there Union their Oblations for the support of their Spiritual Guides or Ministers for the relief of their Poor and for the other Necessities of the whole Church and out of these Offerings there was taken as much Bread and Wine as was needful for the holy Communion a custom which if I mistake not began to be practised in the days of the Apostles for S. Clement one of their Disciples Clement Epist ad Cor. p. 53. speaks of it as of a matter already established in that excellent Letter which he wrote unto the Church of Corinth in the name of that of Rome whereof he was one of the Pastours Those saith he which make their oblations at the time appointed are agreeable and blessed for obeying the command of God they do not sin Just Mart. Apolog. 1. p. 60. And Justin Martyr in his first Apology for the Christians it is commonly called the second sheweth that in his time the Food which was offered unto God by Believers with Prayers and Thanksgiving to be eaten and to relieve the Poor were called Oblations and towards the conclusion of that excellent work he saith That after Prayers and the kiss of Charity there was presented unto the Pastour Bread and a Cup mingled with Wine and Water and that he having received these things rendred praise and thanks unto God the Father of all in the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost And there also he distinguisheth the Prayers of the Minister for the Consecration of the Eucharist from the action of the people presenting him the Bread and Wine which action he calls Oblation which he repeats again afterwards Cypr de operib Eleemos S. Cyprian also mentions these Oblations but under the name of Sacrifices when he reproacheth a rich and covetous Widow That she came into the Assembly or unto the Sacrament of the Lord without an Oblation and that she took part of the Sacrifice which the Poor had offered Hieron in â—erem c. 11. in Ezech. c. 18. Innoc. ad Dâ—cent c. 3. Ambros in Pâ—al 118. In like manner S. Jerom and Pope Innocent the first inform us that in their time the Deacon did publickly repeat in the Church the names of those which offered S. Ambrose Bishop of Milain in the argument upon the 118. Psalm and according to the Hebrews the 119. teacheth us that he that would communicate after having received holy Baptism was obliged to offer his present or gift at the Altar in the Constitutions which commonly go under the Apostles names Conslit Apost l. 8. s. 10. Prayers are made for them which offered Sacrifices and the first-fruits to the end God would render them an hundred fold and there is to be seen in the same piece several rules touching those Oblations Sozom. hist Eccles l. 6. c. 15. Hist Eccles l. 5. c. 17. Aug. Ep. 122. Sozomen observes in his Church-History that the Emperour Valens came to Church offered the gift upon the Table Theodoret reports the same of the Emperour Theodosius And S. Austin speaking of two Christian Women Captives who deploring their misery said amongst other things that in the place where they were They could neither carry their Oblations unto the Altar of God nor find any Priest unto whom to present it Id. Serm. 215. de temp if it were his And elsewhere recommending unto his flock the use and practice of these Oblations Offer saith he the Oblations which are consecrated at the Altar that man that is able to offer and doth not ought to blush for shame if he communicates of the offering of another And because the charity of Christians decayed by little and little and their zeal insensibly failing and loosing daily some of its ardour and strength these Oblations were not so numerous as they were wont to be every one easily dispensing with himself in not offering at the Table of the Lord as they were accustomed to do the Councils were obliged by their Canons and decrees to kindle the fire of this zeal which was almost extinguished whereunto tended that of the second Council of Mascon Assembled Anno 585 Concil Matisc 2. can 4. which ordains that all the people should offer every Lords day the Oblation of Bread and Wine and that of the Council of Mayence Anno 813. Which requires that Christian people should continually be put in mind to make the Oblations Con. Mogunt an 813. can 44. Capitul 858. c. 53. t. 3. Concil Gall. which is also repeated in the fifth Book of the Capitularies of Charlemain Chap. 94. It was also one of the instructions which Herard Archbishop of Tours gave unto his Priests Anno 858. that they should exhort the people to offer their Oblations to God and also in many other parts of the writings of the Antients I know not whether that Woman mentioned by John the Deacon in the life of Gregory the first needed those exhortations of presenting her offering unto God or whether she did it of her own free will and by that ardent zeal which inspired the primitive Christians with such commendable sentiments of pity and charity Vita Gregor 1. l. 2. c. 41. but in fine he writes That a certain Woman did offer unto Gregory as he celebrated the solemnity of the Mass the usual Oblations and that afterwards Gregory said in giving her the Sacrament The body of our Lord preserve your Soul she smiled in that he called the loaf of Bread which she made her self the body of Christ And forasmuch as for the most part none were admitted unto the participation of the Eucharist but those which presented their Oblations there is a very great number of Canons in the Councils which prescribe to whom the Oblations were to be distributed and to whom not but it is not necessary to alledge more proofs of this Antient custome seeing the matter admits of no difficulty Nevertheless this is not all that we intend
to observe every one may easily judge by what hath been hitherto said that what was offered for the celebration of the Sacrament was Bread and Wine but it may be all the world do not know that they were not the only things which were offered at first for the charitable Oblations of Believers being appointed not only for the Celebration of the Sacrament but also for the support of the Ministers and Pastours for relief of the Poor and generally for the necessity of the Church it cannot be questioned as I suppose that besides the Bread and Wine of which was taken what was convenient for the Sacrament there were also other things offered and if we should make any question of it the directions which we shall alledge will soon remove this doubt and scruple In fine the Pastours of Christian Churches having in time thought convenient to set apart the Oblation of Bread and Wine for the Celebration of the Eucharist from all the other Oblations made by Believers they absolutely prohibited that any thing else should be offered for the celebration of the Sacrament but Bread and Wine in pursuance whereof the third Canon attributed to the Apostles doth reprove and censure those who offered Honey Can. 3. Apost can 4. Milk Birds Beasts or Roots upon the Altar and in the fourth it allows of offering Oyl for the lights and incense for the times of Oblation But to prove what hath been said by a better authority recourse must be had unto more Authentick Monuments and to such as bear not the marks of Forgery as these Canons do The first of these Monuments which presents it self unto our sight is the third Council of Carthage assembled Anno 397. for in one of its Canons which is the 37. of the Code of the Church of Africa it makes this Decree That in the Sacraments Concil Carthag 3. can 24. or as Martin de Braga reads it in his Collection that in the Sanctuary nothing else be offered but the body and blood of our Lord as our Saviour hath taught that is to say Bread and Wine mingled with Water and to distinguish this Oblation which related unto the Eucharist from the others offered by the faithful people the Council adds As for the first-fruits whether it be Honey or Milk let them be offered after the usual manner upon some solemn day for the mystery of Infants and if these things especially the Milk be offered at the Altar yet let them receive their particular blessing to distinguish them from the consecration of the Body and Blood of our Lord and as to first-fruits that nothing be offered but Grapes and Wheat Martin Bishop of Braga in his Collection of Canons hath expressed in these words that of the Council of Carthage There ought nothing to be offered in the Sanctuary Collect can c. 55. but the Bread and Wine which are blessed in Type or in Figure of Jesus Christ And the fourth Council of Orleans Anno 541. makes this decree That none presume to offer in the Oblation of the holy Cup ought else but the fruit of the Vine mingled with Water Concil Aurel. 4 c 4. it is what is repeated in the VIII Canon of the Synod of Auxerre Anno. 578. The third Council of Braga in Gallicia assembled the year 675. going about to reform some Abuses crept into Spain touching this Oblation made this Decree which Gratian and others ignorantly alledge as a fragment of a Letter of Pope Julius unto the Egyptians Concil 3. Bracar c. 1. al. 2. We have been informed that certain Persons puffed up with a Schismatical ambition do offer Milk instead of Wine at the Holy Offertory contrary to the command of God and contrary to the institution of the Apostles and that there be others which do not offer at the Sacrament of the Cup of our Lord the Wine pressed out but they communicate the people with Grapes which have been offered and having alledged against this abuse the Authority and Example of Jesus Christ these Fathers add That they should therefore forbear offering Milk at the Sacrifice because the manifest and evident Example of the Evangelical truth hath appeared the which permits only that Bread and Wine should be offered This was also the method of the VI. Oecumenical Council when it transcribes in the 32. Canon that which hath been above alledged of the Synod of Carthage and in transcribing they appropriate it unto themselves and make it their own But if any ask the reason of this proceeding of the Fathers I mean wherefore they thought fit to distinguish the Oblation of the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist from all other things which in all likelihood were promiscuously offered at the same time with these things because these kinds of charitable Oblations had not for their scope the celebration of the Sacrament only I answer that by reason of the silence of Antient Writers it is very difficult to answer distinctly this question yet I will nevertheless thereupon offer my conjectures I say then in the first place I suppose the Fathers have thus done in honour and respect unto the Sacrament imagining that it was very just and reasonable that this Bread and Wine which by consecration were to be made the efficacious and Divine Symbols of the Body and blood of Jesus Christ should not be offered conjunctly with other things which indeed were to be applyed unto pious uses but less noble and considerable and methinks the Fathers of the Council of Carthage give us sufficient ground to conclude so from their Decree Secondly I think that having made this distinction they provided some other way for the maintenance of Church-men and for the relief of the Poor and so there being nothing else wanting but for the Sacrament the holy Fathers judged fit to limit the Oblations only to the species of Bread and Wine the two only things necessary for the celebration of the Divine Mystery Whereunto possibly it might be added that by this wise conduct they would prevent a growing superstition the multitude being but too much inclined to abuse the most innocent ceremonies being always sensual and carnal they might imagin that the Oblations made at the Altar being called First-fruits were of the same kind with the first-fruits of the Law whereof the Oblation sanctified the whole Lump so that the Fruits of the Earth might not be lawfully used until the first-fruits had been first offered unto God upon the holy Table as if without this Sanctification the use had been unlawful I cannot see but it may be so inferr'd from the words of Theodoret who speaking of the Oblation which the Church makes of the Symbols of the Body and Blood of the Lord saith That it sanctifieth the whole Lump by the first-fruits Theod. in Psalm 109. And what renders this conjecture the more probable is what S. Austin observed Aug. de Civit. Del l. 8. c. ult That many amongst the Christians
they contented themselves in spreading upon their Communion-Table at the time of celebrating the Sacrament a clean Table-cloth for decency sake which is also practised by the Protestants And as there was but one Altar or one mystical Table in each Church so also the Eucharist was celebrated but once a day which also is the present practice in those three spacious Christian Communions above mentioned as the same Authors testifie whom we have alledged as Witnesses Id. cap 84. Alvarez observing further that the Abassins found fault with the Mass of the Romanists for not administring the Communion unto all that assisted Cassander Cassand in liturg c. 26. in his Liturgies has observed That in the Mass or Eucharist of the Armenians all did communicate which doth shew if I mistake not that this custom was very antient seeing this People who are fallen into ignorance and multiply the number of Ceremonies rather than lessen them have been careful faithfully to preserve it And we find by a Letter of Leo the First Bishop of Rome writing unto Dioscorus Bishop of Alexandria That in his time viz. in the fifth Century the Sacrament was not celebrated but once a day in each Church if it were not that the numbers of people were so great that the Church could not contain them which happened upon great Festivals in that case he adviseth Dioscorus to do at Alexandria as they did at Fome that is to re-iterate the Celebration of the Sacrament as often as the Church should be filled with a new Assembly Leo. 1. Ep. 81. c. 2. When any great Festival saith he makes the Assembly more numerous and that there meets together so great a number of Believers that one Church cannot contain them there is no question to be made but the Oblation of the Sacrifice must be renewed fearing lest that if only the former should be admitted unto this Worship the rest should seem to be excluded whereas it is a thing very just and reasonable to offer another Sacrifice at each time that the Church is filled with the presence of a new Assembly for if in keeping the custom of one only Mass those only which came first should be admitted to offer the Sacrifice of necessity some part of the people must be hindered from their Devotion Behold then the custom and practice of celebrating the Eucharist but once a day in each Church in the fifth Century both in East and West at Rome and at Alexandria excepting only such occasions as have been mentioned wherein it was permitted and could scarce be avoided to do otherwise than contrary to the usual custom it is said That Pope Deodat gave first this permission because 't is reported in his life in the Pontifical Book Apud Cassan in Liturg. c. 35. That he instituted a second Mass amongst the Clergy upon which words Verbetanus hath this observation Because that at that time there was but one Mass sung in the Church as the Greeks do which the antients thought best for edification I think both the unity of one Altar and the celebration of one Sacrament in one Church upon one day may be gathered from the Lausiack History of Palladius who wrote in the fifth Century for he makes mention of a great Church which was in the Mount of Nitria where there were eight Priests to conduct it Pallad Hist Lausiac c. 6. and observes That whilst the chiefest of them lived neither of the others could consecrate nor censure Apud Cassian in Litur c. 35. nor preach St. Francis writing unto the Priests of his Order conjures them Not to celebrate Mass but once a day in the places they shall dwell in after the example of the Church of Rome and if there be several Priests in the same place that but one of them do celebrate Goar in Euch. p. â—6 and the rest content themselves in hearing him Goar upon the Euchologie of the Greeks saith That for this cause there was not formerly at Rome nor at Paris nor in all the East but one Priest to each Church but that Churches were frequent that the people might satisfie the motions of their Piety and Devotion Apud Cassan uoâ— supra and Cochleus writing against Musculus a Protestant confesseth That within 400 years Altars have exceedingly multiplied But having sought for the place of consecrating the Eucharist let us consider the matter of Chalices and Patins the two sorts of vessels used both for the Consecration and distribution as for the Bread of the Sacrament it is put upon a Dish or Plate on a Linen-cloth and because this Bread after Consecration is called the Body of Jesus Christ this linen on which 't is laid is called the cloth of the Body there be some which call it Palla either for that it covers the sacred mystery or because it serves for a Vesture or Covering unto the Typical Body of Jesus Christ upon the Holy Table Optar l 6. p. 98. Optatus reproacheth the Donatists that they had taken away these Body Clothes and these Linens and that they had washed them as if they had been dirty and Victor Vict. Vitens de persec Afric l. 1. not of Vtica as he is commonly called but of Vita complains that Proculus Executioner of the cruelties of Gensericus King of the Vandales against Catholicks That he had made Shirts and Drawers of them this Body-cloth was to be of very fine Linen and not of Silk Raban de instit cleric l. 1. c. 33. nor of Purple nor of any coloured stuff as Rabanus Archbishop of Mayence reports which refers this ordinance unto Pope Silvester others refer it unto Pope Eusebius Venerable Bede Beda in c. 15. Marc. speaking of the action of Joseph of Arimathea who having obtained of Pilate the Body of Christ carried him in a sheet and makes this reflection Thence is taken the custom of the Church of celebrating the Sacrifice of the Altar not upon Silk or coloured stuff but upon Linen as the Body of our Lord was buried in a clean Linen Sheet Which he attributes unto Silvester as well as Rabanus Isid Pelus l. 1. Ep. 123. from whence S. Isidore of Damieta saith This clean Linen which is spead at the Celebration of the Divine gifts is the Ministry of Joseph of Arimathea for as he buried the Body of Jesus having wrapped it in a Sheet so also we consecrate the Shew-Bread upon a Linen or Table-Cloth Some write that in Italy and in Germany they use two Corporals of fine Linen whereas in France there was but one Radulph Tungrens de can observant propos ult But as for Chalices they were not at all times nor in all places of one and the same matter whil'st the Church was in an afflicted and low condition it is very probable they used Chalices made of ordinary matter and small price but when riches flowed in upon it in Constantine's time there 's no question but metal of
de Medicis desired of the Pope by her Letters dated Anno. 1561. the use of the Language understood stood by the people for the Celebration of the Sacrament as is reported by the President De Thou in his History Lib. 28. We may add unto all that hath been spoken the practice of the most considerable Christian Communions which at this time do celebrate Divine Service in the Vulgar Tongue understood by the People viz. the Abassins throughout Prester John's Country the Moscovites and Russians the Armenians as is testified by the Frier Alvarez the Baron Sigismund James de Vitry and several others the Liburnians the Illyrians or Sclavonians as is observed by Aventine and John Baptista Palat. Citizen of Rome in his Treatise of the manner of Writing Besides which all the Protestants in all parts whose numbers in Europe doth not fall much short of the Roman Catholicks As for the Greek Church which is of a vast extent it is most certain they celebrate Divine Service in pure Greek and not in the vulgar Greek now spoken which hath much degenerated from the Antient Greek but thereunto two things are replyed first that the Corruption hapned unto the Language of the Greeks under the Tyranny of the Turks is arrived but of late days so that before that time the Greek Church celebrated all their Divine Service in a Language understood by the People Secondly that how great soever this Corruption is it could not hinder but the Greeks in the decay of their Language which arrived by little and little and by degrees but that they were instructed from Father to Son in the understanding of the antient Liturgies of St. Basil and of St. Chrysostom which they make use of and that by that means notwithstanding the alteration befaln their Language they understand the things therein expressed Therefore the people make at this present the same Answers which they did heretofore the 123. Constitution of the Emperor Jovinian who lived in the VI. Century may take place in this matter of the Language understood by the people in Divine Service for he commands that they should with a loud voice repeat the Prayers made in the Celebration of the Eucharist and in the administration of Baptism to the end the people might understand it and grounds his Decree upon what St. Paul saith in the fourteenth Chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians But in fine if any now demand the reason wherefore the Latin Church which could and ought to celebrate Divine Service in the Latin Tongue during the time that Language was commonly used amongst the People in the West and wherefore they should obstinately persist in doing it in the same Language although for several Ages it hath been of no use amongst these Nations excepting in the Schools and wherefore they Anathematise in the Council of Trent those which say Sess 22. cap. 9. That the Mass ought to be celebrated only in the vulgar Tongue I answer that I pretend not to answer this question of my self but shall only say that there are several which believe she hath so done that the people should not perceive and take notice of several passages in the Mass which do not as they say agree with their Faith and Belief but as it is for the Reader to judge of these matters and not for me so I will conclude this consideration with the words of John Belet in his Summ of Divine Offices Apud Cassan in liturg c. 36. In the primitive Church saith he it was forbidden to speak in divers Languages unless there was some one present that could interpret for what would it avail to speak if one did not understand thence also came the good and wholesom custom observed a long while in the Church in sundry places that after the Gospel was pronounced literally it was expounded unto the people in the vulgar Tongue but what must be done in our days where 't is very rare to find any that read or attend or understand it which see which act or be careful Doth it not appear now that what the Prophet said is accomplished The Priest shall be like one of the People It seems then 't were better to hold ones peace than sing and be silent than dance CHAP. VII Of the Ceremonies and of the manner of Consecration JESVS Christ celebrated his Sacrament with so much simplicity and so few Ceremonies according to the Nature of his Gospel which is wholly Spiritual that there is none appears besides the action by which he took the Bread and that by which he blessed and consecrated it immediately after having taken Bread he gave thanks and blessed it to make it the Sacrament of his Body Just Mart. Apol. 2. vel 1. St. Justin Martyr represents unto us at large all that was practised in his time that is about the middle of the second Century in the Celebration of this venerable Sacrament but there are no other Ceremonies appear in consecrating it but only that after the Minister had ended his Sermon and then prayed and that the Believers when Prayer was ended saluted each other there was presented unto him Bread and a Cup wherein was Wine mingled with Water which he having taken he blessed and praised God and gave thanks that he was counted worthy to partake of those things In the Liturgy of the pretended Denys the Areopagite Den. Areop hierarch Eccles c. 3. some of the Deacons and Ministers with the Priests set the Holy Bread upon the Altar and the Cup of Blessing then he that officiates doth pray Give the Blessing unto all that are present wishing them Peace then having washed his hands he consecrates the Mysteries by Blessings and Praises In that which is in one of the Books of Constitutions called Apostolical although they be neither of the Apostles nor of St. Clement their Disciple the Deacons as in that of the pretended Denys bring the Elements viz. the Bread and Wine unto the Altar where the Bishop is with two Priests one at each side and also two Deacons at the ends of the Altar with little Fanns to drive away Flies and other little insects fearing lest any should fall into the Cup after which the Bishop having blessed the people and warned them to lift their hearts on high the people answering We lift them up unto the Lord he makes a pretty long discourse praising God and exalting the wonders of his Works concluding by reciting the sufferings and death of Jesus Christ and of the History of the Institution of the Sacrament then he consecrates and by a prayer which he addresses unto God whereof we shall take occasion to speak when we consider the form of Consecration or the Consecrating Liturgy In the Liturgies attributed unto St. James St. Mark St. Peter St. Basil St. Chrysostom and unto divers others almost the same thing is to be seen and if there be any alteration either for diversity or the number of Ceremonies it
differ in words yet tend to the same sense and contain one and the same Doctrine some instead of saying that there is offered Bread and Wine unto God have said that there were offered unto him the first-fruits of his Creatures that is to say things which he gives us for our nourishment Iren. l. 4. c. 32. so it is that St. Irenaeus expressed himself when he said That the new Oblation of the New Testament which the Church offers unto God throughout all the World is an Oblation of the first-fruit of his gifts that is of the Food which he hath given us Ibid. or as he saith afterwards of the first-fruits of his Creatures which he explains afterwards by Bread and by Wine which are Creatures of this World Others have spoken positively of Bread and Wine Just Martyr dial cum Tryph. p. 260. Macar Hom. 27. as St. Justin Martyr who makes the Sacrifices of Christians offered in all places in the Sacrament to consist of Bread and Wine St. Macarius an antient Anchorite was of the same mind when he observed that the primitive Believers knew not that Bread and Wine was offered in the Church to be the Antitype or the Figure of the flesh and Blood of our Lord. l. 1. ep 401. Thence it is that St. Isidore of Damietta confesseth unto Rabbi Benjamin That the Oblation of Christians is an Oblation of Bread Fulgent ad Pet. de side c. 19. That St. Fulgentius saith That the Catholick Church doth not cease to offer unto God throughout the world a Sacrifice of Bread and Wine That venerable Bede one of the greatest lights of the Church of England in the VIII Bed in Psal 133. t. 8. Id. de tabern l. 2. c. 2. t. 4. Century taught That our Lord had changed the Sacrifices of the Law into Sacrifices of Bread and Wine and that whereas the Antients celebrated the Sacrament of the passion of our Lord in the flesh and blood of Sacrifices we celebrate it in the Oblation of Bread and Wine That the Author of the Commentary of the Epistle to the Hebrews attributed unto Primasius but which is of Haimon of Halberstad or of Remy of Auxerre and by consequence at least of the IX Century declares In c. 5. ad Hebr. That the Lord left unto his Church these two gifts Bread and Wine to offer them in remembrance of him Amalar. praesat 2. l. de offic l. 3. cap. 25. And that Amalarius Fortunatus seeks a Sacrament of Jesus Christ in the person of the Priest offering Bread Wine and Water and that he saith that the Sacrificer recommends unto God the Father that which was offered in stead of Jesus Christ That others not contented to speak of an Oblation of Bread and Wine have added the quality of this Bread and Wine saying that they were Sacraments of the Body and blood of Jesus Christ The Author of the Commentary upon Genesis attributed unto Eucherius Bishop of Lyons thus expresses his thoughts Eucher in Genes l. 2. c. 18. It hath been commanded saith he that Christians should offer in Sacrifice not the bodies of Beasts as Aaron did but the Oblation of Bread and Wine that is to say the Sacrament of his body and blood Words which are yet seen in St. Isidore Archbishop of Sevill Isidor Hisp in Gen. c. 12. and which shew that where any of the Fathers instead of these words that is to say the Sacrament of his body and blood have said that is to say his Body and Blood as St. Cyprian and the Commentary upon the Epistle to the Hebrews under the name of Primasius it must of necessity be taken in the sence of St. Eucherius and St. Isidore otherwise they would be made to clash amongst themselves and those would be made to seem Enemies whose Doctrine differed not from one another as will evidently appear if the passages of the one are compared with the others and if the terms and expressions of the latter are carefully heeded with what went before and follows after It is also by the same Principle that the same St. Isidore saith elsewhere Idem de Allegor Idem de voc c. 26. That the Sacrament of the Body and blood of Christ that is to say the Oblation of Bread and Wine is offered all the world over and that Christians do not now offer Jewish Sacrifices such as the Sacrificer Aaron offered but such as were offered by Melchizedeck King of Salem that is to say Bread and Wine which is the most venerable Sacrament of the Body and blood of Christ Theodor. in Psal 109 Heb. 10. As for the famous Theodoret it is true that he speaks not of the Oblation of Bread and Wine but yet he sufficiently explains himself when he saith That the Church offers the Symbols of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ sanctifying the whole lump by the first-fruits Others in fine have shewed their belief on this point in saying that Jesus Christ offered and that we offer in the Eucharist the same things Melchisedeck offered It is what Clement of Alexandria meant by these words That Melchisedeck presented Bread and Wine Clem. Alex. Stromat l. 4 p. 539. Cyprian Ep. 63. a Food sanctified in Type of the Sacrament And S. Cyprian when he said That our Lord offered unto God the Father the same Sacrifice which Melchisedeck had done that is Bread and Wine to wit his Body and Blood For as he saith again not to leave the least doubt in the mind of the Reader Ibid. We see prefigured in the High Priest Melchisedeck the Sacrament of the Sacrifice of our Lord as the Divine Scripture testifies when it saith and Melchisedeck King of Salem brought Bread and Wine Thence it is that he observes in the same little Treatise some lines after the words before mentioned Ibid. That the Lord accomplishing and perfecting the Image of his Sacrifice offered Bread and the Cup mixed with Water And Eusebius Bishop of Caesarea doth not he say Euseb demonst l. 5. c. 3. That Jesus Christ doth at present accomplish by his Servants as Melchisedeck did all the Sacrifice that there is to be performed amongst men that Jesus Christ first of all and then all his Ministers do by Bread and Wine declare and shew the Mysteries of his precious Body and Blood and that Melchisedeck having foreseen these things by the Spirit of God made use before of the types of future things the Scripture witnessing that he brought out Bread and Wine It was also if I mistake not the meaning of S. Ambrose when going to prove that the Sacraments of the Church were ancienter than those of the Synagogue Ambros l. de init c. 8. t. 4. p. 349. Chrysost in Psal 109. he saith That Abraham which was before Moses received the Sacraments of Melchisedeck Wherefore saith S. Chrysostom said he After the Order of Melchisedeck because of the Sacraments for he offered
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
it that is either to oblige the people to adore it or for some other reason The first that I can find who explained the cause and reason of this Elevation was German Patriarch of Constantinople in his Theory of Ecclesiastical things where he very curiously inquires the mystical reasons of what was practised in the Church and particularly in the celebration of Divine Mysteries a Treatise which most Authors attribute unto German who lived in the VIII Century and some unto another of the same name who was Patriarch in the XII After all the Author of this Theory being come unto the Inquiry of this Elevation crept into the Church about the VI. Century doth sufficiently give to understand that it intended not the adoration of the Sacrament but only to represent the Elevation of our Saviour upon the Cross Germ. Constantinop in Theor. t. 12. Bibl. Patr. p. 407. and that was its lawful and genuine use and end The Elevation of the pretious body saith he represents unto us the Elevation on the Cross the Death of our Lord upon the Cross and his Resurrection also As for the Latins the first that I remember who bethought himself of finding out a Mystery in the same Elevation was Ives of Chartres at the end of the XI Century but all the Mystery that he therein found was no more than had been found by this Patriarch of Constantinople near 300. years before him When the Bread and the Cup saith he are lifted up by the Ministry of the Deacon Ivo Carnens Ep. de Sacrif Miss t. 2. Bibl. Patr. p. 602. there is Commemoration made of the lifting up of the Body of Christ upon the Cross And as this is the first among the Latins who in the Elevation of the Sacrament hath discovered the Mystery of the Elevation of our Lord upon the Cross so also is he the first of the Latin Church if I mistake not who hath writ of this Elevation for there is no mention of it neither in S. Gregory nor in S. Isidore of Sevil who both flourished in the beginning of the VII Century nor in Amalarius Fortunatus nor in Rabunus Archbishop of Mayence nor in Walafridus Strabo nor in the pretended Alcuin Authors partly of the IX and partly of the X. Century although they all of them wrote of Divine Offices and indeavoured to discover the Mystical significations of all things practised in Religion in their times and especially in the Sacrament unless it were Gregrory the first who only left a Liturgy for the Celebration of the Sacrament It s true that at the end of Rabanus his first Book of the Institution of Clerks there is seen a Fragment by way of supplement wherein mention is made of the Elevation whereof we treat but against the truth of the Manuscripts wherein this Fragment is not to be found besides what the thing it self evidently declares that this Famous Prelate was not the Author of it Moreover the Author whosoever he was with German and Ives of Chartres refers the Elevation he mentions unto the Elevation of the Body of Jesus Christ upon the Cross The Elevation of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ by the Priest Adject ad Raban l. 1. de offic Bibl. patr t. 10. p. 586. Hug. de St. Victor l. 2. c. 28. de Miss observat Bibl. Patr. t. 10. p. 1408. and by the Deacon imports saith he his Elevation on the Cross for the salvation of the World Hugh of St. Victor an Author of the XII Century discourseth no other wise of this Mystery The Priest saith he after the sign of the Cross lifts with both hands the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and a little after lays it down which signifies the Elevation of Jesus Christ on the Cross and his laying down into the Grave The Learned of the Communion of Rome agree in all this with the Protestants and James Goar of the Order of preaching Fryers in his Notes upon the Ritual of the Greek Church observes Goar in Eucholog p. 146. n. 158. That it is not certainly known when the lifting up the Host was joyned unto the Consecration in the Latin Church and rejects the Opinion of Durandus who maintained it had never been separated from it and he proves his by the silence of the Writers above mentioned unto whom he joyns the Author of the Micrologue who lived by every bodies confession in the XI Century and the Roman Order which some suppose was writ at the same time And he saith that both these speak of the Elevation of the Oblation Ord. Rom. t. 10. Bibl. patr p. 15. which is true as to the Micrologue but as for the Roman Order it indeed makes mention of the Elevation of the Cup by the Deacon for as for the Elevation of the Host that is to say the consecrated Bread by the Bishop Goar ubi supra I find no mention thereof in the whole Book howsoever Goar gives to be understood that the Elevation spoken of by these two Authors tended not unto Adoration when he observes that it was not joyned unto Consecration but that it was made at the end of the Canon very near the Lords Prayer Hugh Maynard Hug. Menard in Sacram. Greg. p. 373 374 375. a Benedictine Fryer explains himself so fully in his Notes upon Gregory the first in his Book of Sacraments that nothing more can be said than what he hath written Now saith he in the Latin Church as soon as the Bread and Wine is consecrated they are lifted up that the people there present might adore them which practice I do not judge to be antient seeing there is no mention thereof to be found in our Books of the Sacraments Printed nor Written nor in Pamelius nor in the Roman Order nor in Alcuin Amalarius Walafridus Rabanus who have fully explained the Order of the Mass nor in the Micrologue who hath also very exactly laboured in the same Subject Afterwards this learned Fryer observes that it is clearer than the Sun at Noon day if the XV. Chapter of the Author of the Micrologue be considered who would not have failed to have writ of this Ceremony had it been used in his time that is in the XI Century because he makes mention of lifting up the Bread and the Cup together before the Lords Prayer which also appears more at large in the twenty third Chapter of the same Treatise Nevertheless he excepts the Mozarabick Office wherein mention is made of two Elevations of the Host one of which is made presently after Consecration and the other after these words Let us declare with the Mouth what we believe with the Heart but at the same time he saith by Parenthesis if nothing hath been added and to say the truth there is great likelyhood that it is an addition made since the introducing into the Latin Church the custom of lifting up the Host immediately after Consecration that it might be
This is my Blood of the New Testament which is shed for many O. He makes no mention then of the Divinity in shewing the Type of that Passion E. Not any O. But of the Body and Blood E. It is true O The body then was Crucified And venerable Bede Bede in Marc. c. 14. He himself broke the Bread which he presented unto his Disciples that he might shew the fraction of his Body Also it is without all doubt that Christians carefully observed this Ceremony for they consecrated a Loaf greater or less according to the number of Communicants which was divided into several Morsels to be distributed unto each Communicant all the Liturgies that are extant true or false testifie this fraction and all the holy Fathers confirm it Accordingly we read in the life of Pope Sergius who held the Chair towards the end of the Seventh Century That he ordained that at the breaking the Bread of the Lord T. 5. Concil p. 407. Extr. the people and Clergy should sing Lamb of God that takest away the sins of the World Have mercy upon us Hugh Maynard whom we mentioned before hath caused to be Printed at the end of the Book of Sacraments of St. Gregory some antient Manuscripts which contain several Liturgies for the Celebration of the Eucharist and in all these Liturgies which are of the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries the Fraction which we speak of is therein found In that of Ratold Abbot of Corby who lived at the end of the Tenth Century this Prayer is made when the Body is broken O Lord vouchsafe to send if it be thy Will Apperd ad lib. Sacram. Greg. p. 265. thy holy Angel upon this holy and immortal Mystery to wit upon thy Body and Blood for O Lord we break it and be pleased to bless it and vouchsafe to make us fit to handle it with pure hands and senses and to receive it worthily In another of these Manuscripts towards the year 1079. Ibid. p. 276. there is also mention made of the division of the Body of our Lord into several parts and in fine in a third of the year 1032. or thereabouts it is observed That whil'st the Bishop is making the Fraction In Notis p 24. he saith Lamb of God c. and that the Bread being broken he bites in Communicating in part of the Oblation There is frequent mention made of this Fraction in those antient customs of the Monastery of Cluny above-mentioned L. 1. c. 13. p. 58. l. 2. c. 30. p. 141. alibi The Interpreter of the Roman Order who lived towards the end of the Eleventh Century observes what we have already alledged of Pope Sergius And because there were some who were scrupulous because the Roman Order commanded to break the Bread of our Lord he reproaches them by the Authority of the Scriptures and of the Fathers Apud Cassan in litur c. 29. We are informed saith he that some persons of late times do find and think strange that the Roman Order enjoyns the Bread of our Lord to be broken as if they had not read or that they had forgot what is written in the Gospel That Jesus Christ took Bread That he blessed it and broke it and gave it to his Disciples saying Take eat c. and what is read in the Acts of the Apostles That the Primitive Church continued with one accord in the Doctrine and Fellowship of the Apostles and in breaking of Bread and watched in the Exercise of Prayer As for the holy Fathers he saith That forbearing at this time to speak of all others who celebrated the Divine Mysteries as they had been taught by the Apostles and the Evangelists he contents himself to instance in the example of that Woman mentioned by Gregory the First in his Dialogues who smiled when she heard Gregory call that Loaf of Bread which she her self had made the Body of Christ It is upon this custom of the breaking the Bread of the Sacrament that Humbert Cardinal of Blanch-Selva grounds the slander he makes against the Greeks in this same Eleventh Century in that they used Oblations which had been before consecrated during the Lent because that obliged them to separate the Benediction and breaking the Bread from the distribution of it And indeed during Lent they did not fully celebrate the Eucharist but on Saturday and Sunday and on that day they kept some of the consecrated Symboles to Communicate the other days of the Week and so they were constrained to do that at several times which our Saviour did at once when he celebrated his Sacrament Thereupon Humbert presseth his Enemy Nicetas Humbert contr Nicet t. 4. Bibl. Pat. part 2. p. 246. â—id p. 216. B. by the Example of the Son of God We read saith he that the Lord himself gave unto his Disciples not an imperfect but a perfect commemoration in giving unto them the Bread which he had broken and at the same Instant broken and distributed for he not only blessed it deferring till next day to break it neither contented he himself to break it but he distributed it presently after having broke it whence it is that the blessed Martyr Pope Alexander the Fifth after St Peter inserting the Passion of our Lord in the Canon of the Mass saith not as oft as ye do this but as often as ye do these things that is to say that ye bless that ye break and that ye distribute ye do it in remembrance of him because each of these three things the Blessing without the Distribution doth not perfectly represent the Commemoration of Jesus Christ no more than the distribution doth without the Benediction and the Breaking I say nothing here of the Decretal of Pope Alexander which is a forged and a counterfeit piece as are all the Decretals of the first Popes until Siricius it sufficeth that until the days of Humbert and also before it was owned to be true that so its authority might serve to prove the Ceremony of breaking the Bread as a thing essential in the Celebration of the Sacrament also we see that most Christian Communions observe it at this time not distributing the holy Bread unto the Communicants until it be broken in parcels to give a piece or morsel unto each one So it is practised by the Greeks the Moscovites the Russians and the Abassins for they make a Loaf of Bread greater or less either in breadth or thickness according to the number of Communicants so that having blessed and consecrated it they break it into little bits to distribute it unto those who approach unto the holy Table to participate of this Holy and Divine Sacrament From thence it is as St. Austin hath observed that in some places they called the Sacrament the Parcels that is to say the Pieces amongst the Greeks the Fragments that is to say the Portions and Pieces of the Eucharist broken and the holy parcels As for the Latin
Sacrament It suffers only the Ministers of the Altar he means all the Clergy to draw near and enter into the place where the Altar was and there to Communicate Concil Tol. â— c. 18. The fourth Council of Toledo assembled Anno. 633. hath left us this Canon After the Lords Prayer and the joining of the Bread and the Cup the blessing shall be given unto the people and then in this manner they shall participate of the Body and Blood of our Lord the Priest and the Deacon shall communicate before the Altar the Clergy in the Quire and the people without the Quire And thence it is if I mistake not proceed all the prohibitions that Women and other Lay People should not enter into the close where the Altar Herard in cap. t. c. 24. and the Sacramental Table was as when Herard Archbishop of Tours ordered Anno 858. That the Women and Lay Persons should not approach the Altar it was probably what Pope Leo the fourth intended when he made this Decree as is seen in his life That whilst the solemnities of the Masses were celebrated no Lay Person should presume to stand in the Presbytery that is to say Vit. Leon. 4. t. 6. Concil p. 416. D. in the Quire or sit or enter therein but only such as are consecrated and appointed to perform Divine Service The Council in Trullo Anno 691. doth except the Emperour whom it permits to enter into the Sanctuary when he would offer his Oblation unto God Concil in Trullo c. 69. That it is not permitted say the Fathers unto any Lay Person to enter into the Sanctuary yet we do not pretend by virtue of a very antient Tradition to include the Emperors Majesty in this prohibition when hâ— desires to present his Oblations unto the Creator Balsamon Patriarch of Antioch and one of the most famous Canonists amongst the Greeks doth extend much farther this priviledge granted unto the Emperor he refutes their Opinion who restrain this liberty unto the time that the Emperor made his offering at the Holy Table as if he had not liberty to enter therein to offer unto God other acts of Adoration Balsam in can 69. Trullan For my part saith he I am not of that Opinion for the Orthodox Emperours who do make Patriarchs by Invocation of the Holy Trinity and which are the Lords anointed do without any opposition enter when they please into the Sanctuary and approach unto the Altar as often as they will But the Greeks having no Emperour of their Religion groaning for a long time under the Tyranny of the Turks there is none amongst the Lay people which partake of the priviledge which their Monarch and Sovereign enjoyed formerly therefore after the Clergy have participated of the Sacrament to wit him that celebrates either Bishop or Priest in the midst of the Altar the other Priests round the Altar and the Deacon behind but all generally within the rail of the Sanctuary the Lay people communicate without for the doors of that place being open the Deacons go out to distribute the Sacrament unto the People and the place where the Celebration is made is a little higher than the rest of the Quire as James Goar hath observed an Eye witness Goar in Encholog p. 150. n. 171. who also observes that the same was practised amongst the Latins in S. Jerom's days and proves it by these words of this holy Doctor writing against the â—uciferians Id. p. 151. n. 179. It pertains unto the Bishop to handle the Body of our Lord and from a higher place to distribute it unto the people It is very probable that all those who make profession of the Religion of the Greeks as the Muscovites and the Russians do observe the same custom it is also very near the same manner which is observed in communicating the people in Prester John's Country according to the report of Francis Alvarez a Portugueze that had travelled in those Countreys many years for he writes that the Seculars and Lay folks Alvar. de Aethiop c. 11. are near the chief door of the place where the Clergy is and it is there that both Men and Women receive the Communion As for the Posture and Gesture of the Communicant which is the last circumstance we intend to examine in this Chapter it is certain that when the Lord distributed his Eucharist unto his Disciples they were almost lying along that is leaning a little one upon another because that was the manner of eating at that time amongst the Jews and other Eastern Nations and that the Disciples changed not their posture in receiving the Sacrament but continued in the same posture they were in during the Supper of the Passover And because St. John the beloved Disciple leaned on the Body of our Lord Jesus Christ the Scripture mentions that he lay on his breast at the Table or leaned on his bosom the Christians of the following Age drew near and approached unto the holy Table presently after Consecration there to receive the sacred Symbols of their redemption as may be gathered from Justin Martyr's Liturgy where we do not see any Ceremony nor any kneeling practised by the Communicants in participating of this Divine Mystery only that going before unto the Communion they gave unto each other the kiss of Charity in token of their Love and Union whereof this venerable Sacrament was to be a more strict tye and from hence it is that in all the Liturgies the faithful are warned to kiss each other before they appear at the Lords Table although this warning is given in some sooner in others later but in all it is before the Communion in those very Liturgies which we have remaining we do not find any alteration to have hapned in the posture of the Communicant For after having shewed the Sacrament unto the people and invited them unto the Communion by these words Holy things are for the Holy each Believer draws near with the motions and desires of Piety and Devotion which he ought to have to partake worthily of this Divine Sacrament Denys Bishop of Alexandria gives sufficiently to understand Apud Euseb hist l. 7. c. 9. that in his time that is in the third Century the Communion was received at the holy Table standing and not kneeling when speaking of a certain Believer which often appeared at the Lords Table to partake of the Eucharist for he useth a term that properly signifies to present himself and to be there standing Vales in Euseb hist l. 7. c. 9. p. 145. which gave occasion unto this observation of Mounsier de Valois The Believers which were to communicate drew near the Altar and there they received from the Priests hand the Body of Jesus Christ standing and not kneeling as is at this day practised Tertullian had spoke before Denys of this custom of Communicating standing in his Book of Prayer Tertul. de Orat. c. ult wherein he speaks of
standing at the Altar of God that is to say at the Sacrament Table and St. Chrysostom informs us in one of his Homilies that it was so practised even in his time Chrysost t. 1. Hom. 22. de Simult ira p. 260. when he exhorts the Communicants or at least when he observes That they presented themselves at the Holy Table and that they there assisted standing on their legs But because this Sacrament is an Object worthy the respect of a Christian because it is the Memorial of the death of his Saviour and at the same time of his love and charity a bond of his Communion with him and an efficacious means savingly to apply unto him the holy Fruits of his bitter death and sufferings St. Cyrill of Jerusalem Cyrill Hiâ—roâ— Mystag 5. at the end of the IV. Century will have his Communicant approach unto the Holy Table not with the hand open and the fingers stretched out but in supporting the right hand with the left that he receive in the hollow of his hand the Body of Christ or as he says some lines before the Antitype of the Body of Christ that he takes care not to suffer any crum to fall to the ground and that having in this manner Communicated of the Body of Christ he draws near unto the Cup having the Body a little bowed in way of Adoration or Veneration to shew the religious respect with which we should participate of these Holy Mysteries The VI. Can. 101 t. 5. Concil Goarâ— in Euchol p. 150. Oecumenical Council ordained something of this kind to wit that one should present himself at the Communion holding his hands in form of a Cross which the Greeks observed a long while after and their Clergy observe it still at this day but as for the people for some time past they receive the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament both together in a spoon but I do not find that the people which came to the Communion were obliged to set themselves in Posture or Gesture of those which adore until that in the XIII Century the Adoration of the Sacrament was established in the Latin Church for this bowing of the Body which St. Cyrill desires is not properly the posture of him who really doth adore because he which adores prostrates himself on his knees before the Object of his Adoration to shew the motions of the profound humility of his Soul and his self-denial before him unto whom by this action he confesseth that he is but dust and ashes But as for St. Cyrill he only desires a little inclination of the Body in approaching unto the Mystical Table to shew the sentiments of veneration and respect which one ought to have for so great a Sacrament not to insist upon what the Eastern Council above mentioned was content to ordain three hundred years after St. Cyrill that we should go unto the Communion with the hands in form of a Cross without mentioning the bowing of the Body which St. Cyrill himself doth not prescribe unto the Communicant but for the reception of the Holy Cup. John Damaseen who borrowed of St. Cyrill and of the VI. Council what he saith of the posture of the Communicant in his time that is in the VIII Century doth not speak a word of this inclination of the Body Goar in Enchoi p. 1â—0 in Goars Notes upon the Ritual of the Greeks And what yet perswades me that Believers communicated standing in the antient Church and that this custom was always practised in the greatest Christian Communions excepting the Latin which changed this custom in the XIII Century is that besides the Greek Church which is of a very large extent and wherein they Communicate standing the Abassins who also make a very considerable Christian Communion do no otherwise receive the Sacrament Alvar. ubi supr During the time the Communion is distributed saith the same Priest Alvarez they are all standing Now it is most certain that the Christians which are fallen into ignorance as for example the Abassins and the Greeks have not taken away any antient customs but rather have added to the number of those observed by the antient Church which is the usual practice of ignorance so to do and if the custom of Communicating standing be still kept in the Eastern Churches it may also be affirmed it was observed in the West seeing that before the Latin Church had introduced in its service the Elevation of the Host to oblige the people to adore it and by consequence before the people were obliged to receive the Communion kneeling a considerable Body of Christians had separated from her and broke off which Body retained and practised the custom of Communicating standing as do at this time the Protestants of Europe called Calvinists excepting those of Holland who Communicate sitting and those of England who kneel in receiving the Communion but their Doctrine declaring sufficiently what they believe of the Sacrament it is easy to see that their kneeling is not addressed unto what they receive from the hands of the Priest at the Holy Table but only unto Jesus Christ who is in Heaven and whom they profoundly adore in the Act of the Communion as him who hath purchased for them this great Salvation whereof they are about to Communicate in receiving his Divine Sacrament and of himself by means of his Sacrament who dyed for their Sins and is risen again for their justification The same may also be said of the Protestants called Lutherans although their belief in this point is different from the belief of those in England for in that they kneel at receiving the Communion it is a token of the Adoration which they give unto Jesus Christ but it cannot be said without injustice that they address this Adoration unto the Sacrament because they hold and believe that it is the substance of Bread and Wine after Consecration and farther they do not render this Act of Adoration unto Jesus Christ in vertue of what they believe of his presence in the Sacrament because if so then all those in the assembly should kneel during the Celebration of the Mystery and yet it is only him that Communicates that kneels in the moment that he receives the Sacrament But before I leave this circumstance it may not probably be unnecessary to instance some customs that were practised in the antient Church in the act of the Communion for I find that Lay persons after having received the Sacrament at the hands of the Bishop or Pastour did kiss it It is what St. Jorom mentioneth in his Book against John Bishop of Jerusalem Hieron Ep. 62 Is there any one that hath Communion with you by force is there any one that after having stretched out his hand turns away his face and that in receiving the Holy Food gives you a Judas kiss Monsieur de Valois in his Notes upon Eusebiâ—s his History cites these words of Paul the Deacon speaking of the
understood the sub-Deacons which shews that the Deacons were not comprised in the prohibition which was made unto these Ministers Also the IV. Council of Carthage suffers the Deacons to administer unto the people in case of necessity Concil Carthag 4. c. 38. Ambros de offic l. 1. c. 41. the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Lord even in the presence of the Priest but by his order St. Ambrose speaking of the Deacon and Martyr St. Lawrence saith that he distributed the Cup and St. Leo in a Sermon where he treats of his Martyrdom Serm. infestiv Laurent and of his Triumph advanceth his Dignity by administring of the Sacraments and elsewhere making the Panegyrick of St. Vincent who was also a Deacon and Levite In nativit Vincent c. 2. he saith that he administred the Cup of our Lord Jesus unto Believers for their Salvation George Cassander alledgeth in his Liturgies these words of a certain Book which treated of all the Divine Offices Apud Cassandr in liturg c. 31. The Deacons are those unto whom it belongs to set in order upon the Holy Table the offerings of the people which are to be consecrated and after the Consecration to distribute the Mysteries of the Body and Blood of our Lord unto the people And in the Dialogues of Gregory the First there is mention made of a certain Deacon who being affrighted at the cruelty of the Pagans Gregor l. in dial l. 1. c. 7. as he was administring the Cup unto the people let it fall to the ground whereby it was broken In Spain they administred the Bread and Wine in the VI. Century as appears by the first Canon of the Council of Ilerda assembled Anno 524. In the Greek Church it is the Deacons which administer the Sacrament unto the people and amongst the Abassins the Deacon gives the Bread in little bits and the sub-Deacon the other Symbol in a spoon of Gold Silver or of Wood. But it is needless to insist any longer on a matter so clear and besides which is not of the greatest moment therefore 't is sufficient to know that at the beginning of Christianity the Deacons gave both Symbols unto the Communicants that afterwards they administred but the Cup only he which celebrated giving the Bread although this custom was not so soon admitted in all parts there being some places where the Deacons in the IV. Century distributed the whole Sacrament unto the faithful people and if in some Churches they were disturbed in the possession of their Rights yet nevertheless they have commonly injoyed the priviledge of administring the Cup of our Lord unto Christians after he that consecrated had distributed the holy Bread and it is they who amongst the Greeks distribute the Communion unto the people In the Kingdom of Prester John the Deacon giveth the Bread and the sub-Deacon the Wine as well unto the Clergy as unto the People But this is worth the considering that in divers parts of the West Women were permitted to administer the Sacrament unto the people and forasmuch as this abuse as far as I remember began in Italy Gelas Ep. â— ad Episc â—ucan t. 3. Concil p. 636. Pope Gelasius was also the first if I am not mistaken who indeavoured to prevent it grievously censuring the Bishops of Lucania for giving this liberty to Women and suffering them to serve at the Altar Men being only called unto this Office But it seems that this censure of Gelasius had not all the success as could have been wished seeing that about 500. Years afterwards to wit about the end of the X. Century Ratherius Bishop of Verona in Italy T. 6. Concil p. 431. T. 2. Spicil p. 261. in his Synodal Letters unto the Priests of his Diocese which have passed until our daies for a Sermon of Pope Leo the Fourth was forced to forbid Women to come near the Altar or touch the Cup of our Lord because in all likelihood they administred it unto Communicants And it was not only in Italy this permission was given unto Women but also in divers Provinces of France whence it is That the VI. Council Assembled at Paris under Lewis the Debonair Anno 829. Concil Paris 6. l. 1. c. 15. forbids it in one of its Canons which is yet to be seen in the seventh Book Cap. 134. of the Capitularies of Charles the Great and of Lewis the Debonair his Son a Prohibition which Isaac Bishop of Langres Isaac Ling. can tit 5. c. 7. 11. c. 23. was constrained to renew some time after As for the persons admitted unto the Communion they were Believers therefore the Deacons made the Catechumeni the Energoumeni the penitents and generally all such as were not initiated in the Mysteries of Christian Religion to go out and those people were not only not suffered to participate of the Sacrament but they were not suffered to stay in the Assembly when it was celebrated Indeed that they were not suffered to assist at the Celebration of the Sacrament was not alwaies practis'd amongst Christians seeing that it is most certain that in the two first Centuries and probably a good part of the third they hid not their Mysteries and did not celebrate with the Doors shut as appears by the Works of Justin Martyr which shews plainly that the Liturgies which go in the name of S. James and S. Mark are forgeries for therein is mention of excluding these sorts of persons above mentioned the Deacon making them go out before the beginning of Consecrating the Divine Symbols which is also to be read in all the other Liturgies and I shall not stand to prove this matter being indisputable and owned by all the World the truth whereof is easily to be seen by such as please to read the Liturgies which we have remaining and which by the care taken therein by the Deacons to shut out the Catechumeni the Energoumeni the penitents and the uninitiated do manifestly shew that they have been made since the third Century whatever care the Authors of some of them have taken to shroud themselves under the name of some Apostle or Disciple of the Apostles And if only Belivers were obliged to Communicate this obligation regarded them all in general for the Penitents were not thought to be Believers during the time of their penance the sins they had committed and for which they had been censured to undergo the burden of this penance having made them fall from this priviledge and happy state when I speak of Believers I do not mean only such as were grown up and such as were of years of discretion but also Children Therefore we are necessarily ingaged to make two Considerations of the persons of Communicants the first shall treat of the Communion of Adults the second that of Children As for the Communion of persons of Age and years of discretion there is no question to be made but they were all obliged to Communicate when
steeped therefore we will rest satisfied with alledging that which properly relates to the Subject in hand T. 4. Concil p. 832. We are given to understand that some Persons present unto the people as a perfect Communion the Eucharist steeped And having touched another abuse and having proved by the Scriptures that Milk should not be offered in stead of Wine in divine Sacrifices the Fathers add And whereas they give unto the people as a perfect Communion the Eucharist steeped the example of the Scripture which is alledged where Jesus Christ recommended his Body and Blood unto his Apostles will not admit of it for it is said that he bid them take his Body apart and his Blood apart And we do not read that Jesus Christ gave the steeped Bread unto any but the Disciple which should be known to be him to whom 't was given even him that would betray his Master and not to shew the Institution of the Sacrament We are then arrived at the end of the VII Century without seeing any other attempt against the Communion under both kinds separately but that which was vigorously condemned and censured by the Council of Braga Let us continue to give farther proofs of this use A Council at Paris assembled Anno 829 under Lewis the Debonnair it is the VI. which unto that time was there celebrated this Council I say in the first Book Canon the 45. condemns an abuse which was crept into certain Provinces T. 3. Concil Gall. Where the Women distributed unto the people that is in the Churches the Body and Blood of our Lord and in the 47. Canon it forbids Priests to celebrate Masses any where but in consecrated places unless it be in case of necessity To the end the people should not be without the celebration of Masses and the participation of the Body and Blood of our Lord. De ord Bapt. z. c. 18. Theodulph Bishop of Orleans in the same Century speaking of life eternal To obtain saith he this life we are Baptized and we eat the flesh of Christ and do drink his Blood and afterwards the Church continues the custom of receiving the Eucharist which was bequeathed unto her by Jesus Christ that is when any one is new born by Water and the spirit that is to say is Baptized he is nourished with the body of our Lord and drinks his Blood because that immediately after Baptism T. 7. Spicil p. 174. they received the Sacrament Amalarius Fortunatus It is to be observed saith he that every Sunday in Lent all the believers except such as are excommunicated ought to receive the Sacraments of the Body and blood of Christ Pope Nicholas the First in his answer to the Bulgarians requires T. 6. Concil p. 619. c. 65. that the venerable Body of Christ and his pretious Blood be distinguished and discerned from other meat and that the one and the other be received Regino in his Chronicle of the year of our Lord 869. observes that Pope Adrian the second gave the Sacrament unto King Lothair after that he had sworn that he had dismist for ever Waldrad his Concubine Regino in Chro. ad an 869. and that this Prince received in his hands the Body and Blood of the Lord and that it may not be thought it was a priviledge belonging to Lothair by reason of his Kingly Dignity the Historian saith that Pope Adrian did present the Communion unto all those which accompanied Lothair with these words If you have not been assisting unto Lothair your Lord and King in the sin of Adultery laid to his charge and if you have no way consented thereunto and have had no communication with Waldrad and others who have been excommunicated by this Apostolical Chair the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ be profitable unto you for life everlasting Ratherius Bishop of Verona in Italy De Contempt can part 1. t. 2. Spicileg p. 182. Ib. p. 262. towards the end of the X. Century Let all evil intentions be laid aside as well of those which receive as of those which administer the Body and Blood of the Lord in his Synodical unto his Priests he orders them to warn Believers to come four times a year to the Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ and in his first Sermon of Easter P. 309. Let us saith he celebrate the Feast that is to say let us eat the flesh of the Lord and drink his Blood And again Lay aside wickedness Page 310. if you will eat the flesh of the Lamb of God and drink his Blood And again speaking of him that had unduly celebrated the precedent Easter P. 311. He dared approach to receive the Body and Blood of the Lamb of God And of him that had not followed the example of the Saints P. 313. How doth he presume without sighing and grieving this day to receive the Body and Blood of the Lord And in his second Sermon P. 320. Let us with joy receive the Body and Blood of Christ which was sacrificed for us And in the third Let every one examine himself to see if the Priest hath said true of him that is to say if he hath received the Body and Blood of the Lord with the unlevened Bread of sincerity and of truth Ratherius dyed Anno 974. yet it is true that the practice of administring the Eucharist steeped was introduced into some places about the time Ratherius did write for Hugh Maynard above mentioned amongst several Manuscripts he used in his work upon the Book of Sacraments of Gregory the First makes use of one under the name of Ratold Abbot of Corby written about the year of our Lord 986. wherein it is read that the Bishop should give the Communion unto the sub-Deacons In mingling the Sacrifice that is to say in mingling the holy Bread with the consecrated Wine for as for the Priests and Deacons he will have them to taste with their lips the Blood in the Cup the sub-Deacon holding it And another of John Bishop of Auranch whose title is The antient manner of celebrating Mass which he got from an antient Manuscript of the Priory of Saluza of the Prebends of the Order of St. Austin in Normandy of Vexin near Vernon But it appears by the beginning of the Manuscript cited by Maynard that this John Bishop of Auranch is Author of the piece which he dedicated to Maurill Archbishop of Roan and this John dyed as the same Maynard in his Notes observes P. 277. in the year 1079. there this is to be read That the Priest should communicate not with steeped Bread but according to the definition of the Council of Toledo in all likelihood he means that of Braga in the year 675. The Body apart and the Blood apart excepting the people unto whom he is permitted to give the Communion with steeped Bread not by authority but by great necessity for fear of shedding the Blood of
tells us without falling into a great sin whereof he must be obliged to make great repentance From all which he concludes in favour of the steeped Sacrament and praiseth the wisdom of those who first established this manner of Communicating with the Bread steept in Wine saying That pious men had prudently directed that the little portion of the Body should not be given dry as our Lord had done but that it should be distributed unto Believers steeped in the Blood of our Lord and that by this means it should happen that according to the precept of our Saviour we should eat his Flesh and drink his Blood and that he that feared to sin in so great a matter might avoid the danger And he gives for a reason of this conduct That we eat dry and drink liquid what goes down the throat after having received it in the mouth either together or separately And because some considering that Jesus Christ had given the steept morsel unto Judas did not approve this manner of distributing the Sacrament he saith there 's a great deal of difference betwixt the Eucharist steeped and the Morsel which our Lord gave the Disciple that betray'd him because the actions which have a different occasion cannot agree well together Afterwards taking with many others the Decree of the Council of Braga of the year 675. against the steeped Sacrament for a Decree of Pope Julius he saith this Decree is no longer of force with modern persons and that the customs of the Church which surpasse all others as well in reason as in authority hath overcome this ancient Constitution that it should not be thought strange because the Decrees of other Popes are changed for the like and sometimes upon smaller occasions But although this Author of the XII Century of whom Cardinal Cusa cites something in Cassander in his Liturgies gives us this form of administring the Sacrament with steept Bread as establish'd in his time in the West it cannot be said that it was universally received in all Churches without exception In fine besides what we alledged out of the Micrologue and of Pope Paschal who made his Decree in the XII Century Arnold of Bonneval contemporary with S. Bernard in his Sermon of the Supper of the Lord in S. Cyprian's Works sheweth us sufficiently that in the same XII Century wherein he lived the use of the Cup was not forbidden the people when he saith Apud Cypr. p. 329. ult edit vid. p. 330. It was under the Doctor Christ Jesus that this Discipline first of all appeared in the World that Christians should drink Blood whereof the use was so strictly prohibited by the Authority of the ancient Law for the Law forbids eating of Blood and the Gospel commands to drink it And again We drink Blood Jesus Christ himself commanding it being partakers by and with him of everlasting life And at the conclusion of the Treatise he with several other Doctors of the Church who lived before him in that Believers are partakers of one Bread and of one Cup doth search a type of their union Ibid. p. 33â— or rather of their Spiritual unity in Christ Jesus who is the head of this Divine Body We also saith he being made his Body are tied and bound unto our head both by the Sacrament and by the matter of the Sacrament and being members one of another we mutually render each other the duties of love we communicate by charity we participate with eating one and the same meat and drink one and the same drink which flows and springs from the Spiritual Rock which meat and drink is our Lord Jesus Christ I believe we may join unto Arnold of Bonneval Peter de Celles Abbot of S. Remy of Rheims who lived at the end of the XII Century for in his Treatise of Cloister Discipline which is come to light but within these seven or eight years he speaks in this manner The communication of the Body of Christ T. 3. Spicil p. 99. and of the Blood of Christ poured forth to wit of the Lamb without spot purifieth us from all guilt and from all sin Let us say something more formal Peter of Tarantes Apud Cassand de Commun sub utraque specie p. 1043. afterwards Pope under the name of Innocent IV. writes That the most considerable as the Priests and Ministers of the Altar do receive the Sacrament under both kinds William of Montelaudana in sundry places saith he They communicate with the Bread and Wine that is to say with the whole Sacrament And Peter de Palude testifies that in his time It was the practice in several Churches to communicate under the one and the other species Richard de Mediavilla was of the same Judgement with Innocent IV. the one and the other giving for a reason that those unto whom they administer the Communion under both kinds Know very well how to yield thereunto the greater reverence and caution All these saith Cassander lived about the 1300. year of our Lord. Wherefore the same Cassander observes in the same place that Thomas Aquinas who defends the use of communicating under one kind doth not say that this custom was universally received but in some Churches only And to say the truth Christians found so much consolation and benefit in participating of the Cup of their Lord that when in latter times they began to tell them of the danger of effusion to dispose them to the use of communicating under one kind there were several Churches that rather than they would be deprived of the participation of the sacred Cup invented certain little Quills which were fastened unto the Chalices by means whereof they drank the Mystical Blood of our Lord as Beatus Rhenanus p. 438. testifies in his Notes upon Tertullian's Book De Corona Militis and Cassander in his Treatise of the Communion under both kinds p. 1036. both of them in their time having seen of these Quills or little Pipes which were used for communicating the Laity Let us descend yet lower and we shall find about 35. years before the Council of Constance an example of the Communion under both kinds in Rome it self not indeed of the People but of all the Cardinal Deacons for Vrban VI. who began the great Schism which lasted from the year 1378. until 1428. being Elected Pope at Rome Anno 1378. in the place of Gregory XI He solemnly celebrated Mass upon S. Peter 's Altar in his Pontifical Habit wherein all things were performed according to the order of the Rubrick and in fine he with his own hands gave the Communion unto all the Cardinal Deacons with the pretious Body and Blood of Christ as it was alwaies the manner of Popes to do T. 4. p. 306. Thus it was written unto Lewis Earl of Flanders Anno 1378. by Pileiâ—de Prata Archbishop of Ravenna and Cardinal in one of the Tomes of the collection of Dom Luke de Achery But as from the
distribution of both Symbols separately in the latter Ages they came to administer the Bread in the Consecrated Wine so from the distributing the Eucharist steeped by little and little insensibly in some Churches of the West they gave the Communicants only the consecrated Bread a custom which in process of time introduced it self almost into all the Western Churches until that it was established in the year 1415. upon Saturday the 15. of June by this Decree of the Council of Constance Sess 13. t. 7. Concil part 2. p. 1042. This present holy general Council of Constance lawfully Assembled by the Holy Ghost declares discerns and defines that although Jesus Christ after Supper instituted and administred unto his Disciples this venerable Sacrament under both kinds of Bread and Wine yet nevertheless the commendable authority of holy Canons and the approved custom of the Church hath observed and doth observe that this Sacrament ought not to be celebrated after Supper nor to be received of Believers but fasting except in case of sickness or some other necessity allowed or admitted by Law or by the Church and in like manner that although in the Primitive Church Believers received the Sacrament under both kinds yet nevertheless to avoid certain perils inconveniencies and scandals this custom was fitly introduced that those who officiated should receive under both kinds and the Laity under the species of Bread only withall that they should firmly believe and nothing doubt that the intire Body of Christ and the Blood are truly contained as well under the species of Bread as under the species of Wine Therefore such a custom being reasonably introduced both by the Church and by the holy Fathers and that it was a long while observed it ought to pass for a Law which is not allowed to be rejected nor changed by every bodies fancy without the Authority of the Church Therefore they are to be judged erroneous that think it to be Sacrilegious or unjust to observe this custom or this Law and those who obstinately affirm the contrary of what is above said ought to be banished as Hereticks and severely punished by the Diocesans of the places or their Officials or by the Inquisitors of the Heretical evil in the Kingdoms or Provinces where by hazard or on purpose they have attempted or presumed any thing against this Decree according to the lawful Ordinances and Canons which have been seasonably made against Hereticks and their abettors against the Catholick Faith But notwithstanding the severity of this Decree Cassander hath left us upon Record in his Treatise of the Communion under both kinds formerly cited That it is read that Pope Martin the Fifth p. 1037 after the Council of Constance did practise in the solemn Office of Easter the Precept and Formulary of the Roman Order in giving the Communion unto the people under both kinds The same in the same place relates as from Thomas Waldensis That after the Synod of Constance the Pope of Rome did not forbear giving the Communion after the use of Rome that is to say under both kinds unto the Deacons the Ministers of the Altar and unto other persons eminent in Piety and Worth as also unto Rectors of places and considerable Monasteries his Brethren and unto others he thought worthy of so great a Gift He saith moreover That Cardinal Cusa in his Letter written unto the Clergy and learned Men of Bohemia Anno 1452. some years after the Council of Basle declares That until very near his time the Pope at the Feast of Easter suffered the Laity unto whom he had with his own hands given the Body of the Lord to receive the Blood from the hands of the Deacons And that Nicholas of Palerma who assisted at the Council of Basle saith That the opinion of Doctors is That it would not be ill done that the Communicant should also receive the Blood This Council of Basle whereat this Archbishop was present granted unto the Bohemians the Communion under both kinds provided that in all other things they should conform unto the Church of Rome and that they would instruct them to believe that Jesus Christ was contained wholly under the one and the other species All those who are any thing read in the History of those times know that those of Bohemia who differed nothing from the Church of Rome but only in the matter of the Communion under both kinds were called for that reason Calixtins different from the true Taborites but so 't is as it appears by a Letter from George Pogiebrac King of Bohemia that these Calixtins did not quietly enjoy this Grant for in this Letter which was written in the year 1468. and for which we are obliged unto Dom Luke d'Achery T. 4. Spicileg p. 413 414 415. a Benedictine Monk this Prince declares himself plainly to be a Calixtin That he was bred up in this manner of Communicating under both kinds That his Father Mother and Grand-mother had so practised That the Council of Basle had granted Liberty of it unto his Subjects not by way of permission as the Church sometimes tolerates Sins but to the end it should be allowed by the Authority of our Lord Jesus Christ and of our holy Mother the Church his Spouse That in all other things he agrees with the Church of Rome so that it appears by this apologetical Letter which he writes unto Matthias King of Hungary his Son-in-Law that he only desired liberty of Communicating under both kinds as he had been taught by his Father and Grandfather and I doubt not but a part of this Apology will in convenient time and place give sufficient ground for making a clear and certain Judgement of the Belief of the ancient Taborites upon the point of the Eucharist But after all these changes happened at sundry times the Council of Trent in the 21. Session being the Fifth under Pope Pius IV. Anno 1562. the 16. of July after having spoken of the Authority which the Church hath alwaies had in the dispensation of Sacraments to change in time and place what she thought fit the substance still remaining intire it adds Sess 21. c. 2. 3. de doctr That therefore the Holy Mother the Church being sensible of this wholsom Authority in the administration of Sacraments although that at the beginning of Christian Religion the use of both kinds was frequent nevertheless in process of time this custom being changed it was introduced for wise and solid reasons to approve this custom of communicating under one kind and hath commanded it to pass into a Law which shall not be allowed to be alter'd or laid aside at pleasure without the Authority of the same Church And in the following Chapter which is the Third of Doctrine It declares moreover That though our Redeemer as it is said in his last Supper instituted this Sacrament under both kinds and gave it unto his Apostles Yet it must be confessed that Jesus Christ intirely and
that example should inviolably be kept now it declares two several times That Jesus Christ having taken a whole Leaf and broken it in blessing it gave it by parcels unto each of his Disciples Yet I will not deny but that I have observed in the Seventh Century examples of the Sacrament being put into the mouth of Communicants but upon occasions that as I suppose are not to be insisted upon In the Appendix of the fifth Tome of de Achery's Collection is seen the life of S. Magnobode Bishop of Anger 's which is supposed to be written by one that lived at that time and as these sorts of Lives are full of Miracles which those should have done whose actions are to be written amongst several attributed unto S. Magnobode there is mention first made of a certain blind person that being drawn by the great reputation of this Bishop came unto him as he was celebrating Divine Service desiring him earnestly and with a loud voice to restore him his sight this Prelate being touched with his complaints prayed for his recovery and having ended the office of the Mass He put saith the Author into his mouth with the Benediction Vita Magnob c. 9. Append. t. 5. Spicileg p. 137. the perception of the holy Body Secondly there is mention of a young Maid of Quality at Rome who being for three years space exceedingly afflicted with a most grievous Feaver which all men thought incurable she with tears desired to be carried to the man of God Magnobode whose Miracles had already been noised abroad which her Parents resolved to do and carried her to Anger 's where they found him at the same Exercise that the blind man above mentioned had done whom he restored to sight so that understanding the cause of so great a Journey Ibid. c. 5. p. 141. He received them courteously and put into the little Maids mouth the Mystery or the Sacrament of the Body of the Lord which he handled with his holy hands It is evident if I mistake not that these two occasions were extraordinary either if the persons be considered on whom these two Miraculous Recoveries were made or if the exercise wherein they found this Prelate be considered so that there can no consequence be drawn for the practice of putting the Sacrament in the mouth of Communicants In the Life of S. Eloy Bishop of Noyon which is in the same Tome of Dom Luke de Achery's Collection and who lived also in the Seventh Century it appears that this Bishop forbids amongst other things to sing the Songs of Pagans and he gives this reason T. 7. Spiâ—â— 217. That it is not just they should proceed out of the mouth of Christians wherein is put the Sacrament of Christ But the Sacrament being there put either by him that celebrates or him that communicates and moreover the custom confirmed by the Decree of an universal Council in the year 691. requiring Communicants to receive it with the hand and that they should themselves put it in their mouth it cannot be reasonably thought these words of S. Eloy make any thing against the commonly received practice In fine at the end of the Seventh Century it was received with the hand in England which then related unto the Latin State wherein we travel for venerable Bede tells us of a certain man called Caedmon who having passed most of his life as a Secular and without holy Orders at last became a Frier at the request of an Abbess This man falling sick Bed Hist Angl. l. 4. c. 24. and finding his death at hand desired the Sacrament might be brought And having received it in his hand saith the Historian he asked if they were all in Charity with him Since that time there began to appear in the West but not suddenly some alteration in this antient custom but without abolishing it quite for in the Book of the Roman Order written as some imagine in the Ninth or the end of the Eighth Century or as others suppose in the Eleventh which I conceive to be the most likely in the Chapter of the Order of Procession if sometimes the Bishop please to celebrate Mass on Holy daies there it may be seen that the Priests and Deacons receive the Communion with the hand and the sub-Deacons with the mouth Ordo Rom. Bibl. Pat. t. 10. p. 10. ult edit That the Priests and Deacons in kissing the Bishop receive of him with their hands the Body of Christ but the sub-Deacons in kissing the Bishops hand let them receive from him the Body of Christ in their mouth And Hugh Maynard in his Notes upon the Book of Sacraments of Gregory the Great alledges something of this Nature touching the Priests and Deacons relating to the Mass of Illyrica Pag. 383. written as Maynard conjectures a little before the beginning of the Eleventh Century that is towards the end of the Tenth he calls it the Mass of Illyria because it was taken out of the Palatinate Library Pag. 380. and published by Matthias Illyricus a Protestant Lutheran Of this Mass this Benedictine Frier cites these words Pag. 390. Then the Priests and Deacons receiving the Body in their hands it is said unto each of the Communicants Peace be with you But it must not be imagined that this manner of Communicating was peculiar unto Priests and Deacons to the utter exclusion of other Communicants at least in the Ninth Century for we have been informed by Reginon's Chronicle that in the year 869. Pope Adrian the Second at Rome it self gave the Communion unto King Lothair and that this Prince received in his hands the Body and Blood of our Lord Regin in Chron. ad an 869. which is also to be concluded of all those which attended him unto whom the Pope administred the Sacrament I shall then make no difficulty to believe that what the Roman Order speaks of sub-Deacons communicating with the mouth was done by reason of the solemnity of the day on these occasions to distinguish betwixt the sub-Deacons and the Priests and Deacons who are superiour unto them besides that this distinction began not to be made until before the Eleventh Century But in fine if we enter in the Tenth Century we shall find it something divided concerning this custom Ratherius Bishop of Verona died in the year 974. in what we have resting of his works there may be seen the two wayes of receiving the Sacrament with the hand and with the mouth in the second Sermon of Easter he speaks thus But O sadness T. 2. Spicileg p. 314. I have seen some sleight this Council and would to God it were not such as ought to give example unto others that they continually lay snares to destroy even him who puts the consecrated Bread in their mouths saying The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ profit you unto eternal life But in the following page see here what he saith Ibid. p. 315. If they had
c. 7. p. 94. and keep it would be an Act punishable saith the learned Petau and held for a Profanation of this Sacrament and I do not see that any one can justly blame this Severity of the Latin Church seeing they believe Transubstantiation and that what is received at the Lords Table is the adorable Body of the Son of God unto which a Sovereign respect is due the Protestants themselves who have not the same belief would not suffer this abuse and to say the truth it were to expose this august Sacrament unto many indecencies which must needs happen if Communicants should be suffered to carry it home along with them and keep it CHAP. XV. The Sacrament sent unto such as were absent unto the Sick and that sometimes by the Laity THE Sacrament of the Eucharist being a Sacrament of Communion not only with Jesus Christ but also with Believers who find in this Divine Mystery a pretious Earnest of the strict and intimate Union which they ought to have together the primitive Christians which were of one Heart and one Soul never celebrated the Sacrament but that they sent it unto such of their Brethren as could not be present in the Assembly at the time of Consecration to the end that by the participation of the same Bread it might appear they were but one Body with the rest St. Justin Martyr teacheth so much when he saith That the Deacon distributes unto every one of those who are present the consecrated Bread and Wine mingled with Water and that they should carry of it unto those that were absent and accordingly we read in the Acts of the Martyr St. Just Mart. Apol. 1. Lucian one of the Priests of the Church of Antioch who glorified God by suffering Death in the 311th year of our Lord and the last of the Persecution of Dioclesian That he celebrated the holy Sacrament in Prison with many other Christians who were detained for the Gospel sake making his Breast serve for the mystical Table the posture he was put in by the cruelty of his Persecutors not admitting him to do otherwise and that after he had participated himself of the Sacrament he sent of it unto those who were absent I have mentioned this passage as it is related by Cardinal Baronius in his Annals Apud Baron ad ann 311.9 S. although neither Philostorgius nor Nicephorus of Caliste which mention this business to the best of my remembrance say any thing of this circumstance but only that these Believers did visit him in Prison Saint Irenaeus in Eusebius tells us of a custom whereby the Bishops used to send the Eucharist unto each other in token of peace and Communion not considering the distance of place and the Seas over which it was sometimes to pass This holy man writing a Letter unto Pope Victor who had Excommunicated the Churches of Asia for celebrating Easter the fourteenth day of March in this Letter he speaks thus to the Pope 〈…〉 The Priests saith he which have been before you do send the Sacrament unto Priests of the Churches that used that custom And it appears that was commonly done at the Feast of Easter which the Council of Laodicea prohibited by one of its Canons Concil Laod. c. 14. The holy Sacrament must not be sent unto other Churches at the Feast of Easter under the name of Eulogies But so 't is that I find great difference betwixt what is said by Justin Martyr and what is said by Irenaeus the former speaketh of what was done towards the Members of the same Church which could not be present in the Assembly with their Brethren and unto whom was sent their share of the Sacrament at the time when it was celebrated in the Church and the latter touched what was practised by the conducters of Christian Churches one towards another but not at the very time of the Celebration of the Sacrament But if the Sacrament was sent unto the absent it was also sent unto sick Folks It is true great care must be taken in distinguishing betwixt sick Believers and Penitents by sick Believers is understood Christians Baptized who had preserved the purity of their Baptism or at least who had not commited any of those sins which reduced those which were convict into a state of Penance and by Penitents I mean such as after their Baptism were faln into some great Sin which made them liable unto the orders of the hard and painful Penance which was observed in the first Ages of Christianity As for the former I find not in what remains unto us of the three first Ages of the Christian Religion any proof that the Eucharist was given them at the hour of Death this custom not appearing till afterwards what Justin Martyr said not properly regarding the Sick but those that were absent as is confessed by the learned Mr. In. c. 24. l. 5. de Valois in his Notes upon Eusebius his Ecclesiastical History as for the latter I mean the Penitents as they were excluded out of the Communion of the Church this good and tender Mother feeling her self touched with compassion towards those of her Children which breathed after reconciliation and peace used this charitable condescension for their consolation that she commanded to absolve those of this Order which were in danger of Death and at the same time to give them the Sacrament of the Lords Supper as a seal of this reconciliation that they might depart this life full of joy and comfort So it was practised by Denys Bishop of Alexandria in all the extent of his Diocese as he testifies in Eusebius where he saith Aâ—ud Euseb hinor l. 6. c. 44. That he had commanded to absolve those which were in danger of Death if they desired it and especially if they had already desired it before their sickness There are to be seen in S. Cyprian's Epistles who lived at the same time several the like directions touching those which had fallen during the time of persecution but because many were not mindful of desiring reconciliation with the Church from whose Communion they had fallen by their Apostasy untill they were taken with some sickness which endangered their life the first Council of Arles assembled Anno 314. Concil Arclar 1. c. 22. forbids giving the Sacrament unto such as did so unless they recovered their health and did fruits worthy of repentance But this it self shews that it was not refused unto any of those which being fallen endeavoured to rise again by passing through the degrees of Penance and that without deferring to the end of their life ardently desired to be admitted into the peace of the Church The Councils are full of Canons which direct the time and manner of absolving Penitents which was inseparable from receiving of the Sacrament which was given them as the last Viaticum to assure them that they were reconciled unto God in their being so with the Church which was accustomed to seal
this reconciliation and peace in permitting them to participate of this Divine Mystery But if I am demanded Whether this practice of administring the Sacrament unto bed-rid Penitents and after the third Century unto other sick Folks at the time of death doth not presuppose that the Eucharist was kept to the end it might be apply'd in these hasty necessities to speak sincerely I do not see there was any necessary consequence of one of these things unto the other but that also I find no directions thereupon in the first Ages of Christianity which makes me believe they contented themselves then in preparing I mean in Blessing and Consecrating the Bread and Wine to make them the Body and Blood of the Lord at such time as there was occasion to communicate any Bed-rid dying persons To alledge for refutation of the keeping the Sacrament what is written in the XI Century by Cardinal Humbert of Blanch-Selva against the Greeks who reserved the gifts presanctified in Lent were not in my Opinion to argue but trifle because it is certain that a long time before Humbert wrote against Nicetas the Sacrament was kept in the Latin Church it might with more reason be urged against keeping the acrament that the remainder of the Sacrament was in some Churches burnt and in others it was eaten by little Children but although this last custom continued a long time in our France as shall appear in the following Chapter nevertheless I find from the time of Charelemain that is to say in the VIII Century formal directions for keeping the Sacrament Capitul l. 1. c. 161. That the Priests saith this Prince in his Capitularies have always the Sacrament ready to communicate the Sick whether Old or Young to the end they should not dye without the Sacrament Since which time several Ordinances are seen upon the same Subject but before that time I do not remember to have met with any which nevertheless I do not say to assure positively that there were none before the time which I assign but only to declare that I have not observed nor found any on the contrary in the Second decretal Epistle which is attributed unto St. Clement Disciple of the Apostles about the same time it is expresly forbidden Ep. 2. Pseudo-Clem To keep till the next day any part of the Sacrament But in fine seeing it ought to be confessed that in the three first Centuries the Sacrament was sent unto Bed-rid dying Penitents and afterwards unto Believers in the same condition It is requisite to inquire by whom it was sent there is no doubt but for the most part they were Clergymen that carried it unto these sorts of Persons yet nevertheless in such a manner that they made no difficulty to ease themselves sometimes of this care and to imploy Lay Persons young Boys Men and Women to carry it in fine Denys Bishop of Alexandria relates in Eusebius the History of a certain Old Man called Serapion who having Apostatized in the time of persecution was excluded from the Communion of the Church whereunto he could not be restored notwithstanding his earnest entreaties to that purpose but some time after being seized with a violent sickness whereof he dyed he sent one of his Daughters Sons for a Priest who being sick sent him the Sacrament by the Child He gave unto this Youth saith Denys some Apud Euseb hist Eccles l. 6. c. 44. or a little of the Sacrament commanding that it should be moistned and to put it in the Old Mans mouth that he might the easier swallow it down his grand Child being returned steeped it and poured it into the sick Mans mouth who having by little and little let it down presently gave up the Ghost So the Martyrology of Ado Bishop of Vienna that of Bede and the Roman Ad. d. 15 Aug. Apud Baron ad an 260. §. 5. as also the Acts of the life of Pope Stephen the First testifie that during the Persecution of the Emperors Gallian and Valerian Tharsitius Acolyth of the Church of Rome did carry the Sacraments of the Lords Body and this custom need not seem strange unto us if we consider the liberty which was for a long time given unto Christians to carry the Sacrament home with them unto their houses and keep it In the life of Luke the younger Anchoret Combef auct Bibl Pat t. 2. Grac. l. p 986. cum 1014. who lived in the X. Century and which Father Combefis a Dominican hath published at least some Copies part of it we find this Hermit having demanded of the Bishop of Corinth how such Persons as he was that lived solitarily in the Desarts might participate of the Sacrament having no Priest nor Assemblies made in those places I say we find he suffered him and such as he was to communicate themselves although they were Lay Persons and also prescribed after what manner they should do it And Father Combefis in his Notes observes Ib. p. 1014. that the Bishop of Corinth was then in the Bishop of Rome's Diocese is it to be thought any difficulty would have been made of intrusting the Sacrament unto Women in those places where they were permitted to distribute the Sacraments in the Churches unto the people as hath been before recited There is in the VI. Tome of the Councils a Homily in the name of Pope Leo the Fourth T. 6. Concil p. 431. who lived in the middle of the IX Century where Priests are forbidden to give the Sacrament unto Lay Persons Men or Women to be carried unto the sick It cannot then be questioned but the thing was practised to that time and afterwards also for 't is certain this Sermon is neither Leo the Fourth's nor St. Vlrick's as Gretser imagined it is nothing else but a Synodical Letter of Ratherius Bishop of Verona unto his Priests now this Ratherius died towards the end of the X. Century Mr. de Valois in his Notes upon Eusebius P. 138. saith That he hath lately been so informed and we cannot doubt of it because we have the Book it self by the care and industry of Dom Luke d'Achery wherein we find this Decree That no Body presume to give the Sacrament unto a Lay Person T. 2. Spicileg p. 261. Man or Woman to carry it unto the Sick It must then be necessarily concluded that it was so practised in sundry places even in Italy and near Rome until the end of the X. Century The same Mr. de Valois observes upon the words of Denys Bishop of Alexandria above mentioned P. 138. That it was so practised a long time after And he proves it by the Prohibition which Ratherius was obliged to give unto his Priests who without scruple committed the Eucharist into Lay Persons hands to be carried unto sick Folks but because Ratherius was but a private Bishop and that his power reached not beyond his Diocese nothing hinders but it may be believed it was also
practised elsewhere since that time at least we see the footsteps of that custom in France very forward in the IX T. 3. Concil Gall p. 623. Century seeing Hincmar Archbishop of Rheimes doth prohibit it in his Capitularies in the year 852. CHAP. XVI Sundry Customs and Practices touching the Sacrament AMONGST several customs observed by the antient Church touching the Eucharist I find in the first place that they made Plaisters of it for St. Austin makes mention of a Child which being born blind by reason that the Eye-lids were closed and thereby deprived of sight although the Eyes were full within a Physician advising to open the Eye-lids with an Iron instrument Aug. Oper. Imperf contr Julian l. 3. c. 164. His pious Mother saith he would not suffer it but what the Physician would have done with his Lancet she affected with a Plaister made of the Sacrament the Child being then five years old or upwards said that he remembred it very well Secondly the antient Christians buried the Sacrament with their Dead In the life of S. Basil which is commonly attributed unto Amphilochius Bishop of Iconia his Contemporary for they both flourished towards the end of the Fourth Century there is an evident proof of this custom the truth is I would not absolutely ingage that Amphilochius was Author of it on the contrary I take it to be forged and false De Script in an 380. and I find Cardinal Bellarmain of the same Opinion but it is not only now it bears the name of Amphilochius it was attributed unto him a long while since although 't is not easy precisely to know the time that he was supposed to be the Author of it Aeneas Bishop of Paris Aen. Paris t. 7. Spicileg p. 80. writing against the Greeks in the Ninth Century alledgeth something of this life and even what relates unto the custom whereof we seek proofs but he saith not that it was written by Amphilochius he only saith that what he doth alledge may be read in the life of S. Basil Archbishop of Caesarea which was faithfully Translated into Latin word for word by one called Eucivmius we read then in this life That St. Basil dividing the Bread into three parts took one Vita Basil c. 8. in Vit. Pat. l. 1. or as Aeneas reads it that he communicated with great fear and that he reserved the other to be buried with him and that having put the third parcel upon a Golden Pidgeon he waved it upon the Altar or as 't is said afterwards upon the holy Table A Council of Carthage assembled in the year 419. Cod. can Eccles Afric just 1. c. 18. T. 1. Concil Gall. c. 12. condemned this practice in one of its Canons which is the Eighteenth in the Code of Canons of the Church of Africa It hath been resolved not to give the Eucharist unto dead Bodies for it is written Take and Eat now dead Bodies can neither take nor eat This custom still continued in our France in the Sixth Century seeing that a Diocesan Synod of Auxerr did prohibit it in the year 578. Gregory the first in his Dialogues relates the History of a young Youth that was a Frier and that being gone out of the Monastry to see his Parents without the Benediction dyed the same day that he came home and after he had been buried next day the Body was found cast out of the Grave and having again buried it the same accident hapned again then the Friers speedily went unto S. Bennet and prayed him with tears to shew favour unto the deceased Party Greg. 1. dialog l. 2. Vnto whom saith Gregory the Man of God with his own hands gave the Communion of the Body of the Lord saying Go and lay this Body of the Lord with reverence upon his Breast and so bury him which being done the Earth received and retained his Body and cast it out no more Christians had not laid aside this practice at the end of the Eighth Century which obliged the Sixth Oecumenical Council in the year 691. to renew the Prohibition of that of Carthage all which notwithstanding hindred not the practice of it as may be gathered from the life of St. Othmar in Surius for Solomon Bishop of Constance having opened his grave above thirty four years after his death Vita S. Othmar apud Surium an 720. 16. Novemb. De off Eccles Lib. 4. c. 14. found under his head and about his Breast certain little bits of Bread of a round form which were commonly called Olations or Wafers which the Bishop laid again with much veneration near the holy Body Amalarius Fortunatus reports from Bede that when St. Cuthbert was buried they put the Eucharist Oblata upon his Breast And Zonaras and Balsamon observe upon the eighty third Canon of the Council in Trullo That until that time they interr'd the Eucharist with the Dead And the latter doth even judge that it was so practic'd to drive away Devils and to conduct the Believer straight unto Heaven In the third place there were Churches where they burnt all that rested of the Communion it was so practised in the Church of Jerusalem as Hesychius one of its Priests doth testifie in his Commentaries upon Leviticus Hesych in Levitic l. 2. c. 8. in the Church of Constantinople these remainders of the Sacrament were made to be eaten by young Scholars sent for on purpose from School as Evagrius who wrote his History at the end of the Sixth Century doth relate It was saith he an antient custom in the Church of Constantinople Evagr. hist l. 4. c. 35. that when several parcels of the immaculate Body of Christ our God remained young Children were sent for from School unto whom they were given to eat In France almost the same thing was practised but with a little more Ceremony according to the Decree of the Second Council of Mascon Concil Matis 2. c. 6. Epist 2. Clem. assembled in the year 585. And the Second Decretal attributed unto S. Clement commands that all should be consumed at the very time without reserving any part until next day In Spain the VI. Council of Toledo Anno 693. leaves it unto the Liberty of the Churches either to keep these remainders or to eat them and because if the loaf of the Communion had been too big for the number of Communicants of each Church the remainder by reason of the too great quantity might have opprest the stomach of those that eat it the Fathers of the Council to prevent this inconvenience commanded to offer Midling Oblations Concil Tolet. 16. c. 6. according to the use of the antient Ecclesiastical practice the remainders whereof may be eat without prejudicing the health of them that eat it But from Spain we must return into our France there to see the continuation of this practice in the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries and to this end let us examine witnesses which Dom Luke
the reading of Ecclesiastical Antiquity have doubtless found by Experience that sometimes one must travel very far and search many large Volumes before one finds what he looks for and I look upon these dry and barren Places to be like Wildernesses and sad unpleasant Deserts which Travellers are sometimes forc'd to pass over with much difficulty and trouble but they have also observed that sometimes are found without difficulty in the Works of the Ancient Fathers places so rich and abundant that I use to liken them unto those fat and fertile Soils which always answer the Husbandman's expectation and which with Interest restore the pains he with some little cost bestowed upon them We may in the number of these latter sort place those Passages where they have pleased themselves in meditating of the Mystery of the holy Sacrament for not content to have told us that its divine Author called the Bread and Wine his Body and Blood I find them ready to tell us that they were his Body broken and his Blood poured out and that as for them they always considered him at that moment not as sitting upon his Throne in Heaven but as hanging upon the Cross on Mount Calvary expiating the Sins of Mankind and for the Redemption of the World This was in all likelihood what St. Cyprian intended when he said Cypr. ep 63. That the Sacrifice which we offer is the Death of our Lord. And what St. Gregory of Nyss when he testifies That the Body of the Sacrifice is not fit to be eat if it be animated Greg Nys in Resur Dom. Orat. 1. August Psal 11. Hom. 2. Id. Quaest super Evang. l. 2. § 38. pag. 152. tom 4. Id. in Psal 110. that i◠if it be living Thence it is that St. Austin speaking of the Disciples of Jesus Christ saith That they suffered the same which those things did which they eat and he gives this Reason that the Lord gave them his Supper he gave them his Passion And again That now the Gentiles all the World over do very religiously receive the sweetness of the Sufferings of our Lord in the Sacraments of his Body and Blood and that we are fed with the Cross of our Lord because we eat his Body Id. de Doctr. Christ l 3 c. 16 He also makes the eating of the Lord's Body consist in communicating of his Death and in profitably representing unto our Memories that his Flesh was broken and crucified for us St. Chrysostom always represents Christ as dead in the Sacrament * Chrysost◠Hom. 51. in Math. Jesus Christ represented himself sacrificed †Homil. 83. The Mystery that is to say the Sacrament is the Passion and the Cross And upon the Acts of the holy Apostles ‖ Hom. 2. Whilst saith he this Death is celebrated c. then is declared a tremendous Sacrament which is that God hath given himself for the World And upon the Epistle to the Romans Hom. 8. Adore upon this Table whereof we are all Partakers Jesus Christ which was crucified for us And upon the Epistle to the Ephesians Hom. 3. Whilest the Sacrifice is carnied out and that the Lamb Christ Jesus our Lord is slain Hom. 14. And upon the Epistle to the Hebrews Our Lord Jesus Christ is stretched out stain And unto the People of Antioch What do you O Man Tom. 1. Hom. 15. you swear by the holy Table where Jesus Christ lieth slain And in the third Book of Priesthood When you see our Lord sacrificed and dead Tom. 4. l. 3. de Sacerdot the Priest sacrificing and praying and all those which are present died red with this precious Blood And in the Homily of the Treason of Judas Tom. 5. p. 464. Have respect for the matter or subject of the Oblation to Jesus Christ who is held forth slain And upon the Name of Church-yard Ida. 5. p 486. C We shall towards Evening see him which like a Lamb was crucified kill'd slain And again You forsake him seeing him put to death And in fine in the Homily touching the Eucharist Id t. 5 pag. 569 A B. in the Dedication or of Penance O wonderful you are not afraid the Mystical Table being made ready the Lamb of God being slain for you c. and the pure Blood being powred out of the Side into the Cup for your Sanctification We will add unto all this Hesychius Priest of Jerusalem who speak after this manner Hes ch in Le l. 1 c. 2. God made the Flesh of Jesus Christ which was not fit to be eaten before his Death I say he made it fit to be our Food after his Death for who is it that desired to eat the Flesh of God if he had not been crucified we should not eat the Sacrifice of his Body but now we eat the Flesh in taking the Memorial of his Passion Id l. 2. c. 6. And again The Cross hath made eatable by Men the Flesh of our Lord which was nailed upon it for if it had not been set upon the Cross we should not have communicated of the Body of Christ This was also Theodor. t. 3. ep 130. I suppose Theodoret's Meaning when he said Our Lord himself promised to give for the Ransom of the World not an invisible Nature but his Body The Bread saith he which I will give is my Flesh which I will give for the Life of the World And in the Distribution of the divine Mysteries in taking the Symbol he said This is my Body which is given for you or as the Apostle saith which is broken And also in giving the divine Mysteries after he had broken the Symbol and that he had divided it he adds This is my Body which is broken for you in Remission of Sins And again This is my Blood which is shed for many for the Remission of Sins Id. ep 145. p. 1026. A Tom 4. Dial. 1. Cyril Hierof Myslag 5. And elsewhere he calls the Eucharist The Type of the Passion of our Saviour St. Cyril of Jerusalem considering before him what was done in his Time in the Celebration of the Sacrament saith among other Things that we therein offer unto God Jesus Christ dead for our Sins that is to say in as much as we pray him to accept in our discharge the Death which he suffered for us and in our room and stead And St. Fulgentius some time after Theodoret in one of the Fragments of the ten Books he wrote against Fabian the Arrian having repeated the Words of Institution of the Sacrament as St. Paul relates them he adds That the Sacrifice is offered to shew the Lord's Death ex lib 8. Fragm 28 and to make a Commemoration of him which laid down his Life for us Amalarius Fortunatus spake the same Language in the IX Century as shall be shew'd in its place In the mean while it is necessary to observe that all Christians confess that
of the Canons of the Church of Africa and it is there inserted something different but yet in such a manner as doth not alter the Sense Aug. de Civit. Dei l. 17. c. 5. St. Austin is no less positive when he declares That to eat the Bread is under the New Testament the Sacrifice of Christians Cyril in Joan. l. 4. c. 14 l. 12. Hesych in Levit. l. 6. c. 2â— And St. Cyril of Alexandria saith That in the Eucharist Jesus Christ distributed and gave Bread unto his Disciples For the same Reason Hesychius assures us that The Oblation of Jesus Christ is performed in Bread and Wine Eudox. Bibl. Patr. t. 14. p. 130. The Princess Eudoxia Wife unto the Emperour Theodosius the younger may take place amongst all these Witnesses which we have alledged her Deposition being of no less moment than the rest seeing she speaks according to the Instructions given her in the Church when she saith That our Lord having broke Bread gave it unto his Friends Apud Phot. Bibl. Cod. 115. that is to say unto his Disciples An Anonymous Author in Photius his Library assures That Jesus Christ in his Mystical Supper gave unto his Disciples Bread and Wine The sixteenth Council of Toledo Concil Tolet. 16. c. 6. held in the Year 693 saith twice That the Lord breaking a whole Loaf gave it to be taken in parcels by his Disciples And the Council in Trullo Anno 691 Council in Trul. c. 32. take and apply unto themselves the 24th Canon of the Council of Carthage where it is forbidden to offer any thing but what Jesus Christ gave to wit Bread and Wine mingled with Water Secondly The same Fathers testify that the Bread of the Sacrament is Bread which is broken I will not here make use of the Testimonies of those which positively affirm that our Lord did break Bread in his Sacrament as Clement of Alexandria Origen Juvencus St. Hilary St. Austin St. Cyril of Alexandria the Empress Eudoxia the XVI Council of Toledo c. I will restrain my self at present unto those which say that we therein break Bread as the Author of the Epistles under the Name of St. Ignatius for he speaks of breaking one Bread and saith Ignat. ep ad Ephes ad Philad Recognit l. 6. ad sin Pasch 1. there is one Bread broken unto all And the Author of Recognitions observes of St. Peter that he broke the Eucharist Theophilus of Alexandria saith that we break the Bread for our own Sanctification St. Chrysostome that was the object of his Persecution and Harred was of the same Mind when he said Wherefore did the Apostle when he spake of Bread Chrysost hom 24. in 1 ad Cor. say which we break for that is seen to be done in the Sacrament This is also what St. Austin testifies when he saith Aust ep 86. ep 59. Id. Serm. 140. de Temp. c. 2. Fulg. de Bapt. Aeâ—hiop Isid Hispal de Off. Eccl. l. 1. cap. 18. Act. 2. 20. That the Bread is broken in the Sacrament of the Body of Jesus Christ and that what is upon the Lord's Table is divided into little Bits to be distributed And elsewhere that the breaking of the Bread should comfort us St. Fulgentius thus reads the Words of St. Paul The Loaves which we break And St. Isidore of Sevil The Bread saith he which we break is the Body of Jesus Christ. We see also that St. Luke means the Sacrament of the Eucharist by the breaking of Bread which the Syriac Interpreter hath expressed by the breaking of the Sacrament and where St. Luke saith that the Disciples were met together to break Bread he hath render'd it We were met together to break the Eucharist Therefore 't is that the holy Fathers which speak of breaking Bread speak also of dividing it in pieces As when Clement of Alexandria observes Clem. Alex. Strom. l. 1. pag. 271. Aug. cont Don post Col. c. 6. Cypr. de laps Cyril Aleâ— in Joan. l. 4. c. 14. that the Eucharist being divided each of the People took part of it And St. Austin that Judas and Peter received each of them a Piece And St. Cyprian speaks of a Woman which had lockt in her Chest a Portion of the Eucharist There 's nothing more common in their Writings whence came the Terms of Parts Morsels Portions which were common so long time in the Church and which made them say that Jesus Christ gave Morsels of Bread unto his Disciples And that but a little is taken witness what Eusebius saith of a Priest of Alexandria that he sent by a young Boy unto Serapion a little Euseb Hist l. 6. c. 441 Aug. Serm. 35. de verb. Dom. cap. 5. or part of the Eucharist And St. Austin that we receive but a little and are fatned by it inwardly in the Heart Unto this Consideration may be added the constant Tradition of the Church whereon we have largely insisted in the VIII Chapter of the first Part where we have shewn that the holy Fathers have unanimously deposed that the Sacrifice of Christians is a Sacrifice of Bread and Wine In the third place speaking of the Eucharist they say That it is a Aug. serm 34 de divers c. 28. Corn b Eudox. in § 36. Arnob in p. 4. Wheat c Theod. dial 1 Fruit of the Vine d Sedul in op Pasch c. 14. l. 4 the Fruit of the Harvest and the Joy of the Vine e Isid Hisp l. 6. orig c. 19. the Fruits of the Earth f Tertul. cont Marc. l. 1. c. 14. the Blessings of the Creator g Iren. l. 4. c. 34 l. 5. c. 4 8. Creatures of this World h Clem. Alex. Paedag. l. z c. 2. the Blood of the Vine the Liquor of Joy i Cypr. ep 76. 63. Bread made of several Grains Wine pressed out of several Grapes k Orig. contra Cels l. 8. Breads or Loaves in the plural number l Just Mart. contra Tryph. wet ard dry Food They say moreover That it is the Bread of the Eucharist as St. Basil m Basil de Sp. S. c. 27. the Mystery of Bread and Wine as St. Gaudentius Bishop of Bresscia n Gaud. tract 2. in Exod. 14. the Sacrament of Bread and Wine St. Austin o Aug. contra Faust l. 20. c. 13 the Sacrament of Bread and of the Cup as St. Fulgentius p Fulg. ad Monum c. 11. the Sacrament of Bread as Bede q Bed Hom. 2. Fer. de pasch that it is not common Bread as Justin Martyr in his second Apology Ireneus l. 4. c. 34. Cyril of Jerusalem Mystag 3. and Gregory of Nysse in Baptism Christ pag. 802. tom 2. The Fathers rest not there they positively affirm that it is Bread and Wine Clement of Alexandria r Clem. Alex. Paedag l. 2. c. 2. What our Saviour blessed saith he was Wine
their first Shape and in their first Form and are visible and palpable as they were before Pope Gelasius at the end of the fifth Century Certainly saith he the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ which you receive are something that is divine whence also it is that by them we are made Partakers of the Divine Nature and nevertheless they still retain the Nature and Substance of Bread and Wine It was also the Judgment of Ephraim Patriarch of Antioch in the sixth Age Ephraem Anâ—tâ—och apud Phoc. cod 229. The Body of Jesus Christ saith he which Believers receive doth not forsake the outward Substance and hold inseparably unto the inward Grace And that it may not be question'd that he spake of the Sacrament of his Body he adds the same of Baptism saying that it preserves just as the Eucharist doth the outward Form and the inward and spiritual Grace And Baptism Id. ibid. saith he being wholly spiritual and being but one keeps the propriety of its sensible Form that is to say Water and loseth not what it was made A Council of the East assembled at Constantinople Anno 754 declares Concil Const in Act. Nicaeâ— 2. Act. 6. That Jesus Christ commanded us to offer the Image of his Body a Thing chosen to wit the Substance of Bread Ahyto Bishop of Basil Walafridus Straho Ratran will teach the same Doctrine in the ninth Century Ratherius Bishop of Verona in the tenth and the Taborites of Bohemia in the fifteenth Yet it must be confessed there is to be found in the Writings of the Antients a Passage where the Author be he who he will seems to differ from this Belief universally received by the Church in his Time it is in an Easter Sermon attributed unto Caesarius Bishop of Arles who lived in the sixth Century although it be not certain whether it be his or not but so 't is that in this Sermon amongst other things it is said Cesar Hom. 1. de Pasch That the invisible Priest he means Jesus Christ changeth by the secret Power of his Word the visible Creatures into the Substance of his Body and Blood Some would answer that the private Opinion of Caesarius should not take place against the many Testimonies above alledged not being just that one should be preferred before so many the greater part whereof were nothing inferiour unto Caesarius in Dignity and Learning and some surpassed him both in one and the other as St. Chrysostom and Pope Gelasius others in Dignity at least as St. Ephraim Patriarch of Antioch not to mention his Learning which in all likelihood was nothing short of Caesarius if he were truly the Authour of the Sermon which we examine and others in fine in Learning as Theodoret whose Light and Knowledg was incomparably greater and they would not fail here to apply that Maxime of Vincentius Lyrinensis Vincent Lyrinens common already cited in the beginning of this History If sometimes the different Opinion of one Person or of some few which are deceived rise up in opposition against the Consent of all Id. ibid. or at least of much the greater Number of Catholicks Against the Obstinacy of one or of a few more should first be opposed the Decree of an universal Council if there be any Secondly if there are none let the Opinion of several great Doctors that do agree amongst themselves be followed for saith he whatsoever is believed by one particular Person above or against what is received and allowed by all be he Saint Doctor Bishop Confessor or Martyr let it be reputed a low peculiar and close Thing private and particular to himself and let it not have the Authority of an Opinion commonly publickly and generally received This is what several might answer unto this Difficulty and their Answer would not be contemptible Others think more kindness may be shew'd unto Caesarius in reconciling him with the rest rather than reject him for they conceive this Act of Humanity is due unto an Author to give a favourable Construction to his Words and not to make him clash with the Opinion generally received which ought especially take place in things that regard the essential Parts of Piety and Religion because in those Things without endangering our Salvation we cannot separate from the Belief which hath been always received in the Church of God Let us see then how they would reconcile Caesarius with those other glorious Witnesses above-mentioned It may easily be done say they if you consider that the Fathers often speak as Caesarius did although they only understand a Change of Quality which befals the Substance wherein this change is made Tertul. cont Marc. l. 3. l. 1. ad Uxor though nevertheless it is not changed it self for instance Tertullian said That we shall be changed into an Angelical Substance instead of saying that we shall be changed into an Angelical Quality as he elsewhere explains himself So Eusebius said of the Soul of Helen Mother of Constantin the great Euseb de vita Constant l. 3. cap. 46. that she was transformed into an incorruptible and Angelical Substance to signify that she had acquired Angelical Qualities in respect whereof she might assume the Name of Angelical Substance So St. Austin Aug. in Psal 68. Hom. 1. By Sin Man fell from the Substance wherein he was made nevertheless Man continues to be Man but because he lost the Righteousness and Holiness which beautified and adorned his Nature he made no difficulty of saying so And St. Peter Chrysologus speaking of the change hapned in the human Nature of Christ by the Refurrection Chrysolog Hom. 82. saith that our Lord changed Substance which is not true but in regard of Qualities But to come nearer the Sacraments all Christians generally confess that the Water of Baptism doth not lose its Substance Tertull. de Baptism yet that hinders not but Tertullian calls Baptism a divine Substance because the Waters of Baptism receiving by Consecration the Holiness which they had not they are said in some fort to pass into the divine Substance it being reasonable that the Subject should derive its Name from its best and most noble part What then may hinder but Caesarius might say in a good sense of the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament That Jesus Christ doth change them into the Substance of his Body and Blood although the Bread and Wine keep their Substance because he makes them pass into the efficacy of his own Flesh as St. Cyril of Alexandria speaks Certainly it ought not to be thought strange if they consider that Pope Gelasius who wrote about 50 Years before Caesarius Gelaf de duab nat Christ that the Substance or Nature of Bread and Wine still remains as we but now heard for all that saith that the Bread and Wine pass into a divine Substance because the Consecration gives them a heavenly and divine virtue by reason whereof
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
Miles but St. Marsus felt the Eucharist was turn'd into a Scrpent which rouled about him and as he found by the pain he suffered that he was severely punished for his Disobedience and Neglect he had committed at the Communion He cast himself at the Feet of St. Milain and told him what was happened the holy Bishop wept for him all Night Watching and Praying and next Day gave him Absolution and the Blessing and presently after the Serpent took again the Form of the Eucharist and St. Marsus taking it he communicated with Joy which he neglected to do to his Damage It is plain that the Eucharist here mentioned is nothing else but the Bread of the Eucharist which St. Cyril of Alexandria commonly calls by that Name In short this Eucharist was intended for the Communion as appears by the whole Story Therefore St. Milain gave unto each of them a Portion it also appears that Marsus had received some Tincture that the receiving the Sacrament broke the Fast and I find not but the other Bishops were of the same Mind All that is blam'd in Marsus is the having preferr'd the Fast of the Day before the Communion whereas he ought to have preferr'd the Communion before the Fast that is to say that it was better to have communicated with the others and broke his Fast as they had done than to deprive himself of the Sacrament to keep the Fast of the Day Theodoret. Hist Relig. p. 791. because the Sacrament is a Bond of Charity which is infinitely greater than Fasting Therefore the Anchorit Marcion said to Avitus who went to visit him in his Solitude and who made some scruple of breaking his fast to eat with him We know that Charity is more excellent than Fasting But in fine it was believed in our France in the VIth Century as 't was in Tertullian's time that the receiving the Eucharist broke the Fast and it shall appear in the Course of this History that the Greeks believed so in the XIth Century and that they still believe it at present as Father Cellot informs us To conclude if any desire to know the Dioceses of these five French Bishops abovementioned he may understand St. Milain was Bishop of Rennes Albin of Anger 's Launus of Constance in Normandy Apâ—d Eus b. Hist l. 6. c. 49. Serm. 35. de verb. Dom. c. 5. Contr. Donat. post Collat. c. 6. Clem. Alexand. Sâ—romat l. 1. p. 271. Cyril Alex. in Joan. l. 4. c. 14. Victor of Mans and Marsus of Nantes In the seventh place I observe that the Fathers speak of the Eucharist as of a thing whereof but a little is received a Bit a Piece a Portion So the Priest of Alexandria in Eusebius sent unto Seraphion A little of the Sacrament So St. Austin speaks of receiving a little and again That Peter and Judas received each of them a Morsel So Clement of Alexandria said That each of the People took a little And St. Cyril of Alexandria That Jesus gave Morsels of Bread unto his Disciples And so in a number of other places which is not necessary here to mention in a thing not contested and that is owned by every Body In fine having endeavoured with some labour to find if the ancient Doctors of the Church have affirmed as the Latines at this time do that several Miracles are done by the Sacrament August l. 3. de Trinit c. 10. I can find nothing of that Nature on the contrary they have informed me That these things might have been honoured or receive respect as religious but not cause astonishment as things strange or miraculous CHAP. III. Of the Use and Office of the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament HAving seen what was believed and said in this spatious and vast Country of Ecclesiastical Antiquity of the things received in the Sacrament and having examined the Reflections which the Doctors of that Empire have made upon the Words of Institution of this Divine and August Sacrament we are obliged to enquire what they have taught of the Use Office and employ of these sacred Symbols I mean of the Bread and Wine If we will search into their Records wherein the Laws and Maxims of this Kingdom may be found we shall see that those which have had the Government and Direction of it have conceived that the Eucharist is the Sacrament the Sign the Figure the Type the Anti-type the Symbol the Image the Similitude and the Resemblance of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ It 's true 't is not enough to say so the Reader must moreover see the Testimonies where the holy Fathers say so for 't is their Opinions are now in question and not ours Let us then take all these Titles in Order and shew what the ancient Doctors of the Church have said unto each of them at least as far as may be necessary unto our purpose They say in the first place That it is a Sacrament Hil. in Matth. cap. 9. Ibid. c. 30. as when St. Hilary Bishop of Poictiers speaks Of receiving the Sacrament of the Bread of Life in Faith of the Resurrection and that he saith of Judas Ambros de iis qui init c. 9. Aug. Ep. 163. Id. l. 3. de Trinitat c. 4. Id. Serm. ad Infant Facund l. 9. p. 404 405. Isid Hisp dâ— Offic. Eccles l. 1. c. 18. that he was not worthy of the Communion of Eternal Sacraments St. Ambrose calls it The Sacrament of the true Flesh of our Lord. St. Austin The Sacrament of his Body and of his Blood Again he saith That it is a great Sacrament And again These things saith he are called Sacraments Facundus said the same when he saith That the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ is called his Body and Blood and that Believers do receive the Sacrament of his Body and Blood St. Isidore of Sevil in the VIIth Century saith positively That the Bread and Wine are made the Sacraments of the Divine Body being sanctified by the Holy Ghost But being there is nothing more frequent amongst the Latin Fathers than this manner of Speech which continued in the Latin Church until these late times we shall not insist on gathering more Testimonies to prove that the holy Fathers believed that the Eucharist was the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ It shall suffice to warn the Reader Aug. de Civit. Dâ—i l. 10. c. 5. comr advers leg l. 2. c. 9. aâ—â—i that St. Austin teacheth us in sundry parts of his Works that the word Sacrament signifies a holy Sign and that those which desire more proofs of this Expression may see what is said by the Author of the Commentaries attributed unto St. Jerom on the 11th of the 1st Epist to the Corinthians Charlemain in his 4th Book of Images chap. 14. Christian Druthmar upon St. Matth. in the Library of the Fathers Tome 16. p. 361. The second Title we have set down August contâ—
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
Devils by the eating of Meats consecrated unto Idols The Author of the Commentaries of St. Paul's Epistles in St. Jerom's Works interpreting these Words The Bread which we break c. makes this Observation Apud Hieron in c. 10.1 Cor. In like manner it appears that the Idolatrous Bread is the participation of Devils and upon these you cannot drink the Cup of the Lord and the Cup of Devils c. You cannot saith he be partakers of God and of Devils Theodoret said something of this kind upon these Words Theod in c. 10.1 Cor. t. 3. You cannot be partakers of the Lord's Table c. How saith he can it be that we should communicate of the Lord by his precious Body and Blood and that we should also communicate of Devils in eating what hath been offered unto Idols It was also the Language of Primasius an African Bishop Primas in c. 10. 1 Cor. t. 1 Bib. Patr. who makes these Reflections upon the same Words Even so the Bread of Idols is the participation of Devils you cannot have Fellowship with God and Devils Ibid. because you would participate of both Tables Sedulius speaks almost the same The second Doctrine which results from the Hypothesis of the Fathers is That considering that the Death of Christ is the cause of our Life which Life consists in the Sanctification of our Souls by means whereof we have Communion with God which is the lively Fountain of Life and therefore before Conversion we are said to be dead they have attributed unto the Sacrament the vertue of sanctifying and quickning us This is the sense of Theophilue of Alexandria Theoph. Ep. Pasch 2. saying That we break the Bread of the Lord for our Sanctification Hilary Deacon of Rome or the Author of the Commentaries upon St. Paul's Epistles under the Name of St. Ambrose be he whom it will assures us Apud Ambros in c. 11.1 Cor That altho this Mystery was celebrated at Supper yet it is not a Supper but a Spiritual Medicine which purifieth those which draw near with Devotion and which receive it with respect Gelas de duab nat Christ Pope Gelasius testifies That the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Christ render us partakers of the Divine Nature Aug. tract 27. in Joan. In Anaceph Therefore St. Austin will have us to eat and drink of it for the participation of the Holy Ghost Therefore it is St. Epiphanius saith That there is in the Bread a vertue to vivify us which is that influence of Life mentioned by St. Cyril CHAP. IV. A Continuance of the Doctrine of the Holy Fathers ALthough the Holy Fathers have hitherto sufficiently explained themselves and that they have fully declared what was their Belief touching the Nature of the Eucharist in saying That it is true Bread and true Wine and that this Bread and Wine are the Signs the Images and the Figures of the Body and Blood of our Lord but Signs accompanied if it may be so said with the Majesty of his own Person and filled with the quickning Vertue of his Divine Body broken for us called his Body and Blood by reason of the Resemblance because they are the Symbols and Sacraments the Memorials of his Person and of his Death because they are unto us instead of his Body and Blood and pass into a Sacrament of this holy Body and precious Blood and are changed into their Efficacy and Vertue nevertheless if we can discover what were the Consequences of this Doctrine I doubt not but it will yet receive greater Illustration For as it is impossisible that they should have believed the Conversion of the Substance of Bread and Wine into the Substance of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ without admitting the three following Doctrines to wit the eating of the Flesh of Christ with the Mouth of the Body the eating of this same Flesh by the Wicked as well as the Just and the Human Presence of Christ upon Earth So it is also impossible they should deny these three Positions without rejecting this substantial Conversion Therefore I suppose it is necessary to enquire exactly what they herein believed for if they have received them as Articles of their Belief it will be a great Conjecture in Favour of the substantial Conversion notwithstanding what they have already declared But if on the other hand they have rejected them or been far from admitting of them it will be a very great Conjecture to the contrary and at the same Time a strong Confirmation of what they have deposed in the precedent Chapters To begin then our Enquiry by the first of these three Points I mean by the eating of the Flesh of Jesus Christ I say if we consult Clement of Alexandria we shall find he makes a long Discourse in the first Book of his Pedagoge and that in all that Discourse he considers Jesus Christ either as the Milk of Children that is to say those which are Children in Knowledge or as the Meat of firm grown Men that is more advanced in Knowledge but always as a Spiritual Food and mystical Nourishment which requires to be eaten after the same manner as appears by what he saith of the Birth and Regeneration of the new People of the Swadling-cloths wherein he wraps them of the Growth for which he appoints them this Food and in that he makes our Hearts to be the Palace and Temple of the Son of God Hereunto particularly relates what he saith that the Lord in these Words of the Gospel of St. John Clem. Alex. Paedag. 1. c 6. Id. ibid. Eat my Flesh and drink my Blood speaks of Faith and of the Promise by an illustrious Allegory as by Meats whereby the Church which is composed of many Members is nourished and getteth growth and what he adds afterwards the Milk fit and necessary for this Child is the Body of Jesus Christ Id. ibid. which by the Word doth feed the new People whom our Lord himself hath begotten with bodily Pangs and wrapped as young Infants in his precious Blood and in fine this pious and excellent Exclamation O wonderful Mistery Id. ibid. it commands us to put off the old and carnal Corruption as also the old Nourishment to the end that leading a new Life which is that of Jesus Christ and that receiving him into us if it were possible we should lay him up in us and lodge the Saviour in our Hearts And elsewhere he saith That 't is to drink the Blood of Christ to be Partaker of the Incorruption of our Lord which he attributes to the entring of the Holy Ghost into our Hearts Tertul. de Resurrect Tertullian also speaketh yet more clearly explaining figuratively and metaphorically all that excellent Discourse which we read in the sixth of St. John where our Saviour speaks of eating his Flesh and drinking his Blood Although saith he our Saviour saith that the Flesh profiteth nothing the Meaning
conformable unto the Principles which they have set down Nevertheless because there be several others which we have not touched we find our selves absolutely obliged to handle them in this Chapter the better to clear the Truth which we seek for and if in what remains to be examined they have said any thing which might favour the Hypothesis of the real Conversion which the Latins have made an Article of their Faith it is certain that what they have said hitherto will not be of so much moment and will lose of its worth and vertue whereas if nothing can be found in what is yet to be seen contrary unto what hath been already examined it must then be necessarily concluded say the Protestants that there is nothing in all their Writings that agrees with the Hypothesis of the Latin Church In fine if these Holy Doctors have believed the change of the Substance of Bread and Wine into the Substance of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ then they must also have admitted of these following Maxims First That a Body may be in several Places at once but far from admitting this Maxim to be true they directly oppose it Tertullian disputing against the Heretick Hermogenes which made the Creature co-eternal unto God Tertul. advers Hermog c. 38. If it be in a place saith he it is then within the place if it be within the place it is then bounded by the place within which it is if it be bounded it hath a remote Line and being a Painter as you are your own Profession must needs inform you that the furthest Line is the end of any thing whereof it is the remotest Line And elsewhere Id. de anim c. 9 he establisheth the same Doctrine when he places the Extent and the three Dimensions that is the length breadth and heighth amongst the most essential Properties of a Body and which necessarily and absolutely belong to their Bulk and Mass Arnobius was so strongly of Tertullian's Opinion that he uses it as a Principle universally received to refute the Evasion of Pagans who taught that their Gods were in all the Images which were consecrated unto them Arnob. l. 6. p. 89. ult edit It is not possible saith he that one God should be at one and the same time in several different Images suppose that Vulcan hath ten thousand Statues consecrated unto him in all the World can he be present as I have said in all the ten thousand at one time I think not Why not Because that which is of a particular and singular Nature cannot multiply it self into several Subjects and yet preserve its singleness intire and whole From whence he concludes a little after That it must be said or confessed that there must be an infinite number of Vulcans if there be one in each of these Images or that he is in neither of them if there be but one Vulcan because being but one Nature cannot admit that he should be divided to be in several If the Christians of those times had believed that the Body of Jesus Christ their Saviour and God had been in a Million of places at once without being therefore multiplyed nor divided it must indeed be granted that they had chosen a miserable Advocate to defend their cause because instead of defending he betray'd it and exposed it to the scorn of Infidels in reproaching them with that to be impossible which they themselves held to be possible and which said happened daily unto the Body of their God but we intend not to do this Injury unto the memory of this Christian Orator that would be Injustice and Ingratitude so to serve him seeing he hath said nothing but what is conformable unto the Opinions of other Doctors of the Church For when a Man saith St. Hilar. de Trin. l 8. p. 41. l. in Psal â—24 p. 211. â— Hilary or his Resemblance is in a place he cannot be elsewhere at the same instant because that which is is contained where it is the Nature of him which is in any place where he is sustained being infirm and incapable of being every where Hence it is that the Fathers commonly prove the Divinity of the Holy Ghost by his being present in sundry places at once in opposition unto Creatures which can be but in one place at a time I will not here alledg all their Testimonies it shall suffice to produce some upon a matter that admits of no difficulty Amb de spirit l. 1. c. 7. t. 4. Seeing that every Creature saith St. Ambrose is circumscribed by its Nature by certain bounds and limits and that the Creatures even invisible Creatures are limited by the Propriety of their Substance who dares call the Holy Spirit a Creature which hath not a limited and bounded Power for he is over all and in all which is certainly the property of the Deity Didymus who flourished at Alexandria at the same time when Ephrem did at Edessa Didym de Spir. S. l. 1. If the Holy Ghost saith he were a Creature he should have a circumscribed Substance as all things which have been created for altho the invisible Creatures are not circumscribed by place and bounds yet they are bounded by the propriety of their Substance but as for the Holy Ghost seeing he is in many places he hath not a limited Nature And a little under he saith The Angel which was present with the Apostle when he prayed in Asia could not be present at the same time with others which were in other parts of the World Pasch de Spir. S. l. 1. c. 12. â— 9 Bibl. Patr. Paschas Deacon of the Church of Rome As all Creatures saith he are subject unto the beginning of time it is known also that they be local and bounded by certain Limits and Spaces but as for the Holy Ghost he is not inclosed within Bounds or Limits like a Creature I could add unto all these Witnesses the Depositions of several others but because it is a matter the Truth whereof is known unto those which are any thing verst in the Writings of the Ancients it is needless to insist any longer upon it but only to observe that the Holy Fathers do never except the Body of Jesus Christ from these general Maxims as if his Glorification had acquired him the propriety of being in several places at once their silence upon occasions of such weight and where they could not possibly dispense with themselves from making this Exception if their belief had admitted of it doth evidently prove that they constantly believed that when the Body of Christ was in one place it could not be in another no more than other Creatures his Glorification having indeed given him a Glory which he had not before but without taking away from him the qualities or properties of a true Body besides they are not content to inform us of their Belief by their Silence they also inform us by their Words for
before it was made That which is is not made saith Athenagoras but that which is not Tertullian Nothing that is to be made is not without beginning but rather it begins to be when it begins to be made And before him St. Justin Martyr said in his Treatise against the Positions of Aristotle That that which is made and is to be was not yet before it was made and that all Motion is made by the change of that which was not before but which was to be Origen Nothing saith he could be made but what was not And St. Hilary Bishop of Poictiers All that is made saith he was not before it was made The famous St. Athanasius It is the property of Works and of Creatures that they are said to be of the number of things which were not and which existed not before they were made Phaebadius or as Severus Sulpitius calls him Foegadius Phoebad contr Arrian Ambros de incar Domin c. 3. t. 4. Greg. Nyss contr Eunom l. 11. August contr advers leg l. 1. c. 23. Vigil contr Eutich l 3. c. 3. Bishop of Agen in Guyen If he was made saith he he was not St. Ambrose What is made saith he begins that which was had no beginning but he foresaw it And the Brother of St. Basil Gregory of Nyss If he was made he was not St. Austin in one of the two Books he wrote against the Adversary of the Law To make saith he is to produce what was not before In fine for 't were endless to cite all the Passages of the Fathers Vigilius an African Bishop in his Books against Eutiches How is it saith he that he that was is made seeing that to be made is wont to be the property of him that had not subsisted before if it were not that he was made what he was not He speaks of Jesus Christ that was made Man for our sakes in the fulness of time Let the Reader judg now if these good and wise Doctors could speak so absolutely and without any restriction and receive into the Articles of their Belief the Doctrine of the substantial Conversion I will add unto this Consideration what Origen saith in his Commentaries upon Genesis Orig. apud Euseb de praeparat l. 6. in Philocal c. 23. related by Eusebius in his Book of Evangelical Preparation and in the Philocalie of St. Basil and of Gregory Nazianzen That which maketh a thing is elder than the thing made For a Man so Learned as Origen one of the clearest and transcendent Wits of his time in the Church or the whole World could not say some have spoke so weakly and at the same time have believed that Men every day make the true Body of Jesus Christ because by this reckoning the Cause should be after the Effect and those which make the Body of Jesus Christ much younger than this Divine Body contrary unto the Maxim of Origen which is grounded upon the Light of natural Reason or at least it should have been his Duty to have given us notice that altho this Maxim be undoubtedly true and that it takes place generally in all things that are made nevertheless there is one particular occasion wherein it is quite otherwise I mean the Subject of the Eucharist because then by an inconceivable Mystery the thing made is incomparably elder than those that make it yet nevertheless say they we do not find in any part of his Writings the least sign of any such Advertisement It must then be said that Origen was a Sot or that he believed not of the Eucharist what the Latins believe at this time I leave it to the liberty of those which will be pleased to take the pains to read this Treatise to decide the which of these two Opinions they think most agreeable unto Truth In the fourth place the Fathers have constantly believed That what contains is greater than what is contained Nevertheless say some if their belief upon the point of the Sacrament were the same with that of the Latin Church they ought to have excepted the Body of Jesus Christ from this Rule and teach with the Latins that altho for the most part the continent is greater than the thing contained and that in effect it is so Nevertheless it happens by a Miracle of the Almighty Power of God that the Body of Jesus Christ having all the dimensions of a true Body as well as ours yet doth subsist intirely in a little crum of Bread and in a drop of Wine if in advancing this fourth Maxim they made this exception in respect of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament they say it must be freely confessed and without being pâ—â—â—ccupi'd by a false Interest of any side that if they have not taught the Doctrine of the substantial Conversion as formally as the Latines they have at least owned and admitted one of its Consequences and that in that case cannot be drawn from the Testimony of the Holy Fathers the same advantage against the Belief of the Latin Church as otherwise might be done but also say they if these zealous and wise Conducters of the Christian Churches have spoken simply and without exception the Latins must needs confess that they knew not or rather refuted and opposed all the Consequences of their Doctrines which have been examined Let us see then how they have govern'd themselves in relation unto this and let us faithfully receive their Depositions Theophil Antioch ad Antolyc l. 2 p. 81. I will begin with Theophilus Bishop of Antioch a Writer of the second Century This saith he is a property of the true God not only to be every where c. But also not to be contained in one place otherwise the place which contained him would be greater than him for what containeth is greater than what is contained St. Irenaeus Bishop of Lyons in our France Iren. contr heres l. 2 c. 1. despising the extravagancy of Marcion which had invented two Gods one good the other bad Marcion's good God saith he is hid or lock'd up in some place and environed about with some other Strength which should in all likelihood be the greatest because what containeth is greater than what is contained Tertul. contr Marc. l. 1. c. 15. It was also the Language of Tertullian who also lays it down for infallible That nothing contains any thing which is not greater than the thing contained According to which teaching elsewhere that the Soul of Man is Corporal He saith that it cannot subsist but in a Body which may be fit and proportionable to its greatness and that it cannot be there if it be greater or less than it Id. de anim cap. 32. Greg Nyss de vit Mos p. 238. How saith he can the Soul of a Man either fit an Elephant or be contained in a Flea St. Gregory of Nyss followed the same Steps when he said If it be thought that the Divinity is inclosed
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
and consider with himself with what Doctrine they best agree either with that which teacheth that what is therein seen and touched are meer Accidents or with that which holds that they are true Substances of Bread and Wine CHAP. VI. Other Proofs of the Doctrine of the Holy Fathers with the Inferences made by Protestants ALthough we have hitherto represented several Things which have been believed and practised in the Country of Ecclesiastical Antiquity yet it is not all which I observed during the Time of my residing in that Country I will then continue the History of my Travels not to conceal any Thing from the Publick of the Laws and Customs of that spacious Empire upon the Point which we have undertaken to examine For it would not be just after having had Communication of their Records and Registers wherein all that relates unto this august Sacrament is faithfully contained that I should omit any Thing that I have there found not to fail then of my Duty nor the fidelity due to the Quality which I have taken I say that besides the Things which I have already observed I find that about two hundred Years after the first Beginning of this great Empire those which had the Direction and Government of it applied their Thoughts very much in giving divers mystical Significations unto the holy Sacrament and that those which followed them applied themselves thereunto also for they thought that the Bread of the Eucharist being a Body composed of several Grains and the Wine a Liquor pressed from several Grapes they very well represented the Body of the Church composed of several Believers united into one Society It is the Doctrine of Theophilus of Antioch of St. Cyprian St. Chrysostom St. Austin St. Isidor of Sevil of Bede Wallafridus Strabo of Raban and others but he Testimony of the blessed Martyr St. Cyprian shall suffice in a Thing which is not contested Cyprian â—p 76. When saith he the Lord called his Body Bread which is made of several Grains of Wheat he would shew the faithful People which he carried in himself in as much as it is but one People and when he called his Blood Wine made of several Grapes pressed together and made one he also signified this faithful People composed of several Persons united into one Body The Foundation of this mystical Signification can be nothing else if the Protestant be believed but the Nature and the Substance of these two Symbols unto which the holy Fathers have given this Signification after the Consecration which hath rendred them fit for this Use In fine going to represent the Unity of Believers which are sundry Persons really subsisting but united into one Body by the Bonds of the same Spirit I do not see saith he but that the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament whereof the one is moulded of sundry Grains the other prest from several Grapes may be proper to represent this Unity at least that the Substance of several Grains of Wheat and of several Grapes may continue moulded and mixt together See there after what manner he understands this constant Doctrine of the holy Fathers Moreover he desires to be suffered to add that what confirms him in this Opinion is That if any other Sense be given unto this Doctrine of the ancient Fathers this Inconvenience will scarce be avoided to wit that one shall be forced to say of the true and proper Body of Jesus Christ This Bread composed of sundry Grains represents unto us the Church composed of sundry Believers which Thing truly Christian Ears would scarce be able to endure Besides we have observed in the first Chapter of the first Part that the ancient Church was wont to mingle Water with the Wine in the Celebration of the Sacrament and that in the beginning of the third Century there was a Mystery sought for in this Mixture The Reader may please to view the Place where even those of the holy Fathers are named which have so spoken it being needless here to repeat what hath been there mentioned but only to make some few Reflections which we were not there permitted to do and which nevertheless may serve very much to clear up the Intention of these holy Doctors The first is That they have given two several Significations unto the Water and the Wine saying That the Water represents the faithful People and the Wine the Blood of Jesus Christ For I cannot conceive that these two Usages could take place if both these Things did not remain distinct the one from the other because each of them hath a several Object to represent so that the one of them cannot represent the Object which the other doth signifie Secondly they have established betwixt the Wine and the Blood of Jesus Christ the same Relation which they have established betwixt the Water and the faithful People it not being to be seen that they have given any more Vertue unto the Wine to signifie the Blood of the Son of God than they have given to the Water to represent the Christian People and without giving notice that the Wine is the Blood of Jesus Christ in a more particular manner than the Water is the faithful People On the contrary they have spoken so equally of them both in regard of the two Significations which they attributed unto them that it is impossible to discover the least difference In fine the holy Fathers declare That the Wine and Water mingled together signifie the Union of Jesus Christ and Believers which they could not discern but in the Thoughts of the Union of these two Elements I speak of the Water and Wine which subsisted firm and indissoble and the Firmness of the Union of these two Things could not subsist if their Nature and the Truth of their Being did not subsist also And to say the Truth as far as I can judge these good Doctors have not made this Signification which they gave to the Wine and Water to depend barely upon their mingling only but principally of the Subsistance of this Mixture which was absolutely necessary that it might represent the Truth and Solidity of the spiritual Union of Jesus Christ and his People There is an admirable fine Passage of St. Cyprian upon this Subject but which I shall dispense my self from inserting here because 't is to be seen at large in the Place above-mention'd Whilst I shall join unto this mystical Signification two others which we have touched in the same Place in the first Part. By the one the Wine and Water mingled in the consecrated Cup were to represent the Water and Blood which run down the Side of our Lord Jesus at the time of his Passion and by the other the Union of the Eternal Word with the Humanity But all these mystical Significations are destroyed if the Nature and Substance of Things are abolished in the which they had their only Foundation After this manner the Protestant doth reason upon these Observations The Hereticks
disputing formerly against the Catholicks and Orthodox would oblige the Catholicks to prove their Doctrine and Belief in so many express Words In the Dialogue against Arrius Sabellius and Photinus under the Name of St. Athanasius Vigil l. 1. contra Arr. c. l. 1. c. 23. ult Eâ—it p. 140. but whose true Author is Vigilius of Tapsus an African Bishop The Arrian demands of the Orthodox that he will shew him in the Scriptures the Word Homousion which signifies of one Substance or that he may read it properly that is to say in so many Syllables or that he should cease making use of it It is also the Proceedings of the Arrians against the true Athanasius in his Treatise of the Synods of Arimini and Seleutia Athanas de Synod Arim. pag. 911. Id. ibid. p. 913. Id. de decret Syn. Nicaen p. 270. But the Holy Fathers laughed at this ridiculous and impertinent Method It matters not said St. Athanasius if any make use of Terms not contained in the Holy Scriptures provided his Thoughts are Orthodox And elsewhere he saith That although these Words are not found in the Scriptures it sufficeth they contain a Doctrine agreeable to the Scriptures And Vigilius Homousion Vigil ubi supra cap. 26. p. 143. That it must be collected from the Authority of Scripture by a reasonable consequence and that it is not just to quarrel about a Name which may be firmly established by a great many Testimonies It is so several other Doctors have done and indeed they did wisely for there is nothing more unreasonable than to reduce Man to the Degree of Beasts in depriving him of the Use of Reasoning whereby he draws certain Conclusions from necessary Principles No body then ought to wonder if besides the direct Doctrine of the Fathers upon the Point of the Eucharist I here insert the indirect which consists in necessary Inductions because the Part of an Historian which I assume in this Work doth oblige me faithfully to represent unto the Reader the Inductions which others are wont to draw from their Testimonies for the better understanding their Doctrine leaving it unto the Liberty of every one to judge of their Value or Weakness I will therefore continue these Sorts of Proofs already begun in this Chapter What hath been already said containing the direct Proofs of their Belief with the Consequences which are inseparable from it Athenag de Resurrect mort ad ealcem oper Just p. 46. Athenagoras in his Treatise of the Resurrection of the Dead saith something if I mistake not worthy of Consideration Neither the Blood nor Phlegm nor Choller nor Spirits that is to say as well Vital as Animal shall be raised with our Bodies in the blessed Resurrection being no longer necessary unto the Life which we shall then live If the quickned Body of Jesus Christ be the Model and Pattern of the Resurrection of Believers as all Christians Universally agree Athenagoras say they could not believe that the Bodies of Believers after the Resurrection should have no Blood but that he believed also that the glorified Body of Christ had none also and if he believed it had none how could it be thought that he believed that it should be drank in the Eucharist but figuratively because we there make a Commemoration of that Blood which he shed upon the Cross for the Expiation of our Sins A Commemoration which we could not make as St. Paul commands us unless we participate of the Fruits and Benefits of his bitter Death A Participation which as the Protestants say is the Effect of the spiritual and mystical Eating or if you will Drinking Hieron Ep. 61. c. 8 9 c. 1.2 but also at the same time a real and true Eating which is done by our Faith The same may be said by Origen as appears by St. Jerom's sixty first Letter unto Pammachius touching the Errors of John Bishop of Jerusalem and it may be he proceeded farther at least he was not only suspected but taxed with it Moreover in the fifth Century it was not fully determin'd if the Body of our Lord in the State of Glory wherein it is Aug. Epist 146. ad Cons init had Blood For we find by one of the Letters of St. Austin which one Consentius wrote unto him to be inform'd if the Body of Christ now hath Blood and Bones This Consentius was not an Ordinary Believer or common Christian he seems to be a Bishop or at least a Priest worthy of St. Austin's Respect and Friendship for in the Beginning of the Letter he gives him the Title of most dear or most beloved And elsewhere he saith unto him That he is beloved in the Bowels of Jesus Christ I freely confess Ep. 222. saith the Protestant I cannot read these Words without thinking of the Belief of the Latin Church in the Point of the Sacrament for it is not to be conceived that one of the Conducters of the Christian Churches should propose unto the great St. Austin so ridiculous and impertinent a Question if it was believed in his Time of the Sacrament as is now believed by the Roman Catholicks In fine if it was the Belief of the fifth Century I cannot see how that Man can be excus'd of Folly and Extravagance Nevertheless on the other hand St. Austin deals by him in such a manner which suffers us not to judge so disadvantagiously of him What shall we then say Continues he to excuse the Simplicity of this Man and to give some Colour to his Demand Had he never participated of the Eucharist had he never approached unto the holy Table and had he never drank of the Cup of our Redemption Wherefore then doth he ask of St. Austin to know if the glorified Body of our Lord hath Blood if it were true that the Church at that time held for an Article of Faith That it was drank really and truly every time as they communicated of the holy Cup Or wherefore doth not St. Austin refer him back unto the Sacrament the only Consideration whereof might have satisfied Consentius if the Belief of the Latins had been the Belief of that Age. Let us proceed St. Austin proves unto his Friend by the Words of the Scriptures That the Body of Jesus Christ hath yet now Flesh and Bones but because in the Scripture he cites there is no mention of Blood he leaves this Point in the Terms Consentius left it that is to say in suspense saying That because Jesus Christ only said That he had Flesh and Bones without adding Blood we should not also extend our Question any farther nor add that of his Blood unto the other of his Flesh and Bones Fearing saith he there should come some other more inquisiâ—ive Disputer which taking occasion from the Blood should press us in saying If he hath Blood why not then Spleen why not Choller and Melancholly the four Humours which compose the Nature of the Body
to the 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
to the Scorn of the Enemies of Christianity and have given them Occasion to have derided the Holiness of our Mysteries I could add unto all that we have said in the first place the Simplicity with which the primitive Christians celebrated the Sacrament as we shall perceive by Justin Martyr and the Liturgy of the pretended Dennis the Areopagite for it is very like if they had believed that the Sacrament is the real Body of Jesus Christ they would have used more Ceremony in the Celebration Secondly The Form of Consecration used in the ancient Church as well in the East as the West by Prayers Invocations and giving Thanks as hath been shewn in the seventh Chapter of the first Part doth shew in all likelihood that the Doctrine of the substantial Conversion was not believed because this Conversion could not be made without the abolishing the Substances of Bread and Wine and that Prayers and Benedictions never destroy the Creatures Moreover if what was consecrated were not Holy before Consecration as the Holy Fathers informed us in the same Chapter this Consecration could not happen unto Jesus Christ neither as God nor as Man not as God for in this regard he is Holiness it self not as Man because in this Regard he was ever Holy Besides if this Consecration only retired the Elements of Bread and Wine from their common natural Use to employ them in a religious and holy Use as they have also declared unto us it cannot be seen that this Effect of Consecration can subsist with the Ruin and Abolishment of these Elements For the Use of any Thing be it Prophane or Holy doth always presuppose its Truth and Existency otherwise it were useless in Religion and Nature The Latin Church hath also laid aside this Form of Consecration which she attributed some Ages past unto these Words This is my Body wisely foreseeing that whilst Consecration was made to depend upon Prayers and giving Thanks the substantial Conversion would scarcely be believed I will end this Chapter by another Consideration drawn from the Reasons and Motives which obliged the Holy Fathers to give unto the Sacrament the Name of Sacrifice according to the Enquiry we made in Chap. VIII of the first Part where we have at large proved by their proper Testimonies that they have given it this Title by reason of the Bread and Wine which Communicants presented upon the Holy Table of the Church for the Celebration of the Sacrament and by reason of the Oblation which was made unto God of this Bread and Wine at the instant of Consecration and afterwards Moreover they also called it so because we there render Thanks unto God for bestowing upon us his well beloved Son so that it is an Act of our Thankfulness unto the Father and the Son for the admirable and ineffable benefit of his Death because the Sacrament serves us now instead of the Legal Sacrifices being our external Worship under the Dispensation of the Gospel as Sacrifices was that of the Jews under the Oeconomy of the Law And in sine because it is the Memorial of the truly Propitiatory Sacrifice of the Cross These are the Reasons and Motives of this Name of Sacrifice which the ancient Doctors have given to the Sacrament and which we have largely insisted upon in the before-mentioned Chapter The Protestants hence infer two Things first That all these Reasons and Motives remove from the Minds of Christians the Idea of a real Sacrifice and makes them conceive that of a Sacrifice improperly so called Thence it is that when the Jews and Pagans reproached them that they had neither Altars nor Sacrifices they freely confessed it shewing thereby that if they had given unto the Eucharist the Name of Sacrifice and unto the Holy Table the Name of Altar it was but improperly and by abuse of Language Thence also it is that when they instruct those within and that they teach them what hath succeeded unto the Sacrifices of the Law they contented themselves to oppose unto the Mosaical Sacrifices either the Spiritual Sacrifices which we offer unto God under the Gospel or the Sacrifice of the Cross or both of them together and that there should rest no Scruple in the Minds of the People which they instructed touching the Nature and Quality of the Sacrifice of the Christian Church they unanimously depose at all Times and in all Places that it is an Oblation of Bread and Wine It is also what they were induced to believe because there was but one Altar or one Eucharistical Table in each Church and that the Sacrament was celebrated but once a Day For had they considered the Sacrament as a real Sacrifice they could not have had too many Altars nor too often offer the Sacrifice because in the often doing it there came the greater Benefit and Comfort unto their Souls It is also the Instruction which they drew from Believers being obliged to communicate and that those were made to depart out of the Church which did not communicate in that they never celebrated the Eucharist without Communicants and that Oblations were not received but from those which were admitted unto the holy Sacrament Why should that be if it had been a real Sacrifice seeing one might have assisted with Profit although one communicated not as is now practised in the Latin Church The second thing they infer is That seeing they have not looked upon the Eucharist as a Propitiatory Sacrifice for the Sins of the Quick and the Dead they have looked upon it as a Sacrament of Communion only and a Sacrament which is the Memorial of Jesus Christ and of his Death and where there is distributed unto the Communicants Bread and Wine for a Pledge of their Salvation For therein is distributed what is there offered unto God after Consecration Now the Holy Fathers testifie That there is offered unto God Bread and Wine Gifts and Fruits of the Earth the first Fruits of his Creatures Food which he bestows upon us the same things which Melchizedeck offered the Symbols and Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. So it is they have formally expressed themselves in this eighth Chapter which I desire the Reader to peruse over again to see if these two Inductions are lawful and natural CHAP. VII Continuation of the Doctrine of the Holy Fathers and the Inferences of Protestants BEsides what hath been hitherto said it is observ'd that there be certain Occasions wherein the Holy Fathers should have omitted the Names of Figure Antitype Sacrament if they had believed that it had been the real Body of Christ himself nevertheless they have done the quite contrary For instance The Author of Apostolical Constitutions Constit Apost l. 7. c. 26. gives us a Form of Prayer and Thanksgiving for the Communion where he makes the Communicants say We give thee Thanks O Father for the precious Blood of Jesus Christ which was shed for us and for his precious Body whereof we
celebrate these Antitypes that is to say these Figures he himself having commanded us to shew forth his Death Whereupon the Protestants say That this Form of Thanksgiving doth not well agree with the Belief of the Latin Church and that it is conceived in Terms too weak if the Author which transmitted it to us had believed the real Presence which makes the Spirit of the Communicant in the heat of his Devotion to look unto Jesus Christ himself and to the Substance of his Body whereas this here speaks unto him of Antitypes and of Figures So in St. Basil's Liturgy the Priest celebrating prayeth unto God Liturg. Basil in presenting him saith he the Antitypes or the Figures of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ For although in this Prayer he desires of God that he would sanctifie and consecrate them nevertheless it doth evidently appear that he considers the Symbols of Bread and Wine as already consecrated because they could not without the Vertue of Consecration be the Figures of the Body and Blood of Christ which he look'd upon as already done which according to the Belief and Practice of the Greeks was done in that very Moment Greg. Nazian Orat. 11. p. 187. St. Gregory of Nazianzen in the Funeral-Oration of his Sister Gorgony relates amongst other things the miraculous Recovery of this Vertuous Woman and refers it unto the Sacrament in these Words She put her Head saith he near the Altar and shedding a Flood of Tears after the Example of her who washed with her Tears the Feet of Jesus Christ she declared that she would not leave that Place until she had obtained and recovered her Health her Tears were the Incense which she poured forth upon all his Body she mingled them with the Antitypes or the Figures of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ as much as her Hands could hold and instantly O Miracle she felt her self healed and retired What did St. Gregory think of will some say in relating this History if he had believed what the Latin Church believes For if that were so no body but would judge that he ought to attribute this Recovery of his Sister not to the Sign but to the Thing signified not to the Figure but to the Body it self of Jesus Christ nevertheless he doth the quite contrary 't is to the Antitype and the Figure that he attributes this wonderful Effect and thereby he shews that he was of another Opinion There is in the Works of this same Father an Oration wherein doubtless he discovered the Strength of his Wit and the Treasure of his Eloquence I mean wherein he hath omitted nothing to obtain his Desire which was to preserve the City of Nazianzen whereof his Father had been Bishop and which the Emperors Prefect threatned with Destruction and Ruin Levit. This excellent Man taking Pity of this poor City and passionately desiring to preserve it from the Storm wherewith it was threatned he earnestly beseeches the Prefect to spare it He beseeches he conjures he sets before his Eyes all that is most holy and most sacred in Religion Id. Orat. 17. p. 273. and to touch him even to the Heart he saith unto him amongst other Things I represent before your Eyes this Table where we communicate all together and the Types and Figures of my Salvation which I do consecrate with this same Mouth with the which I present my Request this Mystery I say which lifts us up unto Heaven Must it not be confessed saith the Protestant either that St. Gregory was but a very bad Orator and that he took but an ill Course to appease the Prefect to stir up his Compassion towards the Inhabitants of the City of Nazianzen in laying before him the Figures of his Salvation and instead of speaking unto him of the Body it self of Jesus Christ and of saying unto him That he conjured him by this pretious Body which he made with the same Mouth which intreated him or that he had not yet learned the Doctrine of the substantial Conversion and because to this Day no body ever denied unto Gregory Nazianzen the Quality of a good and eloquent Orator He adds That it must of necessity be concluded that he was not in all likelihood of the Belief of the Latin Church in the Point of the Sacrament In the Life of St. Eloy Bishop of Noyon who lived in the VIIth Century there is a kind of Sermon or rather a Collection of Exhortations and Remonstrances which he made unto the People that he instructed in the Faith of Jesus Christ and unto whom he preached the Doctrine of his holy Gospel and amongst several of these Instructions the Scope whereof was to incline them unto good and to divert them from Evil he directs this unto them S. Elig l. 2. vita ejus c 15. p. 217. t. 5. Spicil Daâ—h Hinder them from making Diabolical Sports and Games and from Dances and that they do not sing the Songs of Pagans that no Christian be exercised therein because that by these Songs one becomes a Pagan for it is not just that the Devils Songs should proceed out of the Mouth of a Christian wherein enters the Sacraments of Jesus Christ There 's no body but doth easily perceive that St. Eloy's Exhortation had been incomparably Stronger and more efficacious if instead of Sacraments he had spoken of the real Body of Jesus Christ For if the Hearers had been hardned to the highest Degree he must needs have moved them in shewing them that it was a shameful thing to see devilish Songs proceed out of a Christian Mouth wherein the proper Body of Christ doth enter Was it not the fit time to have said it and could he dispense himself from saying it if he had believed what the Latin Church now believes Seeing then that he said it not and that he contented himself with speaking of the Sacraments of Jesus Christ one cannot also reasonably dispense themselves from inferring that he was of another Belief it is as the Protestant saith what may be collected from this Testimony There is in the third Tome of the Councils of France which Father Sirmond hath published a Letter of the Bishops of the Provinces of Rheims and of Roüen that is to say of the Suffragan Bishops of those two Archbishopricks assembled at Cressy Anno 858. to consider of the Order of Lewis King of Germany which forcibly invaded the Kingdom of Charles the Bald his Brother In this Letter which is very long and divided into Chapters they represent several things unto this Prince and because he desired they would give him their Oaths they strongly refused alledging this Reason for their Denial That it would be an abominable thing Concil Câ—ris t. 3. Gall. p. 129. Extr. that the Hand which makes by Prayer and the Sign of the Cross Bread and Wine mingled with Water the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ should be concerned after the
Promotion to the Episcopacy with any secular Oath whatever it did before Ordination In the first place I advertise the Reader there is in the Text Conficit corpus Christi sanguinis Sacramentum but it may plainly be seen it should be read Corporis Christi sanguinis Sacramentum and translated as we have done The Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ otherwise it would be Nonsense for what signifies make the Body and the Sacrament of the Blood of Christ From all which they conclude That the Fathers of the Council should have spoken in much stronger Terms if that instead of saying that they made the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ they had said that they made the Body and Blood They think that the Occasion also required it and that their Denial would have been better grounded and they affirm that if an Assembly of Prelates of the Latin Church were in the like Conjuncture they would make no mention and that justly of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ they would speak directly of the Glorious Priviledge of making the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Whence is it then that these Prelates of the Synod of Cressy did not do so it is in all likelihood because they were not of the same Belief Optatus Bishop of Mileva in Numidia aggravating the Crime of the Donatists which had with horrible Impiety thrown down the Sacrament of the Orthodox unto the Dogs speaks of it after a manner which would not be easily pardoned had he believed as the Latins do that it is the very Body of Christ himself What saith he is there more sinful and impious than to throw the Eucharist unto Beasts But what could be weaker than this Expression if this Eucharist were the real Body of the Son of God ought he not to have thundred after another manner against these wicked Wretches Should he not have exaggerated with stronger and more Emphatical Terms the Horror of so fearful an Abomination In a Word ought he not have given it a blacker Term than that of Impious and have painted the enormous Sin of these wicked Wretches with other Colours Can it be thought that a Bishop of the Latin Church should be contented with such a kind of Expression in the like Occasion not at all Wherefore then was Optatus content They can conceive no other Reason but the Difference of their Belief Let the Reader judge if there be any other more probable In the mean while I must tell you that having sometimes meditated of St. Chrysostom's Books touching the Evangelical Priesthood to see how he advanced its Dignity and having applied my self in reading them to endeavour to discover wherein he makes the greatest Priviledge of this Order to consist which with his Eloquence he exalts as much as he thought fit I find that he only attributes unto it the Function of Prayer to obtain by their Prayers the Grace of the Holy Spirit upon the Sacrament Chrysost l. 3. de Sacerdot c. 4 p. 32. vid. p. 31. The Priest saith he is present not bearing Fire but the Holy Ghost he makes long Prayers not to the end that Fire should come down from Heaven to burn the Things offered but to the end that Grace descending upon the Sacrifice should by that means inflame the Spirits of those which are present and make them purer and more bright than Silver tried in the Fire And he saieth this in Opposition to the Sacrifice of the Prophet Elias 1 Reg. 18. when he assembled all the Prophets of Baal to prefer the Evangelical Priesthood 1 Reg. 18. and what is done in the Celebration of the Sacrament much before and above the Priesthood of the Law How is it that this excellent Genius had not bethought himself of saying that though the mystical Sacrificers of the New Testament did not cause to come down from Heaven a material Fire by their Prayers as Elias did to consume the Oblations offered upon the Holy Table but the Heavenly and Divine Fire of the Holy Ghost for the purifying of our Souls They do make moreover the true Body of Jesus Christ by the Force and Vertue of these Words This is my Body Was there ever a more proper and favourable Means and Occasion to advance this Evangelical Dignity and to place what it doth daily do in the Celebration of the Sacrament by converting the Substance of Bread and Wine into the Substance of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ which is infinitely more than what Elias did against Baals false Prophets Every Body knows in what manner the Romish Catholick Doctors do exalt this Dignity and that they never forget when they treat of its Advantages and Priviledges to attribute unto their Priests the Priviledge of making the real Body of the Son of God And I don't wonder any Body should think strange of it if they consider the Doctrine and Belief of the Latin Church how is it possible then that the great St. Chrysostom should have forgotten it that he hath not said a Word of it and that in so presing an Occasion he passed over in silence a Circumstance so remarkable and essential to his Subject Men may say what they please but for my part saith the Protestant I find no other Reason for it but their Difference of Belief St. Austin in his Books against Faustus the Manichean undertaking to advance the Honour and Excellency of our Sacraments above the ancient Sacraments so far as to exhort us to suffer for them with more Vigour and Courage than the three Hebrew Children or Daniel and the Maccabees did for theirs contents himself to say August l. 19. contra Faust c. 14. That it is the Eucharist of Jesus Christ the Signs of things accomplished whereas the ancient Sacraments were promises of things to come Had he believed that our Eucharist is not a Sacrament only but also the Substance of the Body of Jesus Christ and his Flesh also wherefore did he conceal and was silent in this essential Difference from the old Sacraments because his Reputation alone had been sufficiently capable of inflaming our Zeal and of more effectually disposing us unto Martyrdom for its Defence rather than any thing else which he said unto us When we censure we endeavour to represent to the Offender the Greatness of his Fault to make him the more to loath it and all means is used to let him see the Enormity of it especially in raising and advancing the Excellency of the Object which he offended for it is commonly according to the Nature and Quality of the Object offended that the Degree and Greatness of the Offence is proportioned let us then see after what manner the Holy Fathers have demeaned themselves towards them which have offended against the Sacrament of the Eucharist For doubtless considerable Informations may be drawn from these kinds of Censures A Council of Carthage assembled Anno 419.
it and in saying of the Wine that it is his Blood who will question it and who will say it is not his Blood Ibid. He teacheth him that the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ and the Wine his Blood but to the end that he should not stagger at it Ibid. he conducts him unto the Metaphorical and Figurative Sense when he saith in the same place The Body is given unto you in the Figure of Bread and the Blood in the Type of Wine And if he saith unto him besides That we shall be Bearers of Christ when we have his Body and Blood distributed into our Members See here what he adds to let him see how that is done Jesus Christ said unto the Jews If you eat not my Flesh and drink my Blood you have no Life in you But they not understanding it spiritually were offended and forsook him thinking that he would have them eat human Flesh The old Law also had Shew-bread which are not now used because they appertained unto the ancient Dispensation but under the new the heavenly Bread and the Cup of Salvation sanctifieth both Body and Soul for as the Bread regards the Body so also the Word doth regard the Soul In fine he gives also this other Instruction unto his Neophyte Hold for certain that the Bread which is seen Id. ibid. p. 2â—9 is not Bread although the Relish judgeth it to be Bread but believe that it is the Body of Jesus Christ and that the Wine which is seen is not Wine although the Taste think so but that it is the Blood of Jesus Christ These Words already begin to inform him That there is Bread and Wine in the Sacrament and that the Sight and Taste do both testifie the same the Infallibility and Certainty of which Testimony the Fathers have asserted But because St. Cyril's Design in so speaking unto him was to instruct him that he should not look upon them as bare Bread and bare Wine but as the efficacious Sacraments of the Divine Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Id. P. 237. which they fail not to communicate unto those who worthily participate of them He told him a little before Do not consider them as bare Bread and Wine for by these Words he plainly presupposeth that it is Bread and Wine as he presupposeth elsewhere that it is Water and Oyl when he saith of Baptism Do not look at the bare Water Id. Catech. 3. illum p. 16. Mystag 3. p. 235. consider not this Washing as of common Water beware of thinking that it is common Oyl Thence it is that he likens the Change which happens unto the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist by Consecration unto what befals the Oyl of Chrism by Benediction to the end his Catechumeny may be perswaded that it is a Change of the same Nature Id. Mystag 3. p. 235. As saith he the Bread of the Sacrament after the Invocation of the Holy Ghost is no longer common Bread but the Body of Jesus Christ So also this holy Chrism is not bare Oyl or if it may be so said common after Invocation but it is a Gift and Grace of Jesus Christ And to compleat this Instruction Id. Mystag 5. p. 244. he tells him in the fifth Catechism you hear a Divine Melody which to invite you to the Communion of the holy Mysteries sings these Words Taste and see how good the Lord is Think you that you are commanded to make this Tryal with the Mouth of the Body not at all but rather with an undoubted Faith which changeth not for you are not bid to taste the Bread and Wine but the Antitype or the Figure of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ As St. Cyril ended his Course St. Gaudentius was called to the Bishoprick of Bressia in Italy he also composed a kind of Catechism for his Neophytes Gaudent tract 2. de rat Sacram Bibl. Patr. t. 2. p. 14. wherein he speaks unto them after this manner In the shadow of the Legal Passover there was not one but several Lambs slain there was one slain for every House one alone not being sufficient for all the People because it was the Figure and not the Passion it self of our Lord. The Figure is not the Substance but the Imitation of the Truth In this Truth then whereof we are perswaded one died for all and the same being offered in all the Churches doth nourish in or by the Mystery of Bread and Wine being believed he vivifies and being consecrated he sanctifies those which consecrate it is the Flesh of the Lamb it is his Blood for the Bread which came down from Heaven said the Bread which I will give is my Flesh and I will give it for the Life of the World and his Blood is also well expressed by the Species of Wine because when himself saith in the Gospel I am the true Vine he sufficiently declares that all the Wine offered in the Figure of his Passion is his Blood In this whole Discourse he teacheth them in the Death of Jesus Christ to search the Body and Substance of what had been prefigured by the Lambs of the Jews and if he speaks unto them of offering it again he intended not to understand it of a real Immolation because all Christians have always believed and all do still believe that Jesus Christ was never truly sacrificed but upon the Cross and that he cannot be any more sacrificed because he cannot die again They might then easily understand that St. Gandentius spake unto them of an improper Sacrifice which consists in the Representation of that which was made on the Cross For 't is in this Sense St. Aug. Ep. 23. Gaud. Serm. 19. p. 72. Austin saith That he is every day offered in Sacrament and in Figure And Gaudentius himself That we offer the Sufferings of the Passion of Jesus Christ in Figure of his Body and of his Blood Besides in telling them that he is immolated who was consecrated He plainly shews them that it is done not in the Person of Jesus Christ but in his Sacrament else he should have instilled into these Catechumenes two Doctrines which would directly contradict Christian Piety one is That Jesus Christ is less than him that consecrates him Cyril Alex. de Trin. dial 6. p. 558 t. 5. Heb 7.7 For as St. Cyril of Alexandria saith What is sanctified is sanctified by a greater and more excellent thing than it is by Nature according to what is said by the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews that which is less is blessed by the greater The other is That Jesus Christ should not have been always holy For as the same Cyril again saith Id. ibid. p. 595. Reason will absolutely perswade us to say That that which is said to be sanctified hath not ever been holy Therefore our Gaudentius declares unto them in the same Catechism That Jesus Christ commanded to offer the
with the Hand although the Church of Rome her self practised it so formerly for several Ages From whence again could proceed this Change but from the Change of Doctrine whilst it was believed that what was received at the mystical Table was true Bread and Wine but Bread and Wine which the Consecration had separated from the common Use they had in Nature to apply them unto a holy and religious Use in Grace Communicants were permitted to receive the Sacrament in their Hands But when they taught that it was the real Body of Jesus Christ they began to put it into the Mouth of such as presented themselves at the Communion judging their Hands were not worthy to receive the Flesh it self of their Saviour and fearing that some by Neglect should let fall to the Ground this pretious Body an Inconvenience which their Forefathers never thought of or if they did think of it they did not so much fear it though otherwise they were as circumspect in the Celebration of this Divine Sacrament so far as to take Care with incomparable Exactness that none of it should fall to the Ground Let every body judge the Reason of so notable a Difference But if the Sacrament was put into the Hand of Communicants they were wont also for a long time to carry it home along with them to their Houses At present amongst the Latins it would be a criminal Action Father Petau tells us and held for a Prophanation of this Sacrament As for my part I cannot blame this Severity of the Latin Church because she believes that it is the adorable Body of the Son of God whereunto is owing Soveraign Respect What shall we then say unto the ancient Fathers which permitted it and which believed not as St. Basil tells us that this Custom was not worthy of Blame We cannot but know that their Zeal was greater than ours and their Piety more ardent than what appears in us at this time How then have they so long time tolerated this Practice in the Church and even in that of Rome as St. Jerom hath made appear From whence the Protestant concludes That one cannot reasonably forbear attributing the Reason of this Toleration to any thing but the Difference of their Doctrine and to say that their Belief upon this Point being quite contrary they made no Scruple of suffering what the Latins would not suffer at present for all the World And as they suffered Communicants to carry the Sacrament to their Houses to keep and take it when they pleased they also suffered them to carry it in their Travels and Journeys even by Sea where they made no Difficulty of celebrating and participating of it when Occasion required as the Example of Maximinian Bishop of Syracusa and his Companions do testifie for being in Danger of suffering Shipwrack they received it is said the Body and Blood of their Redeemer But in the Latin Church it is practised quite contrary at this time it not being permitted to celebrate the whole Mass neither at the Sea nor upon Rivers but only to read the Epistle and Gospel to say the Lords Prayer and give the Benediction In a Word to say that which was anciently called the Mass of the Catechumeny that is to say unto that Part called the Canon Thom Valdens Guilhelm Duranâ— apud Cassand in Liturg. c. 34. Cassand ib. Whence it is Cassander makes this Observation drawn from a Book of the Order of the Mass according to the Use of the Church of Rome This dry Mass that is to say without Consecration and Communion is also called Naval because it is judged it can only be said after that manner in an unsteady place and where there is motion as at Sea and upon Rivers in which places it is believed that an intire Mass cannot be said Pope Gregory the first nevertheless blamed not what was done by Maximinian and his Companions when he relates the History of it in his Dialogues no more than St. Ambrose doth the Action of his Brother Satyrus All which again gives Ground to believe that in all likelihood they had not then that Opinion of the Sacrament which Roman Catholicks now have for they would not have failed to have taken the same Caution Anciently in the Church the Communion was freely sent unto sick Folks by Lay-persons by Boys Men or Women which continued in the West until the IXth and Xth Centuries What Appearance is there they would so long have tolerated this Custem if the Belief of those times had been the same of that of the Latin Church at present it is thought they would have been more reserved and that they would not have so slightly entrusted the Body of Jesus Christ unto all Sorts of Persons indifferently But besides all these Customs which we have instanced and from whence we have drawn the necessary Inferences there be yet others which we already examined in the first Part the Consequences whereof we are also obliged to shew The ancient Christians made no Difficulty to imploy the Sacrament to make Plaisters as St. Austin hath assured us every body knows that to make a Plaister sometimes Drugs are used that must be bruised and pounded in a Mortar sometimes Roots are used that must be boiled and which by means of certain Liquors are reduced into the consistence of an Oyntment or thick matter and such as may conveniently be spread upon a Linen-cloth or upon Flax afterwards to apply it unto the distemper'd part which wants Ease Was there ever any Christian that believed such a Sort of Medicine could be made of the proper and natural Body of Jesus Christ that it could be beat and pounded in a Mortar or boiled with Liquor or in a Word reduced in the State which they are wont to do those Things which are requisite to make Plaisters or if any were so extravagant to believe it or so wicked and senseless to attempt it had it been possible to be done all others would they not have exclaimed against such a Person would they not have esteemed him monstrous and worthy enduring the greatest of all Punishments Nevertheless there hath been found those which made Plaisters of the Eucharist and which far from being blamed have been praised and commended by pious and devout Persons fearing God witness that Mother mentioned by St. Austin Seeing then that a Plaister cannot be made of the true Body of Jesus Christ it necessarily follows that where there was one made it was of the Substance of the Symbols and that the Christians that did so were perswaded that it was not the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ but a Substance of Bread and Wine In the ancient Church the Sacrament was buried with the Dead as there is no Christian but knows that Christ died that he was buried and rose again the third Day neither is there any but do know that he dieth no more and that he shall no more be buried Those then which heretofore buried the
any Magick or Enchantment did what he pretended to do by the help of his Sorceries in casting a Mist before the Eyes of those that were present and that by pronouncing of these Words This is my Body This is my Blood they change the Wine of the Cup into the very Blood of the God which they adore Nevertheless St. Irencus nor St. Epiphanius which have narrowly enough examined the Heresy of this Deceiver and all that he did in the celebration of the Mysteries nor any one else that I hear of have not made him this Objection to expose unto the sight of the whole World the folly of his enterprise which shews as the Protestants say that the Orthodox Christians did not then believe that what was in the consecrated Cup was the real Blood of Jesus Christ In the same Chapter of the first part we mentioned the Ascodrutes or Ascodrupites which rejected both Baptism and the Eucharist saying That invisible things should not be represented by visible things nor incorporeal things by sensible and corporal and that Images and Figures ought not to be made upon Earth How could the Holy Fathers grapple with these Hereticks or condemn as a Heresy that which they taught that the Symbols of Spiritual and Heavenly Things ought not to be sensible nor corporal if Catholicks had not in their Sacraments Symbols of this Nature For it would have been unjust to condemn that for a Heresy in others which we believe and approve our selves or how should these Hereticks have abstained from the celebration of Baptism and the Eucharist if the Orthodox had believed with them that there was nothing sensible nor corporal in the one nor the other of these two Sacraments for what made them lay aside these Sacraments was the substance of the Symbols which were corporal and visible and as the same reason which made them deny Baptism made them also reject the celebration of the Sacrament this was the reason that they did not find the Bread and Wine of this Sacrament no less visible and corporal than the Water of the other so that the Holy Fathers opposing their Heresy refute it alike both for the one and the other Sacrament and in disputing against it they own that the substance of the Symbols are sensible and visible in both for in this respect they make no distinction betwixt Baptism and the Eucharist this is the conclusion of the Protestant As touching the silence of Hereticks it is almost of the same force with that of the Gentiles because the same Truths which were the Object of the Scorn and Contempt of Pagans were also the subject of the slander and contradiction of Hereticks some whereof denied the truth of the Human Nature of Jesus Christ as Marcion and several others which attributed unto him an imaginary Body a Shadow and Figure of a Body teaching that the Son of God did not become Man and that he manifested himself unto Man only in a false shape not having a true Body but one in shew Others have denied his Divinity as Ebion Cerinthus Artemon and others which maintained that our Jesus was not God but Man only and that he did not begin to be but when he was born of the Holy Virgin two Mysteries which we have seen whereof the Jews and Pagans both made light The Cross of Christ which was the stumbling block of the Jews and the scorn of the Heathen was also contradicted by Hereticks who were not ashamed to say that Jesus Christ had not truly suffered but that he either put another Man in his stead or avoided the fury of those which crucified him by this seeming Body wherewith they say he was invested * The Resurrection of the Body which was esteemed a Story and Fable by the Gentiles also offended exceedingly some Hereticks as the Gnosticks the Marcionites and some others And to speak in a Word there was scarce any one Article of our Faith which in the first Ages of Christianity was not traversed by some Heresy or that met not with some contradiction amongst Christians themselves What likelihood then say they is there that if the Doctrine of the substantial Conversion and all the Consequences which necessarily depend of it had been taught by Christians and received into the Articles of their Faith but it would have received some attempt by Hereticks who not having disowned the use of their Senses nor of their Reason could not choose as they think but have disputed against them especially when they should have considered that they would have denied the testimony of their Senses and the clearest light of their Reason Nevertheless we cannot find in any Monument of the ancient Doctors of the Church that the Hereticks ever contested with the Catholicks and Orthodox upon the point of the Eucharist it is indeed true that some rejected the celebration of the Sacrament tho upon different Motives but that they charged the Church touching the substantial conversion of the Symbols of the Eucharist into the Body and Blood of Christ there is not one to be found especially of those which have owned the truth of the Human Nature of the Son of God at least no such thing is to be seen in their Writings nor in the divers Catalogues of Heresies that still remain nor in the Polemical Writings of the Holy Doctors against Hereticks for as for those mentioned by the Author of the Letter unto those of Smyrna under the Name of St. Ignatius of whom we have spoken in the third Chapter of the first part besides it is very uncertain if there were ever any such they denied the Mystery of the Incarnation and did not confess the truth of the humanity of Jesus Christ they rejected the Sacrament the celebration whereof is a kind of confessing and owning the truth of his Human Nature but neither they nor any others have complained against the belief of the Church upon the subject of the Sacrament they have not armed against her nor have separated from her Communion upon account of this Divine Mystery neither did the Church ever thunder out Anathema's nor Excommunications upon this Subject From whence say some proceeds so universal a Silence and so great tranquillity upon so important an Article which since Paschas his time that is to say the IXth Century hath suffered such an infinite number of Contradictions in the West for this Friar of Corby no sooner published his Opinion but there opposed against him all the Learned Men of that Age and it will appear in the course of this Treatise that ever since that time the Doctrine of the real presence hath never been without a great many Opposers and Adversaries which for that reason have been Excommunicated and esteemed Hereticks by the Latin Church When I make this reflection in my self saith the Protestant that the Minds of Men have been at all times much of one and the same Temper and been ever almost of the same Disposition and that besides the
having the hope of the Resurrection If the Consecration destroys the substance of Bread and Wine it must be granted say the Protestants that this Holy Doctor took wrong Measures when he would that the Bread of the Sacrament should represent the Flesh which is not destroyed under the Grace of the Spirit because if the Bread it self be destroyed it cannot be employed to signify that our Flesh shall not be destroyed Seeing then that St. Ireneus doth use it to this purpose it must be ingeniously confessed that he believed that Consecration did not annihilate the Nature and Substance of the Symbols Tertul. contra Marc. l. 1. c. 14. They say moreover that Tertullian confirms them in this Opinion when he saith The God of Marcion hath not yet rejected the Bread of the Creator to represent his true Body so that in his own Sacraments he hath need of borrowing the Goods of the Creator But Marcion which is a Disciple above his Master and a Servant above his Lord is much wiser than him for he ruines what his Master would have It plainly appears by these Words that Marcion in destroying the Bread that is to say in teaching that it shall be destroyed as being of the Creatures of this World doth the quite contrary unto Jesus Christ who desires it and useth it in his Sacrament and that by Consequence preserves the Substance of it For if Tertullian say they had believed that he destroyed it in consecrating of it he would not have opposed as he doth the act of Marcion or rather his Doctrine which condemns it unto an entire destruction unto the action of Jesus Christ which makes use of it and doth employ it And because there be several other things in the Works of this African Doctor against Hereticks which may contribute unto this History Tertul. advers Prax. c. 26. I will instance some before I shall proceed farther In his Book against Praxeas he sets it down for undoubted That what is of a thing is not the thing it self And it is thereupon he grounds the distinction of the Person of the Holy Ghost from that of the Father either his Maxim is false say some and very indiscreetly propounded or he did not believe that the Eucharist was the real Body of Jesus Christ because it is the Sacrament by the confession of all Christians Elsewhere disputing against the Blasphemy of Marcion Id. adv Marc. l. 3. c 10. who said that Jesus Christ had not a true Body he saith That it was unworthy the Son of God to appear under a strange shape you make us saith he to Marcion a miserable God in that he could not shew his Christ but in Effigie of a thing unworthy of him And presently after Wherefore did he not come in some other Substance more worthy of him but especially why did he not come in his own and not to seem to have had need of another which is unworthy of him Let Christians judg say the Protestants if he could have spoke thus and believe that Jesus Christ doth every day appear under the Effigies and Resemblance of Bread but an appearance destitute of the substance and truth of Bread Ibid. c. 8. It is whereunto amounts also what is said unto this Heretick in the same Book Jesus Christ was not what he seemed to be and disguised what he was being Flesh and not being so being Man and not Man and in like manner Christ God and not God for what hinders but that he also bore the shadow of a God shall I believe it of his interior substance who deceived us by his exterior how shall he be believed to be true in that which doth not appear seeing he hath been found so false in that which did appear See again if what he now saith can be accommodated with a Doctrine which teacheth that Jesus Christ in the Eucharist is not what he seems to be for he seems to be Bread and they will have it to be a bodily Substance As for my particular I am content to guess at what the Protestants infer from these Maxims He again objects this to Marcion Ibid. c. 11. Thou honourest thy God with the title of a Deceiver if he knew that he was any thing else than what he gave cause to Men to believe he was The boldness or rather rashness say they of Tertullian cannot enough be admired so to pursue and force Marcion if the Church of his time had been of the belief the Latin Church is now of And in another Book of the same Treatise he refutes the shadow of this Arch Heretick by the History of the penitent Sinner in the Gospel Id. adv Marc. l. 4. c. 18. In that she kissed saith he the Feet of Jesus in that she washed them with her Tears and wiped them with the Hairs of her Head in that she poured precious Ointment upon him it shews that she handled a true real Body and not an empty shadow All the World as they think may observe that if the Christians of those times had believed what the Latins believe Marcion would undoubtedly have opposed unto the example of the Sinner which Tertullian presseth against him that of the Eucharist which is handled which is received into the Stomack wherewith a living Body may be nourished which is subject to Mouldiness and several other the like Accidents and that it may not for all this be concluded according to the Doctrine of the Roman-Church that it is the true substance of Bread and not barely Accidents and Appearances In another Treatise speaking to the same Heretick Id. de carne Christ c. 5. Wherefore saith he will you that one half of Jesus Christ should be a Fiction he was nothing but Truth wholly and intirely Believe me he chose rather to be born than to lye in any respect whatsoever And there again he adds that according to the Doctrine of Marcion Jesus Christ had Flesh hard without Bones solid without Nerves bloody without Blood covered without Garments a Body that was hungry without Appetite that eat without Teeth and spake without a Tongue so that his Words were but a Shadow which deceived the Ear by the sound of a Voice And in fine he presseth in the same Chapter by the Words of our Saviour to his Disciples after the Resurrection See that it is I for a Spirit hath not Flesh and Bones as you see me have Then he adds that if Jesus Christ according to the fancy of this Heretick had not truly Flesh and Bones it follows that when he so presented the Appearances unto his Disciples he openly deceived them in shewing them that for Bones which were not so in effect See saith he he surpriseth he deceiveth he abuseth the Eyes the Senses the coming near and touching of all his Disciples There needs not say they much subtilty and wit to comprehend that Tertullian could not by these kinds of Arguments destroy the Hypothesis of his
Eutychians could not have admitted without pulling down with one Hand what they built with the other that is to say without destroying what they taught that Jesus Christ had not a true Body But to the end no scruple may rest hereupon in the Mind of the Reader let us hear this Dialogue of Theodoret with an Eutychian Heret Theod. dial 2. p. 84 85. t. 4. It is very well that you have begun the Discourse of Divine Mysteries for thereby I will shew you that the Body of Jesus Christ is changed into another Nature answer then to the Question which I shall propose Orthod I will answer Heret What do you call before the Priestly Invocation the thing which is offered Orthod We must not speak openly fearing we may be heard by Persons not initiated Heret Answer obscurely Orthod I call it a Food made of certain Grains Heret And how is the other Symbol called Orthod It is commonly called by a Name that designs a certain sort of Liquor Heret But after Consecration what call you them Orthod The Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Heret And do you believe you receive the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Orthod I do believe it Heret As then the Symbols of the Body and Blood of Christ are one thing before the Priestly Invocation but after Consecration are changed and made another thing so in like manner the Body of Christ was changed into a Divine Substance after his Ascension Orthod You are taken in your own Net which you laid for the Mystical Symbols do not change their Nature after Consecration but they remain in their first Substance in their first Figure and in their first Form they are visible and palpable such as they were before but they are apprehended to be what they are made and they are believed and are worshipped to be what they are believed to be Compare now this Image with its Original and you shall see the resemblance which is betwixt them for the Figure ought to resemble the Original The Body of Jesus Christ keepeth his first Form his first Figure and his first Circumscription and in a word it hath the substance of a Body but after the Resurrection it was made immortal and incorruptible it is sitting on the right Hand of God and all Creatures do adore it because it is called the Lord of Nature Heret But the Mystical Symbol doth change its former Name for it is no longer called what it was before but it is called the Body of Jesus Christ whence it follows that the Truth which answers the Sign should be called God and not Body Orthod It seems to me you are in Darkness for the Symbol is not only called Body but Bread of Life the Lord himself calleth it so and as for the Body it self we call it a Divine Body a quickning Body the Body of our Lord meaning thereby that it is not the Body of an Ordinary Person but the Body of Jesus Christ our Lord which is God and Man This Discourse being written as it were with a Sun-Beam to use Tertullian's Expression hath no need of Explication Therefore we will here put an end to the proofs of the belief of the Holy Fathers to proceed to the Inquiry into the Changes arrived first in the Expressions and then afterwards in the Doctrine it self CHAP. XI Of the change which came to pass in the Expressions or the History of the Seventh Century ALthough Custom in Speech be a very capricious Master and exerciseth over the words which are subject unto its Tyrannical Government an absolute Authority rejecting or using them at pleasure or rather after its wild Fancy Nevertheless there are certain expressions so confirmed by long use and so particularly adapted to signifie certain things that they cannot be Abolished without disturbing the Commerce and Society of Men and without forgetting by degrees and insensibly the Nature of those things for the representation whereof they were designed If this may befall in things of Civil Society much more is it to be feared in things of a Religious Nature because for the most part the consequences and effects are more fatal and dangerous therefore it was the Ancient Christians were so careful of exactly retaining certain terms and manner of Expressions which had been as 't were consecrated in the Church and which could not be changed without opening the Door unto some alteration in the Doctrine so certain it is that we must not remove the bounds which our Fore-fathers have set It is upon this ground and motive that it was said throughout the whole extent of Ecclesiastical Antiquity for above the space of six hundred years That the Eucharist was the Sacrament the Sign the Symbole the Image the Figure the Type the Antitype the Similitude and the Representation of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ it never being seen in so considerable a space of time in that vast and spacious Empire that there was any body that offered to question Expressions that were so well Established and moreover so constantly and universally received as they were Nevertheless in the Seventh Century there was sprung up in Mount Sinai a certain Friar called Anastatius which rashly passing over the Bounds that in this regard had been observed rejected the term of Sign or Figure which was commonly used until his time But not to confound this Anastatius with others of the same name which had been Patriarchs of Antioch and also to discover the Age wherein he lived it must be noted that himself observes that being at Alexandria he was told Annestat Sin in c. 10. that a good while after the Death of the Patriarch Eulogius there was in that City an Augustal Prefect which favoured the party of the Severian Hereticks and who to this effect had contributed in corrupting the Writings of the Ancients Now Eulogius dyed by every bodies confession in the year of our Lord 608. This was not told unto Anastatius until a considerable time had past after the death of Eulogius let us say it may be about 20 or 22 years which is the least can be allowed Anastatius then could not be informed of this matter till the year 630. and he could be neither of the two Anastatiuses that were Patriarchs of Antioch Ibid. seeing the last was murdered by the Jews in the year 608. Besides he writes that being at Alexandria there arose a question touching some words of St. Chrysostom which had been Bishop of the same place after his Uncle Theophilus which had been corrupted and altered and that then one Isidor Library Keeper and truly Orthodox produc'd a Copy an Exemplification of the Writings of St. Cyril which had not been adulterated which sheweth that in all likelihood the Patriarch was Orthodox for if he had been an Eutychian he would not have tolerated a Library Keeper that had been Orthodox and an Enemy to his Belief therefore it may be concluded if I be not
c. 31. in Exod cap. 22. That the Bread and Wine is the undoubted Sacrament of the Body and Blood of the Lord Id. in Sentent l. 1. c. 16. Vide lib. 1. Offic cap. 37. And that it is this Sacrament which Believers offer and which they call an Oblation of Bread and Wine Agreeable unto this Doctrine he speaks elsewhere of the Flesh of Jesus Christ as of the Nourishment of Saints which preserves from Eternal Death and which maketh those that eat it to live Spiritually Id. in lib. 2. Reg. ca. 3. p. 49. and he saith That Jesus Christ ascending into Heaven is gone in regard of his Body but is present according to his Majesty Concil Hispal 2. Concil Eracar t. 4. p. 832. as he said Behold I am with you even to the end of the World And he borrows these words from St. Austin That our Saviour gave unto his Disciples the Figure of his Body and Blood The second Council of Sevil assembled Anno 619. forbids Priests to make the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ in presence of the Bishop The Council of Braga Anno 675. testifies That Jesus Christ gave the Bread apart and the Wine apart He calls that which our Lord gave his Disciples bread And the 16th of Tolledo Assembled Anno 693. Concil Tollet 16. to 5. Concil p. 430. cap. 6. Eligius Noveom in vita ejus l. 2. cap. 15. p. 216. t. 5. Spicil Dacher Ib. p. 217. declares two several times That Jesus Christ having taken a whole Loaf distributed it by parcels unto his Apostles It speaks also of what remains after the Communion as of that whereof too great a quantity may burden the Stomach of him that Eats it The true St. Eloy Bishop of Noyon gave this Precept unto those whom he instructed Let him that is Sick confide wholly in the Mercy of God and receive with Faith and Devotion the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ And forbidding them to Sing the Songs of Pagan he alledges for a reason of this Defence That it is not fit to hear Diabolical Songs proceed out of a Christian Mouth wherein enters the Sacrament of Jesus Christ He retains as may be seen the Ancient Expressions and Doctrine According to which St. Ouen Archbishop of Roan his intimate Friend and Author of his Life which he wrote at large doth observe that as he drew near his Death he said That he would be no longer absent from Jesus Christ Ibid. l. 2. c. 32. p. 264. It was thus the true St. Eloy spake and in so speaking he rejects as false and forged some Homilies that have been published in his name especially the 8th and the 15th the former of these being only a Rapsody composed by several Authors some of which are of the 8th and 9th Centuries whereas St. Eloy died towards the end of the 7th Century Neither doth he that wrote his Life make any mention of these pretended Homilies Thus several do reason CHAP. XII Wherein is examined what passed in the Eighth Century AS Anastatius a Frier of Mount Sinai had rejected the name of Sign or Figure not allowing to say that the Sacrament is only the Sign of the Body of Jesus Christ words which might receive a good Construction as hath been declared in the precedent Chapter so John Damascen surnamed Mansur another Frier of the East extraordinarily given to the worshiping of Images and therefore Anathematized by 338 Bishops Anno 754. bethought himself in the Eighth Century of condemning the terms of Image of Type and Figure but because he stopped not at Expressions but proceeded to the Doctrine it is requisite to see if he therein made any Alteration and if his Innovation favoured the Belief of the Latin Church See here then what he saith Damasc de Fide Orthod l. 4. c. 14. The Bread offered the Wine and the Water are supernaturally changed by the Invocation and coming of the Holy Ghost into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and are not two but one and the same thing Ibid. And a little after The Bread and Wine are not the Type or the Figure of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Ah God forbid but the Body it self of our Lord Deified our Lord himself saying Ibid. This is not the Figure of my Body but my Body not the Figure of my Blood but my Blood And again If some have called the Bread and Wine Figures or Signs of the Body and Blood as St. Basil they spake not after Consecration but they called them so before the Oblation was consecrated As there are two things in these words of Damascen the one regarding the Terms the other the Doctrine we are obliged to examine both to give the Reader all the Information he may expect of us in this matter I will begin with the Doctrine to see if it agreeth with that of the Latin Church If Damascen said that the substance of the Symbols were quite destroyed and that if passed into the substance it self of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ so that there remained no part of the Bread and Wine but the bare Accidents only which subsisted miraculously without their Subject it must be granted that he was of the same Opinion that Roman Catholicks are of at this time and it were very unjust to deny it But if on the other hand he so plainly expressed himself that it cannot be doubted but he believed that the substance of the Symbols remained whatever Change it was that intervened by Consecration it must of necessity be concluded that his Belief upon this Point was not the Belief of the Latin Church The better to succeed in this Enquiry it must be noted that he lays this down for a certain Maxim Id. Dialect c. 1. That the Accident cannot subsist in it self but hath its Being in another Subject Ibid. that the Soul is a Substance and Wisdom an Accident that the Soul being taken away Wisdom also perisheth Ibid. c. 28. That which subsisteth not of it self but hath its Existence in another Id. de Fide Orthod l. 1. c. 17. is an Accident He affirms again That nothing but the Divinity is infinite that Bodies have beginning and ending and a bodily place Ibid. c. 4. and that they may be held that what is invisible and impassible is not a Body All which things do not well accord with the Real Presence Ibid. no more than his restraining the Invisible Presence whereby our Saviour is with us unto the Presence of his Divinity Moreover he affirms positively that the substance of Bread remains and that it nourisheth our Body by turning into our substance Id. l. 4. c. 14. The Shew-bread saith he did represent this Bread and it is the pure and unbloody Sacrifice which our Lord foretold by the Prophet which should be offered unto him throughout the whole World to wit the Body and Blood
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
our Saviour gave unto his Disciples in his Sacrament the Figure of his Body and Blood That the Creatures of Bread and Wine pass into the Sacrament of his Body and Blood by the ineffable sanctification of the Holy Ghost That our Saviour hath changed the Legal Sacrifices into Sacrifices of Bread and Wine And that whereas the Ancients celebrated the Passion of our Lord in the Flesh and Blood of Sacrifices we celebrate it in the Oblation of Bread and Wine According to which he testifies in a great many places Homil. de Sanct. in Epiph as hath been seen in the 4th Chapter That Jesus Christ is absent from us as to his Body but is present by his Divinity It is true he saith That the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ is received by the Mouth of believers for their Salvation But after what he hath spoken it is very evident say the Protestants that he speaks not of receiving them in their matter and Substance but in their Sacrament accompanied with a quickning and saving virtue and that if he be not so understood he will be made to contradict himself and to destroy with one hand what he built with the other therefore it is that he distinguisheth the Sacrament and that he declares that the wicked participate only of the Sign and not of the thing signified saying with St. Prosper in the Sentences drawn from St. Austin Id. in 1. ad Cor. 11. He that is not reconciled unto Jesus Christ neither eats his Flesh nor drinketh his Blood although he receiveth every day the Sacrament of so great a thing unto his condemnation It is also true that he often calls the Bread and Wine the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ but he declareth with St. Austin whom he exactly follows Id. in cap. 6. ad Rom. Id. in Marc. cap. 14. That it is by reason of the resemblance they have with the things whereof they are Sacraments And with St. Isidor of Sevil That it is because Bread strengthens the body and Wine increaseth Blood in the Flesh and that for this reason the Bread relates mystically unto the Body of Jesus Christ and the Wine to his Blood And because say they in the matter of Sacraments it is not so much to be consider'd what they be August contra Maxim l. 3. c. 22. saith St. Austin as what it is they signifie because that as Signs they are one thing and yet they do signifie another Venerable Bede makes no difficulty to say That the Bread and Wine being visibly offered another thing must be understood which is Invisible to wit The true Body and Blood of Christ because in effect he will have the Believer raise up his Soul and his Faith unto Jesus Christ sitting at the right Hand of his Father for as he told us before He carried by his Ascension into the Invisible Heavens Beda domui vocem Ju. Id. Hom. de Astil de temp in vigil Pasch the Humane Nature which he had taken In fine he is not afraid to speak of Sacrificing again Jesus Christ for the advancement of our Salvation but all Christians agreeing That Jesus Christ cannot any more be truly Sacrificed he doubtless speaks of offering him by the Sacrament whence it is that he acknowledgeth with St. Austin That Jesus Christ was once offered in himself Let the Reader judge then what advantage the Latins can draw from these latter words of Bedes which they mightily esteem Unto Bede may be joyned Sedulius a Scotchman or more truly an Irishman not him that composed the Easter work who was much later than the other I mean the Author of the Commentaries upon the Epistles of St. Paul which many attribute unto one Sedulius a Bishop in England but originally of Ireland who assisted with Fergust a Bishop of Scotland at a Council held at Rome under Gregory the 2d Anno Dom. 721. I find that the Author of these Commentaries expounding the 4th Verse of the 6th Chapter of the First Epistle to the Corinthians cites a long passage of the 14th Chapter and 19th Book of the Morals of Gregory the First without naming him Now this Sedulius whom we place in the VIII Century until we receive better information furnisheth us with these words which he seemeth to have taken out of Pelagius and Primasius when explaining these words of St. Sedul Comment in 1. ad Cor. C. 11. Paul Do this in remembrance of me he saith He lest us his remembrance as if one going a long Loyage left a Present with his Friend to the end that every time he saw it he should think of his Love and Friendship which he could not look upon without grief and tears if he dearly loved him Whereby he shews that Jesus Christ left us his Sacrament to be in his stead until he comes again from Heaven We read in the Life of the Abbot Leufred Vita Leufred C. 17. in Chron Insulae term about the beginning of the VIII Century that Charles Martell having desired him to obtain of God by his prayers the recovery of his young Son Gryphon he gave him the Sacrament of the Body of Christ In notis Menard in Sacram Greg. And we have seen in the second Chapter by the testimony of a Pontifical Manuscript kept in the Church of Roan that Christians then believed that what was drank in the Eucharist was a thing which might be consumed as that was indeed consumed If we pass from the West into the East German Germ. Constantinop Theor. rerum Eccles t. 12. Bibl. Patr. pa. 402. 403. Patriarch of Constantinople and a great stickler for Image Worship will present himself unto us in the beginning of this same Century and tells us that the Priest prays a second time to the end the Mystery of the Son of God may be accomplished and that the Bread and Wine should be made and changed into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ which the Latins stand upon very much but the Protestants pretend he declares very favourably for them and moreover they observe that it is not certain this piece is that German's which lived in the VIII Century others attributing it to another German that lived in the XII They indeed observe that to shew of what kind the change whereof he speaks is he saith In celebrating the Eucharist Ibid. p. 410. the Oblation is broken indeed like bread but it is distributed as the Communication of an ineffable benediction unto them which participate thereof with Faith He testifies that what is distributed at the holy Table is Bread but Bread accompanied with the Blessing of God and with a Heavenly and Divine Virtue for the Salvation and Consolation of Believers Ibid. p. 408. And in another place he saith That presently after Elevation the Division of the holy body is made but though it is divided into parts it remains indivisible and inseparable and that it is known and found whole and
and Commemoration of the Passion of Jesus Christ and that God in choosing this Type and not a humane Effigies intended to shun the danger of Idolatry they content not themselves to say that the Eucharist is an Image they declare That this Image is the substance of Bread they speak of Sacrificing this Image this chosen matter this Substance of Bread they pleased themselves in making a perpetual opposition betwixt the real Body of Jesus Christ and the Bread which is its Figure or Image they say That the one is his Body by Nature and the other his Body by Institution that the former is the matter of his humane substance without personal subsistence and the other a matter chosen that is to say the substance of Bread not having humane Features that the one is holy because it is Deified that the other is rendred holy by the Sanctification of Grace in fine That the one is his Flesh which he hath taken to himself and that he hath sanctified with a holiness proper unto himself and that the other is sanctified by the Grace of the Holy Ghost which by the Ministry of the Priest makes it holy whereas it was common And because the Fathers which preceded them were wont to consider the Sacrament as an Image of the Son of God these also will have it to be an express Image of this adorable Mystery in contemplation whereof we must lift up our Faith and bring down our Sins it s for this reason they say That there 's no other thing under Heaven nor any other Figure but that chosen by Jesus Christ to express the Image of his Incarnation and a little under they say That our Saviour's design in the Institution of the Sacrament was to represent and shew clearly unto Men the Mystery of his Oeconomy that is to say of his Incarnation therefore they thus conclude all their Discourse It hath been demonstrated that it is the true Figure of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ our God If it be a true Image as they do assure it is necessary say some that the substance of Bread should remain after Sanctification to represent sincerely the truth of the Flesh of Jesus Christ the which is not abolished by his Union unto the Divine Nature they add unto all these considerations that the Council testifies that our Lord commanded us to make not his real Body but the Figure of his Body and of his Blood and in that Jesus Christ commanded that this Image should be of the substance of Bread without the lineaments of humane shape it was to prevent Idolatry An Argument which would be unworthy the Council if it had believed that the Bread after Consecration had been no longer Bread but the Body it self of the Saviour of the World which ought to be Religiously adored by reason of his personal Union with the Godhead very far from fearing of committing Idolatry in adoring of him Thus it is that many do argue from this testimony They lived thirty two years in the East under the Authority of this Council but in the year 787. the Empress Irene having a violent affection for Images caused a second Council to be assembled at Nice in Bythinia whither she caused to come People to her own liking as also that favoured Images insomuch as the better to accomplish her design she conferred the Patriarchship of Constantinople upon one Terrasius which being a Lay person could not according to the Ecclesiastical Constitutions be capable of enjoying this Dignity In this Council assembled at the desire and pleasure of the Empress who governed all things in the Minority of Constantine her Son was disannull'd all that had been done at Constantinople against Images and by the way they censured what the other Fathers had said That the Sacrament is an Image of the Body of Jesus Christ because said they it is his true Body and his true Blood and not an Image Concil Nican 2. act 6. t. 5. Conc p. 5â— 758. see here their very terms The Oblations are piously called Types that is to say Figures and Images by some of the holy Fathers before the perfection of Sanctification but after Sanctification they are called truly they are and are believed to be the Body and Blood of Christ And thereupon they censure those of Constantinople for calling the Eucharist an Image and to have instanced for destroying of Images the example of an Image which was not an Image but the Body and Blood I will not here make a comparison betwixt these two Councils in their full extent nor search into the parallels betwixt them I will say but little but what I shall say will suffice to satisfie the Reader Sirmond t. â— Concil Gall. p. 191. Not to mention what hath been observed by Father Sirmond that the second Council of Nice cannot have the name of an Oecumenical and Universal Council it appears in the first place that much simplicity and sincerity might be seen in that of Constantinople although we have but little of their Acts trasmitted unto us but what was done by their Enemies But in that of Nice I am obliged to say that there is Injustice to be found in that these Prelates do assure in a great many places that they had present in their Assembly the Legats of the three Patriarchs of the East whereas the certain truth is Conc. Nican 2. act 3. p. 594 595 596 597. that not one of the three Patriarchs of the East did send any Deputies thither but five or six Hermits of Palestine ignorant and unexperienced persons as they call themselves at the instance of the Deputies of the Patriarch Terrasius did depute two of their own number John and Thomas to assist at this Council of the Legates of the Patriarchs of Alexandria of Antioch and of Jerusalem I find no marks or mention the pieces inserted in the Acts of the Council testifie the same Secondly in the Council of Constantinople the Fathers whereof it was composed did not licentiously abuse the holy Scriptures to draw it to their party but I cannot forbear saying that it was quite otherwise in that of Nice where they took liberty miserably to wrest the Scriptures and to corrupt them to draw inferences in favour of Image Worship this is to be seen in several instances especially in all the fourth Session In the third place we do not see that the Fathers of Constantinople had recourse to so many and gross pieces as those of Nice Act. 2. p. 555. Act. 4. p. 622. who made use of them freely and without any scruple for the establishing of their Opinion as the Acts of Pope Sylvester in the second Session the Book of the Passion of an Image of Jesus Christ under the name of St. Athanasius although this ridiculous piece had been but newly invented Ibid. 642. Ibid. 649. no question but by some one that was for Worshipping of Images the obscene and filthy History of a Friar
tempted by the Spirit of Fornication which they attributed unto Sophronius Patriarch of Jerusalem and a Letter of St. Basil unto the Emperor Julian the Apostate wherein this holy Doctor acknowledgeth and embraceth the Worship of Images a piece also invented by some ignorant Impostor all this in the 4th Session Therefore it is very judiciously observed in the Books of Charlemain that those of Nice seeing the holy Scriptures would not accord with their Errors they had recourse unto I know not what humane Fooleries worthy of shame I 'le say nothing of their denying the Epistle produced under the name of Ibas to be truly his Act. 6. p. 775. against the testimony of the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon and the very confession of Ibas himself In fine it is found that the Fathers of Constantinople have very faithfully retained the Doctrine and Expressions of those unto whom God had committed the conduct of the Church before them for they call the Eucharist an Image Type Commemoration it is the common Language of the Ancients they teach that it is Bread the substance of Bread the Ancients had said so before them as hath been amply related in the second Chapter of this part of our History they call it the Body of Jesus Christ by Institution which amounts unto what their Ancestors said that it is the Typical the Mystical the Symbolical Body the Body by Grace as hath been declared and they also agree with them when they say that the Sacrament is the Image of his Incarnation But as for the Fathers of Nice it is said that if they absolutely departed not from the Doctrine of the Ancients they did at least from their terms and expressions when they denied that the Fathers had called the Bread and Wine after Consecration Types or Figures which appeared so impudent unto those which have given us the Councils that they could not forbear reproving this confidence by this Annotation which they have set in the Margin the Greek Fathers often call the things Sanctified Figures as Gregory Nazianzen in the Funeral Oration of his Sister and in his first Appologetick Cyril of Jerusalem in his 5th Mystagogical Catechism and others The Abbot of Billy hath also blamed as hath been before declared the like temerity in Damascen and certainly with much reason seeing there is nothing more frequent in the Writings of the Fathers than these kind of expressions yet it was upon this false ground that these Prelates of Nice founded their censure against those of Constantinople which had called the Eucharist the Image of the Body of Jesus Ghrist and that on the contrary they said That it is his Body it self Words which the Latins are wont to explain to their advantage although the Protestants do not judge that in the main of the Doctrine Nice was not Diametrically opposite unto Constantinople to understand it aright it must be remembred the chief occasion of assembling both Councils was the subject of Images the Council of Constantinople having abolished the Use and Worship of them And that of Nice having restored both the one and the other it must also be remembred that the Fathers of Constantinople taking from the Eucharist a proof against the Use and Worship of Images they called the Sacrament an Image and declared that it was the only Image which Christ commanded to be made But because the word Image doth at the first hearing form in the mind the Idea of a proper Image and simple Picture that hath no other use nor propriety then to represent unto our Eyes some form like the Original without any way participating of its Operation and Virtue in a word a Picture like to those which be sold in Painters Shops the Prelates of Nice thinking those of Constantinople had in this sense given the name of Image unto the Sacrament as Cardinal Bessarion told us Damascen had done failed not severely to censure them not but that the Fathers of Constantinople had sufficiently enough explained themselves in saying that this Image to wit the Divine Bread is filled with the Holy Ghost But in fine the Prelates of Nice either through Passion to their Adversaries or otherwise for 't is not for me to judge of their thoughts reflected sharply upon those of Constantinople thinking they had taken this term of Image in the sense as we have expressed several things made them think so In the first place they tell us themselves that it was their thought and that they gave no other signification to the word Image As for the Image say they Concil Nicaen 2. act 6. tom 6. p. 800. t. 5. Concil Ibid. p. 799. we know no other but that it is an Image which sheweth the resemblance of its Original whence also it is that it takes the name and that it hath nothing else common with it A little before they had said That what the Image hath in common with the Original is the name only and not the definition And again in another place Ibid. t. 3. p. 353 One thing is the Image and another thing is the Original and a man of sense will never seek the Proprieties of the Original in the Image Secondly Elias of Creet now Candia one of the Fathers of the Council sheweth they think very clearly that the intent of the Council was not to teach that the Bread and the Wine were changed into the substance of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ but only into their Efficacy and Vertue for using the words of St. Cyril of Alexandria before alledged Elias Cretens in Orat. 1. Greg. Nazianz p. 201. he saith That God doth send into the things offered an enlivening vertue and that he makes them to pass into the operation of his Flesh it is in the Greek of St. Cyril into the Efficacy of his Flesh There is yet more the Fathers of Nice being in a humour of reproving and censuring those of Constantinople as to whatever with any weak shew might fall within the compass of their censure it is no force to conceive that they approved what they have not blamed and that they have owned as Catholick and Orthodox the things which they have not censured They say that all reasonable persons will grant if they consider how the Bishops of Nice were affected towards them of Constantinople whose Constitutions and Decrees they publickly revoked now of two things insisted upon by these latter the Prelates of Nice censured but one they must then approve of the other and in approving they must receive it as Catholick and as one of the Articles of their Belief The Fathers of Constanstinople had said that the Eucharist is the Image of the Body of Jesus Christ but they said also That this Image is the substance of Bread here are Adversaries eagerly bent against them Adversaries that spare them not in any thing that strictly examine every thing they do or say either to render them odious or to make them be
esteemed Wicked and Villains there 's no likelihood then they would have spared them if they had departed from the Belief publickly received in the Church seeing they had taken the liberty of censuring them for using the terms and expressions which their Forefathers had been accustomed to use in the like occasions In fine of two things that Constantinople had asserted Nice doth censure one and not the other it condemns the former and not the latter The first doth disgust it the second doth not although the one regards but the terms and the other ingageth directly the ground of the Doctrine it self it will not permit it should be said that the Eucharist is the Image of Jesus Christ but it will have it said That it is the substance of Bread after Consecration Let us for example put instead of that of Nice a Council of the Latin Church and instead of that of Constantinople a Protestant Council who could imagine that the Council of the Latin Church should condemn that of the Protestants for saying That the Eucharist is the Image of the Body of Jesus Christ and that it should not condemn it for affirming That it is the substance of Bread even after Consecration Nevertheless this is just what is done by the Fathers of Nice Is not there then absolute necessity to conclude That Nice was of Accord with Constantinople as to what concerned the Doctrine and that neither the one nor the other departed from the Ancient Belief of the Church this at least is what is inferred But may the Latins say the Prelates of Nice say that the Eucharist is properly called the Body of Christ and that it is so The Protestants answer it cannot be thought strange in the thoughts they had that the Bishops of Constantinople meant that it was an Image that had nothing common with its Original but the Name only an Image that participated not of its vertue and that was destitute of any efficacy and to say the truth say these latter the Sacrament being impregnated if it may be so said with the Grace and Benediction of our Saviour filled with his Vertue and Efficacy cloathed with the Majesty of his own Person accompanied with all the fruits and advantages of his death nothing may hinder from saying That it is his Body because it enjoys the priviledges and that there is seen in the lawful use of this Copy the same Vertue and the same Efficacy as that which resides in its Prototype and in its Original with the which it is by consequence in a manner one and the same for then especially is true what Eusebius said Euseb contr Marcel de Eccl. Theolog. l. 2. c. 23. That no body in his right senses will say that the King and his Image that is carried about are two Kings but one only which is honoured in his Image And St. Athanasius Athanas contr Arian Orat. 4. contr Sabel Gregal That the King and his Image is but one and the same thing The Picture of the King saith St. Basil is called the King yet they are not for that two Kings for as he saith elsewhere He that in an open place contemplates the Kings Picture and that saith it is the King doth not for all that own two Kings to wit Basil de Spirit S. c. 18. The Portraicture and him that it represents Contr. Sabellian vel Homil 27. t. 1. p. 522. But according to the observation of St. Cyril Archbishop of Alexandria The Pourtrait may say unto him that looks upon it and that besides would see the King himself the King and I are all one thing as to the perfect resemblance Cyril Alex. in Thesaur assert 12. t. 5. p. 111. And I make no doubt but it was in this sense that some of the Ancients considered the Bread of the Sacrament and the Body of our Saviour crucified upon the Cross as one Body and not as several Bodies and if I should doubt of it Haymond Bishop of Alberstat or Remy of Auxerr would soon cure me of this doubt in saying The Flesh which Jesus Christ hath taken Haym Halber in 1 ad Cor. c. 10. and the Bread of the Sacrament and the whole Church do not make three Bodies of Christ but one Body that is to say the Bread of the Sacrament and the Church are called the Body of Jesus Christ just as his Natural Body is because they are Mystically so that they have all their relation unto his true Body and that by virtue of this relation they are deemed one and the same Body Theodot apud Bulenger cont Casaub and before Haymond Theodotus of Antioch so expressed himself As the King saith he and his Portrait are not two Kings so also the Personal Body of Jesus Christ which is in Heaven and the Bread which the Priest distributes unto believers in the Church and which is the Antitype and Figure are not two Bodies In fine if it may be said in a good sense of all Images in general that they are one and the same with their Original of greater reason may it be said of the Eucharist which is not an Image depending of the Painters Fancy as the others nor of the skill of his Pencil but of the Institution of Jesus Christ which hath instituted this Divine Sacrament to be the remembrance of his Death the Portraicture and Image of his Person and Sufferings but an Image and Portrait that truly communicates unto us his Body broken and which in the Celebration of the Sacrament is always accompanied with his Virtue and Efficacy therefore St. 1 Chrys Hom. 28. in 1 ad Cor. Chrysostom saith That the Sacramental Table is exuberant with life 2 Homil. 51. in Matt. and full of the holy Spirit 3 Catech. ad illuminand that the Cup is full of much virtue 4 Ibid. Ambro. lib. de initiand c. 4. t. 4. p. 346. and that those which are initiated know the force and virtue of this Cup. Which agrees not ill with what the Fathers of Constantinople said That the Bread of the Eucharist is filled with the Holy Ghost And what they said of the Bread and Cup of the Sacrament the Author of the Book of those which are initiated in St. Ambrose saith the same of the Water of Baptism Believe saith he that the Waters are not alone Just Mart. Dial cum Tryph. pag. 231. Ammon Cat. in Joan. 3.5 and that there descends a Divine Vertue into this Fountain Thence it is St. Justin Martyr calls the Water of Baptism the Water of Life and that Amonius saith It is changed into a Divine Nature Seven years after to wit in the year 794. Charlemain being displeased at what had been done at Nice in favour of Images caused a Council to be assembled at Francfort to prohibit the Worship and stop the progress of an abuse which then seemed intolerable unto the greatest number of Christians in the West And at this time
were written the Books of Images which bear the name of this Emperor because in all likelihood they were written by his order rather than by his Pen. In one of these Books is censured the word Image or likeness as those of Nice had censured it in those of Constantinople I will not now examine if there was any thing of surprise in this Censure that is if it was done with an intent of directing it against Nice and not against those of Constantinople for although it is most certain that the principal design of the Council of Francfort was to oppose that of Nice against whom those of the West were no less incensed than those of Nice had been against them of Constantinople I will make no censure upon the matter not to give occasion unto any uncharitable Reader of censuring me It shall suffice to cite the words of the Book Carol. Magnus de imag l. 4. c. 14. that all the World may see what was the thoughts of the Author in censuring the word Image The Mystery saith he of the Body and Blood of Christ ought not now to be called Image but Verity not Shadow but Substance not the Type of things to come but what had been figured by Types the Day-light is already come and Shadows are gone away now Jesus Christ the end of the Law in righteousness unto all believers is come he hath already fulfilled the Law He that was in the valley of the shadow of Death hath seen a great Light already the Vail is fallen from the Face of Moses and the vail of the Temple which is rent hath discovered unto us all things that were hid and unknown now the true Melchisedek to wit Jesus Christ the righteous King the King of Peace hath bestowed upon us not the Sacrifices of Beasts but the Sacrament of his Body and Blood It is no hard matter to guess at the scope of these words and to see that they do not tend to the condemning the word Image taking it for a holy Sign instituted of God not only to signifie and represent but also effectually to communicate Jesus Christ unto our Souls dead for our sins their intent is only to reprove this term as it was taken for a legal Shadow or for a prefiguration of Christ to come therefore to shew that the Sacrament was not of the Nature of Types and Figures of the Law which did only represent without communicating the thing represented it is spoken in opposition unto the Sacrifices of Beasts that our Saviour hath left us not his Body but the Sacrament of his Body and of his Blood but a Sacrament so efficacious and Divine that the faithful Soul never participates of it but that it really and truly communicates of the thing it self whereas the Types of the Law did only prefigure it therefore it is that the Author said a little before Ibid. speaking of the Mystery of the Body and Blood of the Lord That believers do receive it every day in the Sacrament And in another Book he declares Lib. 2. c. 25. That it is the Mediator of God and Men which by the Ministry of the Priest and the Innovation of the name of God doth make the Sacrament of his Body and Blood which he hath left us for a Commemoration of his Death and of our Salvation And again The Apostle St. Paul Ibid. that chosen Vessel considering that the Body and Blood of our Lord should not only be equal unto all other Sacraments but also preferable unto any he saith Let every one examine himself and so let him eat of this Bread and drink of this Cup. He testifies That what is eaten at the Holy Table is Bread and in saying that the Sacrament of the Eucharist ought to be preferred almost before all others he shews plainly that he did not believe it was the very Body of our Saviour for these words would have been unworthy a Christian if they had been spoken of the proper Flesh of the Son of God But what need there any other explanation than that which is given us by Charlemain himself when writing unto Alcuin his Tutor De ration Septuages ad Alcuin he saith That our Saviour Supping with his Disciples broke Bread and also gave them the Cup for a Figure of his Body and Blood and gave them a great Sacrament for our profit Thus it is that several explain it But as to Alcuin let us see what he will furnish us for the better understanding the History of this Age and if the Tutor will accord with his Schollar I will not insist upon the Treatise of Divine Offices which go in his name because the Learned do confess that 't is not his it shall suffice to relate what is written by the late Andrew du Chesne the last of which hath set his hand unto the Edition of his works We do not saith he want sufficient conjectures to shew that this Treatise is not Alcuin's Gallia Braccata Andr. Quercetan praefat ad Alcuin c. 17. for the Author whoever it was doth testifie that he is of Gall Narboness and an ancient Copy by the help whereof we have recovered twelve whole Chapters Attributes the question of the Feasts of Saints tacked unto the 18th Chapter unto the Friar Elpris who according to Trythemius flourished in the year 1040. And in fine in this Treatise there is mention of the Institution of the Feast of All-Saints the first of November Nevertheless it is easily found by Sigebert and others that it was not begun to be celebrated that day in France and Germany till a good while after the Decease of Alcuin that is Anno 835. and Alcuin died Anno 804. Neither will I infist upon a Confession of Faith which Father Chifflet hath published in the name of the famous Alcuin because it is no less Fathered upon this excellent Master of Charlemain than the Book of Divine Offices And that it is most certain it was taken out of the Books of Anselm's Meditations and unadvisedly crowded into the Works of St. Austin Now Anselm lived towards the end of the XI Century and the beginning of the XII And I could easily here insert all the evident proofs of Forgery which the piece it self doth furnish but because it is so apparent a truth and that moreover I find it hath already been done I will proceed to the consideration of what is found in the genuine works of Alcuin touching the subject in hand In one of his Letters he saith of the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament that they be consecrated in Corpus Sanguinem Christi into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ But let us hear the Explication he gives unto us of these words in the same place Alcuin Ep. 59. The Sanctification saith he of this Mystery doth presage the effect of our Salvation The faithful people is understood by the Water and by the Grains of Wheat whereof the Flower is taken to
took them out of the Scriptures and the holy Fathers to teach them unto such as desired to be instructed At the beginning of the Letter Id. ibi p. 1619. 1623. You examine me saith he upon a thing whereof several persons doubt Id. in Matt. l. 12. p. 1094. In his Commentary upon the 26th Chapter of St. Matthew I have treated of these things more at large and more expresly because I am informed that some reproved me as if in the Book of Sacraments which I published I had given unto the words of Jesus Christ more than the truth it self doth allow Ib. p. 1100. And again There are many that in these mystical things are of another Opinion and there are many that are blind and cannot see when they think this Bread and this Cup is nothing else but what is seen with the Eyes and which is tasted with the Mouth Wherefore the Anonymous Author before mentioned Aut Anonym uâ—i supra writes that some affirmed That what is received at the Altar is the same that was born of the Virgin and that others on the contrary denied it and said That it is another thing But having been told by Paschas himself that he had several Adversaries and Opposers We must farther learn of him what was the belief of this great number of Opposers for after having cited the words of Institution Take Eat this is my Body Paschas Ep. ad Frudegard Commentar in Matth. l. 12. he adds That those which will extenuate this term of Body saying That it is not the true Flesh of Jesus Christ which is celebrated in the Sacrament nor his true blood let them hear these words they pretend I know not what as if there was only in the Sacrament a certain vertue of the body and blood of Jesus Christ as if our Saviour had told a lye and that it was not his true Flesh and Blood c. When he broke and gave the Bread unto his Disciples he said not This is or there is in this Mystery a certain Vertue or Figure of my Body but he said This is my Body And a little after I admire that some would now say That it is not the reality of the Flesh and blood of Jesus Christ in the thing it self but in Sacrament a certain efficacy of the body and not the body a vertue of the blood and not the blood a figure and not the truth a shadow and not the substance It cannot then reasonably be after such formal and positive Declarations that the world should think any other Opinion can be attributed unto the Adversaries of Paschas but that of the Protestants of France and of all others of their Communion As the Belief of Paschas is that of the Roman Catholicks to say otherwise were to dissemble to renounce the truth and to be unworthy the esteem and credit of honest men Let it then be granted for certain that in this important point which we do examine Paschas was a Roman Catholick as 't is spoken now a days And that his Adversaries on the contrary were Protestant Calvinists from whence it will necessarily follow that if the followers of Paschas in the IX Century were more considerable and of greater numbers than his Adversaries the Opinion of the Latin Church had the victory over the other but if also the number of his Adversaries was greater their Name more famous and their Reputation better established it must be concluded That the Belief of the Protestants had the Victory it appears that so things are to be understood to do right unto both parties The better to succeed in this design I will begin with those that followed Paschas seeing it was him that obliged his Adversaries to contradict him and oppose themselves unto the Establishment of his Opinion which appeared new unto them and different from the ancient Faith of the Church It cannot be denied but Paschas Radbert had good Endowments as appears by his Works and that he was commended by some Writers of that time as a Man of great Learning and above the common sort Nevertheless as to the Subject in hand I have not observed in what I have read that many persons have declared in favour of him It is out of all question that Frudegard fell into his Opinion after having read his Treatise of the Body and Blood of Christ for in the Letter which Paschas writ him Paschas Ep. ad Frudeg pag. 1620. we therein find these words You say that you believed so formerly he speaks of his Opinion and that you read the same in the Book of Sacraments that I composed Since which time Frudegard having read the Advertisement which St. Austin gives in the third Book of Christian Doctrine of understanding figuratively what our Saviour speaks of eating his Flesh he was very much shaken and if he changed not quite it may be said that he continued in suspence without declaring for or against Paschas It is what he informs us Ibid. when he adds unto his first words But you say that you have since read in St. Austin 's third Book of Christian Doctrine that where it is said it is the body and blood of Christ it is a figurative manner of expression and if it is a figurative speech and a figure rather than the truth I cannot tell say you how it should be understood And you say afterwards And if I believe that it is the same body as that which he took from the holy Virgin his Mother this excellent Doctor that is to say St. Austin declares on the contrary that it is a great crime to wit to believe that it is the real body of Jesus Christ Paschas doth what he can to continue him in the Opinion he had been of before he had read this passage of St. Austin and the better to effect it he alledges this unto him under the name of this great Saint and as being taken out of his Sermons unto the Neophites Ibid. Receive in the Bread what was nailed upon the Cross and in the Cup that which came out of the Side of Jesus Christ Words which for certain are not of St. Austin and which are not to be found in any of his Works which we have in great numbers Paschas 't is true cites them as to the best of his remembrance and I cannot tell if in a matter so important as this it will serve turn to say As I remember or If my memory fail not In the main it not appearing that he satisfied Frudegard in his doubts the surest side we can take in this Conjuncture is to make him neither a Friend nor an Adversary of Paschas but to leave him in his doubts if we would not increase the Sect of Scepticks I will not say the same of the Anonymous Author which Father Cellot hath furnished us and whom we have twice mentioned already in this Chapter for it appears plainly he was
on Paschas his side I know not precisely the time that he lived although it is very probable it was either at the latter end of the IX Century or it may be in the X. but I know he was not a stout Champion and that his Courage was not able to restore Paschas his Party if they had the fortune to be worsted Unto this day the name and quality of this Proselite is not known as also it is not known who or what Frudegard was if it be not inferred by Paschas calling him Brother and Fellow-Soldier that he was either a Friar or Abbot of some Monastery As for Hinâ—mar Arch-Bishop of Rheims incomparably better known than our Anonymous and more famous than Frudegard by his Dignity and Writings I find my self a little at a loss for when I consider that he saith with St. Cyprian and St. Austin 1 Hinem. de proedest c. 3. epilogi c. 1. That our Saviour recommended his Body and Blood in things that are reduced into one 2 Id. ibid. de cavend viriis c. 12. ad Hincm Laud. c. 48. That he reserves with St. Austin and St. Prosper the eating of the Flesh of Christ for Believers only 3 Id de non trina deitate c. 17. That he declares with the former that the Mystery of Bread passeth into a Sacrament 4 Id. de caven vit c. 11. And that he acknowledgeth with others That our Saviour hath left us the Sacrament as a Pledge of his Love and as a Memorial of his Person and of his Death as a Man travelling into a far Country should leave a Pledge unto his Friend I cannot tell if I should make him a Friend of Paschas whose Doctrine doth not agree well with what we have now mentioned But when on the other hand I find in his Writings some things which seem to favour the same Paschas I cannot tell how to make him his Adversary Id. de cavend vit c. 12. For example what he saith That Jesus Christ is every day consecrated upon his Table that he sanctifies his Sacrament and that he makes himself Id. de pradest â— 31. And that he observes that Prudens Bishop of Trois and John Scot or of Scotland or rather of Ireland said That the Sacraments of the Altar are not the real body and blood of our Lord but only the memorial of his true body and blood Let the Reader then place Hincmar either amongst the Enemies of Paschas or amongst his Friends for my part I am very apt to believe that he was of his favourers I mean that he followed his Opinion in the point of the Eucharist which yet I do not affirm as a thing indubitable and which may not be questioned I will only say that I do not find that he was of any extraordinary esteem for if we believe Father Sirmond who otherwise was no Enemy unto him Archbishop Hincmar was wont to be deceived himself Sirm. de duob Dionys c. 4. Mauguin Hist Chron. p. 442. Apolog. pour les Saints Peres l. 5. p. 3. c. 5. and to deceive others If we believe Monsieur the President Mauguin he calls him a Deceiver and a Dissembler And if we will give Credit unto the description that is made of him in the Apologies of the holy Fathers Defenders of Free Will we shall find him to be both violent and ignorant a Deceiver scandalous and malicious a Calumniator and a Man full of Vanity These are the Colours wherein he is displayed in that excellent Work besides several others which I pass over in silence So that if Hincmar was such a person as these Gentlemen describe him to be I do not think he would render the Party very considerable in which side soever he is placed yet he cannot be denied the Knowledge of the ancient Canons if I mistake not wherein he was better skill'd than in that which is dogmatical and relating unto Divinity In the main see here two Followers of Paschas one of which to wit the Anonymous declares himself directly for him and the other I mean Hincmar though he makes not so formal a Declaration doth nevertheless in all probability follow his steps But in fine they are the only two which I can find to be of the Belief of Paschas in the IX Century if it were true that the Anonimous wrote in that Century whereas if he wrote after as Father Cellot inclines to think he did all the strength of this Friar and afterwards Abbot of Corby will consist in himself and Hincmar in the uncertainty we are in whether St. Austin or Paschas prevailed over Frudegard As for the Author of the Commentaries upon St. Paul's Epistles which some attribute unto Haymon Bishop of Alberstadt others unto Remy Arch-bishop of Lyons and others in fine with greater probability unto Remy Friar of Auxerr I do not think he ought to be reckoned amongst the Friends nor Enemies of Paschas He did like those that seeing a Kingdom divided into two Factions take part with neither but think of making a third Party for he would neither follow the Party of Paschas nor the Belief of those which argued against him but would establish in the West as far as I can find the Opinion that Damascen had broached in the East of the Union of the Bread of the Sacrament with the Divinity to make by means of this Union one sole Body with the true Body of our Saviour as we have shewed in speaking of Damascen And this is the reason that we here place Remy of Auxerr although he lived not according to all Circumstances but at the end of the IX Century and to say the truth because he had a middle Opinion betwixt that of Paschas and that of his Adversaries we cannot appoint him a fitter place than this to the end that as he disturbed not the Depositions of Paschas his Friends neither should he trouble the Testimony of his Adversaries That the Opinion of Remy is such as we say I hope the Candid Reader will believe it to be so when he shall see what we here produce of his Commentaries upon the 10th and 11th Chapters of the First to the Corinthians and of his Exposition of the Cannon of the Mass ' The Flesh saith he which the Word took in the Womb of the Virgin into the Unity of his Person Remig. Altiss comment in â— ad Corin. c. 10. and the Bread which is Consecrated in the Church are one Body of Jesus Christ for as this Flesh is the Body of Jesus Christ so also this Bread passeth into the Body of Jesus Christ and they be not two Bodies but one Body for the fulness of the Godhead which was in that Body filleth also this Bread and the same Godhead of the Son which is in them filleth the Body of Jesus Christ which is Consecrated by the Ministry of several Priests throughout the World and causeth that it is one sole Body of
very Testimonies which Wicliff had borrowed out of Rabanus for the defence of his Doctrine It is then most certain that this Archbishop of Mayans taught two things of the Sacrament of the Eucharist one that by reason of its substance and matter it was subject unto the meanest accidents of our ordinary food and in so saying he followed the Opinion of Origin who said so positively six hundred years before him The other thing which he taught is That the Sacrament doth feed our body and turns it self into our substance which he learned from St. Irenaeus St. Justin Martyr St. Austin St. Isidore of Sevil and others But let us hear what he intends himself to say unto us Raba Maur. de instit Cleric l. 1. c. 31. Our Saviour saith he chose rather that believers should receive with the mouth the Sacraments of his Body and Blood and that it should be converted into their nourishment or as it is cited by Thomas Waldensis agreeable to the Manuscript Copies into part of themselves to the end that by the visible thing the invisible effect should be shewn for as material food doth nourish the body and preserve it outwardly so in like manner the Word doth inwardly strengthen and preserve the soul And again Ibid. the Sacrament is one thing and the vertue of the Sacrament is another The Sacrament is converted into the nourishment of the body but by the vertue of the Sacrament we do acquire Eternal Life As then the Sacrament is converted into us when we do eat and drink it so also are we converted into the Body of Jesus Christ when we do live in Obedience and in Holiness And building always upon this Foundation Id. in Mat. c. 26 he saith elsewhere with venerable Bede That Jesus Christ Id. in Ecclesia li. 7. c. 8. in the room of the Paschal Lamb hath substituted the Sacrament of his Body and Blood That the Creator of the World Id. de Instit Cler. c. 31. l. 1. and the Redeemer of Mankind making of the Fruits of the Earth that is to say of Wheat and Wine a convenient Mystery converted it into a Sacrament of his Body and Blood That the Unlevened Bread and Wine mixed with Water are sanctified to be the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Then he gives the reason wherefore our Lord chose Bread and Wine to be made the Sacraments of his Body and Blood and saith That it is because Melchisedek did offer Bread and Wine Ibid. and that Jesus Christ being a Priest after the Order of Melchisedek he ought to imitate his Oblation And teaching us wherefore the Sacrament takes the name of the Body and Blood of our Saviour he saith with Isidore Archbishop of Sevill Ibid. Because bread doth strengthen the body it is fitly called the Body of Jesus Christ and because Wine increaseth blood in the body it doth for this cause resemble his Blood Now both these are visible yet nevertheless Ibid. c. 33. being sanctified by the Holy Ghost they pass into a Sacrament of the Divine Body a Sacrament which he calls the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ by opposition unto his natural Body from which he distinguisheth it It must then be granted that Rabanus Archbishop of Mayans did teach quite contrary unto what Paschas did teach After Rabanus I will receive the Deposition of Amalarius Fortunatus although a little ancienter It is something difficult to know who he was and what Ecclesiastical Dignity he enjoyed And this difficulty is occasioned because some make him a Deacon others a Priest others an Abbot and in fine others a Bishop but the difficulty is not great because it is most certain he was invested with these four Dignities one after the other unto which also they added that of Archipresbyter Let the Reader see the Preface of the 7th Tome of the Collections of Dom Luke d'Achery where this learned Benedictine proves what we now say And he alledges besides the Manuscript Copies Father Sirmond which called him only Deacon and refutes him the late Monsieur Blondell who wrote that he was also Bishop he approves and of Monsieur Baluze who speaks of him as Abbot and Archipresbyâ—â—r although hitherto cannot be discovered neither the place of his Monastery nor of his Diocess Remy Archbishop of Lyons and the Church of the same place have endeavoured to eclipse his Reputation Lib. de trâ—â—us Epist because he was not of the same Opinion with them touching Predestination which Subject at that time was very hotly disputed and controverted amongst the Prelates of France Agobard Archbishop of the same place hath mightily inveighed against him in a Book which he composed against Amalarius his four Books of Ecclesiastical Offices Agoâ—ard cont Amalar. index Chronolog 〈◊〉 Pat. in autor 9. secul maâ—usc Flori. He was no better treated by Florus Deacon of the same Church in a Book which he wrote expresly against him where he denies amongst other things what Amalarius had said of the Tripartite Body of Jesus Christ de triformi Corpore Christi an expression which also escaped not the Censure of Paschas Radbert who gives this intimation at the end of his Letter to Frudegard Follow not the fooleries of the Tripartite Body of Jesus Christ De Tripartito Christi Corpore But as men are always men and that they but too much suffer themselves to be lead by their Passions it would not be just to judge of the Merits of Amalarius by the Testimony of his Enemies for not to insist upon what is said in the Manuscripts alalledged by Dom Luke d'Achery in the Preface above-mentioned he is qualified with the Title of a Man most learned And those which after him have written of Divine Offices mention him with honour and great commendation Two things may inform us in what esteem he was The first is in that he was by the Emperor Lewis the Debonair sent unto Pope Gregory to search for Antiphonaries Amalar. in Prolog Antiphon as he testifies himself in the Preface of his Book of the Order of the Antiphonary The second is That the same Emperor having assembled a Council at Aaix la Chappell Anno 816. he ordered a Rule to be made for Prebends drawn out of the Writings of the holy Fathers that the Prebends should conform unto it as the Friars did unto St. Bennet's And it was this Amalarius that by Order of this Prince composed this Book as is testified by Ademar a Friar of Angoulesm in his Chronicle Whereunto may also be added Ademar in Chron. Anno 816. In Supplem Concil Gall. p. 110. that the same Amalarius was chosen with Halitgarius by the Council of Paris assembled Anno 824. against the worshiping of Images to present into the same Emperor the Letter written unto him by this Assembly of Prelates And therefore it is that in the Memoirs that Lewis the Deboâ—ur directed unto Jeremy Archbishop of Sens
not that is to say Id. cap. 17. That the Mysteries of our Redemption are truly the body and blood of our Saviour And we shall find say the Protestants that he so explained himself in regard to their Efficacy and their Vertue and of the real and effectual communication of this Body and Blood in the lawful use of this Sacrament and not to say that they are substantially this Body and Blood because that is inconsistent with the Declaration he made just before That the Sacraments of the body and blood of Jesus Christ is the substance of Bread and Wine whereas these things accord very well with saying that although the Sacraments are Bread and Wine in substance yet they are for all that truly the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in Efficacy and in Vertue because they are indeed accompanied with the Vertue and Efficacy of his Divine Body and of his precious Blood the term of truly being opposed not unto figuratively or sacramentally for that would be a contradiction seeing he speaks of Mysteries but it is opposed unto untruth as if the Sacrament were not at all the Body of Jesus Christ unto vainly as if it had only the bare name and nefficaciously as if it had not the virtue And that this is the true sense of the words of Wallafridus it appears by the title of the Chapter entituled Of the vertue of the Sacraments in which Chapter the more to advance the efficacy he with many of the Ancients particularly with Rabanus his Master and with Ratramn his Contemporary interprets the 6th of St. John not of the Flesh and Blood it self of Jesus Christ but of the Sacraments of his Body and Blood or to speak with St. Fulgentius Of the Mysteries of the Truth Fulgent de Bapt. Aethiop and not of the Truth of the Mysteries This is the Reasoning of Protestants At the same time time that Wallafridus wrote his Book Heribald or Heribold Bishop of Auxerr was in great Reputation but because we have that to say of this Prelate as will give a very great weight unto his Testimony we will reserve him for a Chapter unto himself and in the mean while we will say something of Loup Abbot of Ferriers in Gastinais who in that he speaks horably of Heribold as shall be related hereafter may intimate that they were both of one Judgment But these sorts of Inferences are too weak to be insisted upon therefore I will seek for something in his Writings that is more material as in one of his Letters unto Amulus or Amulo Archbishop of Lyons in behalf of Guenilo Archbishop of Sans and of Count Gerrard in speaking of Jesus Christ Lupus Ferratiâ—n Ep. 81. Id. Ep. 40. he said That he raised his Humanity unto Heaven to be always present with him by his Divinity This that he calls Rabanus his Tutor and rendred him thanks for that he took care of instructing him doth no less confirm what he said and gives cause to think that in all likelihood Rabanus had instilled his Opinions into him because most commonly we embrace their Opinions whose Disciples we have been in our Youth especially when they are Opinions received by the Major part of the World Unto which may be added what he saith in the Book of three Questions Id. de tribus quaest p. 208 209. ult edit which Monsieur Baluze proves to be his to wit That God hath subjected spiritual Creatures unto time only but as for bodily things he hath subjected them unto time and unto place and that it cannot be questioned if it be considered that all bodies that have length breadth and depth and which are called solid are never contained but in one place It is evident that he means of being contained circumscriptively otherwise his Opposition would be insignificant being certain that Spirits for instance Angels also fill a place so that whilst they are here they are not there and this is termed to be in a place definitively But to be there circumscriptively appertains only unto Bodies which being made up of several parts are in such manner scituated in the place which they fill that each part of the Body answers unto each part of the place St. Fulgent ad Pet. Diac. c. 3. It not being given unto Bodies to exist after the manner of Spirits to use the terms of St. Fulgentius Seeing then that the Abbot de Ferriers speaks after this manner of the existing of Bodies and that he believes it inseparable from every Corporal Creature without excepting the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist it follows that he believed not this Existence after the manner of a Spirit which is attributed unto him in the Latin Church nor by consequence the real Presence whereupon it depends as one of its necessary Consequences This is what several do infer from this passage The Emperor Charles the Bald being informed that his Subjects were not all of one Opinion touching the Doctrine of the Sacrament thought it necessary to consult some of the most Learned of his Kingdom and such as were of greatest Credit and Esteem Amongst others which he made choice of to write on this Subject he chose two persons whom he esteemed very much the one was Bertram or as he is called by the Writers of that Age Ratramn which is his true name and the other was John Surnamed Erigenius of Scotland that is to say of Ireland according to the Language of our times Their Writings have not had the same fate for those of Ratramn have been preserved unto us but as for those of John they were condemned and burnt two hundred years after at the Council of Verceill And as they were two several Writers so we must also distinguish them in this History and that we speak of each of them severally To begin with Ratramn Priest of the Monastery of Corby and afterwards Abbot of Orbais I say he was a Man so esteemed in his time that all the Bishops of France made choice of him to defend the Latin Church against the Greeks and by the industry of Dom Luke d'Achery a Benedictine Friar we have in our hands the four Books which he composed and are such that when I compare them with that written by Eneas Bishop of Paris in the same Century and in defence of the same Cause I find as great difference betwixt them as betwixt Light and Darkness or at least betwixt the weak Essay of some illiterate person and the accomplished Work of an exquisite Artist because in truth the Work of Eneas is extreamly weak in comparison of that of Ratramn I say of that Ratramn unto whom the Abbot Trithemius ascribes such great Commendations in the XV Century and whom the Disciples of St. Austin Defenders of the free Grace of Jesus Christ so much admired when they made use of what he wrote touching the Doctrine of Predestination Therefore the President Mauguin speaking of him said Mauguin dissertat Hist
time of Charles the Bald by whose Command he wrote it Father Cellot the Jesuit never made any difficulty of this matter freely attributing unto Ratramn the little Treatise whereof we speak and proving by a long Dispute that he was the Fore-runner of Berengarius and of Calvin and that he openly taught that the Eucharist is not the real Body of Jesus Christ which he confirms by the Authority of persons most learned in the Communion of the Latins Allain Despans de Saints du Perron Clement the Eighth which all have had this same Opinion of Bertram and of his Book He observes that Cardinal Bellarmin doth rank him amongst those which have disputed whether the Eucharist is the real Body of Jesus Christ and that it was justly put in the Index of prohibited Books according to the intention of the Council of Trent As for Sixtus de Sienna he found it so contrary unto the Belief of the Latin Church that he took it to be some of the Works of Oecolompadius which the Protestants published in the name of Ratramn It is commonly said that second thoughts are better than the first but Monsieur de Marca seems to go about to give the Lie unto this Maxim by his Conduct for in this French Treatise of the Eucharist a little before mentioned and which he had composed before what we but now examined of his he very judiciously attributes unto Bertram this little Treatise of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and saith That he was consulted on this matter by Charles the Bald This is that whereto he should have held and not to change his Opinion without any solid Ground And it ought not to be said with some that Bertram who was a Friar in an Abby whereof Paschas was Abbot durst not therefore write against him for in the first place who told those persons that Bertram was yet a Friar in the Monastery of Gorby when he wrote against Paschas when probably he was Abbot of Orbais and no way depending upon Paschas And for my part I find much more likelihood of the last than of the former In the second place Wherefore is it that Ratramn should not dare to write against what Paschas writ touching the Sacrament of the Eucharist seeing he feared not in other things directly to oppose one of the necessary Consequences of Paschas his Opinion and plainly to call it Heresie as we have fully made it appear in the 13th Chapter of the second Part of this History It may then boldly and without danger be affirmed after the testimony of so many Learned Men of the Communion of Rome that Ratramn was an Adversary unto Paschas But to make this truth appear in its full lustre it is requisite to alledge some passages of this small Treatise after having shewed that all therein amounted to prove two things one is That the Mystery of the Eucharist is a Figure and not the thing it self and the other That 't is not the same Body which is born of the Virgin Mary as Paschas did teach it was In fine having first of all said unto Charles the Bald Bertram de corp sanguin Dom. That there being nothing better becoming his Royal Wisdom then to have a Catholick Opinion of the sacred Mysteries and not to suffer that his Subjects should be of different Judgments touching the Body of Jesus Christ wherein we know is the Abridgment of Christian Religion he proposed two questions wherein the King desired to be resolved 1. Whether the body and blood of Jesus Christ which Christians do receive with the mouth be made in mystery or in reality And 2. Whether it be the same Body which was born of the Virgin that suffered dyed rose again ascended into Heaven and is set down at the right hand of God the Father Paschas taught That it was the same Flesh as was born of the holy Virgin and his Adversaries on the contrary That it was the Figure and the Sacrament and not the real Flesh If then Ratramn taught That the Eucharist is the Figure and the Sacrament of the Body of Jesus Christ and not the very Flesh it self of necessity it must be concluded that he directly opposed the Opinion of Paschas according to the Declaration made us by the Anonymous Author Id. Ibid. As to what regards the first question see here how it is resolved I demand saith he of those that will not here admit of a Figure and that will have all to be taken simply and in reality I say I would ask of them to what purpose was the change made that it should no longer be Bread and Wine as it was before but the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ for according to the bodily appearance and the visible form of things the Bread and Wine have no change in them and if they have suffered no change then they be nothing else but what they were before And a little after Ibid. there offers here a question which is made by several saying That these things are made in Figure and not in reality and so saying they shew themselves contrary to the Writings of the Holy Fathers And after having alledged two passages of St. Austin one of the third Book of Christian Doctrine and the other of the Epistle unto Boniface he concludes We find that St. Austin saith Ibid. That the Sacraments are other things than that whereof they be Sacraments the Body wherein Jesus Christ suffered and the Blood which flowed out of his Side are the things but the Mysteries of these things are the Sacraments of this Body and of this Blood which are celebrated in remembrance of the Death of our Saviour not only once a year at the Solemnity of Easter but also every day And although there is but one Body wherein our Saviour suffered and one Blood which he shed for the sins of the World nevertheless the Sacraments take the name of the things whereof they be Sacraments and are called the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ by reason of the resemblance they have with the things which they represent as the Death and Resurrection of our Lord which are celebrated yearly on certain days although he suffered and rose but once in himself Those days cannot be brought back again seeing they are past but the days whereon the Commemoration of the Passion and Resurrection of our Saviour is made are called by their names because of the resemblance they have with those whereon our Saviour suffered and rose again In like manner we say our Saviour is sacrificed when the Sacraments of his Passion is celebrated although he suffered but once in himself for the Salvation of the World He saith moreover Ibid. that those which believe the reality make a true confession when they say That it is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ but that they deny what they seem to affirm and that they themselves destroy what they believe for when they
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
At Troys is solemnized the memory of St. Prudens Bishop and Confessor this Saint was born in Spain endowed with Divine Graces and Illustrious by his Zeal for Religion and his knowledge of the Holy Scriptures having been driven out of Spain by the Saracens and being come into France he drew the Admiration and Love of all men therefore after the Death of Adelbert Bishop of Troys whither he had retired himself and had given proofs of his Vertue and Merit he was Elected and appointed the 37th Bishop of that Church by the common consent of the Clergy and People being so advanced unto the Episcopal Dignity he shined like a Light set in a Candlestick not unto this Church alone but also throughout all France by the example of a most holy Life and by the splendour of Divine Wisdom he was the Ornament and Delight of the Bishops of his time a Defender of the Purity of the Faith and an Oracle of Ecclesiastical Knowledge As for the Deacon Florus he hath transmitted unto us himself evidences of his belief in his Explication of the Mass at least if that be the work of this Florus Deacon of the Church of Lyons who in this Explication is styâ—â—â— Master Florus for Trithemius attributes this little Treatise whereof we speak unto one Florus a Benedictine Friar in the Abby of Trom in the Country of Liege and others make its Author to be the Deacon Florus that wrote against Amalarius and against John Scot upon the Subject of Predestination This latter Opinion seems the most likely and the reason which makes me not to doubt of it is that I observe the Author of this Interpretation of the Mass hath copied ten lines verbatim out of the Book which Agobard Bishop of Lyons under Lewis the Debonair Son of Charles the Bald wrote against Amalarius Vid. Flor. Bibl. Patr. t. 6. edit ult p. 171. unde Eccles c. Et Agobard contr Amalar. c. 13. p. 115. Florus in Exposit Missae Bibl. Patr. t. 6. p. 170. Now there 's much more probability to say that it was written by a Deacon of the same Church then by a Monk of the Country of Liege It being then evident after this remark if I mistake not that this little Treatise is to be attributed unto the Deacon Florus Let us hear what he hath designed to inform us The Oblation saith he although taken from the simple fruits of the Earth is made unto Believers the Body and Blood of the only Son of God by the ineffable virtue of Divine Benediction He seems to make a difference betwixt the Wicked and the Good and saith the Sacrament is made unto the latter the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ but unto the former it is nothing less because they have not Faith a Declaration which as the Protestants say agrees not with the Doctrine of the Real Presence by which the Eucharist is made the Body of Jesus Christ not only unto the Good but unto the Wicked also Florus explains himself very clearly Ibid. when he adds This Body and this Blood is not gather'd in the Ears of Corn and in the Grapes Nature gives it not unto us but it is Consecration that maketh it unto us mystically Jesus Christ is eaten when the Creature of Bread and Wine pass into the the Sacrament of his Flesh and Blood by the ineffable Sanctification of the Holy Ghost he is eaten by parcels in the Sacrament and he remains entire in Heaven and entire in your heart He would say that the Eucharist is naturally Bread and Wine that Consecration makes it the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ which is eaten in Morsels under the Sign which represents him but as to himself he is whole and entire in Heaven as he is whole and entire in the heart of every Believer in quality of a quickning and saving Object embraced by Faith so to find Life and Salvation in partaking of him because it is he that hath merited Salvation for us by his Death and purchased Life for us by his Sufferings And as the Eucharist is the Memorial of this Death and these Sufferings Florus makes no difficulty to say that it is made unto Believers the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ because in participating of this Divine Mystery Faith looks unto him as the only Object of its Contemplation Manducation and Participation Thus much these other words of the same Author import Ibid. p. 171. All that is done in the Oblation of the Body and Blood of our Lord is mystical we see one thing and we understand another what is seen is corporal what is understood hath a spiritual Fruit. Moreover he saith plainly that what our Saviour commanded his Disciples to take and eat was Bread He said unto them of the Bread Take and eat ye all of this Ibid. And speaking of the Cup The Wine said he was the Mystery of our Redemption And he proves it by these words I will no more drink of this Fruit of the Vine In fine expounding these last words of the Mass Whereby O Lord Ibid. thou always createst for us all these good things c. which is a kind of Thanksgiving which in the Latin Liturgy doth follow the Consecration he sufficiently gives to understand that he believed not that the Bread and Wine were changed into the substance of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ seeing he speaks of them as of things which God had created from the beginning of the World which he maketh still every year by Propagation and by Reparation which he sanctifieth and fills with his Grace and Heavenly Blessing which himself interprets to be of Corn and of Wine Thus it is that many do explain the meaning of this Author About the same time that the Deacon Florus wrote at Lyons Christian Druthmar Priest and Friar of Corby and Companion or Ratramn in the same Monastery composed his Commentary upon St. Matthew's Gospel and we should forthwith see what he wrote of the Eucharist if Sixtus Senensis did not stop us a little moment This famous Library-keeper doth accuse Protestants of having corrupted the Text of Druthmar in Reading in the Sacrament whereas he pretends upon the Credit of the Copy of a Manuscript to be seen in the Library of the Franciscans at Lyons that it should be read Subsisting really in the Sacrament The first thing we should do then is to consider the nature of this Accusation for the faith of Sixtus is look'd upon by many as the faith of a Man that approves very well of Expurgatory Indexes and one that hath laid two other Accusations unto the same Protestants Charge which are believed to be false Bibl. Sanct. in Ep. ad Pium V. Id. l. 6. Annot. 72. One is to have corrupted and altered a passage of Ferus a Franciscan Friar concerning the Temporal Power of the Pope although Ferus his Commentary upon St. Matthew wherein the passage in dispute is contained was
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
Brain tell us better than Pasehas himself what their Opinion was Paschas told us in the foregoing Chapter that those People did not judge as he did teach That the Eucharist was the Flesh which was born of the holy Virgin but the Figure and the Sacrament of that Flesh a Figure and Sacrament filled with the Vertue and Efficacy of this Divine Flesh so that believing that the Bread remaining Bread after Consecration they also believed that as to its substance and matter part of it turned into our proper substance for the nourishment of our Bodies and the other part passed the way of our common Food which is directly to speak plainly the Opinion of those at this present called Calvinists Now if this Belief was Erronious if this Opinion was Heretical contrary unto that of the Church and different from the Ancient belief of Christians is it probable that King Charles the Bald would have chosen for his Principal Chaplain by consent of the Pope and the Synods of his Kingdom and that the Clergy of France would have suffered to preside over it a man infected with such an Opinion Or that Hinemar after his Death should call him a Bishop of venerable memory And that there should be engraven on his Tomb Here lyeth the Body of St. Heribold I cannot think so but rather that the Opinion of Heribold and the other Adversaries of Paschas which is the same of the Calvinists was the most general Opinion in the IX Century and that that of Paschas which is followed by Roman Catholicks at this time was not approved at that time but was opposed by all the great and learned Men of that Age. This is what the Protestant saith and the inference he makes from the Dignity and Belief of Heribold CHAP. XV. A Continuation of the History of the IX Century wherein is examined the silence of the two Popes Nicholas the First and Adrian the Second with two Observations touching the Greek Church IT is a thing very worthy to be observed and which deserves serious consideration that the Popes Nicholas the First and Adrian the Second having been Spectators of so obstinate a combate without engaging on either side and having been silent in a time when they ought to speak and seen Mens minds divided although unequally upon the subject of the Sacrament yet after all declared not themselves in favour of the one side or the other and it doth not appear that they open'd their mouths either to condemn or approve either of the two Opinions So that if the Roman Catholicks do say that they condemned not their Doctrine in the person of Paschas the Protestants can also affirm That they pronounced no sentence against their Belief in the persons of his Adversaries which were incomparably more famous both in number and quality than the followers of Paschas because that instead of one or two at the most at least that is come to our knowledge which followed him we have heard the testimonies of Sixteen the Principal Chaplain Bishops Archbishops Abbots and others which in that Age opposed themselves directly or indirectly unto his Opinion as being contrary unto the Belief which untill that time had been generally received in the Church But if after what hath been said the Latin Church shall continue to teach that the Belief of Protestants which we have proved to be that of the Adversaries of Paschas was at that time esteemed erroneous then it must necessarily follow say they that she confess that Nicholas the First and Adrian the Second may justly be suspected to be guilty thereof Decret Grat. dist 82. c. Error Leo. I. Ep. 93. c. 15. according to this Maxim of the Law inserted by Gratian in his Decree That one approves the Error whereunto he makes no opposition And according unto what is said by Leo the First That he which recalls not a Man from his Error sheweth that he erreth himself And if on the other hand she affirms that the Doctrine of Paschas which is hers was at that time acknowledged to be Catholick and Orthodox and the publick Doctrine of the Church she would tacitly accuse these two Popes for having suppressed it as Adversaries and Enemies according unto what is contained in the same Maxim of the Law before alledged Decret Grat. ubi supra That the Truth is suppressed when it is not defended For to imagine that Nicholas and Adrian had not knowledge of this great Contest cannot reasonably be said The thing had made too great a noise for them to be ignorant of it Had there been indeed only bare verbal Disputes this pretext might have some colour but there having been Books written on either part and some of them having been composed by Order and Command of a King of France it is nothing probable that the Apostolical See should be wholly ignorant of the matter under Nicholas the First and Adrian the Second Wherefore then may it be said Did they not take part Wherefore did they not declare either for Paschas or for his Adversaries Wherefore had they not condemned the one and protected the others If the Doctrine of Paschas had been the ancient Doctrine of the Church why did they not authorize it by their Approbations And wherefore did they not thunder out their Censures against that of his Adversaries Or if the Belief of his Adversaries were the ancient Belief of Christians wherefore did they not encourage it by their Power And why did they not Anathematize the Novelty of Paschas This difficulty deserves to be carefully enquired into there being not many Demonstrations to resolve it but only several Conjectures and Circumstances which I refer unto the Judgment of those that shall take the pains of reading this Treatise It is said then in the first place that although we have not positively said that Paschas proceeded by way of Explication yet we have made appear that in all likelihood it was the way he took not to irritate Mens Minds in proposing his Opinion Secondly that Paschas his Party had no Followers during the IX Century as hath been already proved So that having but a very few it remained very probably inclosed in the Cloisters of some Friars which he might have gained unto his Party wherein it hid it self from the many oppositions which it found until some more favourable time should present to advance and establish it self in the World And in fine that the Belief of his Adversaries had the Victory and Advantage in this Age being generally received and practised in all the West Nicholas then and after him Adrian considering that the Opinion of Paschas was opposed by the most eminent Men of that Age that it had no Followers nor Adherents and that after all the Opposition it found in its first Establishment it would not do any prejudice unto the other they very judiciously believed that it was the wisest course to let it fall of it self and to refer unto
the Bald to make choice of Heribold for his Principal Chaplain if his Opinion had been an Heretical and Heterodox Opinion an Opinion contrary to the Belief of the Church as well as unto that of Adrian and of Nicholas But besides whilst Nicholas held the See of Rome there are arose a great Contest betwixt the Greek and Latin Churches betwixt Nicholas and Photius Patriarch of Constantinople Nicholas sued for the assistance of the Bishops of France to defend the Latins against the Greeks The French Prelates made choice of Bertram or Ratramn who by their Order undertook the Defence of the Latin Church against the Greek and in the four Books he wrote and which are now extant refuted the Accusations of the Greeks against the Latins This Ratramn I say which by order of King Charles the Bald composed a Treatise of the Body and Blood of Christ wherein he plainly opposeth the Doctrine of Paschas and doth establish that of his Adversaries Is it likely say many that if the Belief of Ratramn had not been the Belief of the Church that the Bishops of France would have made choice of him to have defended the Interest of the Latins against the Insolencies of the Greeks or if the French Prelates persuaded of the same Belief made no difficulty to make choice of Ratramn could it be imagined Nicholas would have approved this Choice if he had been of another Persuasion in this Essential Point of Religion I know that Nicholas wrote unto Charles the Bald desiring he would send him the Latin Translation of the Hierarchy of the pretended Dennis the Arcopagite made by John Erigenius who also wrote of the Sacrament by Order of the same Prince but after the same manner as is written by Protestant Doctors And that this Pope alledges for a reason that though this John was reputed to be very learned nevertheless it was said Nicolaus I. t. 3. Concil Gall. p. 352. ex Ivone That he had not formerly good Opinions of certain things but those things concerned not the Eucharist for it is not probable Nicholas would have spoke so coldly if these ill Opinions of John had been upon the Subject of the Sacrament Besides he would not have failed to have demanded what he had written either to have condemned or approved it as he intended to do of the Translation of the Works of Denis the Arcopagite And he would have demanded it so much the more earnestly as that there was more to be feared by the one than the other I mean by what he had written upon the Subject of the Eucharist than of his Translation of the pretended Denis the Arcopagite Add unto all this that if any ill reports had been published of John touching the Subject of the Sacrament it had been by reason of the Adversaries which his ill choice upon the Point of Predestination had stirred him up yet nevertheless it is certain they never taxed him to have erred in this point It must then be concluded that the ill Opinions mentioned by Nicholas and whereof the Report came unto him concerned the matter of Predestination whereupon John Erigenius suffered himself to be led away unto ungrounded and empty Conceptions which were aggravated with some heat by the learned Church of Lions by Florus its Deacon by Prudens Bishop of Troys and by the Councils of Valentia and of Langres Yet these Adversaries incensed against him never accused him of any ill Opinion touching the Sacrament from whence it is concluded That his Doctrine in this point directly opposite unto that of Paschas was the true Doctrine of the Church Therefore neither Nicholas the first nor any of his Successors did condemn it until Leo the Ninth who condemned his Book to be burnt at the Council of Verseil anno 1050. where Berengarius was also condemned I know also that the same Nicholas speaking of the vertue of Consecration and of what it operates in the things which are Consecrated and Sanctified alledges for examples the Altar the Cross the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist and that he observes that the Altar which naturally is but a common Stone and that differs not from others becomes by the Benediction the Holy Table That the Image of the Cross which is but common Wood before it receives this form becomes holy and terrible unto Devils Nicol. 1. Ep. 2. 〈◊〉 Concil p. 489. after having received it and that therefore Jesus Christ is represented in it That the Bread of the Eucharist is common Bread but when it is Consecrated it becomes the Body of Christ in truth and is said to be so and the Wine his Blood But some say these words do not prejudice the observations we have made because Nicholas considers the Vertue and Efficacy of the Sacrament and that in this regard it is truly the Body of Jesus Christ because in the lawful Celebration it possesseth the full Efficacy and Vertue of it and as he speaks almost as the Prelates of the Second Council of Nice did I desire the Reader would please to see what hath been said in the 12th Chapter because it is supposed after that he will be satisfied no advantage can be drawn from the words of Nicholas against what hath been observed in his proceedings upon this important occasion wherein I do not interpose my Judgment And what is said of the proceedings of Nicholas the First is also affirmed of Adrian the Second whose silence in most of the things spoken of Pope Nicholas and which we pretend not to repeat over again doth evidently prove that he no more then his Predecessor did not condemn the Doctrine of the Adversaries of Paschas I will only add that in the hot contest which Adrian had with the Bishops of France upon account of Hincmar Bishop of Laon he never taxeth them with any thing touching the Sacrament and what makes the thing the more considerable is that Charles the Bald having interposed in the quarrel as protector of the Cannons and of the Authority of the Prelates of his Kingdom Pope Adrian commanded him to send Hincmar Bishop of Laon to Rome condemned by the judgment of the Gallican Church which so highly displeased the King that he made him a very sharp answer wherein he tells him amongst other things that the Kings of France born of Royal Blood Ep. Carol. Calvin ad Hadria Papam 2. in Supplem Concil Gall. p. 269. 271 272. 274. are not Vice-Roys of Bishops but Masters of the Kingdom He demands what Hell had spewed out a Law that should impose upon Princes and out of what dark Cave it proceeded He warns him not to direct any commands unto him for the future nor threats of Excommunication contrary to the holy Scriptures the Doctrine of the Ancients the Imperial Constitutions and Ecclesiastical Canons He desires he would write him no more such Letters nor to the Bishops and great Lords of his Kingdom lest they should be forced to reject them with scorn
and affront his Messengers insomuch as he threatens him with Deposition or of Anathematizing according to the Decree of the Fifth Universal Council There are several other things of the like Nature in the Letter which is not necessary to be mention'd What hath been said sufficeth to shew that Pope Adrian could not wish a fairer occasion to tax Charles the Bald as Protector of the Doctrine of the Adversaries of Paschas against whom Ratramn and John Erigenius wrote by his command not to speak of his Principal Chaplain Heribold which was of the same Opinion Adrian doth no such thing On the contrary he endeavours to appease the spirit of Charles in the Letter which he after wrote to him and to mitigate the anger which the first had provoked him unto wherein he had commanded him with Authority to send Hincmar Bishop of Laon unto Rome It is said that these proceedings do in all likelihood justifie that the belief of Ratramn and of John Erigenius whom the King Protected was the belief of Adrian himself and of the whole Church it not being to be believed the Pope would have been silent unto this Prince who had so touched him to the Quick if the Doctrine which he favoured had not been Catholick and Orthodox I would here conclude the History of the IX Century were I not obliged to say something of the Greek Church for at the beginning of this Age Nicephorus Patriarch of Constantinople and Successor of Tarrasius following the steps of the Second Council of Nice whose Constitutions touching Image Worship he followed Nicephorus I say with the Fathers of the Council declared That the Eucharist is not the Image of Jesus Christ De Cherub c. 6. Bibl. Pat. t. 4. but his Body seeing he spake as the Prelates of Nice the same Explication must be given to his words as were given unto those of the Council and refer the Reader unto what hath been said in the 12th Chapter if it be not better to rank him with John Damascen of whom we have also spoke in the same Chapter and to say the truth he speaks many things which are inconsistent with the Doctrine of the real Presence As for example Ibid. c. 7. That the humane nature of Jesus Christ is not invisible that God only can be at several places at once Id. de imag That every Body is necessarily limited and that it filleth a place which he applies particularly unto the Body of Jesus Christ Id. libel 12. capitulor c. 3. The third sacred Council saith he hath declared that Jesus Christ our God is limited according to the Flesh and hath Anathematized those which believe not this word And elsewhere Id. de imag having treated of the manner of Existing of Bodies Jesus Christ saith he is bounded according to his humane Nature after all the ways which we have shewed for he hath born a true Body like us and not a supposed Body And in a Dispute which the same Nicephorus had with the Emperor Leo the Armenian which Father Combefis hath published he attributes unto the Body of Jesus Christ Origin Const p. 176. visibility touch and circumscription to distinguish it from his Divinity and shewing the reason why Angels cannot be in one place circumscriptively he saith It is because they be simple Ibid. p. 180. and without composition and that they have not Bodies Father Combefis in the same Collection of divers Authors concerning the City of Constantinople alledgeth a great passage of Theodorus Graptus P. 221. 222. touching the Eucharist but because he teacheth the same Opinion with John Damascen as is observed by this same Friar which hath given it unto us and as it is easie to observe inreading of it we will dispence with our selves in relating of it seeing the Reader may find what hath been said of it in the 12th Chapter upon the Belief of Damascen Leaving then this Theodorus Martyr of Image Worship let us speak of another Theodorus no less affectionate than the former unto this same Worship and imprisoned for it It is Theodorus Studite whom Michael Studite that wrote his Life introduceth thus speaking unto his Disciple My Son these Men as I find endeavour Apud Baron ad ann Dom. 816. num 12. besides the other cruelties they exercise against us to starve us to Death because they know it is the cruellest of all sorts of Death but let us put our trust in God which can feed us not with Bread only but with meat incomparably more excellent because alf Spirits subsist by his good pleasure only And because above all other things the participation of the Body of our Saviour is wont to be the nourishment of my Body and of my Soul for the Father always carried along with him some parcels of the quickning Body and Celebrated the Divine Mysteries as often as he had conveniency I will receive only this Food I will taste nothing else whatsoever and what is wont to be allowed for two shall be for thee only He speaks of the Eucharist as of a thing which nourisheth the Body and which may be divided into sundry parts which cannot be meant of the real Body of Jesus Christ but of his Sacrament which is called his Body be-because it hath the vertue of it for the nourishing of the Soul CHAP. XVI Of the State of the X. Century THe Tenth Age hath exercised of late years two good Writers and hath afforded matter and subject unto Authors which with much skill and industry each defending the cause of his party grappled a long time about this poor Age either to advance the credit of it or to shew the morosity ignorance and obscurity of it they both spoke very agreeably what they intended to say and having thereupon reflected sharply upon each other in the view of all France have not as yet decided their Controversie If I mistake not every body may see that I mean the Author of the Perpetuity of the Faith of the Eucharist and him that answered him The former having made a short Discourse which was to serve for a Preface unto the Office of the Holy Sacrament had not some reasons hindred the execution of this first design The latter at the desire of some Godly Friends undertook to make some Considerations upon this little Treatise and having in brief spoken of the X. Century as of an unfortunate ignorant Age overspread with Darkness and Errors according to the testimony of Historians The Author of the Perpetuity hath insisted upon this part of the considerations of his Adversary and hath employed all his endeavours to restore unto this Age all the Reputation and Glory that he thought it had been unjustly deprived of accusing the Ministers of disparaging it for interest sake The other was not silent but having fully vindicated his Brethren from the Accusation laid to their charge he proves by several Historians and of persons the most affectionate to the Latin
contrary unto the Doctrine of Paschas who taught that the Eucharist was no other Flesh but that which was born of the Virgin Mary and which suffered upon the Cross But in these two Sermons the people are taught that it is not the same Flesh nor the same Body which suffered nor the same Blood which was shed for us You cannot but think those that said so were opposite unto Paschas and endeavoured to ruin his Belief and it may be also that of Odo Arch-Bishop of Canterbury if it be true that he did what William of Malmesbury wrote a long while after for there be a great many that think this Relation is very suspicious In the main Bishop Usher observes that the words which were but now alledged in the last Testimony have been stolen away by some perfidious hand from the Manuscript which was transported from the Church of Vigorn into the Library of the Benedictines College at Cambridge But besides these two Witnesses which shew what was believed of the Sacrament in England there is to be seen a Sermon which was read unto the people every Year at Easter to preserve in their minds an Idea of the Belief which their Fathers had left them It is needless to transcribe it here at large some parts of it shall suffice which shewing that it was almost copied out of the Treatise of Ratramn of the Body and Blood of Christ they will by the same means shew that it contains a Doctrine opposite unto that of Paschas Liber Catholic serm Anglice recitandorum ad Bedam l. 5. c. 12. edit Anglo-Sax Latin seeing Ratramn was one of his declared Enemies There is great difference saith this Homily betwixt the Body wherein Jesus Christ suffered and the Body which is consecrated for the Eucharist for the Body wherein Jesus Christ suffered is born of the Flesh of Mary and is furnished with Blood Bones Skin Nerves and Humane Members and with a reasonable Soul but his spiritual Body which we call Eucharist is composed of several Grains without Blood without Bones and Members and without a Soul The Body of Jesus Christ which suffered death and which rose again shall never die any more it is eternal and cannot die but this Eucharist is temporal not eternal it is corruptible and divided into several parts broken by the teeth and goeth into the draft This Sacrament is a Pledge and a Figure the Body of Jesus Christ is the truth it self We hold this Pledge sacramentally until we do attain unto the Truth and then the Pledge shall be accomplished And a little before If we consider the Eucharist in a corporal manner we see that it is a corruptible and fading Creature but if we consider the spiritual vertue which is therein we know very well that there is life in it and that it gives immortality unto those which which receive it with Faith There is great difference between the invisible vertue of this holy Sacrament and the visible form of its proper Nature by Nature it is fading Bread and corruptible Wine but by the vertue of the Word of God it is truly his Body and his Blood not for all that corporally but spiritually that is to say in vertue and in efficacy Whereunto amounts what is said before The Bread and Wine which the Priests do consecrate Ibid. do outwardly offer one thing unto the eyes of the Body and another thing inwardly unto the eyes of the faithful Soul outwardly it is plainly seen it is Bread and Wine and it is judged to be such by its form and by its savour and nevertheless they be truly after Consecration his Body and Blood by a spiritual Sacrament And to the end the Hearers should be well persuaded they were the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ not in substance but in vertue the Change which happens unto the Bread and Wine by Consecration is compared unto that which comes unto Children by Baptism and unto the Water of this Sacrament of our Regeneration Ibid. The Child of a Gentile is baptized yet it doth not change its outward form although it be changed inwardly It is led unto the Font full of sin by the disobedience of Adam and he is cleansed from all inwardly although he is nothing changed outwardly So also the Water of Baptism which is called the Fountain of Life in appearance is like unto other Waters and subject unto Corruption but the vertue of the Holy Ghost intervenes by Prayer unto this corruptible Water and by a spiritual vertue renders it fit to cleanse the Body and Soul from all sin Now we consider two things in this only Creature according to its true nature it is a corruptible Water but according to the spiritual mystery it hath a saving vertue It is well said that Jesus Christ did change by an invisible power the Bread and Wine into his Body and Blood but after the same manner that formerly he changed the Manna and the Water of the Rock into this same Body and and into this same Blood to wit because he made it the Sacrament of his Body and of his Blood And again Ibid. What there is in the Sacrament that gives life proceeds from a spiritual Vertue and an invisible Operation therefore the Eucharist is called a Sacrament because one thing is therein seen and another thing is understood that which is seen is of a bodily Species that which is understood hath a spiritual Vertue And in another part of the Sermon expounding what Jesus Christ said of eating his Flesh in the 6th of St. John He commanded not to eat the Body which he had taken Ibid. nor to drink the Blood which he had shed for us but by this discourse he meant the Sacrament which is spiritually his Body and Blood for whosoever eateth him with a believing heart shall have this Life everlasting Under the Old Law Believers offered Sacrifices which represented the Body which Jesus Christ offered unto his Father for our sins but as for the Sacrament which is consecrated at the Altar of God it is the Commemoration of the Body which he offered and of the Blood which he shed for us as he himself commanded saying Do this in remembrance of me I am not ignorant that in this same Homily there is some miraculous Apparitions made mention of whereunto Christians had given some way since Paschas his time But that serves only to confirm the Observation that was made That although our Saviour had bestowed upon his Servants in the X. Century Light sufficient to avoid the most dangerous Errors yet he communicated not so great a measure unto them as to be safe from all sorts of Surprises in matters of Religion If from England we pass into the Country of Liege we shall there find Folcuin Abbot of the Monastery of Lobes who speaking of the Eucharistical Table Tom. 6. Spicil de Gestis Abbat Lob. p. 573 saith That it is the Table whereupon
to be guilty of some great neglect Secondly It was the custom in this Monastery not to keep any part of the Communion until the next day but they caused to be eaten at the same time all that remained which say some would not have been done if they had believed that it had been the real Body of Jesus Christ because they just before received it in Communicating which makes them easily believe that the abolishing of this Custom Ibid. l. â—â— 13. p. 58. which was not observed when the Friar Ulrick wrote did follow the change of belief Formerly saith he there was such care taken that after all had Communicated the very Priests and Priors which had brought whereof to Communicate did with a great deal of respect and caution Eat all that remained of the Eucharist without keeping any part of it until next day of which Custom nevertheless little heed is taken here at present but all is kept that remains after the Communion In the third place we therein find that the day before the Preparation that is to say on Holy Thursday Ibid. p. 58. There was so much of the Sacrament kept as needed for to Communicate them all Ibid. l. 2. c. 30 p. 140. that it was broken and distributed as they could conveniently take it And elsewhere The Cup is carefully rubbed without fearing there should remain any part of the Wine and of the Water and being Consecrated that it might be lost They believed then that the Wine and Water did still subsist after Consecration Ibid. p. 141. for the true Body of Jesus Christ cannot be lost And again The Priest divides the Host and puts part of it into the Blood of one half he Communicates himself and with the rest he Communicates the Deacon Ibid. p. 145. Many think it cannot be so spoken of the glorious Body and Blood of Jesus Christ And then again When the Priest hath broken the Host he puts part of it into the Cup according to the custom and two parts upon the Patten and he covers both with the Corporal but first of all he carefully rubs the outside of the Challice and shakes it with the same Fingers wherewith he touched it fearing lest that in performing the fraction there might not remain some part of the Body of our Lord which cannot be spoken of the real Body of the Son of God And in another place Ibid. p. 148. it is prescribed what ought to be done If it so happens that there remains ever so little of the Body of Christ which is expounded to be a very little crum and as it may be said indivisible part like to an Atom In fine treating of the Communicating sick Folks Ibid. l. 3. c. 28. it is observed That the Body of our Lord is brought from the Church that it is broken and that the Priest holds upon the Cup the portion that he should bring Now let any body judge if a part of the real Body of Christ can be separated from the whole and be carried into some other place and that after all that hath been alledged of these Ancient Customs it ought not to be concluded that this famous Congregation was not always of the belief it is at this time in the point of the Sacrament and that during the X. Century they embraced not the Opinion of Paschas This is the Inference which persons draw from these Customs But it is not yet time to have done with this Age we must first take a view of Italy and of Rome it self to be informed of Ratherius Bishop of Verona who departed this Life in the year 974. what the belief of the Church was in Italy in his time touching the Eucharist I do not intend here to write the History of this Prelate nor the Vicissitudes which happened him during his life for of a Friar that he was in the Monastery of Lobes he became Bishop of Verona from whence some time after he was expell'd and made Bishop of Liege but for three years only and then he lost this Dignity Those which desire to be particularly informed of his Adventures and of the Reputation which he had acquired by his Learning although it may be he cannot be wholly excused of inconstancy in his conduct may read the Preface of the Second Tome of the Collection of Dom Luke d'Achery from whom we take what shall be alledged I will not insist upon his speaking Ratherius Veron Serm. 2 de Pasch p. 314 315. t. 2. Spicil Serm. 3. p. 317. alibi Id. Serm. 1. de quadrag p. 282 of giving the holy Bread of presenting the morsel of receiving the holy things and the gift of so great a Sacrament although these expressions are not much after the practise of the present Latin Church no more than when he saith That he which observeth the Fast of Holy Thursday suppeth with our Saviour that is to say that he receives the Sacraments of his Body and Blood which were instituted on that day I will insist upon one part of his works wherein he plainly sheweth as is pretended that the Doctrine of the real Presence was not yet received in his time in the Church that is to say after his promotion unto the Diocess of Verona whereof he had been twice dispossessed for he wrote what we are about to alledge whilst he was Bishop This Ratherius having cited a passage of Zeno of Verona which restrains the eating of the Flesh of Christ unto believers only Id. de contempt canon part â— p. 181. as hath been shewed he adds As to the Corporal Substance which the Communicant doth receive seeing that it is I that do now state the question I must therefore answer and I thereunto willingly agree for because unto him that receiveth worthily it is true Flesh although it is seen that the Bread is the same it was before and also true Blood although the Wine is seen to be what it was I confess I cannot think nor say what it is unto him which receiveth unworthily that is to say unto him which dwelleth not in God By the Doctrine of the real Presence what is received at the Holy Table is the real Body of Jesus Christ unto the good and to the wicked there is no examining if the proper Body of the Son of God be received worthily or unworthily they only say that if this Doctrine had been in vogue in Ratherius his time he would not have been to seek to know what it was the wicked did receive in the Communion because he could not but have known that it is the real Body of Jesus Christ nevertheless he declares positively that he is throughly persuaded that the Corporal substance which is received in the Sacrament is unto Believers the true Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and truly with great reason because then the Sacrament is accompanied with all the Vertue and Efficacy of this holy Flesh and of this precious
Blood which is inseparable from their Vertue and Efficacy But as to him which Communicates unworthily he cannot say nor so much as imagine what it is He knew very well it was the substance of Bread and Wine for he saith That it is seen that the Bread and Wine are the same they were before But because the Consecration makes them to be the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Sacraments which become unto Believers after the manner as we have shewed this Body and this Blood He cannot conceive what they become unto the wicked that is to say How one and the same Sacrament is unto some the Body and Blood of Christ and unto others a bare Sacrament only Nevertheless had it then been believed in Italy as it is now believed he could not have doubted but that it was both unto the one and the others the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ although it produced not in all the same effect by reason of the variety of dispositions Ratherius was settled as it were at the Gates of Rome as it may be said It is not likely then that the Church of Rome had as yet embraced the Opinion of Paschas who taught that the Sacrament was no other Flesh but that which was born of the Virgin Mary for Ratherius could not then be ignorant of it and not being ignorant he would not have put himself the question which he did and had not yielded in answering of it And as to what is said by the same Ratherius in reproving the Excess and Debauchery of some of his Priests Id. Synodica ad Presbyt p. 259. That there are some that spewed before the Altar of our Lord upon the Flesh and Blood it self of the Lamb. It may easily be seen that it is an earnest expression to aggravate the sin of those of whom he speaks and that the Body of our Lord being secured from these indignities by the Confession of all Christians it must necessarily be understood of the Sacrament which takes the name of the thing which it signifies and the violation whereof reflects upon him which instituted it This is what several infer from the words of Ratherius I will not fear to joyn unto Ratherius another Witness which was also a Bishop in Italy and which is lately given unto the publick It is Atto the second of that name Bishop of Verceil Atto in capir c. 7 8 9. t. 8. Spicileg p. 4 5 Anno 945. I will not stand upon his prohibiting his Priests from saying private Masses nor in that he commands to handle decently the Bread the Wine and Water without which Masses cannot be said I will only observe what he requires Ib. c. 86. p. 31. That he which honoureth not by Fasting and Abstinence the day of the Passion of our Lord that is to say Good Friday may be deprived of the Joy of Easter and that he may not receive the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Lord. The occasion say some required That he should not have said the Sacrament but the Body and Blood if he had believed that the Eucharist was the real Body of Jesus Christ for the punishment had been the greater and by consequence the fitter to have retained the others in their Dury And in one of his Letters unto the Priests of his Diocess going about to disswade them from Fornication and to invite them unto Chastity and Continence he represents unto them amongst other things what they do in the Celebration of the Eucharist There 's no body add they but may easily understand but that it was the proper place to alledge the priviledge they had of making and giving unto Communicants the real Body of Jesus Christ and that there is no Bishop in the Latin Church but would have done so in such an occasion But as for Atto he speaks only of the Sacrament because in all likelihood he believed not as the Latins do at this time for then he would not have failed to have spoken as they do Id. Epist ad Presby t. p. 126 What saith he is this wicked presumption that he which knoweth that he is still wallowing in his sins should undertake to make or to give unto others the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Of all that I have hither to spoken of the X. Century it is concluded that the Opinion of Paschas had not obtained a full Victory in that Age. But that of his Adversaries the marks whereof was found in England Apud Usserium de success statu Eccles Christian c. 3. p. 79 80. in France in the Country of Liege and in Italy which was doubtless the meaning of Wickliff when he assured That there was practised in the Church a thousand years together the true Doctrine of the Sacrament and that they began to err in this point in the year 1000. which I refer to the judgment of the Readers CHAP. XVII Of what passed in the XI Century THe Opinion of Paschas not making the progress it desired in the IX and X. Centuries it found more favour in the XI and spread farther therefore it was established by publick Authority but not without difficulty and opposition For I do not believe that the Author of the Life of St. Genulph who lived in all likelihood at the beginning of the XI Century and which was published by John a Bosco a Cellestin Friar was of this Opinion Lib. 1. c. 6. when he wrote of St. Genulph That from the day of his Ordination he passed the rest of his Life without drinking any Wine excepting that which he took in the Celebration of the Divine Sacrament It cannot be so spoke and believe that what is contained in the Challice is the real Blood of Jesus Christ Lutherick Arch-Bishop of Sans who died in the Year 1032. as the Friar Clarius in his Chronicle of St. Peter of Sans Tom. 2. Spicil d'Ach. p. 742. hath observed could not possibly be of Paschas his Opinion because we read this of him in the Life of Pope John the Seventeenth or according unto others the Nineteenth In the time of this Pope Concil t. 7. p. 206. Leutherius Arch-bishop of Sans sowed the Seed and beginning of the Heresies of Berengarius Whence it is that Helgald in the Life of King Robert writes That his Doctrien increased in the World In epitome vitae Roberti regis Crescebat saith he in seculo notwithstanding the Threats this Prince made of deposing him from his Dignity if he should continue to teach it All those which were contrary to the Opinion of Paschas joyning together to defend their Faith Fulbert Bishop of Chartres who had been consecrated by Lutherick had a great kindness for him as he testifies in one of his Letters The Question is to know what his Opinion was touching the Eucharist If what he saith of the eating of the Flesh of Christ be considered which he
the Friar Clarius that lived much about this time observes in the Chronicle of St. Peter of Sans that Fulbert Bishop of Chartres died Anno 1027. but he saith never a word of what is related by the English Historian although a Circumstance of this nature was too considerable to be passed over in silence And as it is evident that Berengarius did not change his Opinion in the time that William of Malmesbury doth assign it is no less plain as I think that he retained it until the last moment of his life Apud Guillâ—â—m Malmsb. ubi supra which he ended by a natural death Anno 1088. And after his death he was honoured with Epitaphs both by Hildebert Bishop of Mentz who speaks of him as advantagiously as one could do of a man exceedingly recommendable for his Vertue and Learning for the splendour of his Parts and for the purity of his Conversation and by Baldrick Abbot of Bourgueil Tom. 4. hist Franc. Quercetani and afterwards Bishop or rather Arch-Bishop of Doll for he and his Successors also enjoyed the Privileges of Arch-Bishop until Innocent the Third as their Predecessors had done since the middle of the IX Century to the prejudice of the Arch-Bishop of Tours neither the one nor the other speaking one word of his Conversion no more than the Friar Clarius who wrote his Chronicle of St. Peter of Sans about the time of the death of Berengarius of whom he speaketh very honourably upon the Year 1083. as if he died in that year Berengarius saith he Doctor of Tours Tom. 2. Spicil p. 747. an admirable Philosopher and Lover of the Poor flourished He composed the Prayer which begins O Jesus Christ just Judge and afterwards he ended his days faithful and truly Catholick This Epitaph is read on his Tomb it is the Epitaph of Hildebert of Mentz whereof he cites the two first Verses which contain in substance That the World shall always admire him that it admires at present and that Berengarius dies without dying to wit by the great Reputation which he had acquired In the same Century which the name of Berengarius had made so famous the Author of the Chronicle of St. Maixant speaking of De Cormarecensi Caenobio saith Tom. 2. Bibl. l'Abbe p. 212. That he saw a certain Friar of this Monastery called Literius a man of a wonderful Abstinence who for the space of ten years drank neither Wine nor Water but what he received in the Sacrifice that is to say in the Eucharist Judge Reader what was the Belief of this Writer who declares that they drank Wine and Water in the Participation of the Sacrament But having examined what passed in the West during the XI Century touching the Subject of the Sacrament we must endeavour to find what was believed concerning it in the Greek Church we will begin this Enquiry by Theophilact Arch-Bishop of Bulgaria who lived in this Century under the Dukes and under the Commenes Emperors of the East the Roman Catholicks and Protestants do both make pretensions unto him and think that he favours either of them Theophylact. in Matt. c. 26. The former ground themselves upon his declaring That our Saviour saying This is my Body sheweth that the Bread which is sanctified at the Altar is his real Body and not the Anti-type c. and that it is changed by an ineffable Operation although it appear unto us to be Bread for because that we are weak and that we have an aversion unto eating raw flesh and especially Man's flesh it seems to us to be but bread but it is really flesh Whereunto they add another passage of the same Author upon St Id. in Mar. c. 14 Mark where he saith almost the same thing observing That the Bread is changed into the Body of Jesus Christ and that our Lord said not of the Bread This is the Figure of my Body but my Body Id. in Joan. 6. And a third upon the Gospel of St. John which amounts unto the same thing not to mention what he saith again upon St Id. in Mar. c. 14 Mark That the Body of Jesus Christ is properly what is in the Golden Patten and the Blood that which is in the Cup. But the others that is to say the Protestants alledge that Theophilact hath explained himself very well in making this positive Declaration Id. in Mar. c. 14 God condescending unto our infirmities preserves the Species of Bread and Wine and doth change them into the vertue of his Body and Blood Which is exactly the Doctrine of St. Cyril of Alexandria who said 1 Apud Victorem in Marc. 14. manus That the Bread and Wine are changed into the efficacy of his Flesh or as Theodotus said before him 2 Apud Clement Alexan. p. 800. Into a spiritual Vertue So that when Theophilact said That the Sacrament is not the Antitype of the Body of Jesus Christ but his true Body and his Flesh it self they say that he understood that it was not a vain and empty Figure without any efficacy and vertue but not that he had any thoughts of absolutely denying that the Eucharist was an Antitype and Figure of the Body and Blood of our Saviour because then he should deny what his Predecessors had unanimously affirmed and that so indeed the Sacrament is truly the Body of Jesus Christ according to Theophilact not in substance but in vertue and efficacy because he declares that the Bread and Wine are changed into the vertue of the Flesh and Blood of our Lord and that although our Lord said not of the Bread This is the Figure of my Body but my Body nevertheless his meaning was that his words should so be understood according to the Explication of Tertullian St. Austin Facundus and others who declare formally that these words This is my Body do signifie This is the Figure the Sign and the Sacrament of my Body But that the Reader may the better judge of what side to range Theophilact either on the Protestants or the Roman Catholicks it will be necessary to consider what the Belief of the Greek Church was touching the Sacrament in the XI Century for if the Belief of the Greeks was not conformable with that of the Latins in that Age Theophilact cannot reasonably be interpreted to favour the Real Presence unless that he differed absolutely from the Opinion generally received by all those of his Country in which sense his Testimony would not be very considerable Now I observe that at that time the Greeks believed for certain that the Communion broke the Fast and that what is received in the Eucharist goes down into the Belly and passeth into the Draft as to its matter which sheweth plainly that they believed it was true Bread It is what Cardinal Humbert who was sent unto them by Pope Leo the IX chargeth upon Nicetas Pectoratus Humb. tom 4. Bibl Pat. Edit ult pag. 245.
should be read 1106. because Bruno was not made Archbishop of Treves till after the year 1100. Bishop Usher makes mention of the Author of the Acts of Bruno who was present and is a Manuscript to be seen in England and he saith that this Author speaks of Assemblies which were made in the Diocess of Treves by those which denied the change of the substance of Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Waldens t. 2. c. 90. It is about this time that Honorius Priest and Theologal of the Church of Autun is said to flourish which Thomas Waldensis alledges against Wickliff as a Disciple and follower of the Heresie of Berengarius which he himself confesseth to agree with the Doctrine of Rabanus Archbishop of Mayance and great Adversary unto Paschas when he saith that Honorius est de secta panitarum Rabani that is to say of the Sect of those which believe with Rabanus That the Eucharist is bread in substance fit to nourish the body but the body of Jesus Christ in efficacy It is true Waldensis doth not particularly name Honorius but he means him so clearly by the entrance of his Treatise and by the passages he alledgeth and which is therein now to be seen that no body can doubt but that 't was of Honorius he spake Neither do I find that any are at variance hereupon The first testimony produced by Waldensis and which Wickliff alledged for the defence of his Opinion Honorius Augustod in gemma animae l. 1. c. â—6 is set down in these terms It is said that formerly the Priests received Flower from each House or Family which the Greeks do still practice and that of this Flower they made the Bread of our Lord which they offered for the People and after having consecrated it they distributed it unto them The second mentioned by Waldensis is borrowed of Rabanus Id. l. 1. c. 111. and is thus read The Sacrament which is received by the mouth is turned into the nourishment of the body but the vertue of the Sacrament is that whereby the inward Man is satisfied and by this vertue is acquired Eternal Life The same Author saith again Id. ib. c. 63. that the Host is broken Because the bread of Angels was broken for us upon the Cross that the Bishop bites part of it that he divides it into three parts Id. c. 64. that it is not received whole but broke into three bits Ibid. c. 85. and that when the Bread is put into the Wine it is represented that the Soul of our Lord returned into his body And he calls it Ibid. c. 63. to break the Body of our Lord when he observes That the Sub-Deacon receives from the Deacon the body of our Lord and that he carries it to the Priests to break it unto the People All Men do confess that the glorified Body of Jesus Christ cannot be broken and divided into parts of necessity he must then speak of the Sacrament which is called the Body of Jesus Christ not by reason of the accidents which is never qualified with this name by the Ancients but in regard of its substance therefore Honorius declareth plainly that it is Bread when he saith That the Consecrated bread is distributed unto the People and that the bread is put into the Wine And so far he favours the cause of the Protestants in following the Judgment of Berengarius and of Rabanus as is testified by Thomas Waldensis an Enemy both of the one and the other and by consequence of Honorius Nevertheless there be other places in the Treatise of this Author from whence the Roman Catholicks strive to draw advantage for example from these words The name of Mystery is used Ibid. c. 106. when one thing is seen and another thing is understood the Species of Bread and Wine is seen but it is believed to be the body and blood of Jesus Christ It is true that all Christians confess that the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament after Consecration are the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and the Author not specifying if it be in substance as the Church of Rome doth teach or in vertue as the Protestants which are called Calvinists do say I do not think that either the one or the other can draw any advantage from these words But besides these there be yet others which seem to be more favourable unto the Hypothesis of the Latins we may put in this order what he saith Ibid. c. 34. That the bread is changed into Flesh and that the Wine turns into blood and elsewhere That as the World was made of nothing by the word of God Ibid. c. 105. so by the words of our Lord the Species of these things he means the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament is truly changed into the body of Jesus Christ It must be confessed that had we only these two last passages of Honorius the Latin Church would undoubtedly have cause to boast over those which reject her belief but that which hinders that she cannot draw all the advantage from it she desires is that the Protestants rely in the first place upon the declaration of Thomas Waldensis who highly condemning the Opinion of Rabanus and of Berengarius as contrary unto the belief of the Latins doth nevertheless ingenuously confess that Honorius of Autun followed the Opinion of these two men whose Doctrine he condemns In the second place inasmuch as the first testimonies instanced in could receive no favourable interpretation for the Hypothesis of Roman Catholicks whereas the later whereof they pretend to take hold may conveniently be explained in a way which might no way prejudice the Doctrine of those called Calvinists who say that the conversion and the change spoken of by Honorius is not a change of substance but a change of efficacy and vertue inasmuch as the Bread and Wine do become by Sanctification the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of our Lord but Sacraments in their lawful Celebration accompanied with all the vertue and with all the efficacy of the Body and Blood so that for that reason it is said that they be changed into this efficacy and into this vertue according to the language of Theodotus of St. Cyril of Alexandria of Theophilact c. alledging to confirm their Interpretation Ibid. c. 106. what is said by the same Honorius That Jesus Christ changed the Bread and Wine into the Sacrament of his Body and Blood which St. Isidore Arch-bishop of Sevil venerable Bede and Rabanus Arch-bishop of Mayans had said before him as hath been mentioned in some part of this History And that in speaking of dividing the Host into three parts Ibid. c. 64. he declares That that which is put into the Cup is the glorified Body of our Lord and that which the Priest eats is the Body of Jesus Christ that is to say the Church which yet is militant here on Earth
Whence they conclude that seeing the Bread of the Sacrament is not by Honorius his saying the natural Body of Jesus Christ but as it is his mystical Body that is to say the Church for he makes no difference betwixt them it cannot be it properly and by an Idendity of substance as it is spoken but only in Mystery and in Sacrament If there were only occasion to shew who they were that admitted not of the Doctrine of the Real Presence we might here instance in Robert de Duitz nere Cologne because it is certain by the confession of both sides that he believed it not but because we also search the Testimonies of those which followed the Opinion of the Adversaries of Paschas which was that of Berengarius of which number we cannot affirm that Robert was we will leave him as a man that was neither a follower of Paschas nor of his Adversaries but a Disciple of John Damascen and of Remy of Auxerr teaching as they did the Assumption of the Bread by the Divinity to make by this Union with the Divinity one sole Body with the Body of Jesus Christ It is not the same with a certain Abbot called Francus of whom the Centuriators of Magdebourg observe Centur. 12. c. 5. That he had no sound thoughts touching the Communion affirming that the real Body of Jesus Christ was not in the Sacrament One would fain know who this Abbot was of whom the Centuriators say nothing else and to say truth it is very hard precisely to determine it but because positive Proofs are wanting Conjectures that have likelihood and probability may the better be admitted therefore I will not fear speaking what I think of him I conceive then that it was Franco Abbot of Lobbes in the Country of Liege There were two of this name in that Monastery one of which lived in the time of Lewis the Son of Charles the Bald and he was reckoned the twelfth Abbot but it cannot be him we seek for because the Centuriators place him towards the middle of the XII Century therefore we must rather insist upon the other who succeeded unto Lambert about the Year 1153. which is just the time designed by the Centuriators for Lambert succeeded unto Leonius Anno 1140. and governed the Monastery thirteen years De gestis Abbatum Lob. t. 6. Spicil p. 621 622 628 629 630 631 633. so that our Franco or Francus was chosen in his place Anno 1153. or 1154. he was Head of the Monastery eleven years And I the rather am induced to believe that the Centuriators speak of this Franco Abbot of Lobbes because that he spake nothing of the Sacrament but what two of his Predecessors Folcuin and Hertiger had taught before in the X. Century as we have declared in writing what passed in that Age upon the Subject of the Sacrament In the time that Franco was Abbot of Lobbes Gautier of Mauritania was Prebend of Anthona and he was chosen to go to Rome to defend the Cause of the Prebends of Anthona against the Abbot Franco for a Prebendary which the Friars of Lobbes laid claim unto as having been time out of mind in the Disposal of their Abbots But so it is that this Gautier is styled in the Continuation of the History of the Abbots of Lobbes Ubi supra p. 631. The most eminent and chiefest of all the Doctors of France Also from Prebend of Anthona he became Bishop of Laon. But that matters not See here how he speaks of the Presence of Jesus Christ whilst he was Bishop in a Letter which he wrote touching the Mystery of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ and wherein expounding these words of the 3d. of St. John Galterus Episcopus Laudun Ep. 2. t. 2. Spicil p. 464. No man ascended up into Heaven but the Son of Man which came down from Heaven he speaks after this manner By the Son of Man we are here to understand the Word made Flesh that is to say the Son of God which was omnipresent and not the Body and Soul that is to say the Humane Nature which he had taken and which was not yet ascended into Heaven for the Flesh which he had assumed was not present in all places but in shifting place it went fom one place unto another which our Saviour sheweth in saying unto his Apostles I am glad for your sakes that I was not there The Angel declares the same unto the Women saying You seek Jesus who was crucified he is risen he is not here From thence it is saith he that St. Gregory saith He is not here by the presence of his Body which nevertheless was never absent in regard of the presence of his Majesty And elsewhere Id. ibid. Ep. 2. p. 468. The Son of God saith he is on Earth by the presence of his Divinity although he is in Heaven at the Right Hand of the Father by the presence of his Body and of his Divinity which he himself declared being ready to ascend up into Heaven in the presence of his Disciples saying I am with you unto the end of the World Which words St. Gregory thus expounds The Word made Flesh remains and he departs he goes in regard of his Body but he remains in regard of his Divinity And in all the rest of the Epistle he proves by Authority of the Scriptures and of the Fathers the Omnipresence of the Divinity of Jesus Christ in opposition unto his Humanity which he hath so represented unto us to be in one place that it could not be at the same time in another We may add unto these Witnesses that which Father Chifflet gives us in the Preface which he hath made unto the Confession of Faith which he attributes unto Alcuin Tutor unto Charlemain where disputing against the Disciples of St. Austin followers of Jansenius he saith that he might apply unto them what Hugh Metellus Prebend of Thoul had said above five hundred years ago unto Gerland Sacramentarian of the Sect of Berengarius You relie upon the words of St. Austin Chiffict Jesuita in praefar ad confess Alcuin do not put your dependance upon them he is not of the same Opinion you are of you are much mistaken You assure us with St. Austin that the words of Jesus Christ unto his Disciples are figurative for they declare one thing literally and they signifie another thing you affirm what he affirmed but you do not believe what he believed It may then be concluded from what hath been said and particularly from the words of this Prebend of Thoul that at the beginning of the XII Century those which were called Berengarians maintained a Doctrine contrary unto that which was established by the Decisions of Councils which several Popes caused to be assembled against Berengarius in the XI Century But all these Testimonies are nothing in comparison of what happened in the persons of those called Albigensis who refusing to submit and acquiess unto the
Decission of Popes and their Councils in favour of the Doctrine of Paschas separated themselves openly from their Communion and gave their Reasons for so doing in a Book which they published to that purpose in the vulgar Tongue wherein they made this Declaration of their Faith touching the Eucharist Hist de Albigensis de Paul Perrin l. 3. c. 4. The eating of the Sacramental Bread is the eating of the Body of Jesus Christ figuratively Jesus Christ having said As often as you do this do it in remembrance of me This Book as is observed by him that inserted it wholly in his History of the Albigensis and the Waldensis was taken from a Manuscript wherein was contained several Sermons of the Barbes so it was that those people called their Pastors it is dated in the Year 1120. which I find nothing strange when I consider that in the Year 1119. Pope Calixtus the Second assembled a Council at Tholouse in his own presence wherein certain Hereticks were condemned who rejected the Sacrament of the Eucharist that is to say which in all likelihood did not believe what the Latin Church believed We are obliged for the Canons of this Council unto Monsieur Baluze who hath inserted them wholly in a Book of Monsieur de Marca's touching the Liberties of the Gallican Church In the third of these Canons this Ordinance is made Apud Marc. de Concord l. 8. c. 18. p. 344. We expel out of the Church as Hereticks and condemn those who making a shew of piety do not approve the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Lord c. We command all Secular Powers to punish them and we bind with the same Bond of Excommunication those which shall protect them until such time as they shall repent This Canon as far as I see concerns only these Albigensis who not approving the Doctrine of the Latin Church upon the point of the Eucharist separated themselves from their Communion after it had condemned the Doctrine taught by Berengarius and established that of Paschas in the XI Century although it had not admitted thereof before And what confirms me in this Opinion is what I find in the Chronicle of St. Tron in the Country of Liege touching Radolph Abbot of that Monastery and besides Author of the Chronicle viz. That being gone to Rome in Pope Honorius the Second his time who was advanced to this Dignity in the Year 1125. and held the Chair five years he had a design to travel into another Country which he doth not name but that he was informed that it was infected with the Heresie of the Sacramentarians that is to say the Doctrine which was condemned in the person of Berengarius It adds Moreover Tom. 7. Spicil d'Ach. p. 493. he understood that the Country towards which he had a design to travel in going farther it was infected with the old Heresie of the Body and Blood of our Lord. This Radolph was Abbot of Tron Anno 1108. and he wrote his Chronicle about the Year 1125. There was then at that time a Country wherein Profession was made of a Belief contrary unto that of the Latin Church in the point of the Sacrament and because this Abbot had received and approved the Decisions of Leo Victor Nicholas and of Gregory against Berengarius and against his Doctrine he calls the other Opinion Heresie and not only Heresie but the old Heresie this is the very term he useth which sheweth that the Belief which he condemns was no new Invention according to the Judgment of this Author but that it had of a long time been much spoken of and that it was publickly professed by great numbers of people especially in the Country mentioned by him which in all probability was the Country of Languedock wherein the followers of Berengarius spread and published abroad his Doctrine immediately after his death not valuing the Prohibitions and Decrees of the Councils of Verceil of Rome and of Tours On the contrary seeing they authorized and passed into an Article of Faith an Opinion which they esteemed to be Novel and contrary unto the ancient Doctrine of Christians they separated and broke off from the Latin Church in whose Communion they had lived till that time These people had for their chief Conducter Peter de Bruis who after having defended and maintained this Faith and Doctrine having preached and published it for the space of twenty years in Languedock in Gascoygne and elsewhere was at last Martyred and burnt at St. Giles in Languedock by the care and diligence of the Latin Church preferring rather to suffer death and to seal with his Blood the Doctrine which he had taught and which infinite numbers of people openly professed than to return unto the Communion which he had forsaken After Peter de Bruis succeeded Henry who with some others defended the Faith of these Churches which after his Name were called Henritians as they had been also called Petrobusians from the Name of his Predecessor It is true that those which had caused Peter de Bruis to be burnt found means also to suppress Henry by Order of Pope Eugenius for Cardinal Alberick Vita S. Bernardi l. 3. c. 5. Bishop of Osty his Legat having got him into his power order'd matters so that he was never heard of after neither could it be heard of what manner of death he died but we know very well that Pope Eugenius being informed of the great progress made by Henry after the death of Peter de Bruis whose Martyrdom did only increase and heighten his Zeal for the Defence of the Faith we know I say that the Pope sent Alberick his Legat who with Gaufrid Bishop of Chartres St. Bernard Abbot of Clervaux who was at that time in great esteem with some others Baron ad An. 1147. who went towards Tholouse to pluck up these Thorns as Cardinal Baronius saith St. Bernard wrote beforehand unto Alphonsus Count of St. Giles in Languedock who favoured Henry with his Protection notwithstanding the violent death which Peter de Bruis had suffered Bernard Ep. 240. In this Letter St. Bernard saith several things against the Doctrine and the Conversation of Henry who from a Friar that he was had embraced the Opinion and Party of Peter his Colleague less modest therein than Peter de Cluny his Contemporary and also a great Enemy of the Albigensis Contr. Petrobrus against whom he wrote under the name of Petrobusians for he declares that he will suspend his Judgment of what was reported of Henry until he was more certainly informed of it So that I cannot tell if it might not be applied unto St. Bernard In Frideric l. 1. c. 47. in this occasion what was said by Otto de Frisinge That by a mildness which was natural unto him he became in a manner over credulous In fine St. Bernard being come to Tholouse Vita Bernard l. 3. c. 5 6. he bestirred himself with much
That there is no doubt but the Tholousians and Albigensis condemned Anno 1177. and 1178. were no others but the Waldensis Neither doth Monsieur de Thoul make any difference betwixt them in the sixth Book of his History Which sufficeth to shew that the Waldensis as well as the Albigensis had an Opinion contrary unto the Latin Church upon the point of the Sacrament seeing we fully proved it in regard of the Albigensis from whose Belief and Faith the Waldensis did nothing differ What they say may be read in a Treatise entituled The spiritual Almanack where they give an account of their Faith particularly upon the Subject of the Sacrament for they say in plain terms History of the Waldensis and Albigensis of Paul Perrin l. 1. c. 6. That the bread which Jesus Christ took in his last Supper which he blessed which he broke and gave his Disciples to eat is in its nature true bread and that by the Pronoun This is shewn this sacramental proposition This is my Body not understanding these words identically of a numerical Identity but sacramentally really and truly and not measurably And afterwards The eating of the sacramental bread Ibid. is to eat the body of Jesus Christ in figure Which is just the Language used by the Albigensis in the Year 1120. as hath been shewed But besides their own Confession we have the Testimony of their very Enemies which suffer us to make no question but that they opposed themselves against the Decrees of Councils held under several Popes against Berengarius Radulphus Ardeas an Author of the XII Century or of the XI makes this Observation Hom. in Dom. 8. post Pentec They say that the Sacrament of the Altar is meer bread Caesarius of Heisterback In Dialog They blaspheme the Sacrament of the body and blood of Jesus Christ Contr. Vald. c. 6. to wit because they did not acquiesce unto the determinations of the Latin Church And Reynerus They say that the Body of Jesus Christ is but bread but the proper body they call that the true Body of Jesus Christ De erroribus Begehard Conradus de Montepuellarum Prebend of Ratisbon They blaspheme saith he against the Sacrament saying That the true Body of Jesus Christ cannot be contained under so small a quantity of bread and against the Priests calling them through derision Contra Vald. c. 8. God-makers Evrard of Bethune saith the same They are so far from saying that what Christ called his Body is his Body that they deny it Contra Vald. c. 11. as Successors of Judas Ermengard wrote somewhat to the same effect touching the same Waldensis it is the same Slander which is made against them by Guy of Perpignan Lib. de haeres saying That they denied that the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ was under the Sacrament of the Altar Tom. 2. c. 19. And Thomas Waldensis speaking of Bruno and Berengarius They erred said he like those He observes moreover That when the Host was lifted up they lifted their eyes up unto Heaven saying openly that they worshipped the Body of Christ where it was Contra Vald. c. 10. and not where it was not Coussard a Divine of Paris speaks of them also in these terms They say that the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ is not the real Sacrament but consecrated bread which is called the Body of Jesus Christ by a Figure as it is said that the Rock was Christ Therefore the Inquisitor Emery Director part 2. q. 14. chargeth it upon them as an Error when they said That the Bread is not transubstantiated into the true Body of Jesus Christ nor the Wine into his Blood And because the Albigensis and Waldensis to shew that they could not conceive that the Eucharist was the real Body of Jesus Christ were wont to say that how big soever it had been it could not subsist still because the numbers of Communicants would have consumed it since the time they participated thereof Peter de Vaux-Sernay writes that they taught publickly and infused this Doctrine into the ears of the simple Hist Albigens c. 2. That the Body of Jesus Christ if it had been as big as the Alps had been consumed long since and reduced unto nothing by those which eat thereof And I find in the Chronicle of the Senonian Monastery at the Mount de Vauge in the Diocess de Toul that a Person of Quality upon that very consideration rejected the Doctrine of the Real Presence and Substantial Conversion for being sick of his last Sickness at the end of the XII Century they going about to persuade him that the Sacrament was the real Body of Jesus Christ Tom. 2. Spicil p. 405. And how saith he can that be For if this Body were as big as a great Mountain it would have been eaten by the people a thousand times There be some which observe also that Berengarius was wont to jest by the like words at the Confession of Faith which they would have him make and wherein they made him confess amongst other things Petrus Clunia contra Petrobrus That the Body of Jesus Christ is truly handled by the hands of the Priests that it is broen and eaten by the teeth of Believers I will joyn unto all these Considerations that we find in the History of Roger de Hoveden by the relation of Peter Cardinal of St. Chrysogan and Legat of Pope Alexander the Third in France touching his proceedings against the Waldensis at Tholouse and principally by the Declaration of Henry Abbot of Clervaux upon the same Subject That one of the eminentest amongst them called Peter Moran being pressed to declare ingenuously what he believed concerning the Sacrament of the Altar answered Apud Baron ad An. 1178. That the holy Bread of Life Eternal consecrated by the Ministry of the Priest and by the word of our Saviour is not the Body of Jesus Christ A Declaration which fully justifies that it was the true Belief of the Albigensis and Waldensis and sheweth that they were deceived which said that they did not deny that the Eucharist was the true Body of Jesus Christ but when him that celebrated and consecrated was sinful and unworthy to consecrate for they denied it simply and absolutely without enquiring into the good or bad qualities of him that officiated And the most considerable Doctors of the Latin Communion do confess that they had the same Belief that Berengarius had of the Sacrament and it cannot justly be any way questioned after all the many Testimonies which have been instanced It is true that the Albigensis and Waldensis have been taxed and charged with many reproaches and there has been many grievous Accusations laid to their charge both referring unto their Doctrine and their Manners As to their Doctrine I think that their Belief ought to be judged according to their Confessions of Faith which being publick Declarations of
prolog Chron. in the Eccleâ—iastical Histoâ—â— of Nicholas Vignier upon the Year 1â—â—6 Cap 4. That they were so respected that they were not made to watch nor to pay Taxes and that when any military person travelled with them he needed not to fear being injured by his Enemies William Paradin in his Annals of Burgundy saith That he had read some Histories which cleared the Albigensis from all the crimes which had been laid to their charge affirming that they had not been guilty of them and that they never did any thing but reprove the Vices and Abuses of the Clergy With this Doctrine and Conversation the Albigensis and Waldensis spread abroad into all parts which made Reynerus their Eenemy say That of all the Sects which is or hath been there is none more dangerous unto the Church than that of the Leonists or Lyonists for so they were called from the City of Lyons from whence Waldo went out because it is the ancientest for some say it hath been ever since the days of Sylvester and others from the days of the Apostles and because also it is of the largest extent there being scarce any place but that they are to be found But it must not be imagined that they were suffered to live long in peace in the places of their habitation In fine the Waldensis were expelled out of Lyons whereupon they were constrained to seek for refuge some of them in the Valleys of Dauphin and Piedmont and others in Picardy from whence they passed afterwards into Bohemia in which places they subsisted for several Ages notwithstanding the violence of sundry Persecutions Fol. 2. as is fully represented by Dubravius and Claud de Cecil Bishop of Turin There is saith the latter above two hundred years that this Heresie hath subsisted in this Diocess particularly in the farthest parts of it and near the Straits of the Alps which divide France and Italy as well in the King of France his Dominions as in the Territories of the Duke of Savoy And the former upon the Year 1160. It was saith he at this time that the Heresie of the Piccards began to flourish under an ill Planet to the end that none should think that that which of late hath made so great a progress in Bohemia is any new thing He calls the Waldensis Piccards because after having been driven away from Lyons several of them and Waldo himself as some do report retired themselves into Picardy from whence they were called Picards as they had been called Albigensis from the Country of Albi where they remained and subsisted until the latter end of the XIII Century notwithstanding the furious attempts made by Princes and Prelates against them as appears by Paul Perrin's History of the Albigensis Lib. 2. c 11. which proves it by authentical Evidences one of which amongst the rest is dated in the Year 1281. as it is found in several other Authors who make mention of several Croisada's raised against the Albigensis and the Waldensis during the greatest part of the XIII Century But as we write the History of the XII Century we may not forget two considerable circumstances First That in that Age Stephen Bishop of Autun began to use the word Transubstantiation and because there were two Bishops of Autun of this name in the same Age the first of which was advanced unto this Dignity in the Year 1112. and the other in the Year 1160. or thereabouts it is not exactly known which of the two it was that began to make use of this term In fine one or the other of them said De Sacram. Altaric c. 13. That the Oblation of Bread and Wine is transubstantiated into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Yet nevertheless Lombard Master of the Sentences his Contemporary and of the same Opinion in the main of the Doctrine L. 4. dist c. 11. dared not to determine of what nature this Conversion is either formal or substantial or of some other kind The other circumstance which deserves to be considered is that at the end of that Century Hubbert Arch-Bishop of Canterbury in England and Legat of Pope Celestine caused a Synod to be held at York where amongst other things he commanded that when any sick persons were to be communicated that the Priest himself should carry the Host Rog. de Hoved. in Rich. II. cloathed with Priestly Habits suitable unto so great a Sacrament with Lights born before it unless there were some cause to the contrary and it is whereof we shall have further occasion to speak in the last part of this History Now let us examine what passed in the XIII Century at the first beginning whereof Stat. Synod c. 5. t. 6. Bibl. Pat. Odo Bishop of Paris made in one of his Synods certain Constitutions concerning the Sacrament as Of the manner of carrying it unto the Sick Of the Adoration of those which met it Of keeping of it in the best part of the Altar Of locking it up safe with several precautions in case it happened that any part of the Body or Blood of Jesus Christ should fall to the Ground Ibid. in praeceptis communibus praecepâ—o 23 24. or if any Fly or Spider should fall into the Blood But because most of these things do relate unto the Worship we will omit speaking of it until we come to consider wherein Christians made their Worship and Devotion in regard of the Sacrament chiefly to consist I shall only say that it was with Odo as it happened unto several others after the Condemnation of Berengarius I mean that they retained several ancient expressions although the Doctrine was changed and that since this Change happened which is pretended to be at the beginning of the IX Century by Paschas and to have been established by publick Authority in the XI by some Popes in their Councils these kinds of expressions do not very well agree as many say with the Belief of the Latins For example this precaution of Odo If there falls to the Ground any part of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ because say the Protestants the Fathers might very well say so seeing they believed that the Eucharist was Bread and Wine in substance and the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in Sacrament and in vertue But as for the Latins since Berengarius they believe that it is the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ therefore they cannot reasonably say that any part of it falls to the ground because the substance it self of the Body and Blood of the Son of God is not subject unto any such accident Some Years after that is to say in the Year 1207. Amalarick or Amaury of Chartres was in great esteem for his Learning as Gaguinus reports in his sixth Book of the History of France and he teacheth amongst other things That the Body of Jesus Christ was not any more in the Bread of the Altar than in any other Bread or in any
thing else denying Transubstantiation as Bernard of Luxemburg Lib. 4. ad Ann. 1215. Prateolus and Alphonso de Castro have observed and after them Gennebrard in his Chronology It is true he was accused of denying the Resurrection of the Dead Heaven and Hell and of believing several other things which were not justifiable but because these Accusations are brought by those which approved not his Judgment touching the holy Sacrament the Reader may judge what credit they ought to have against the memory of this Man whilst I shall observe that Pope Innocent the Third in his Council of Lateran in the Year 1145. condemned Amalarick even after he was dead and if we believe Gaguinus he died of grief for having been forced to retract but upon another Subject than that of the Sacrament whereof this Historian maketh no mention neither doth Innocent the Third declare for what Error it was that he condemned him Cap. 2. We reject also saith he and do condemn the most pernitious Tenent of the wicked Amaury of whom the Father of Lies hath so blinded the Understanding that his Doctrine ought rather to be accounted an Extravagance than a Heresie After which they fell upon the Ashes of this Man for his Body Gaguin ubi sapra which had been buried behind St. Martin's Church in Paris was dis-interred and burnt The same Innocent the Third in the same Council approving the word Transubstantiation which Stephen Bishop of Autun had invented and the thing designed by the word made this Decree Cap. 1. The Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are really contained under the Species of Bread and Wine in the Sacrament of the Altar the Bread being transubstantiated into the Body and the Wine into the Blood I say Innocent made this Decree because in effect that was practised in this Council which was not usually practised in Councils before I mean that the Prelates of the Assembly had not the liberty of giving their Voices and Consent seeing they neither proposed nor deliberated nor gave their Opinion nor made any Constitutions which are there in great numbers but they were presented unto the Council ready cut and dry it not appearing that the Advice of the Assembly was taken upon each of them as is usually done in all free and lawful Councils Matthew Paris an English Historian speaks in these terms Ad Ann. 1115. Every body being assembled at the place abovesaid and each one according to the custom of general Councils having taken his place the Pope having first made a Speech of Exhortation there were sixty Articles read in open Council which seemed tolerable unto some and burthensome unto others Godfrey a Friar of St. Pantaleon at Cologne said That there was nothing worthy of memory acted in this Council if it were not that the Eastern Church submitted it self unto the Church of Rome which had not been heard of before Nauclerius and Platina in the Life of Innocent the Third say the same seeing they write Ad Ann. 1115. That several things were there put into deliberation but yet nevertheless nothing was clearly nor openly determined After all the Decree of Innocent in favour of the Real Presence regarded not only Amaury of Chartres who taught the contrary but also the Albigensis as Binnius doth confess in his Notes upon this Council and as I do infer from a Conference which the Legats of Innocent the Third had nine years before with some of the Pastors of the Albigensis in the City of Montreal near Carcassona where Arnold Hot which spoke in behalf of the Albigensis History of Al 〈◊〉 by Paul Perâ—in l. 1. c. 2. proposed this Thesis That the Mass and Transubstantiation were the inventions of men and not the Command of Jesus Christ and his Apostles The Acts of this Conference were seen and in his possession that wrote the History But in fine Innocent the Third seeing he could not prevail over those people by Dispute and Argument he had recourse unto more violent Remedies I mean publick and downright Persecutions even so far as to grant unto all such as would take Arms against them and destroy them the same Indulgences which were granted unto those which crossed themselves for the recovering of the Holy Land from the Turks Concil Lateran sub Innocen 〈◊〉 c. 3. That the Catholicks saith he that cross themselves for the exterminating of Hereticks shall enjoy the same privileges and Indulgences which is given unto those which go to the Recovery of the Holy Land Tom. 7. Spicil p. 210. And Dom Luke d'Achery in one of the Tomes of his Collections hath given us the Sentence of the Council of Lateran or rather of Innocent by advice as he saith of the Council wherein he granteth unto the Count de Mountford all the Lands which the Crusado had taken from the Count of Tholouse Tom 2. Spicil p. 610. 612. 619. and from the Albigensis especially the Cities of Tholouse and Montauban as being most infected with this Heresie according unto which he assembled and held a Council at Avignon in the Year 1209. by Hugh Bishop of Ries in Provence his Legat where it was concluded that the Hereticks should be expelled according to the Oath which he caused the Consuls of Montpellier to take the same year Ibid. p. 611 c. p. 63â— c. the which was again renewed in a Council held at Tholouse Anno 1228. and in another at Albi Anno 1254. Which sheweth plainly that Languedock was still full of Waldensis and Albigensis as well as several other parts of Gascoygne I pass over at this time the Ordinances of Honorius the Third Successor unto Innocent and of Gregory the Ninth which took Honorius his Chair touching the Adoration of the Host nor of the Institution of the Feast of the Sacrament by Urban the Fourth because we shall be obliged to speak of it in the Third Part of this Work But I will insist upon the consideration of one thing which I cannot pass over in silence without prejudicing this History it regards Guy le Gross Arch-Bishop of Narbonna who going to visit Pope Clement the Fourth formerly his intimate friend being at his Court and there discoursing with a man of Learning could not forbear declaring unto him his Opinion touching the Eucharist which was directly contrary unto Transubstantiation whicy Pope Clement having understood after his Return wrote unto him and represented that he was of an ill persuasion and that he must recant it And it appears by this Pope's Letter that the Arch-bishop maintained that this Opinion was very common amongst the Doctors of Paris The Letter was taken from the Register of Manuscript Letters of Clement the Fourth about fourteen years ago Aubertin a Protestant Minister inserted it in the third Book of his Latin Treatise of the Sacrament it being communicated unto him by one of his friends and I having been informed of late by a person of good
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
Bread remains in the Sacrament Thereby he explains the Retractation they made Berengarius make under Nicholas the Second to wit That the Body of Jesus Christ is broken by the hands of the Priest and ground by the teeth of Believers not only in Sacrament but in the verity it self And he explains it in saying that this should be understood by the Bread which was taken by the Divinity although that by a Communication of Idioms what befalls the Bread should be attributed unto the Body of Jesus Christ It is by this same Communication of Idioms that he explains these words The Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ the presence of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament and the eating of his Flesh for he pretends that the glorified Flesh of our Saviour cannot be eaten it being immortal Caro Christi glorificata non est manducabilis impassibilis existens And answering this Objection which might be made against him That if the substance of Bread remained in the Sacrament of the Altar as he did teach it would follow that it should be adored with the worship of Latrie which would be more Idolatry he saith it would be Idolatry if the Bread were adored in its own form that is to say in it self but that there is no Idolatry being adored in another that is to say in the Divinity which hath taken it and hath united it unto it self But what I find more remarkable in this History is that the Faculty of Divinity of Paris did not condemn the Sentiment of this Doctor on the contrary it formally declared that it held for a probable Opinion both the one and the other manner of making exist the Body of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament I say that which John of Paris established and the other which depended on the change of the substance of Bread into the substance of the Body of Jesus Christ that it approved of both the one and the other saying nevertheless that neither of these two ways had yet been determined by the Church and that neither of them by consequence was an Article of Faith that if this Doctor had spoke otherwise he had spoke amiss and that those which speak otherwise do not say well and that whosoever should affirm definitively that either the one or the other of these two manners of the presence of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament should precisely be esteemed matter of Faith that is that it is a point of Faith should incurr Sentence of Excommunication And the more particularly to satisfie the Reader 's curiosity I will recite in proper terms the Title of this little Treatise of John of Paris his design his protestation and the Judgment of the Faculty of Divinity to the end he may consider what was in that time the disposition of Christians in the West in regard of the Sacrament and how the most famous of all Faculties of Divinity did esteem that the Church had not yet determined any thing touching the manner of the presence of Jesus Christ in this Mystery But first of all I must inform the Reader that what we are going to alledge was taken out of a Manuscript which is in the Library of St. Victor of Paris the which is well known unto several persons which have seen it as well as my self and hath for Title what follows Determinatio Fratris Johannis de Parisus Praedicatoris de modo existendi corpus Christi in Sacramento Altaris alio quam sit ille quem tenet Ecclesia Intendo dicere veram existentiam realem corâ—oris Christi in Sacramento Altaris quod non est ibi solum in signo licet teneam approbem illorum solennem opinionem quod corpus Christi est in Sacramento Altaris per conversionem substantiae panis in ipsum quod ibi maneant accidentia sine subjecto non tamen audeo dicere quod hoc cadat sub fide mea sed potest aliter salvari vera realis existentia corporis Christi in Sacramento Altaris Protestor tamen quod si ostenderetur dictus modus determinatus esse per sacrum Canonem aut per Ecclesiam aut per Concilium generale aut per Papam qui virtute continet totam Ecclesiam quicquid dicam volo haberi pro non dicto statim paratus sum revocare quod si non sit determinatus contingat tamen determinari statim paratus sum assentiri Judicium Facultatis Theologiae In praesentia Collegii Magistrorum in Theologia dictum est utrumque modum ponendi corpus Christi esse in altari tenet pro opinione probabili approbat utrumque per per dicta sanctorum There wants a word in the Manuscript dicit tamen quod nullus est determinatus per Ecclesiam ideo nullum cadere sub fide si aliter dixisset minus bene dixisset qui aliter dicunt minus bene dicunt qui determinate assereret alterutrum praecise cadere sub fide incurreret sententiam Canonis Anathematis But that nothing may be wanting unto this History the Reader may take notice if he please that the Bishop of Paris assisted with some Bishops and with the Faculty of the Common Law did condemn the Opinion of this Doctor of whom we speak he made his Appeal unto the Pope and went to Rome to make good his Appeal Being there arrived Judges were assigned but before any Judgment was given he died So it is we are informed by the Continuator of the Chronicle of William de Nangis which is found in a Manuscript in the Library of St. German de Pres whence I have taken what concerns the History of John of Paris and which I will represent in the words of the Author which continues this Chronicle unto the 1368. and who speaks thus upon the year of our Lord 1304. Frater Johannes de Parisiis ordinis fratrum Praedicatorum Magister in Theologia vir admodum literatus ingenio clarus circa veram existentiam corporis Christi in Sacramento Altaris novum ponendi modum introducere conatur dicens videlicet non tantum hoc esse possibile commutatione substantiae panis in corpus Christi verbo adesse suppositum ipsius mediante corpore quod est pars humanae naturae verum etiam hoc esse possibile per assumptionem substantiae panis vel panietatis in Christo nec credebat communem modum ponendi quem communis doctorum tenet opinio esse necessario tenendum seu ab Ecclesia determinatum quinetiam praedictus possit teneri tanquam popularis fortasse ut dicebat magis rationabilis congruens veritati Sacramenti per quam magis salvatur apparentia circa species sensibiles remanentes caeteris Theologiae doctoribus contrarium astruentibus * I think Primum should be read here rather than Secundum secundum modum tanquam ab Ecclesia determinatum praesertim per decretalem Papae de summa Trinitate fide catholica
firmiter credimus necessario tenendum ac secundum tanquam veritati fidei etiam Sacramenti dissonum merito reprobandum examinata itaque opinione praedicta dum ea quae dixerat retractare nollet sed magis videretur pertinaciter sustinere a Guillielmo Parisiensi Episcopo de consilio fratris Egidii Bituricensis Archiepiscopi provecti Theologi Magistri Bertrandi de Sancto Dionysio praesellenti doctore Aurelianensis Episcopi ac Guillielmi Albianensis Episcopi necnon doctorum in jure canonico pariter duorum ad hoc specialiter vocatorum perpetuum super hoc silentium dicto fratri sub poena excommunicationis impositum est lecturaque pariter predicatione privatur Verum cum ob hoc ad sedem Apostolicam appellasset auditoribus sibi datis in curia sed infacto negotio de medio sublatus est It appears by what hath been said especially by the Judgment of the Faculty of Divinity that it was not believed at the beginning of the XIV Century that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation was an Article of Faith notwithstanding the Decree of Innocent the Third at the Council of Lateran Anno 1215. and no more but a probable Opinion and that it was in every bodies free liberty to follow it or not Which will not a little confirm the Protestants in the belief they are in that the Doctrine of the Real Presence did not pass into an Article of Faith until the Council of Trent after the Ordinances whereof they esteemed that there was an indispensable necessity of separating from the Communion of the Latins and will make them at the same time say that this sole Consideration which we have made upon the History of John of Paris is sufficient entirely to ruin the foundation of the two famous Books which have appeared of late years wherein they have pretended to shew that Transubstantiation has always been esteemed in the Church to be an Article of Faith And there is no question but they are much confirmed in this Sentiment when they shall see that the Cardinal d'Aylli which assisted at the Council of Constance at the beginning of the XV. Century speaks of Transubstantiation as of an Opinion and also saith that it cannot be clearly inferred from the holy Scriptures nor as he thinks from the determination of the Church that the substance of Bread doth not remain in the Sacrament nevertheless he embraceth the Opinion that holds so as that which is most favoured by the Church and which is most generally received amongst the Doctors Petrus de Aylliaco Cardin. Camerac in 4. sent q. 6. See here his words Quarta opinio communior est quod substantia panis non remanet sed simpliciter desinit esse Ejus possibilitas patet quia non est Deo impossibile quod illa substantia subito desinat esse quamvis non esset possibile creata virtute Et licet ita esse non sequatur evidenter ex Scriptura nec etiam videre meo ex determinatione Ecclesiae quia tamen magis favet ei communi opinioni sanctorum doctorum ideo teneo eam But having reported what passed in the West during the XII and XIII Centuries touching the holy Sacrament according unto our method it will not be amiss to say something touching the Eastern Church Genebrard in his Chronologies makes mention of a certain Friar called Basil of whom he observes That he re-established the Error of Berengarius for although he speaks of the year 1087. nevertheless Ad annum 1087. according to the testimony of Zonarus reported by Cardinal Baronius he dogmatized for the space of 52 years we may put him into the number of the Authors of the XII Century It is true the same Zonarus reports in Baronius that the Emperor Alexius Comeneus caused him to be burnt as an Impostor so that if he was put to death for the Opinions which Genebrard imputes unto him touching the Sacrament it cannot reasonably be doubted but the Greek Church was in the XII Century of the same belief that the Latin Church was of But seeing this man was accused of several Impieties Apud Baron ad annum 1118. N. 27. as of denying the Trinity of rejecting the Books of Moses of teaching that the World was made by wicked Angels that Michael the Archangel was Incarnate of denying the Resurrection and of holding many other things alike wicked and abominable I suppose that as the Protestants can draw no advantage in favour of their Opinion from the belief of this man if it be true that he believed what Genebrard relates of him so in like manner have the Roman Catholicks no cause to boast of his Condemnation which was grounded upon several Impieties which sufficiently declare that he was a Manichean Leo Allatius represents this Basil as Chief of the Sect of the Bogomiles whose Heresie was composed of that of the Manicheans and Messalians and what this Author saith of them may be seen in the second Book De perpetua consensione Orientis Occidentis cap. 10. p. 636. But at the beginning of the XIII Century the mind of the Greeks was extreamly agitated upon the subject of the Sacrament some affirming that the Mysteries were corruptible others justifying the contrary The reason of these latter was because the holy Sacrament is a Commemoration of our Lord 's being risen again for us alledging to this purpose some passages of the Fathers which seemed to favour their Opinion But the others on the contrary denied that the Sacrament was a Confession of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ saying it was only a Sacrifice and by consequence he was therein corruptible as before his Passion and without Life and Soul I said that the Spirits of men was much agitated at the beginning of the XIII Age for the Dispute had already been begun even in the XII Century Therefore Zonarus a Greek Friar who lived at that time I mean in the XII Century speaks of it in one of his Letters and resolves the question in embracing both parties In notis Vulcanii ad Cyril Alexandr t. 6. libr. adversus Antropomorp ex Zonara ep 32. L. 3. de robus gestis Alexii He said That the Bread is the Flesh it self of Jesus Christ mortal and buried and for this reason it is corruptible ground and broken to pieces by the Teeth but that afterwards being chewed eaten and gone down into the Stomach as it were into a Sepulchre it becomes incorruptible because the Body of our Lord remained not long dead and buried but rose again soon after As for Nicetas Choniates who wrote just at the beginning of the XIII Century and that makes mention of this Dispute he sufficiently testifieth that the Patriarch Camaterus embraced the Opinion of those which maintained that the Mysteries were corruptible I shall not examine which of the two parties were most reasonable for to speak my thoughts plainly those people strove in vain and to no
them when they were most spoken of and which is Printed with Reynerius and Pilichdorffius observes amongst other things that they called themselves Brethren Bibl. Patr. t. 4. edit 4. p. 819. By this and other Writings saith he it is necessary to prevent the Hereticks the Waldensis c. amongst them they call the Hereticks Brethren It is then of the Waldensis in all probability that Platina Secretary unto the Popes doth speak in the life of Boniface the VIII when marking the year 1302. that is to say the second year after the Institution of the Jubilees by Boniface In Bonifacio VIII There are some that write that at that time Boniface caused to be dis-interred and burnt the Body of one Herman which was reputed at Ferrara to be a Saint 20 years before but having made a strict inquiry into his Heresie I am inclined to believe that he was of the number of the Fraticelli which Sect increased very much at that time In Clement V. And in the Life of Clement V. at Novara saith he Dulcin and Margret invented a new Heresie which allowed Men and Women to cohabit together and to satisfie their filthy lusts These were called Fraticelli Clement set about suppressing of them and speedily dispatcht thither Soldiers under the conduct of an Apostolical Legat who finding them setled in the Alps destroyed them some by the Sword some by Famine and some by Cold and other Cruelties And as for Dulcin and Margret being taken alive they were dismembred and having burnt their Bones the Ashes was flung into the Air. Decad. 2. lib. 9 ad ann 1307. Blondus saith the same with Platina Sabellius writes that some seem to make a distinction from these latter and the former but in the main speaking of those which were called Fratelli Fraterculi Fratricelli whom as he saith were spread abroad into several Cities of Italy in some whereof there was some remaining in his time that is to say Enead 9. l. 7. in the last Century He reproacheth them of Nocturnal meetings putting out of Candles unlawful lying together the cruel murder of Children begotten and born in these Criminal Copulations In a word all that was charged upon the Primitive Christians although the most innocent and pure of all mankind as hath been observed in our First Part and according unto what is said by Minutius Felix in his Octavius Whereto might be added what is written by Monsieur de Thoul in his History that the same Crimes were imputed unto the Protestants of France when they separated themselves from the Communion of the Latins I say then to return unto those which were called Fratelli that if they were Waldensis as it is most probable they were without great injustice the testimony of Sabellicus a late Author ought not to be preferred before Authors of the same Age and their Enemies who in the precedent Chapter as hath been shewed have declared very favourably of their Life and Conversations what aversion soever they had against them And as touching their Faith they fully acquitted them from all suspition of Arianism or of Manicheanism and declared that they had sound and good Opinions as to what regarded the Essence of God and all the Symbol of the Apostles Creed But let us yet see what this Anonymous Author will tell us which but now informed us Bibl. Patr. Tom 4. part 2. p. 8. 19 820. that they called one another Brethren for having observed That they preached in private unto a few persons in some Corner of a House and for the most part by Night in all likelihood to avoid persecutions he adds That they pronounced pernicious Doctrines against the truth of the Roman Church under a pretext and shew of sweet and holy Doctrines c. Therefore although they teach some truths as these That it is not lawful to Steal nor commit Adultery nor Slander nor Cheat nor Lye c. yet they instill amongst these guilded Sentences the wicked poison of Heretical Articles which have been condemned by the Holy Church of Rome they seduce the ignorant hinder Souls from Salvation and introduce infinite Evils And proceeding afterwards to the particularizing these Heretical Articles condemned by the Church of Rome Ibid. p. 820 821 825 827. they are found to be the same which are disowned by the Protestants at this day for instance The Invocation of Saints Humane Traditions Indulgences and some others as we were informed in the foregoing Chapter and by their Confessions of Faith and by the Testimonies of Writers of their times their Adversaries That they believed of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper the very same that those called Calvinists do believe of it I do not here say any thing of the Bull which Clement the V. made for the observation of the Feast of the Sacrament Instituted by Urban the IV. nor of the Institution of the Procession because I shall be obliged to speak of them when I come to treat of the Worship I will only observe that besides the Waldensis and Albigensis there was at Herbipolis about the year 1340. one Conrad Hagar who as appears by the Bull of Otho Bishop of the place as Hospinian observes confessed that during the space of 24 years Hist Sacram. l. 4. c 13. catalog testium verit l. 18. he had believed and taught that the Mass was not a Sacrifice that it was not profitable unto the Quick nor the Dead and that therefore no body ought to Celebrate it But that was nothing in regard of the noise which John Wickliff Doctor in the University of Oxford and Professor in Divinity made in England about the middle of the XIV Century The Friar Walsingham who hated him mortally for having spoken freely against those of his Order and who represents him as having many followers at Oxford and elsewhere chargeth him amongst other things of teaching In Edwardo III ad an 1377 T. 2. c. 19. 20. That the Eucharist after Consecration is not the real Body of Jesus Christ but the Figure And Thomas Waldensis He believes absolutely saith he that the Natural Bread remains in the Eucharist and that after a kind of Figurative Speech it is the Body of Jesus Christ that the Body of Jesus Christ is only in Heaven as to its nature and substance and in the Sacrament figuratively as John Baptist was said to be Elias the Rock Christ and the seven Ears of Corn seven years And Widford which undertook to refute Wickliff by order of Thomas Archbishop of Canterbury lays down for the first Article he intended to handle In sasciculo rer expetend sugiend p. 96. Apud Usser de success statu Christ Eccles c. 3. That the substance of Bread remains upon the Altar after Consecration and that it ceaseth not to be Bread And Wickliff affirmed in a Manuscript Treatise of Thomas Waldensis which was in the hands of Dr. Usher Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of Ireland That
Age And doth moreover observe that most of the English Prelates connived at what they taught so that being besides favoured by several persons of Quality they made open profession of their Faith so far as they affixed publickly upon the Doors of St. Paul's Church in London certain Theses which were no ways favourable to the Doctrine of the Latin Church nor to its Clergy At the same time there were several Waldensis at the Straits of the Alps which divide France and Italy as we are informed by 1 Contr. Vald. fol. 2. Claud de Cecill Arch-Bishop of Turin and of a Bull of Clement the Seventh granted at Avignion against them in the Year 2 His Bull is in the Chamber of Accounts at Grenoble 1380. and put in Execution by one Francis Borelli Inquisitor of the Order of preaching Friars who persecuted them cruelly for several years and put many of them to death I know not whether the University of Paris intended not to speak of the same Waldensis in the Letter which it directed unto Charles the Sixth in the Year 1394. 3 Tom. 6. Spicil p. 97. complaining amongst other things That the Hereticks which have already began to appear finding none to punish them do make great progress and not only scatter abroad ther pernitious Heresies publickly but also in private The XV. Century proved more fatal unto the Waldensis and Lollards in England for from the first year the Persecution was begun against them in pursuance of an Act of Parliament which gave power to put them to death if they recanted not their Religion as 4 In Hypodig Neustr ad an 1401. in Henrico IV. Walsingham doth testifie But notwithstanding all this they lost not their courage nor abandoned the Doctrine they had until then professed On the contrary the 5 In Henr. IV. same Historian observes that the year following they proposed several Thesis's but privately for fear of the punishment which had been appointed Theses which were nothing favourable unto the Doctrine of the Roman Church which renewed the Persecution against them during which several of them were burnt alive which this Friar saith was done in the Years 1410 1414 1417. even insulting after a most unchristian manner at the death of these people as did also Thomas Waldensis who speaking unto King Henry the Fifth doth mightily commend the continual punishments which was inflicted upon them In Prolog t. 2. doct 11. ad initium prologi saying That Prince proceeded according to the Command of Jesus Christ who nevertheless requires not Consciences to be forced but persuaded and whose Gospel is made up of love and of mildness But whilst these things were acting in England there was in Bohemia infinite numbers of people that made open profession of the same Doctrine for which the Lollards were persecuted in Great Britain for besides the Waldensis which had retired themselves thither a great while before by reason of the Persecution stirred up against them in Picardy as Dubravius Bishop of Olmuz informed us in the precedent Chapter At the beginning of this Century there was made in that Country a considerable Separation from the Roman Church according to the Testimony of the same Dubravius and of Eneas Silvius in their Histories of Bohemia 'T is true this Separation was not alike in all for some only desired the Restitution of the Cup unto the people being of accord in all other points with the Latins and those for this reason were called Calixtins but as for the others they disowned the same Doctrine of the Communion of the Latins which the Waldensis and Wickliffites had opposed and did still oppose and because as some alledge these latter joyned themselves unto the Waldensis which had been setled a long time in this Kingdom and used to assemble themselves in the Mountain of Tabor they were called Taborites as Dubravius hath observed But let us hear what this Prelate intends to say touching this Separation when having spoken of the Jubilee celebrated at Prague in the Year 1400. he adds Unto this time the Christian Religion Lib. 23. hist Bohem. which had been once received by the Bohemians with all the Ceremonies of the Apostolick See had continued stedfast in Bohemia in its purity but after that time it began to faulter and decline as soon as John Hus which in the Language of the Country signifies a Goose began to make a noise amongst the Swans and by his sound to conquer the sweetness of their singing by the assistance of a Faction which made it self considerable In fine the progress was so great that he writes That the Taborites so ordered matters Ibid. l. 24. that in the City of Prague there rested no sign of the ancient Catholick Religion Also the Friar Walsingham testifies that the Emperor Sigismond returned from Constance into his own Territories after the Council had elected Pope Martin the Fifth In Henr. IV. To employ all his strength to ruin the Enemies of Religion and the Heresie of the Lollards which were mightily increased in the Kingdom of Bohemia by the lukewarmness and support of his elder Brother Dubravius proceedeth farther for after the Coronation of Sigismond at Prague Ubi supra l. 26 he proposeth the Tenets of the Taborites but after a manner that is not exactly conformable unto their Confession of Faith by which nevertheless their Belief ought to be judged because it is in those publick Acts that for the most part is declared what is believed in matters of Religion And treating of Moravia upon the Year 1421. he observes that Country was not then infected with the Heresie of the Taborites but in that same year they began there to establish themselves Renewing saith he the ancient Error of the Picards that is to say of the Waldensis to wit that none ought to kneel unto the Sacrament of the Altar because the Body of Jesus Christ is not there having ascended up into Heaven both in Body and Soul and that there remains only the Bread and Wine I know very well that the Bishop of Olmuz chargeth them in the same place of teaching that the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist is such Bread and Wine as each particular amongst the people may take with their own hands that the hand of the Priest is no more worthy then that of a private Lay person And to vomit saith he other Blasphemies against the real Body of Jesus Christ But because the quite contrary doth appear by their Confession of Faith I know not whether it would be reasonable to admit of this Accusation coming from the Pen and hand of an Enemy Eneas Sylvius Cap. 35. who was afterwards Pope Pius the Second speaks of those people at large in his History of Bohemia he relates several things of them agreeing with the Doctrine of the Protestants but he also mentions other things which the Protestants do not approve the which in all probability were unjustly
imputed unto them because there is not the least sign of it to be found Cap. 10 11 12 13. â—bi supra neither in the Confessions of Faith made by the Waldensis inserted by Paul Perrin in their History nor in that of the Taborites Which by the testimony of Eneas Sylvius had embraced the impious and wicked Sect of the Waldensis Of necessity then their Belief must be the same with the Protestants because that of the Waldensis did agree with it as may be judged by all that hath been hitherto spoken But in fine the Question is to know the Belief of the Taborites touching the holy Sacrament but what can better inform us than their own Confession of Faith drawn up in the Year 1431. by John Lukavitz wherein they declare Confess Tabor Joan. Lukavits that their Belief touching the Eucharist is That the Bread remains in its nature true Bread and that it is the Body of Jesus Christ not by a material Identity but Sacramentally really and truly Then they reject the Opinion of those which say That the same Body of Jesus Christ which is in Heaven is also in the Sacrament Ibid. with all its essential and accidental Proprieties Because say they this would be a means to presuppose that the substance of Bread should cease to be and that it should be converted substantially into the Body of Jesus Christ Moreover they formally deny the Adoration of the Eucharist If John Hus was of the same Opinion of those which were called Taborites it must be owned after so express a Declaration as they made that he opposed the Doctrine of Transubstantion If we give credit unto what is reported in the Acts of the Council of Constance we cannot question but that he was contrary unto this Doctrine In fine The Council doth condemn thirty Articles of John Hus in the 1 Concil Constant sess 15. twenty fifth whereof they make him say that he doth approve of forty Articles of Wickliff's the 2 Ibid. sess 8. three first whereof are directly contrary unto Transubstantiation Moreover there is to be found in the Proceedings made against him that he had preached and taught 3 Ibid. sess 15. That after consecrating the Host at the Altar the material Bread did remain that the substance of Bread remains after Consecration and that the Opinion which the Church holdeth of the Sacrament of the Body of Jesus Christ is erronious Therefore Pope Martin the Fifth Ad finem Concil Constant in his Bull of Approbation of the Council doth not fail of representing John Hus as approving the Articles of Wickliff before spoken of Ibid. He declares also that Jerom of Prague was of the same Judgment that is to say in an Opinion contrary unto the Church of Rome which the Council doth also observe in the twenty first 1 Ibid. sess 21. Session And Gobellin Persona Official of the Diocess of 2 Cosmodrom a tat 6. c. 95. Peterborough who lived at that time thought that he ought not to say the contrary after the Declaration of the Pope and of the Council But if we consult the Works of John Hus printed at Noremberg Anno 1558. with his Martyrdom and that of Jerom of Prague for so it is that their death is therein styled we shall find that he always believed the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and that of Concomitance and the reading of Wickliff's Works for whom he had an extraordinary kindness calling him always Evangelical Doctor could never make him alter his mind nor work upon his spirit the same effects which it wrought upon the Taborites In fine in his Treatise Of the Blood of Jesus Christ against the false Apparisions of it which at that time was frequently published in all parts he said Tom. 1. fol. 155 That the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ is in the Sacrament truly and really after what manner soever it ought to be here below in the Church that is to say as appears by the scope of the whole Discourse invisibly and not visibly as the Autors of these miraculous Apparations would have it be believed And in the same Treatise Ibid. he accuseth of Incredulity those which believed not what he said of the presence of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament He supposed Ibid. That Accidents do subsist without their subject in the Sacrament confesseth that there is no contradiction in saying That the Body of Jesus Christ is here sacramentally Ibid. p. 156. Ibid. p. 158. Ibid. fol. 161. and at the same time in Heaven locally He affirms for truth that his Blood is truly and really in the Sacramen confesseth That Jesus Christ is hidden in the Sacrament And amongst many Inconveniences which he fears these feigned Apparitions of the Blood of Christ might produce Ibid. fol. 162. he puts this down as the fifth That it may be there are some which question whether the Blood of Jesus Christ be in the venerable Sacrament because it doth not visibly appear unto them And a little after he saith That we adore the Body and Blood of of Jesus Christ which is at the right hand of his Father and in the venerable Sacrament made by the Priests The same man writeth in his Treatise of the Body of Jesus Christ Id. t. 1. fol. 164. That the Doctrine of Berengarius is a great Heresie He receiveth for a true testimony of St. Austin's a passage of Lanfranc a sworn Enemy of Berengarius which the Canonist Gratian cites in his Decree under the name of St. Austin In a word in this little Treatise he embraceth and follows all that the Latins believe of the Sacrament of the Altar And that it should not be imagined that he changed his Opinion it is to be observed that amongst several little Treatises which he composed during his Imprisonment at Constance Cap. 2. p. 32. t. 1 there is one Of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ written Anno 1415. wherein he teacheth the same Doctrine Ibid. declaring moreover That all that the Church of Rome believes of the venerable Sacrament ought to be believed That he had preached this Doctrine from the beginning unto that day And in fine Ibid. fol. 49. Ibid. fol. 40. c. 3 That he believed Transubstantiation And saith he I never taught that the substance of material Bread remained in the Sacrament of the Altar He adds a little after That the Body and Blood of our Saviour remains in the Sacrament as long as the Species of Bread and Wine do subsist In another little Treatise wherein he examines whether Lay-persons should receive under both kinds he lays it down for a truth That the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ is under both species of the Sacrament that is to say that he is entirely under the species of Bread and entirely under that of Wine He that writ the History of John Hus particularly the conflicts he was to suffer at
Constance and at the which he saith he was present Tom. 1. fol. 9. reports a publick Testimony of the University of Prague touching the purity of the Belief of this man wherein is declared that Hus had denied the things whereof he had been accused unto the Pope especially that he had ever taught That the material substance of Bread remained in the Sacrament of the Altar The Author also reporteth Ibid. fol. 12. that John Hus was heard in open Council the 7th of June and that he confessed That the Bread is transubstantiated and that the Body of Jesus Christ which was born of the Virgin Mary which suffered and was crucified c. is truly really and wholly in the Sacrament And as a certain English Man said that Hus disguised his Opinion just as Wickliff had formerly done in England he answered That he spake sincerely and from his heart Which need not much be questioned when it must be observ'd Tom. 2. so 344. that Hus was a man full of candor and sincerity It is related in the acts of his Passion for that 's the Title given them in his Works that these things but now mentioned and others of the like Nature are reported of him But besides these proofs there is also found amongst John Hus his Letters Num. 65. Tom. 1. fol. 8. a very favourable testimony given by the University of Prague unto him and Jerom after their Death that is to say the 23d of May Anno 1416. and in Num. 66. a Summary of the belief of the Comminalty of Prague composed of the followers of John Hus wherein they formally establish the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and the Concomitants saying That Jesus Christ gave unto his Disciples his Body and Blood miraculously hid under the Species of Bread and Wine Ib. num 66. And alledging a passage under the name of Leo which imports That the Blood is received with the Body under the species of Bread and the Body with the Blood under the species of Wine that nevertheless the Blood is not eaten under the species of Bread as the Bread is not drank under that of Wine I will add to conclude unto all these considerations two other circumstances In the first place that the Taborites which had a great Veneration for John Hus although they were of a contrary Judgment unto him upon the point of the Sacrament mention him often in their Confession of Faith upon the Articles which he either held or favoured but upon the point of Transubstantiation they alledge nothing of his In the second place that in regard of Wickliff who was much esteemed by Hus he declares positively in his Writings against Stephen Palets his greatest Enemy Tom. 1. p. 264. A. that he did imbrace what there was of truth in the Writings of John Wickliff Doctor in Divinity not because he said it but because it was agreeable unto the Holy Scriptures and unto Reason but if he taught any Error he intended not to follow him nor any one else therein And in full Council Ibid. fol. 13. being charged with the 40 Articles of Wickliff condemned by the Fathers of Constance he said that he adhered not unto Wickliffs Errors confessing nevertheless that he could have wished the Archbishop of Prague had not condemned them after the manner that he had condemned them declares Ibid. fol. 13. B. that he never obstinately defended them although he approved not that they should be condemned before that the Justice of their condemnation was shewed by reasons taken from the Holy Scriptures In fine he defends himself particularly upon each of these Articles limiting explaining or distinguishing them without any heed being thereunto given by the Council and what there is besides very strange in the business that answering in his Writings unto the Objections of his Adversaries which had been before of his side but were become his Enemies Tom. 1. so 255. 265. p. 292. unto fol. 321. he never toucheth the Article of Transubstantiation yet it is not likely that having been his Friends they could be ignorant of his Opinion upon this weighty point nor that they could have been silent if John's belief had been contrary unto that of the Church of Rome As for Jerom of Prague besides the intimate friendship which was betwixt him and John Hus which continued until their Death as it had been carefully improved in their life especially by the conformity of their Faith and Manners there is to be seen in the same Works a Discourse wherein the Author saith the same of Jerom Tom. 2. so 356. which he had done of Hus for he writes that one of his Adversaries having said there was a report That he believed that the substance of Bread remained upon the Altar he made this answer I believe the Bread is at the Bakers and not in the Sacrament of the Altar Poggius Florent ad Leonard Aretin in fascicul rerum expeton fugiend fol. 152. Which agrees very well with what is written by Pogge the Florentine unto his Friend Leonard Aretin Jerom saith he being examined what he believed touching the Sacrament answered That by Nature it was Bread but at the instant of Consecration and afterwards it was the true Body of Jesus Christ that he believed it to be so and all the rest according as the Church believed And some body having replyed it is reported that thou teachest that the Bread remaineth after Consecration he answered the Bread remaineth at the Bakers house This is the sum of the belief of John Hus and of Jerom of Prague touching the subject of the Sacrament Nevertheless the Council of Constance caused them to be burnt alive they endured this punishment with wonderful patience according to the relation of Pogge the Florentine an Eye witness and of Eneas Sylvius which speaks thus They both dyed very contentedly and drew near unto the Stake as cheerfully as if they were going unto a Banquet without letting fall a word as might express any thing of grief or sorrow when the Flames began to seize them they sang a Hymn the sound whereof could scarce be stopped by the noise of the Fire It is said That never any Philosopher suffered Death so constantly as these Men endured the punishment of the Flames The Death of these two Men served only to confirm the Taborites in their Opinions and inspired them with Zeal for its defence and of making publick and open profession thereof in Bohemia not but there was found in other parts those which professed the same Doctrine for Baleus reports upon the relation of Thomas Gasconius and of Leland that in the year 1457. Reginald Peacock Bishop of Chichester in England Had ill Opinions touching the Sacrament and that he maintained the Doctrine of Wickliff Centur. 8. Auth. 19. but that he was compelled to renounce and moreover was deprived of his Bishoprick It is very probable he had followers in his Diocess yet
they were cautious in declaring themselves for fear of being troubled It was otherwise in Bohemia the profession of this Doctrine being more free by reason of the great numbers of persons which had embraced it and which had separated themselves from the Communion of the Latin Church If we credit Historians King George Pogebrack who in the Year 1455. succeeded Ladislaus Son of Albert became Protector of the Taborites that he embraced this Party and afterwards drew upon himself the Excommunications of two Popes Pius the Second and Paul the Second I will not here insist upon the Commendations which some of these Historians give him for his Vertue Justice Prudence and Integrity neither do I intend to examine the differences which he had with these two Popes against whose Anathema's he defended himself as well as against the Enemies which he had engaged against him unto his death which happened in the Year 1471. I shall content my self to observe that the Historians which represent him unto us as a Taborite and Protector of the Taborites are grosly mistaken which may warn us not too easily to give credit unto all that they report In fine we have a Letter of this Prince unto Mathias King of Hungary his Son in Law dated in the Year 1468. which Dom Luke d'Achery a Benedictine Friar hath lately published the reading whereof informs us several things In the first place that the Doctrine of the Taborites and Waldensis of Bohemia if it were so that there were any of the ancient Waldensis still remaining Tom 4. Spicil p. 415. was such as we have represented It must be granted saith he if we will say things that are more true than apparent that several Errors have flourished in this Kingdom touching the Sacrament of the Eucharist Circa remanentem panis Sacramentalis sic enim illi nuncupabant upon their teaching that the Bread of the Sacrament remained and that it was converted into the substance of the Communicant In the second place that this Prince was not a Taborite but a Calixtin because he desired to communicate under both kinds as he had always done after the example of his Father his Mother and his Grandmother but that in all other points he was agreed with the Latin Church Thirdly It may be gathered from this Letter that the Taborites whose Doctrine he styles to be erroneous were not kindly used by this King Ibid. p. 415. therefore in the Apology which they made in the Year 1508. under the name of Waldensis against the Doctor Augustin they complained that some of their Brethren suffered great miseries under King George Pogebrack by reason of their Opinion touching the Article of the Sacrament Unto George Pogebrack succeeded Ladislaus Son of Casimir King of Poland whom the Bohemians saith Ritius chose for their King De regno Hungar l. 2. upon condition that he would suffer the Hussites he makes them all one with the Taborites to enjoy their Liberty of Conscience which he did until the latter end of this XV. Century But at length the malicious Accusations of their Enemies having prevailed over the Spirit of Ladislaus In fasciculo rerum expeten fol. 81. Dubrav hist Bohem. l. 32. as appears by the first Letter they wrote unto this Prince to inform him that it was nothing but false calumnies whereby they endeavoured to mis-represent them unto him They were forbidden all sorts of Assemblies both publick and private They were commanded to shut up the places where they were wont to make their Assemblies not to preach nor teach their Doctrine any more neither by word nor by writing and in a certain time to conform themselves either unto the Calixtins or unto the Roman Church This Edict occasioned two Letters which they wrote unto Lagislaus with all the humility and respect as was due unto the Majesty of their Prince and Soveraign wherein they complained of so great severity and of condemning them before they were heard And the more to excite him to have compassion on them they joyned their Confession of Faith unto each of these Letters declaring what was their Belief of the Sacrament In the first written Anno 1504. they say That they believe that the Bread which Jesus Christ took which he blessed broke and the which he said was his Body that it is his Body which they explain more particularly in the second which they wrote the year following We believe and confess that the Bread is the natural Body of Jesus Christ and the Wine his natural Blood sacramentally And because the Doctor Augustin charged them with having confessed Transubstantiation in their Writings they do protest that they did not write so Contr. binas litter Doctor Augustin ann 1508. in fasciculo supra nominato For say they this Confession hath no foundation in the words of our Saviour Jesus Christ which said nothing of the Real Presence neither under these species nor in this nor of this nor with this Besides they reject the Adoration of the Sacrament and there also they declare That Jesus Christ is no longer personally upon Earth and that they expect him not until the day of Judgment giving no credit unto those which shew his person here below And a little after they declare That Jesus Christ promised his Disciples to be with them spiritually by the participation of his Body and Blood and in the Sacrament in vertue with the testimony of his holiness Whereupon they alledge the words of St. Austin Donec seculum finiatur sursum est Dominus sed tamen hic etiam nobiscum est veritas Dominus corpus enim in quo resurrexit in uno loco esse oportet And there also they deny that the Body of Jesus Christ is in several places at once In Prologom de Vald. c. 8. It would be difficult and even impossible to declare what was the effect of these Apologies seeing the Historians are therein silent Only the Jesuit Gretzer makes this Observation The Waldensis preserved themselves a long time in Bohemia Gesner in Bibliothec and to this day they cannot be quite rooted out It was about the same time that one Paulus Scriptoris Professor in Divinityin the University of Tubinge was banished for having in his Lectures spoken against the common Belief of the Eucharist But this is not all yet for the Waldensis of Provens and Piedmont present themselves and oblige us to speak of them As the Persecutions were violent in France against those people in the XII and XIII Centuries and particularly in the latter wherein the Popes published several Croysado's against them they were in fine constrained to disperse themselves and in this dispersion considerable numbers of them retired themselves into Provens and towards Labriers and Merindol where they preserved themselves until the Reign of Lewis the Twelfth at which time they were persecuted by the Friars and Inquisitors who brake in violently upon them by force and Arms saying That they should be
exterminated like so many Witches and Sodomites whereby they were necessitated to desire the protection of this Prince who the better to be informed of the truth of matters Carolus Molilinae in Monarch Franc. sent thither one of his Masters of Requests called Fumee and a Doctor of Sorbon a Jacobin called Parvy who was his Confessor They visited the Parishes and Temples of those people where they found neither Images nor Ornaments for the celebrating of Masses nor any marks of the Ceremonies of the Church of Rome and having strictly examined and informed themselves of the crimes charged upon these Albigensis they found not as much as the least appearance thereof On the contrary it was clearly made evident unto them that those of Merindol and others which made profession of the same Faith were strict observers of the Lord's Day that Infants were baptized by them according to the practice of the primitive Church and that they were well instructed in the Law of God and in the Apostles Creed The King having received the Report of Fumee and Parvy affirmed with an Oath Ibid. That these Waldensis were the best and honestest people of his Kingdom All this hindred not their Enemies from undertaking again to accuse them of several Crimes in the Reign of Francis the First unto whom they presented a Confession of their Faith in the Year 1544. to justifie their Innocency Therein they explain themselves upon the Article of the Sacrament just as the Protestants do at this present But it is time to pass from Provens into Piedmont Claude de Cecil Advers error sectam Valdens fol. 1 2 7 8 9 10 20 61. Arch-Bishop of Turin hath already informed us that the Waldensis had setled themselves in the passage of the Alps within his Diocess upwards of two hundred years before he wrote against them and he wrote above a hundred years ago that they had continued there until his time preaching publickly and defending their Doctrine in Disputes against their Adversaries This Prelate acknowledgeth that in writing against them he undertakes a difficult task seeing that Popes and Princes have employed all means imaginable against them without ever being able to make them renounce the Profession and Belief which they embraced He grants that the covetousness of the Clergy and their ill conduct was the occasion of those people's separation He reckons up most of the Articles of their Belief which are found to agree with those which are received and professed by Protestants Ibid. fol. 55 56 'T is true he doth not speak positively of the Sacrament it may be because he will not stand to examine what the most knowing amongst them said of this Article seeing they are things so high and mysterious that the greatest Divines are scarce able to understand and much less to teach them blaming moreover those of the Latin Church who writing against these Waldensis troubled themselves in vain about the difficulties which attended the subject of the Sacrament As for their life and manners this same Prelate renders them this testimony Ibid. fol. 9. Excepting only saith he what they teach against our Belief and our Religion they lead a purer and more innocent life than other Christians do Ibid fol. 4. And speaking of the holy Scriptures he saith That they believe only what is contained in the Old and New Testament Ibid. fol. 10. Therefore he declares That he will cite nothing against them but what is contained in the holy Canon which themselves saith he do allow of But besides the testimony of this Bishop Apud Thuan. hist lib. 6. Monsieur de Thoul mentions some others which are no less favourable unto them In the first place That a person of Quality in Provens in Francis the First his time mentions them as people which were very constant in serving God and of paying the King and Lords in whose Territories they lived the Tribute and Sums due not failing in the Obedience due unto them Ibid. Secondly he alledges that of William du Bellay Lord of Laugay who in the relation he made of them unto Francis the First according to the Order which he had to that purpose These Waldensis which saith he had been in Provens about three hundred years he could not charge them with any thing but some points touching Religion and which was common with them and the Protestants as not kneeling unto Images of not offering them Candles nor any thing else not praying for the Dead and of celebrating Divine Service different from the Church of Rome and in the vulgar Tongue and some other points of this nature Which is the reason that Cardinal Sadolet unto whom they sent their Confession of Faith agreeing with that of the Protestants Apud Thuan. hist l. 6. declared freely That the other things laid to their charge beside the Heads contained in that Book were nothing but things forged to render them odious and meer fooleries And Monsieur de Thoul himself Ibid. who mentions some of the things which they believed of the same which Protestants do acknowledgeth That they had been charged with other things concerning Marriage the Resurrection of the Dead the state of Souls departed From these Waldensis are lineally descended from Father to Son those which in the Alps whether in France or in the Territories of the Duke of Savoy at Cabriers and at Merrindoll in Provens make profession of the Protestant Religion of whom we have no thoughts of speaking nor of extending any farther this History because that Luther began to appear in Germany Zuinglius in Switzerland in the Year 1517. Farrel at Geneva Anno 1535. and afterwards several others in other places which have all opposed the Tenet of Transubstantiation although they agreed not all about the Article of the Eucharist So that I should here conclude the History of the Doctrine and of the Alterations which have thereupon ensued were I not obliged to speak somewhat of other Churches besides that of the West There is in the Library of the holy Fathers a Liturgy of the remainder of the ancient Christians in the Mountains of the Kingdom of Mallabar in the East-Indies Missa Christian apud Indos t. 6. Bibl. Pat. p. 142. where they speak after this manner Our Lord Jesus Christ in the night in which he was betrayed took the holy Bread into his holy hands listed up his eyes unto Heaven and gave it unto his Disciples saying Take eat ye all of this Bread this my Body The Church of Ethiopia expresseth the Sacramental words in such a manner that they make a metaphorical and figurative proposition as the Roman Catholicks and Protestants do confess for she saith 1 Literae Aetheop Jesuit Alphon. ann 1626. edit Roman an 1628. This Bread is my Body As for the Armenians if we believe Guy of Perpignan and Thomas Waldensis they do deny Transubstantiation 2 Uterque apud Vald. t. 2. c. 30. They teach
all the Changes and Alterations which have thereupon ensued and the many Disputes and Contests which have frequently hapned in Europe from Paschas until Berengarius and from Berengarius until the great separation of the Protestants The method proposed by us necessarily requires that we should employ this Third Part in examining the Worship I mean to consider the dispositions and preparations which should go before the Celebration of the Sacrament and of the inclinations and motions of the Soul of the Communicant either towards God and Jesus Christ or in respect of the Sacrament it self that we should examine the great question of Latrie and that we should endeavour to discover what the Church hath from time to time required of those which approach'd unto the holy Table to participate of this adorable Mystery of our Salvation For it must not be imagined that these first Christians which abounded with Zeal and Piety contented themselves in Celebrating this Divine Sacrament with indifferency and meerly for fashion sake and only to declare what they believed of the Nature of the Symbols of their use and employment and that they omitted the necessary preparations both for celebrating and for worthily partaking thereof In fine the abode which I made in the Country of Ecclesiastical Antiquity and the inspection which for some years I made into the Records and Registers which contain the Laws and Customs of this great Empire have informed me that this great and sublime Mystery is not Celebrated and that none presume to Communicate without great preparation devotion and respect And that the People of that Country made the actions of Jesus Christ celebrating his Sacrament and that of the Apostles in Communicating the model of their Celebration whereunto nevertheless in process of time they added several Ceremonies which had not been used at first and the words of this same Saviour the foundation of their Doctrine and of their Faith upon this important Article of Religion They had also considered the Commemoration that the Lord and afterwards his Apostle commands us to make of his Person and of his Death and the proof and examination which this latter requires of us as the fountain and principle of all the dispositions necessary for Celebrating and for Conimunicating Having therefore treated at large of the two first Heads we are indispensibly obliged to treat of the third point thereby to finish and compleat this History And because the Celebration precedes the Communion and that the actions of him that Celebrates goes before them of the Communicant we will first treat of the preparations incumbent upon him which doth Celebrate the Holy Sacrament CHAP. I. Of the Preparations which precede the Celebration WHen Jesus Christ did Celebrate his Eucharist the Evangelists do not mention that he prepared himself by any Ceremony they only declare That after the Supper of the Passover was ended he took Bread and that having prayed unto his Father over this Bread he broke it and distributed it unto his Disciples I only say that at the very instant there is no question to be made but that he lifted up his Soul unto his Father to beseech him that he would make this Sacrament which he went about to Institute for a Seal of his Covenant saving and efficacious unto his Children unto the end of the World And that taking the Bread to make it a sign of his Body he did it with that reverence which of it self shewed that he went about doing something that was of great weight and moment The Evangelists nor St. Paul make no mention at all of any preparation accompanied with many external Ceremonies our Saviour designing to institute this Mystery with much plainness and simplicity agreeable unto the Nature of the Gospel the Worship whereof was to be wholly Spiritual and Divine according unto what Jesus Christ said unto the woman of Samaria That God is a Spirit and he must be worshipped by them which serve him in spirit and in truth About six or seven score years after the Conductors of the Christian Churches used no other Ceremony in the Celebration of the holy Sacrament for St. Justin Martyr St. Justin Martyr Apol. 2. who gives an ample description of the exteriour form of Celebrating the Sacrament which was observed in his time prescribes no other preparation unto us on behalf of the Pastor before the Sacrament but only that when the Sermon made unto the People was ended reading some portion of the holy Scriptures he made a prayer unto God and that when prayer was finished the Believers having saluted each other with the kiss of Charity there was presented unto him Bread Wine and Water over which things he prayed unto God to Consecrate them and the People having answered Amen the distribution was made unto the Communicants by the Ministry of the Deacons Nothing can be seen more simple nor more agreeable unto the Institution of this Sacrament then the manner that was used in Celebrating of it in the days of St. Justin seeing there is no mention made of any preparation made by him that Celebrates in order unto this holy Action being content to prepare and dispose himself thereunto in private by ardent and zealous prayers unto God that he would be pleased to enable him by his Grace to Celebrate this Venerable Sacrament with the Gravity Reverence and Devotion befitting so illustrious a Monument of his great kindness and love But this great simplicity was not to the liking of those which came after They thought God was to be served with more pomp and that the splendor of outward Ceremonies would advance the Dignity of the Mysteries of his Religion It often happens that we think God is like our own selves and that because we naturally love outward pomp and are exceedingly inclined unto Pageantries we fondly conceit that it is the same with the Almighty and that the Service which we address unto him would be much more acceptable for being beautified and enriched with a great many Ceremonies and attended with many mystical actions into which deep search must be made to understand their sense and meaning This is indeed the Spring and Original cause of all those which in process of time have been introduced by Men in the Celebration of the Sacrament of the Eucharist But because we here only enquire into those which Celebrate and of the preparations which they ought to make for this holy Action we must to prosecute our design consider what is hapned in this preparation since Justin Martyr In the Constitutions which go in the Apostles names there is a Liturgy for the Celebration of the Eucharist wherein after Prayers unto God for the Catechumeny the Energumeny and the Penitents for those which are ready to receive Baptism and for the faithful And after having dismissed all those which by the Laws of the Church could not be present at the Celebration of Divine Mysteries the Deacons did present upon the Altar Constit
318. Of the care which should be taken in receiving of the Eucharist In reading this Title it came into my mind that the Fathers of the Council might haply have comprised Auricular Confession in the preparations which they commanded yet nevertheless I do not find therein any such thing they only warn That a great deal of care must be taken in participating of the Body and Blood of our Lord and take care that we do not abstain from it too long lest that should turn unto the ruin of the Soul and that if one partake thereof indiscreetly we should fear what the Apostle saith Whosoever eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh his own Damnation A man ought therefore to examine himself according to the Command of the same Apostle and so eat of this Bread and drink of this Cup that is to say to prepare himself for the receiving of so great a Sacrament in abstaining some days from the works of the Flesh and in purifying of his Body and Soul Hincmar Arch-Bishop of Rhemes who died towards the end of th IX Century useth the same method when he represents unto Charles the Bald the Preparations necessary for worthy receiving the Sacrament Opusc 1. c. 12. t. 2. p. 101 102. He desires that every one would judge himself to the end that the trial being made in the heart the thought should serve for an Accuser the Conscience for a Witness and fear for an Executioner Then that the blood of the Soul should fall by tears And in fine that the Understanding should give such a sentence that a man should judge himself unworthy of participating of the Body and Blood of our Saviour And several other things which he proposeth without speaking any thing of Confession But by degrees Confession established it self infensibly amongst the Christians of the West and at length Innocent the Third authorized it by a Decree at the Council of Lateran in the Year 1215. at which time the Albigensis and Waldensis had separated themselves from Communion of the Latins The most part of all Christian Communions have no such Law as the Latins that obliges them unto Confession before receiving the Communion for example the Abyssins or Ethiopians the Armenians the Nestorians Confession 't is granted is used in the Greek Church which is of a large extent but it is so little practised that their Bishops and Priests do scarce ever confess De concord l. 4. c. 2. as Arcudius a Greek Latinized doth inform us And as for the Protestants every body knows they have found this Yoke of the Latins too heavy to bear But if the holy Fathers have not hitherto demanded private Confession before coming unto the Table of our Lord they do require other dispositions without which they forbid us approaching unto it It is in this sense that St. Chrysostom condemning the practise of those which came unto the Sacrament as it were by Rancounter and by custom at certain times which they looked upon to be more solemn he sheweth them that it is not the time that makes us any thing the more worthy to receive but that it is the purity of the Soul the holiness of our life the innocence of our Conversation Chrysost Hom 3. in c. 1. ad Ephes p. 1050 1051. It is not saith he the Epiphany nor the Lent that renders us worthy to approach unto the holy Sacrament it is the sincerity and purity of heart therewith draw near at all times and without them never come unto it Consider with what care and with what respect the Flesh of Sacrifices was eaten under the Law What caution did they not use what trouble were they not continually at to purifie themselves to that purpose And you approaching unto a Sacrifice which the very Angels behold with a religious reverence you think it is sufficient to prepare your selves unto so solemn an action by governing your selves according to the course of the Season Consider the Vessels which are employed for the Celebration of this Sacrament how clean they be how bright and shining they be yet nevertheless our Souls should be cleaner more holy and more resplendent than these Vessels seeing that it is only for us that they be prepared And in another place speaking of seldom and often receiving the Sacrament Id. Hom. 17 in Ep. ad Heb. p. 1872. We regard not saith he neither those which communicate often nor those which communicate seldom but those which communicate with a sincere Conscience a pure heart and an unreprovable life Let those that are in this condition always draw near and those which are not let them not so much as once draw near because they only draw upon themselves the wrath of God and make themselves worthy of Condemnation of pains and of punishments which should not seem strange unto us for as Meats which are wholsom of themselves being received into a diseased Body there causeth a disorder and an entire corruption and becomes the Original of some disease so it is the same of these terrible and venerable Mysteries when they be received into Souls which be indisposed And because the holy Fathers considered that this august Sacrament which giveth life unto some gives death unto others that is to say unto those which receive it unworthily and that if it be full of consolation unto holy Souls it is also full of terror unto the wicked They have spoken of it as of a terrible and fearful Sacrament because according to the saying of the same St. Chrysostom Whilst the death of Jesus Christ is celebrating Hom. 21. in Act a dreadful Sacrament is represented God gave himself for the World From thence came the Exhortation addressed unto the people in the ancient Liturgies to call them unto the Communion Draw near with fear August l. 3. de doctr Christ c. 16. in Ps 21. Hom. 2. Id. qu. super Evang l. 2. q. 38. p. 152. t. 4. And in fine should not we be seized with a holy fear accompanied with a very great respect to participate of the death of our Saviour to eat his Passion in eating his Supper as St. Austin speaks and to lick as he saith again his Sufferings in the Sacraments of his Body and of his Blood But if this warning was given unto Communicants they were told also in inviting them unto the holy Communion Holy things are for the Saints Whereupon St. Chrysostom makes this reflection When the Deacon cries Hom. 17. in Ep. ad Hebr. Holy things are for the holy it is as if he said Let not him draw near which is not holy he doth not say only him which is free of sin but him that is holy for it is not barely the remission of sins which renders a man holy but it is the presence of the Holy Ghost and the abundance of good works And St. Cyril of Jerusalem Mystag 5. The holy things saith he are proposed to be sanctified by the
coming of the Holy Ghost and you are also holy having received the Gift of the Holy Ghost And so holy things agree very well with those that be holy therefore German Patriarch of Constantinople observes in few words in expounding these words of the Liturgy 1 Theoria rerum Eccles t. 2 Bibl. Pat. Grec vel Lat. p. 407. That God takes pleasure in giving holy things unto those which be pure of heart And then the Sacrament doth not a little contribute unto the augmentation of this purity according unto what is spoken by Theophilus Arch-Bishop of Alexandria 2 Ep. Pasch 2. That we break the Bread of our Lord for our Sanctification And Pope Gelasius 3 De duab nat Christ That the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of our Saviour renders us partakers of the divine Nature And to say the truth 4 In Anaceph There is in the Bread a vertue that quickens us as St. Epiphanius doth testifie Moreover the Sacrament effecting in regard of our Souls what a good Medicine doth operate in regard of our bodies there is no question to be made but when the ancient Doctors of the Church have contemplated it under this Idea but that they intended that Communicants should at the least use as much care and caution unto the reception of this divine Medicine as we are wont to take when we intend to purge our Bodies for when we intend to take Physick we live the day before within some bounds and are careful not to surcharge the Stomach that it might operate with more ease and profit for the purging out of peccant humours In like manner when we are to present our selves at the holy Table of the Church we should prepare and dispose our Souls to receive this saving Remedy the vertue and efficacy whereof shews and maketh it self to be felt in healing the spiritual Maladies wherewith we are naturally oppressed This was in all likelihood the thoughts of Hillary Deacon of Rome when he said Apud Ambros in c. 18. 1. ad Cor. That although this Mystery was celebrated at Supper yet it is not a Supper but a spiritual Medicine which purifieth those which come unto it with devotion and which do receive it with respect Besides the Sacrament having been instituted to give unto us the Communion of our Saviour Jesus Christ because that in participating of this visible Bread one eats spiritually the Flesh of Christ to speak with St. Hom. 27. Macarius is it not just that we should purifie and sanctifie our Souls to be the Palace and Temple of this merciful Saviour to the end that there delighting to make his abode and residence he might spread abroad his Graces his Blessings and his favours and that he may incessantly apply unto them the fruits of his death wherein they find their life their joy their comfort and their salvation In fine The Sacrament being to be unto us a Symbol of Unity a Band of Charity and of Peace according to the constant Doctrine of the holy Fathers they desired that Believers should maintain a holy Concord amongst themselves and a perfect Union that they should be careful of preserving the Unity of the Spirit in the Band of Peace and that they should put on unto each other bowels of pity and of Charity as the Apostle speaks Therefore they would not receive Oblations of those which were not reconciled and not accepting them they admitted them not unto the Sacrament for the one necessarily depended upon the other Therefore they warned Believers at the time of the Communion to salute each other and to give each other the holy Kiss mentioned by St. Paul in one of his Epistles Mystag 5. The Deacons cry saith St. Cyril of Jerusalem embrace and mutually kiss each other and then we salute one another But do not think that it is such a kiss as common friends do give unto each other when they meet in the publick place This Kiss doth unite Souls and makes them hope a perfect forgetfulness of what is past it is a sign of the uniting of spirits and not retaining the memory of injuries any longer And therefore also it is that our Saviour Jesus Christ the Son of God said When you bring your Gift unto the Altar and that you there remember that your Brother hath ought against you leave there thy Gift before the Altar and go first be reconciled with thy Brother and then come offer thy Gift This Kiss then is a Reconciliation and by consequence is holy And it is of this Kiss St. Paul speaketh when he said Greet one another with a holy Kiss and St. Peter Salute each other with a Kiss of Charity And they believed this Union so necessary that without it as they thought one could receive no benefit by the Sacrament how much soever other ways one was addicted unto good works Whence it is that St. Chrysostom after having exalted the vertue and efficacy of this holy Kiss which uniteth Souls reconciles Spirits and maketh us all to become one Body he exhorts his Auditors strictly to unite their Souls by the Bands of Charity to the end they might with assurance enjoy the Fruits of the Table which is prepared for them he adds Although we abound in good works Chrysost de praed iud t. 5. p. 465. if we neglect the Reconciliation of Peace we shall reap no advantage for our Salvation All the Liturgies come to our hands make mention of this Kiss of Charity which Believers gave each other before the Sacrament and which St. Paul calls a holy Kiss and St. Peter a Kiss of Charity many of the ancient Fathers do also make mention of it Indeed the time of kissing each other was not alike in all Churches in some it was given before the Consecration of the Symbols and in others just at the time of communicating but however it was the manner to salute each other before approaching unto the holy Table And this custom continued a very great while in the Church but at length it insensibly vanished at least in the West and the Latins have put instead of this mutual Kiss that which they call Kiss the Peace which is a kind of little Silver Plate or of some other matter with the Image of Jesus Christ or the Relicks of some Saint which is offered unto each person to kiss a custom not very ancient seeing it was never heard of until the end of the XV. Century Lect. 81. for then it began to be introduced into some Churches in the West as is observed by Gabriel Biel in some of his Lessons upon the Canon of the Mass Besides it is not said in the Liturgies whether this Kiss was given indifferently amongst Men and Women Lib. 3. c. 32. I only observe in the Books of Ecclesiastical Offices of Amalarius Fortunatus who wrote in the IX Century and in the Rational of Durandus Bishop of Mende L. 4. c. 53. extr who lived
in the XIII that it was not then given in the Latin Church but amongst persons of the same Sex I say that Men kissed each other and also Women the like And because all these dispositions are not the fruits of Nature but Gifts of the Grace and Mercy of God the ancient Christians addressed themselves unto him by devout Prayers to the end he would be pleased to bestow upon them what they wanted that is the preparations necessary to communicate savingly and worthily Cassander hath collected several of these Prayers but they being penned variously according to the motions of the Devotion of the Communicants we forbear inserting them in this place to endeavour to discover in prosecuting our design whether the holy Fathers which have required these dispositions before drawing near unto the holy Table have also required that the Communicants should adore the Sacrament in the Act of communicating CHAP. IV. Wherein the Question of the Adoration of the Sacrament is examined WEll to explain a matter and to give it the full demonstration which it requires the nature of the question must first of all be plainly stated because it is thereupon most commonly that the clearing of it doth chiefly depend Being therefore to treat of so weighty a Subject as that which now offers it self the first thing we should do is carefully to put a difference betwixt Jesus Christ himself and his Sacrament for the question is not whether Jesus Christ ought to be worshipped all Christians are agreed upon this point But whether the Sacrament should be adored that is to say that which the Priest holds in his hands and which is commonly called the Hostie and the Sacrament for it appears to me that the Council of Trent hath agreed this to be the true state of the Question Sess 13. c. 5. when it defined That there is no doubt to be made but all the Servants of Jesus Christ should render unto the holy Sacrament in the act of Veneration the worship of Latry which is due unto the true God It must then in the first place be acknowledged as an unquestionable Truth that Jesus Christ is an Object truly adorable and that his Flesh it self deserves that we should render it the highest Religious Worship by reason of the privilege it hath of being united into one person with his eternal Divinity When therefore the holy Fathers speak of adoring Jesus Christ in the participation of the Sacrament they say nothing whereunto the Protestants do not acquiesce as well as the Roman Catholicks for say they in coming unto the holy Table one cannot meditate of the infinite love he had for us send our thoughts unto Mount Calvary to consider the precious blood which he there shed make reflection upon the Throne of Glory where he is sitting with his Father nor ever so little cast an Eye upon that ineffable goodness which inclines him to communicate himself unto us by means of the Sacrament but that the Soul of the faithful Communicant humbles it self in his presence and doth truly adore him An adoration unto which may be referred what is said by Origen or at least the Author of some Homilies that are in his Works What we read saith he in the Gospel Hom. 5. in divers t. 2. p. 285. ought not to be passed over by us as a thing of small importance That the Genturion said unto Jesus Christ I am not worthy that thou shouldst enter under my Roof for at this time Jesus Christ doth yet enter under the Roof of Believers by two Figures or after two manner of ways viz. When holy men beloved of God which govern the Churches enter under your Roof then our Lord doth enter by them and you should believe that you receive our Saviour When also you receive the holy and incorruptible Food the Bread of Life I say and the Cup you do eat and drink the Body and Blood of our Saviour and then our Lord doth enter under your Roof Humble your selves therefore and in imitation of the Centurion say Lord I am not worthy that thou shouldst enter under my Roof for wheresoever he enters unworthily he there enters for the condemnation of him which receiveth him He saith That our Saviour enters under our Roof by his Sacrament after the same manner as he there enters by his Ministers and that we should humble our selves in receiving as well his Servants as his Sacrament to the end this act of humility may be a mark of the adoration which we give unto him which hath instituted the one and which sendeth unto us the others confessing that we are not worthy of this favour St. Ambrose and St. Austin express themselves so fully that the Reader will find no difficulty to penetrate into their meaning for see here what is said by the first Ambros de Spir. S. l. 3. c. 12 We adore the Flesh of Jesus Christ in the Mysteries He puts a difference betwixt the Mysteries and the Flesh of Jesus Christ which he makes to be the Object of our Worship in the act of communicating I will not now insist upon the manner of Jesus Christs being present in the Sacrament because that hath been treated of at large in the Second Part I only produce the testimonies of Ancient Doctors which speak of adoring our Saviour when we communicate to the end not to divert the Examination we are to make of the Adoration of the Sacrament Therefore we will joyn unto St. Ambrose St. Austin who saith Let no body eat the Flesh of Jesus Christ In Psal 98. until he hath first adored him How say some is it possible St. Austin should teach that the Sacrament should be adored seeing he so formally denies it in one of his Letters for speaking of things sensible and corporeal I mean of Creatures whereof the Scripture makes use to represent things Spiritual and Heavenly he saith That they ought not to be adored although we should draw Images and Resemblances of the Mysteries of our Salvation and he puts in the rank of these signs which we should not adore Ep. 119. ad Januar cap. 6. The Water and Oyle of Baptism the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament without saying any thing more particularly for the one than the other It is unto Jesus Christ that he desires we should address our Adoration without speaking one word of the Sacrament by means whereof he communicates unto us his Flesh I know not whether any other Interpretation can be given unto the words of S. Chrysostom Homil. 24. in 1. ad Corinth You do not only see the same Body which was seen by the Wise man but you also know the vertue and all the dispensation of it and are not ignorant of the things which he did and accomplished Being well informed of all these Mysteries let us then stir up our selves let us be seized with astonishment and let us testifie yet greater respect then was shewed by the Wise men
in the time of Persecution and being assisted by the Recommendations of Martyrs would needs communicate before they had accomplished the time of their Penance doth all he can to exaggerate the crime of these over-hasty persons and to justifie his severity and his rigour yet nevertheless he doth not touch far or near the point of Adoration which however would have vindicated the justice of his Conduct and the temerity of those insolent persons But besides we are so far from finding any thing in the Writings of these ancient Doctors above-named that doth in the least favour the Adoration which we examine that on the contrary they therein deliver certain things which have been already cited elsewhere as do absolutely alienate from the Spirit of Communicants all thoughts of Adoration as when St. Ireneus represents the Oblation of the New Testament by an Oblation of Bread and Wine of the first Gifts of God which gives us Food of the first of his Creatures Clement of Alexandria That what Jesus Christ gave his Disciples to drink was Wine that the Eucharist is divided into several parts that each Communicant takes a part and that one eats sufficiently of the Bread of the Lord. Tertullian That the Eucharist is a figure of the Body of Jesus Christ St. Cyprian That what our Saviour did call his Blood was Wine And Origen that the Eucharist is Bread in substance that according unto what it hath of matter it descends into the Belly and from thence into the place of Excrements The Adoration now in question doth not appear in the Liturgies which go under the names of St. Peter St. James and St. Mark nor in that which is in the Book of the Apostolical Constitutions nor in the Writings of the pretended Dennis the Arcopagite which hath treated expresly of the Celebration of the Sacrament It must be confessed that it is a wonderful thing if this religious Adoration had been in use that neither one nor another should say any thing of it the action being of moment sufficient not to be forgotten in such ample and exact descriptions as those be which are contained in these Liturgies for as for that Apostrophe which is read in the Liturgy of the forged Dennis the Arcopagite Hierarc Eccl. c. 3. p. 245. O most divine and holy Sacrament unfolding the Vails of Mysteries wherewith thou art symbollically environed discover thy self clearly unto us and fill the eyes of our Understanding with thy marvellous and always resplendent Light This Apostrophe I say if we believe the Protestants makes nothing for the Adoration of the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament no more than doth this other of St. Ambrose unto Baptism the first Sacrament of the new Covenant Tom. 3. in Luc. lib. 10. c. 22. O Water which hast washed the Earth sprinkled with humane Blood that the figure of Sacraments should precede O Water which hast had this honour to be the Sacrament of Jesus Christ Establish the Adoration of this Symbol of our spiritual Regeneration Nor this which is made unto the Chrism in the Roman Pontifical the Adoration of this Ointment or Liquor Part. 3. de offic fer 5. in coen Domin I salute thee O holy Chrism These are Apostrophes and discourses addressed unto inanimate things as if they had life and unto signs as if they were the things themselves which they signifie and which they represent and instead whereof they are in a manner set as they communicate unto us all their vertue and all their efficacy It is just so Pachymeres understood the Apostrophe of the pretended Arcopagite in his Paraphrase of his Writings even alledging to make good his Interpretation the like Apostrophe of Gregory Nazianzen unto the Christians Easter In locum Dionysii p. 268. He speaks saith he unto it as if it were alive and that very properly As also the great Divine Gregory But thou O great and holy Easter And he gives this reason for it that as well Easter as the Sacrament do represent and are Jesus Christ sacramentally For adds he our Easter and this holy Mystery is our Lord Jesus Christ himself unto whom the Saint directs his discourse to the end that he should open the Vails and that we might be filled with his excellent Light In fine Pachymeres had reason to back is Interpretation with the example of Gregory Nazianzen who speaks unto Easter as if it were endowed with sense and reason O Easter saith he great and holy Easter Orat. 42. p. 696 the Purifier of all the World I speak unto thee as if thou wert alive according to the Translation of Billius very agreeable unto the Original and that is the reason that his Commentator Nicetas makes this Observation These words O great Easter have reference unto the Feast it self as if it were alive Which is so much the easier done because in these sorts of occasions he that speaks lifteth up his thoughts unto the Object signified after the same manner as he directs his speech unto the sign which represents it and unto which he attributes things which do not agree properly but unto him which is represented as in this place where Gregory Nazianzen applies unto the Feast that which is due but unto Jesus Christ only I mean the washing away the sins of the World but he attributes it unto the Feast as unto the day whereon the thing was done even as when the Latins say unto the Crucifix That it hath reconciled them unto God although they confess That it is unto the Crucified alone that they are obliged for these benefits St. Cyril of Jerusalem and St. Catech. Myst 5 Serm. 83. de divers Austin have been careful very exactly to explain unto their Neophites or new Baptized the principal things which were practised in this divine Service And they observe that after Consecration of the Symbols the Lord's Prayer was said and the Priest cried Sancta sanctis Holy things be for the Holy the Believers gave unto each other the Kiss of Peace and they were invited unto the Communion by these words which were sung Taste and see how good the Lord is As soon as the Consecration is ended saith St. Austin we say the Lord's Prayer which you have learned and said after this Prayer is said Peace be with you and Christians give each other the holy Kiss They were also told of Sursum Corda Lift up your hearts of Gracias agamus Domino Deo nostro Let us give thanks unto the Lord our God and of the washing of hands but amongst all these Instructions I do not find any one touching the Adoration of the Sacrament It is true St. Cyril will have his Communicant approach unto the holy Table not with hands stretched out nor his fingers open but in supporting the right hand with the left that he should receive the Body of Jesus Christ in the hollow of his hand or as he speaks some lines before The Antitype of the Body of
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
consecrated Id. 42 The Eucharist celebrated but once a day in each Church which is also still observed amongst the Greeks Muscovites and Abyssins Id. 49 The matter of the Vessels employed in this Ceremony considered Id. 50 The Celebration and generally all the Divine Service was said in a Language understood by the People A. Ch. 6. 55 Consecration was made by Prayers Blessing and giving of Thanks A. Ch. 7. 65 The time and place of Celebration and of the Communion A. Ch. 10. 110 The Communion was received standing Id. 116 The Greeks and Abyssins do communicate standing Id. 118 The Communion standing Id. ibid. There have been always in the West that did and do communicate so Id. ibid. Certain Customs practised in the ancient Church in the act of communicating Id. ibid. The Communion under both kinds practised in all Christian Churches and also in the Latin Church for above 1000 years A. Ch. 12. 131 The Introduction of the Communion with the steeped Eucharist Id. 135 The Communion under one Kind established at Constans Anno 1415. and confirmed at Trent Anno 1562. Id. 143 144 All Christians except those of the Roman Church communicate under both Kinds Idem 146 The Remainders of the Sacrament burnt in some Churches and eaten by little Children in others A. Ch. 16. 170 Preparations requisite for him that celebrates C. Ch. 1. 521 The Original Use of the Sign of the Cross and of Material Crosses in the Worship of Religion Id. 538 Preparations required of the Receiver in respect of God and Jesus Christ C. Ch. 2. 542 Auricular Confession before receiving the Sacrament was not practised for above eight hundred years C. Ch. 3. 549 D. WHat Doctrines should be retained in the Church A. p. 1 Corruption of Doctrine is commonly the Consequence of the Corruption of Manners A. Ch. 2. 7 The Doctrine of the Council of Constantinople in the Year 754. touching the Sacrament B. Ch. 12. 365 The Doctrine of the second Council of Nice although it censures the Expressions of that of Constantinople yet it condemns not its Doctrine Id. 375 E. BRead and Wine have ever been the Matter of the Eucharist A. Ch. 1. p. 2 Wherefore Jesus Christ chose Bread and Wine and wherein the Ancients placed the resemblance they have unto his Body and Blood Id. 3 The mixing of Water with the Wine and its mystical signification Id. 4 Other mystical Significations in the composition of the Bread Id. 5 The Dispute touching Levened or Unlevened Bread A. Ch. 3. 28 Whence the Bread of the Eucharist came the Form of it with the Changes which happened unto it and at what time A. Ch. 4. 30 c. Who they were that distributed the Sacrament and what they said A. Ch. 11. 121 c. Who they were that had Right to communicate and their Words Id. 123 Women sometimes distributed the Sacrament in Italy and France Id. ibid. The Sacrament never celebrated without Communicants Id. 126 The Eucharist received by the hand of the Communicants A. Ch. 13. 150 This Custom ever practised in the West Id. 154 Communicant permitted to carry the Eucharist home and along with them in Voyages A. Ch. 14. 160 The Eucharist sent unto the Absent and the Sick and by whom A. Ch. 15. 164. Plaisters made of the Eucharist A. Ch. 16. 169 The Eucharist interred with the Dead Id. ibid. The Wine of the Eucharist mingled with Ink. Id. 171 172 The Greeks mix it with warm Water at the Instant of Communicating Id. 172 The Eucharist called Bread and Wine by the Fathers in the act of Communicating B. Ch. 2. 199 The Fathers affirm it is Bread and Wine Bread which is broken Corn Wheat the Fruit of the Vine c. Bread and Wine wherewith our Bodies are nourished Bread the matter whereof passeth the same fate of our common Food Bread which is consumed in the Distribution of the Sacrament things Inanimate Idem 200 201 c. They testifie that the Bread and Wine lose not their substance by Consecration Id. 206 The Participation of the Eucharist breaks the Fast Id. 210 The Eucharist is a Subject whereof one receives a little a bit a piece a morsel Id. 211 The Eucharist is the Sacrament the Sign Figure Type Antitype Symbol Image the Similitude and Resemblance of the Body of Jesus Christ by opposition of the Truth absent B. Ch. 3. 213 The Eucharist is not barely the Sacrament the Sign c. but a Sacrament in the lawful use of it accompanied with all the vertue and efficacy of this divine Body and this precious Blood Id. 220 When the Fathers say 't is Bread and Wine they never mince their words Id. 221 When they say it is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ they use several Modifications unto their Expressions Id. 223 Alterations happened to the ancient Expressions by whom and how B. Ch. 11. 361 When the use of Incense was introduced in the Celebration of the Eucharist C. Ch. 1. 523 The Proof and Trial the Communicant should make of himself before Receiving C. Ch. 3. 542 This Proof comprehends all the Dispositions of the believing Soul in regard of the Sacrament Id. ibid. F. HIm which maketh a thing is before that which is made B. Ch. 5. p. 250 Institution of the Feast of the Sacrament by Urban the Fourth Anno 1264 C. Ch. 4. 579 This Feast for the Novelty of it was not received at first but by the Church of Idem 580 When the Feast of the Procession of the Eucharist was instituted Id. ibid. Several desired that this Feast might be abolished Id. 582 G. AT what time they began to keep the Sacrament for the Sick A. Ch. 15. 165 William of Malmesbury is deceived in speaking of the Conversion of Berengarius B. Ch. 17. 460 H. NO body can dwell in himself B. Ch. 5. 262 History of the VII Century B. Ch. 11. 361 The state of the VIII Century B. Ch. 12. 365 History of the IX Century B. Ch. 13. 385 Continuation of the History of the IX Century B. Ch. 14. 425 The Dignities and Creation of Herribold Bishop of Auxerr Id. ibid. Continuation of the History of the IX Century B. Ch. 15. 430 c. History of the X. Century which was an Age neither of Light nor Darkness but made up of both B. Ch. 16. 439 History of the XI Century B. Ch. 17. 450 History of the XII and XIII Centuries B. Ch. 18. 465 History of the XIV and XV. Centuries B. Ch. 19. 497 I. WE should hold by what was done by Jesus Christ at first A. Ch. 1. p. 1 The Image and Figure cannot be the same thing whereof they are the Image and Figure B. Ch. 3. 218 Jesus Christ is absent from us as to his Humanity and present only by his Divinity B. Ch. 4. 233 The Ancients have only acknowledged two Comings of Jesus Christ Id. 240 The spiritual Presence of Jesus Christ is common with him and the Father Id. ibid. Jesus
Perfidious Stercoranist saith he you believe that the participation of the Body and Blood of our Saviour breaks the Fast of Love and Ecclesiastical Abstinences believing absolutely that the Heavenly Food as well as the Earthly is sent out backwards by the stinking and sordid ejection of the belly Alger confirms the testimony of Humbert Algerus de Sacram l. 2. c. 1. t. 6 Bibl. Pat. p. 320. and declares positively That the Greeks are of the Opinion of those which he calls Stercoranists that is to say of those which hold that the substance of Bread doth remain after Consecration and that in regard of the substance of it it is subject unto the same fate of our common food which was exactly the Opinion of the Adversaries of Paschas and afterwards of Berengarius and his followers Cellot in append Miscel opusc 7. p. 5â— Father Cellot in his Notes upon an Anonymous Treatise in the Appendix of his History of Gotteschal confirms the same thing saying That the Error of the Greeks consists in their saying That the Ecclesiastical Fast is broken by receiving of the Eucharist and that they believe the Sacrament is digested and that it is evacuated like saith he unto the Stercoranists which we have in detestation The same Cardinal de Blanch-Selva Humbertus ubi supra p. 247. also reproacheth them that they take not heed of the Crums of the holy Bread which fall to the ground either in breaking or receiving of it whereunto he adds Some amongst you do eat the remainder of the Oblation like common bread sometimes even unto excess and if they cannot eat all they bury it or cast it into a Well All which things do not well accord with the Doctrine nor with the practice of the Latins But this is not yet all we have to say of the Belief of the Greek Church in the XI Century In the Memorials of Sigismund Liber touching the affairs of Muscovy Printed at Basil Anno 1571. there is a Letter of one John Metropolitan of Russia unto the Archbishop of Rome written as near as I can judge in this Century or it may be afterwards for he makes some mention of the contention betwixt the Latins and the Greeks touching leavened or unleavened Bread In this Letter he very amply declares that what our Lord gave his Disciples was Bread Sigismund liber râ—rum Moscovit p. 32. He did not give them Wafers saith he but bread when he said See the Bread which I give unto you Leo Allatius in his Diatribe of the Simeons makes mention of one Simeon prefect of the Monastery of St. Mamant in Xerocerco who flourished in the middle of the XI Century in great reputation of Holiness and Learning He was indeed accused of holding some errors concerning the Vision of God in this Life and of the Union of Believers with him but that hindred not but that he was followed by most of the Greeks the errors now spoken of did not regard the Sacrament and had no relation unto the Eucharist Therefore although he had some Enemies yet neither he nor his followers were ever taxed to have erred in the matter of the Sacrament This Simeon at the time that the Doctrine of Berengarius was Condemned at Verceil taught in the East That the Sacrament was one thing and that the Body of Christ was another thing and that those which participated unworthily of the Sacrament could not receive the Body of the Son of God In fine Allatius making up the accompt of the works of this Simeon Allatius de Simeonibus p. 163. speaks of a certain Hymn the title whereof was That whosoever liveth without the knowledge of God is dead in the midst of those which live in the knowledge of him and that those which participate unworthily of the Mysteries cannot receive the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ It were to be wished that Allatius had given us the whole Hymn as well as the Argument but however this Argument contains a Doctrine manifestly contrary unto that of the Latins in favour of whom by consequence it is very unlike that Theophylact should declare seeing he was of the Greek Church and lived in the XI Century at which time the Greeks believed and taught what is above written yet let every body judge sincerely and freely without any other interest than that of truth which I endeavour to represent in this History which informs us that it was in this Age that they begun to introduce the Communion under one kind and to change the form of the Bread of the Eucharist in the Churches of the West as hath been discoursed at large in the First Part. CHAP. XVIII A Continuation of the History of the Eucharist or the State of the XII and XIII Centuries THe Opinion of Paschas having been in fine publickly Authorised in the XI Century there needs no farther enquiry be made to know if it obtain'd the Victory over its Adversaries the thing being without any difficulty the establishing of this Doctrine being a manifest condemnation of that which was opposite unto it it will suffice then to understand what were the consequences and to what effect so many Decrees in favour of the Opinion of Paschas and contrary unto that of which Berengarius and his followers so stoutly maintained did work upon the minds of men for during all the XI Century the minds of Men were divided and notwithstanding the decisions of several Councils there was in all parts infinite numbers of People which made open profession of the Doctrine which Berengarius taught and which was exactly that of the Adversaries of Paschas therefore the very Enemies of Berengarius told us in the foregoing Chapter That all France Italy and England was full of his Doctrine In fine the party which rejected the Determination of Gregory the VII against Berengarius was so considerable that Urban the Second was constrained to condemn anew the Opinion of Berengarius in another Council held at Plaisance Anno 1095. Berthold ad aunum 1095. as Bertholdus has observed in his Appendix unto Herman Contract for relating all things that were translated in this Council of Plaisance which was celebrated in his time he saith amongst other things that the Doctrine of Berengarius was there again condemned after having been so several times before But as the former Determinations could not impose silence upon the Disciples of Berengarius I mean those which embraced the same Doctrine which obliged Urban to condemn them again in the year 1095. seven years after the Decease of Berengarius so also the condemnation of Urban the Second had not power sufficient to silence them seeing that in the beginning of the XII Century Bruno Archbishop of Treves expell'd great numbers of them out of his Diocess as is testified by Monsieur de Thou in the Epistle Dedicatory of his History It is true that instead of the year 1060. whereto he assigns the action of this Prelate it