Chron. c. 17. t. 2. p. 133. 135. that he was a learned Doctor of the Church Non levis Armaturae in Ecclesia Christi Militem Eminent in Probity and in Doctrine an undaunted and powerful Defender and Protector of the Catholick Verity against Innovators It was this Ratramn whom Charles the Bald consulted upon the Mystery of the Sacrament to be informed by him what was the true Opinion of the Church and who by his Order wrote the little Treatise Of the Body and Blood of our Saviour The Destiny whereof was more favourable than that of John Erigenius's Book which is destroyed whereas the other is still in Being Ep. ad Dom. Luc. d'Achery t. 2. Spicileg praes I know the late Monsieur de Marca said that the Book of John Erigenius and that of Bertram or Ratramn was but one and the same thing and that the true Author of it was John Erigenius who having concealed his Name cloaked it under that of Bertram but in truth nothing can be seen weaker than the Conjecture of this illustrious Prelate I have often admired that so learned and understanding a person as Monsieur de Marca should have such a thought for if he had taken the pains to have compared this little Treatise whereof we speak with the other Works of Ratramn and with what remains unto us of John Erigenius's he would never have gone about to have taken it from the one to have given it unto the other because the Style is wholly Ratramn's and is nothing like unto that of Joh. Scot for the saying that Berengarius frequently made mention of John Scot and that he made no mention of Ratramn is to say nothing to the purpose for it may be that Berengarius might speak of him and that it might not come unto our knowledge or if he did not speak of him it might be because Bertram's Book was not come to his hands as that of John Erigenius's was Doth it not very often come to pass that small Treatises as that of Ratramn's was do at first make a great noise but a hundred or two hundred years after they are as it were buried in Oblivion that scarce any hath knowledge of them And who knows but the same fate may one day befall the great and famous Works of this illustrious Archbishop I mean his eight Books of the Privileges of the Gallican Church This great Man adds the Testimony of Ascelin who making Answer unto a Letter of Berengarius doth make mention of an Interpretation given by John Erigenius unto some passages of Gregory the First very agreeable unto that which Ratramn also gives them and from thence infers to confirm his Hypothesis that the Book of Ratramn and of John Erigenius was but one and the same Book and composed by this latter But let me again take the liberty to say that this is no solid Reason John Erigenius and Ratramn disputed against one and the same Adversary they both pleaded the same Cause wherefore then might they not employ the like Arguments and explain after the same manner the words of Gregory now spoken of And to say the truth if the reasoning of Monsieur de Marca should be admitted it would follow that Tertullian and St. Austin should be but one and the same Author seeing they both write and almost in the same Terms that Jesus Christ gave unto his Disciples the Figure of his Body And that moreover it doth not appear that the Explication of John Erigenius is whole and entire word for word in Ratramn It is concerning these words of the ancient Latin Liturgy We beseech thee O Lord that thy Sacraments may accomplish in us what they contain to the end we may receive in substance what we now perform in appearance Ascelin upon whose Testimony this learned Prelate doth relie makes John Erigenius say Specie inquit geruntur ista non veritate But the words found in Ratramn are Dicit quod in specie gerantur ista non in veritate See here already some difference in the Construction and in the Terms Besides we know not if John Erigenius joyned unto his words this Paraphrase which Ratramn joyned unto his Id est per similitudinem non per ipsius rei manifestationem that is to say by resemblance and not by manifestation of the thing it self It cannot then be said for certain that the Explication of John Erigenius is to be found verbatim in Bertram for although they agree both as to the Ground of the Explication and that in substance they expressed themselves alike nevertheless it cannot be denied but that there was some difference in their Expressions I am very sorry that this illustrious Prelate had not always followed the truth and that it was his fortune sometimes to run against the constant Current and Truth of History as when he pretends to vindicate Pope honorius from being tainted with the Heresie of the Monothelites when he would make the Foundation of Churches in France to be ancienter than indeed it is when he undertook to derive the Institution of Archipresbyters from the Will and good Liking of Bishops of Cities and other things which it may be may some time or other be enquired into And to conclude that the Books of Ratramn and of John Erigenius should be but one and the same Book against the truth of History Cardinal Baronius said very well Baron Annal. Eccles num 12. That one ought to make light of what a new Writer doth relate of ancient Transactions if he be not countenanced by the Authority of some elder than himself Of much greater reason then should he be rejected when he directly opposeth the Testimony of the Ancients Here is a Question of a matter in the IX Century viz. whether Ratramn wrote against Paschas Monsieur de Marca denies it Is it just to believe him before a Writer of that Age and which was a favourer of Paschas and whose Interest it was by consequence to have supprest the Works of Ratramn I mean the Anonymous writer of whom we have formerly made mention Paschas Radbert saith he Anonym apud Cellot ubi supra abbot of Corby affirms under the name of St. Ambrose that it is no other flesh which is received at the Altar but that which was born of the Virgin Mary and which suffered on the Cross that is risen from the Dead and which is at this day offered for the Life of the World Rabanus in his Letter unto Egilon and one Ratramn in a Book which he composed and dedicated unto King Charles that is to say Charles the Bald do sufficiently argue against him Unto this Testimony may be joyned that of Sigibert in the XI Century and of Trythemius in the XV. besides the Witnesses of several written Manuscripts And after all this conclude that the Treatise of the Body and Blood of Christ which we have under the name of Ratramn is truly his and that it was published in the
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
generally agree that the Primitive Christians did frequently eat in common every one contributing as they were able unto these Feasts unto which the Poor had as free access as the Rich although they were not able to joyn their portion unto their Brethren S. Paul explains himself clearly 1 Cor 11. when he saith unto the Believers of Corinth When you meet together this is not to eat the Supper of the Lord for each one hasteth to eat his own Supper and one is hungry and another is drunken What have you not houses to eat and to drink in or do you despise the house of God and shame them which have not It is also granted that the Eucharist was celebrated at the same Times and Places where the Christians made these meals together and therefore it is the Apostle speaks of eating the Supper of the Lord backing the censure which he pronounced against the Corinthians by reason of disorders and excesses which they committed in these Feasts of Charity with the History of the Institution of the Sacrament which he recites at large an undoubted proof that this Sacrament was celebrated in the Time and at the Places where Believers did eat together S. Luke makes it appear evidently when speaking of the first Christians of the Church of Jerusalem Acts 2.42 he saith That they all did persevere in the Doctrine and Communion of the Apostles verse 46. and in breaking Bread and of Prayers and afterwards That they daily went unto the Temple and breaking Bread from house to house they eat their Bread with joy and singleness of heart and in the same Book he farther observes Act. 20.7 That the first day of the week that is the Lords day the Disciples met together to break Bread S. Peter speaks of this Feast when he saith unto the Believers 2 Pet. 2.13 to whom he wrote his Second Epistle That Seducers and Hypocrites were blots and stains which took pleasure in unrighteousness feasting together with you S. Jude whose Epistle is only an abridgment of S. Peters speaks so plainly that he leaves us not the least cause of doubt Jude 12. saying of these same persons That they are spots in the Christian Feasts of Charity it is in S. Judes Language in the Agapae this word Agape which was very famous in this sense in the Antient Church signifying properly in our Language Love or Dilection the practice of these Agapae continued a long while amongst Christians and Tertullian who lived towards the end of the II. Century and the beginning of the III. gives us an agreeable description of it Tertul. Apolog cap. 39. Our Supper saith he shews what it is by the name which it bears it is called by a name which signifies Love amongst the Greeks we comfort the Poor by this refreshment we sit not down to Table till after Prayers we eat to suffice hunger and drink what Decency and Purity will allow we there take our Meals but like Persons which consider that they must again return unto the Worship and service of God during the whole night we there discourse with one another but so as knowing that God heareth them which discourse after washing our hands and that lights are brought those that are present are desired to assist in singing some Hymn unto God as every one is able to do either out of the Holy Scriptures or out of his own mind it is observed from thence how he hath drank and in fine the Feast is ended with Prayer as it was begun It is true Tertullian doth not speak of the Celebration of the Sacrament in all this Discourse but it may suffice that he gives it sufficiently to be understood that they attended the Service of God in the same places where Christians made their Agapae for it may easily be gathered that they did there celebrate the Eucharist as often as they held these Feasts To know precisely how often the Feasts of Charity were joyned to the Celebration of the Sacrament is what is not easily done it will not be so hard to shew how long they continued these Agapae and common Feasts in the places where they assembled for the service of God and where by consequence they celebrated the Eucharist For I find that this was practised towards the end of the IV. Century but because there were great abuses crept into these Feasts the Council of Laodicea assembled about the year of our Lord 360. was constrained to forbid the use of them in the Temples and Churches You must forbear saith he making the Agapae in the Temples Concil Laodic cap. 28. or of setting up Tables and eating in the house of God It appears by what hath been said that for the most part the place where the Eucharist was celebrated and consecrated was the place where Believers met together to serve God and where for a long time they made their Feasts of Charity even at the same time that they celebrated the Sacrament It is true those places were very different according to the diversity of states and conditions wherein the Church of Christ was at the first beginning of Christianity they assembled in private houses sometimes in one place sometimes in another in private and obscure places to be sheltered as well from the rage of the Jews as the fury of the Gentiles therefore it was that they assembled before day and in the night time and they continued so to do for a long time whilest the Church was harrassed with Persecutions and because that sometimes they assembled together at the Tombs of Martyrs they also there celebrated the Eucharist at least the Pontifical Book observes in the life of Felix the first towards the end of the III. Century that this Pope decreed That Masses should be celebrated upon the Sepulchres of Martyrs which by the Emperour Constantine is called a Sacrifice of Thanksgiving in his discourse unto the Assembly of Saints or to the Church of God because in celebrating the Sacrament thanks were given unto God for the Victories of Martyrs as S. Austin speaketh who makes mention of this same custom in the last Chapter of the VIII Book De Civit. Dei Yet it must not be imagined but that during these sad and troublesome times they had some fixed places destinated for their Exercises for there were sufficient intermissions during the which they built certain little Houses joyning to their Church-yards which were places distant from the sight of Men where by consequence they assembled with greater safety The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius doth testifie so much and in several places mentions those places where Christians were wont to assemble observing that before the persecution of Dioclesian they had some intermissions under certain Emperours during which they atempted some better and larger Buildings than those which they had before But God would humble his Church which went about to lose amongst Lilies the beauty which she had acquired amongst Thorns he
people of Antioch that of Anger of the Baptism of Jesus Christ that of the birth of our Saviour and the 17. Homily upon the Epistle to the Hebrews and of the other the 59th Epistle and first Book and 20. Chap. of Merits and of the Remission of Sins the 26. Treatise upon S. John to which may be joined S. Athanasius in his Epistle to the Hermits and in that which he writ unto the Orthodox S. Gregory Nazianzen's Orations 2 4 17 19 20 23 28. and 40. and at the end of his first Poem and in his Iambicks 11. and 15. S. Ambrose upon the 9. of S. Luke Hilary Deacon upon the 10. and 11. Chapters of the first to the Corinthians S. Basil Ep. 72. Synesius Epistle 67. Socrates in his Ecclesiastical History Lib. 1. c. 20 25. and Sozomen Lib. 6. c. 29. and Lib. 8. Cap. 7. and many others wherein the same expressions are to be found But this is not yet all these Altars or these Eucharistical Tables were made of wood which seems to imply that as yet in the IV. Century what the Father 's called Altars were no other than Tables whereunto they gave improperly the name of Altars S. Optatus Bishop of Milevis who lived in that Age doth formally say that the Altars were of Wood for describing the rage of the Donatists he reproaches them That they had broken torn and carryed them away Optaâ— l. 6. page 94. that they had warmed Water with the pieces of these Altars that in some places the great quantity of Wood moved them to break them and that in other places the want of Wood made them break them in other places partly for shame they caused them to be taken away and a little afterwards Who of the Believers saith he knows not that in celebrating the Mysteries the Table is covered with a linnen cloth Aug. liâ— 3. contra Cresâ— cap. 43. S. Austin makes mention of a Catholick Bishop who was killed by these barbarous and inhuman Schismaticks with the Wood or pieces of an Altar which they had broken S. Athanasius doth expresly observe in his Letter unto the Mourners Page 847. Ep. 67. That the Sacramental Table was of Wood And Synesius seems to teach us the same thing when he represents unto us this Table as to be born from one place to another also the first Canon which commands Altars of stone only to be consecrated is to the best of my remembrance the 26. Canon of a private Council of Epaume assembled Anno 517. Oration in Bapt Christ Hom. 20 in 2. Cor. although before this Decree Gregory of Nyssen and S. Chrysostom make mention of Altars of stone Secondly I observe that the Eucharistical Table was not made exactly in the form of an Altar but rather in the form of a Table where one eats and takes his usual Meals for men grown to full Age and Stature might lie along under these Tables which is impossible to do under an Altar after the manner that they are erected The Historian Socrates writes that Alexander Bishop of Constantinople did pray with tears lying along upon his face under the Holy Table and Zozomen Sâ—creaâ— l. i. â— l. 1. c. 25. Sozom 〈◊〉 l 8. c 7. that the Eunuch Eutropius seeking a safe Sanctuary in the Church lay down under the Communion Table it was the same course that Maximinian a Catholick Bishop of Bagaia took to preserve himself from the Cruelty of the Donatists which S. Austin tells us was slain by those cruel persons which slew him with the pieces of the Altar August l. 3. contra Crose c. 43. under which he lay Moreover it must be considered that when the Antients do speak of an Altar they do not mean the thing whereon the Eucharist was celebrated and which they promiscuously called Table and Altar they meant sometimes the place where the Holy Table was set whereupon the Consecration was made and the whole Celebration of the Sacrament It is in this sense it is taken in Socrates Lib. 1. C. 20. and 25 in some places of Gregory Nazianzen in the Canons 19. and 44. of the Council of Laodicea and the 69. of the Council of Trullo and elsewhere and that place was as hath been said called the Sanctuary and was separated from the rest of the Temple by Curtains Theodor. hist Eccl. lib. 1. c. 31. Synes Ep. 67. whence it is that Theodoret speaking of the Temple of Jerusalem saith That it was beautified with Curtains or Royal Tapestries this is in all likelihood what is intended by Synesius Bishop of Ptolemais by the mystical Veil if he did not thereby mean the Linnen-Cloth wherewith in some places they covered the Bread of the Sacrament And to the end that the place where the holy Table stood should not be accessible and alike common unto all persons Hist Eccl. l. 10. c. 4. it was compassed in with wooden Rails as is observed by Eusebius in the description of the Church of Tyre and as it appears by sundry other passages of the Ancients In fine we learn by the Writings of the Ancients That there was but one Altar or one Table in each Temple and Church Eusebius Bishop of Caesarea representing the Beauty and magnificent Building of the Temple of Tyre which Paulin Bishop of the place caused to be built and descending to particularise what was most curious and rare in it he observes amongst other things That there was but one sole Altar in it Id. l. 10. c. 4. and seeks in the unity of this Altar and its situation in the middle of the Church an image or representation of the Soul of Paulin its Pastour of whom he speaks as of its most holy place Chrysost hom 7. in Rom. Id. â—om 18. 2 Cor. Hier. Ep. 2. Id. in cap. 3. Amos. St. Chrysostom speaks plainly of the Altar of the Temple where he lived as having but one and elsewhere he takes occasion to exhort his hearers unto unity because there is but one Baptism one only Table and one Baptismal Fountain St. Hierom also speaks of the Altar of the Church in the singular number as being but one and elsewhere he saith That the Church hath but one Altar which he could not have said if there had been indeed several in one Church This is also what Socrates would intimate Soerat hist l. 5. c. 21. when observing that the Church of Antioch was contrived after a manner very different from other Churches Athan. ad Solit he gives this reason That the Altar therein stood to the West and not to the East St. Athanasius making mention of the plundering of the eminentest Church of Alexandria speaks of the holy Table in the Singular Number even as of the Episcopal Chair whereby he gives it plainly to be understood that there was but one Table or one Altar as there was but one Chair It is also the Language of Peter his Successor Apud Theod. l.
Milevis Optat. l. 6. p. 94. when he reproacheth the Donatists that they broke them and gathering up the pieces they melted them into lumps and sold it but this makes nothing against the simplicity of others who contented themselves with Glass Chalices for instance that of Tholouse in the time of S. Exuperius no body ever condemning this simplicity there were several that much commended it the Antient Christians never having been blamed for consecrating and administring the Sacrament in Glass Chalices CHAP. VI. Of the Language used at Consecration and wherein Service was generally performed HAving considered the place of Consecration and the Vessels used about this Ceremony the order which we proposed to follow requires that in this Chapter we treat of the Language which was used in the Celebration of the Sacrament and generally in the whole Divine Service When Jesus Christ consecrated and blessed the Bread and Wine it was in the Language of the Country which he spake always during his living in the Flesh and during the course of his Ministry otherwise he could not have been understood of the People whom he intended to instruct and bring unto his Knowledge and Communion And this Language was not pure Hebrew after the return of the Babylonish Captivity as it was before at the time of our Saviours coming into the World but was a corrupt Hebrew and altered and mixt with Chaldee and Syriack especially the latter so that the Jewish Language at that time was composed as much of Syriack as of the Hebrew It was then in that Language which was composed of two Languages that our Saviour consecrated and celebrated his Eucharist having even retained some expressions which the Father of the Family was wont to use amongst the Jews at the time of celebrating the Passover The Apostles did religiously follow the example of their Master who bestowed not upon them the gift of Tongues meerly for converting the World but also that they might preach the Gospel administer the Sacraments and in a word exercise all the other functions of their Divine and glorious Ministry in the Language of each Nation and People where his Providence should send them this is so evident a truth that there is no Christian never so little reasonable but will believe it but if any the least doubt rests upon him in this matter I doubt not but he will overcome it easily if he takes the pains to read what the Apostle hath left written of this Doctrine in the 14. Chap. of the 1. Epistle to the Corinthians as all the antient Commentators Greek and Latin St. Chrysostom Theodoret the Greek chain of Oecumenius Theophylact Hilary a Deacon of Rome Pelagius Primasius Sedulius Secondly the Translation of the Holy Bible into all Languages shews very clearly that every People and Nation desired to serve God in their own Language S. Chrysostom in his Homilies upon S. John Homil. 2. in Joan. Graec. The Syrians saith he the Egyptians the Indians the Persians the Ethiopians and a great number of other Nations have translated into their Language the Doctrines by him introduced he speaks of S. John and those Barbarous Men have begun to Philosophise Hom. 3. and upon the 2 Epistle of the Thessalonians These things have been spoken in Hebrew in Latin or in any other Tongue are they not declared in Greek because it was the Vulgar Tongue Theodoret upon the 14 Chap. In. cap 14. 1 ad Cor. of the 1 to the Corinthians saith It hath been given to Preachers by reason of the Diversities of mens Languages that those sent unto the Indians should carry unto them the predication of the word in their own Language and also conversing with Persians the Seythians the Romans the Egyptians they should preach unto them in their own Language the Evangelical Doctrine it would have been in vain for those who preached at Corinth to have used the Language of the Scythians Persians or Egyptians because the Corinthians could not have understood them And in his Therapeutick or manner of healing the affections of the Greeks Serm. 5. t. 4. p. 555. We do plainly and evidently shew unto you the force and vigour of the Prophetical and Evangelical Doctrine for all parts of the World under the Sun are filled with the fame of it See Cassâ—od on Psalm 44. and the Hebrew Tongue was not only translated into Greek but also into that of the Romans the Egyptians the Persians the Indians Armenians Scythians and Sarmatians and in a word into all Languages used throughout the world unto this day And a great while before Chrysostom and Theodoret Cap. 17. Eusebius said in his Oration on the praise of Constantine That the authority of the Books of the holy Scriptures was so great that having been translated throughout the World into the Languages of all Nations as well Greeks as Barbarians all Nations learned them diligently and believed that what they contained were Divine Oracles And in his Evangelical Demonstration Lib. 3. The Gospel saith he was in a very short space preached throughout the whole world and the Barbarians and the Greeks received in their Characters or Letters and in their own Languages the things which are written of Jesus Christ According whereunto we find by the Acts of the Martyr Procopius which Monsieur de Valois hath inserted in his Notes upon Eusebius his Ecclesiastical History that they were so accustomed to read the Holy Scriptures in the Christian Assemblies in the Language of the Country that if they read them in another Tongue they presently expounded them by an Interpreter in the Language understood by the People and the Martyr Procopius performed this office of Interpreter at Scythopolis in Palestine interpreting the holy Scriptures into the Language of the Country which was Syriack if they were read in Greek which the people did not understand And S. Jerom doth he not say in his Preface to the four Evangelists Ad Damas praefat 122. t. 3 p. 698. That the Holy Scriptures were translated into several Languages * Augustâ—in de doctr Christ l. 2. c 5. S. Austin From thence it is that the holy Scriptures which are a remedy of so many troubles in mens minds having begun to be published in a Language which might be so conveniently spread over the face of the Earth were manifested unto all Nations for their Salvation being spread far and wide by means of the divers Tongues of Interpreters As in the Gothick by Vlphilas Bishop of the Goths under the Emperour Constance as Socrates doth testifie in his Ecclesiastical History the Tripartite History Isidore of Sevil in his History of the Goths and sundry others whereunto probably Salvian had regard when he said in his fifth Book of Gods Providence That although those amongst barbarous Nations seem in their Books to have the holy Scriptures less altered and less strange yet they have them not but corrupted by the Tradition of their Antient Masters In
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
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
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
impure hands In a Council at Saragosse in Spain T. 1. Concil p. 684. Ib. p. 739. assembled Anno 380. there is a Canon against those who received the Eucharist and did not eat it an Ordinance which is found to be renewed in the fourteenth Canon of the Council of Toledo in the year four hundred upon which Canon Page 47. Garsias Loaysa a Spaniard observes That antiently the Church was wont to give the Eucharist unto Believers in their hand and he proves it by several testimonies some whereof we have already cited The prohibition made by a Council of Carthage Anno 419. of giving the Eucharist unto dead Bodies doth no less justifie this practice because the Fathers alledge for a reason that it is written Can. 18. in Cod. Afric Take eat and that dead Bodies can neither take nor eat St. Austin who was present at this Council intended not to depart from this use for writing against the Donatist Petilian Contra Petil. l. 2. c. 23. t. 7. he saith unto him When you celebrated the Sacraments unto whom did you give the kiss of Charity into whose hand did you give the Sacrament and unto whom at your turn reached you out the hand to receive it of him that gave it Hitherto Communicants received the Eucharist with the naked hand but in this V. Century there began some difference to be made betwixt Men and Women so that in some places the Women were obliged to receive the Sacrament with the hand indeed Serm. 252. de temp t. 10. but upon it a clean Linen-cloth The Men saith St. Austin when they desire to communicate wash their hands and the Women present clean Cloths whereon they receive the Body of Christ A Diocesan Synod of Auxerr assembled Anno 578. by Aunacharius the Bishop of that See calls the Linen-cloth used by the Women to receive the Sacrament The Dominical That each Woman saith the 42. Canon T. 1. Concil Gall. Sirmond when she communicates have her Dominical and if there be any which hath it not let her not receive until the next Lords day And in the 36. Canon it made this Decree A Woman is not permitted to receive the Sacrament with her naked hand But in a word it was still received with the hand seeing that a few years after this Synod of Auxerr Cautin Bishop of Clermont in Auvergne saith unto Count Eulalius by the report of Gregory of Tours in his History Hist l. 10. c. 8. Take the part of the Sacrament and put it into your mouth Cardinal Baronius in his Ecclesiastical Annals attributes unto Maximus who lived about the year of our Lord 650. and whom he stiles defender of the Catholick verity against the Monothelites the same words but now alledged of St. Austins or very near them Apud Baronium Annal. Eccl. ad an 57. n. 148. That all men who desire to communicate do first wash their hands to the end that with a clear understanding and purified conscience they may receive the Sacraments of Christ That the Women also present clean Cloaths whereon they receive the Body of Christ with a pure understanding and a clear conscience Nevertheless the VI. Universal Council assembled Anno 681. made a certain number of Canons ten years after that is in the year 691. in one of which it expresly prohibits receiving the Sacrament any other way but with the hand only and blames all those who imploy any thing else for this use and because this Canon is none of the worst Monuments of Antiquity we will make no scruple of inserting it here at large Can. 101. T. 5. Concil p. 349. The Apostle St. Paul doth boldly call man created after the image of God the Body and Temple of Christ he then that is above any sensible Creature hath obtained a Heavenly Dignity by the saving passion eating or drinking Jesus Christ is absolutely disposed and fitted for eternal life and partaketh of Divine grace being sanctified both in Body and Soul Therefore if any desire to participate of the immaculate Body and will present himself at the Communion in the Assembly let him put his hands in form of a Cross and so draw near and receive the Communion of Love as for those who instead of the hand make use of Vessels of Gold or of any other matter to receive the Divine Gift and who therein receive the immaculate Communion we do by no means admit them because they prefer an inanimate thing and which is inferiour unto them before the Image of God if any one therefore be taken giving the blessed Communion unto such as bring such Vessels let him be Excommunicated with him that brings them We are then come unto the end of the VII Century wherein the custom of receiving the Eucharist with the hand continued without any other alteration than what hath been mentioned either with the linnen cloths with which the Women in the V. Century were obliged in some places to receive the Communion at least if the Sermon above cited in S. Austin's name be his which is not over certain in which case we must descend towards the end of the VI. Century and besides not pass the limits of the Diocese of Auxerr or of those little Vessels forbidden by the VI. Oecumenical Council establishing the ancient use of receiving the Sacrament with the hand only And I do not see that the Roman Catholicks Ad an 57. n. 147 148. or the Protestants do deny it for Cardinal Baronius in his Annals the Frier Combefis in his Augmentation of the Library of the Holy Fathers Gabriel de Laubespine Bishop of Orleance T. 2. p. 1014. L. 1. obser 16. a very learned Prelate in the Discipline of the ancient Church in his Ecclesiastical Observations the famous Monsieur Arnold in his excellent Book of frequent Communicating Part. 1. p. 265. Pâ—g 403. Pag. 747. and the Abbot of Billy upon Gregory Nazianzen's first Oration against Julian the Apostate and Garsias Loaysa upon the 14. Canon of the first Council of Toledo in the first Tome of the Councils of the last Edition at Paris all those I say and others also concurr herein with the Protestants It is true Baronius and Combesis observe that this custom continued longer in the Eastern Church which I do not judge ought absolutely to be deny'd but the better to follow its traces in the Western Church it will be requisite further to survey what remains to be seen in the Latin World The XI Council of Toledo Anno 675. in the Eleventh Canon doth explain the XIV Concil Tolet. 11. can 11. Canon of the first Council of the same place Against those who having received the Eucharist did not ' eat it And the XVI Council in the sixth Canon Anno 693. Concil Tolet. 16. câ—n 6. alledging against some Priests who made a little round crust for the Communion the example of Jesus Christ sufficiently gives to understand that they intended
along with him the Eucharist according to the usual custom Gregory of Nazianzen speaking of a great Sickness of Gorgonia Greg. Nazian orat 11. p. 187. his Sister If her hand saith he had not hid some part of the Antitypes of the precious Body and Blood S. Basil his intimate friend tells us that was first begun during the time of persecution and that this custom which still continued in the Desarts amongst the Friers and all over Egypt amongst the People was innocent and deserved no reproof They were constrained saith he during the times of persecution Basil Ep. 289. t. 3. there being no Priest or 〈◊〉 inister that is to say Deacon to take the Communion with their own hands and it would be superfluous to shew that it was not a thing intolerable because it was a thing which had been effectually confirmed by a long custom for all those who lead a Monastick life in the Woods where there is no Priest having the Eucharist in their House do receive it themselves At Alexandria also and over all Egypt each one of the people hath most commonly the Sacrament in their Houses for the Priest making at once the Sacrifice and distributing it he who receives it whole and intire at once and who takes of it daily ought to believe that he participates thereof as effectually as if he received it from the Priest's hand for also in the Church the Priest gives one Portion and he that receives it keeps it with free liberty and so with his hand puts it to his mouth it is then the same thing as to the vertue of it if there be received from the hands of the Priest one Portion or several Portions at once It is collected out of S. Jerom to have been so practised at Rome in his time for in his Apology unto Pammachius Hieron Ep. 50. c. 6. for the Books which he had writ against Jovinian he speaks in this manner I know at Rome they have this custom that Believers should daily receive the Body of Christ which I neither approve nor condemn for let every one judge as be pleases but I arraign the Consciences of those who Communicate the same day that they have defiled themselves with Women and who according to Persius wash themselves at night in the River wherefore do they not dare to go towards the Martyrs why do they not go into the Churches Is Christ one thing in private and another in publick What is not permitted in the Church is not permitted at home I also refer unto this custom what S. Austin saith of a believing Woman Aug. oper imperf cont Jul. l. 3. c. 164. That she mada a Plaister of the Eucharist to put upon her Son's Eyes who was naturally blind It was in all likelihood of the Sacrament which she had kept There is in the Tomes of the Councils a Council of Sarragossa in Spain of the 380th year of our Lord Ad An. 57. n. 150. but which Cardinal Baronius thinks was assembled in the days of Pope Hormisda that is in the beginning of the Sixth Century In this Council there is a Canon found against those who having received the Sacrament in the Church did not there eat it T. 4. Conc. p. 684. ult edit If it be proved that any one hath not eaten the Sacrament which he received in the Church let him be Anathematized for ever or as Garsias Loaysa hath it those who receive the Sarrament in the Church and do not there eat it let them be Anathema yet I would not assure that this Canon was made to abolish the custom of carrying home the Sacrament and keeping it for I find that the Eleventh Canon of the Council of Toledo assembled Anno 675. explaining the Fourteenth Canon of the First Council of the same place which had ordered the same which that of Sarragosa had I find I say that this Council speaks against those who having received the Eucharist threw it away through Infidelity After all the custom of keeping the Sacrament continued till the end of the Sixth Century and haply to the beginning of the Seventh for John Moschus who 't is thought lived about that time C. 79. Bibl. Pat. t. 13. p. 1089. Continuat Sigeberti relates in his Spiritual Field That a certain believing Servant having received the Sacrament on Holy-Thursday wrapped it in a clean Cloth and laid it up in his Cupboard I know not whether what we have already said of the Inhabitants of Antwerp may not be referred hereunto where that numerous people did in the Twelfth Century hide the Eucharist in Chests and Holes for several years together And as Christians kept the Sacrament so they also carried it with them in their Voyages as appears by the History of Satyrus Ambros de obitu Satyr t. 4. p. 315. Brother to St. Ambrose for being in great danger in a Storm at Sea and being not yet Baptized he desired one of the Company who was Baptized and who had the Sacrament along with him to give him part of it which he giving unto him Satyrus took and bound what the Christian had given him of the Sacrament Greg. I. Dialog l. 3. c. 36. in a Cloth and tying it about his Neck he cast himself into the Sea Gregory the First in his Dialogues testifies almost the same of Maximian Bishop of Syracusa and of his Companions Sailing in the Adriatick Sea that is to say that being in danger of Shipwrack they received saith he the Body and Blood of the Redeemer They must needs then carry along with them the Eucharist and it must be noted that Maximian was not as yet Bishop but Abbot of S. Gregory's Monastery Cardinal Baronius in his Church-Annals produceth an Example of the same custom in the Twelfth Century in the time of Alexander the Third and sheweth that it was practised in some places He takes what he reports from the Acts of the life of S. Lawrence Bishop of Dublin Baron ad an 57. n. 151. whence he cites these words They discovered that four Priests went along with a great company of Men who publickly carried the Eucharist with them for a Viaticum and for a certain Guide of the way as was then the manner of many to do I will not here stand to examine if those Acts of the life of S. Lawrence Bishop of Dublin are in their purity I will only say That Surius from whom this famous Annalist hath borrowed what he relates in his Annals is not wont to represent unto us without alterations those many things which he hath taken the pains to collect although there is no Forgery in the matter now mentioned Arcud de concord l. 3. c. 59. Arcudius a Greek Romanized testifies That the Monks among the Greeks carry the Eucharist with them in their Voyages At this time in the Communion of Rome to carry home the Eucharist De la penit publ part 1. l. 1.
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
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
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
the Sun which sheweth it self in spreading its Light over all Things And afterwards directing his Words unto Christians he saith unto them That having said the Word was the Son of God they declare instead of the pure and holy Word of God a Man shamefully punished whipt and nailed to a Cross He makes a Jest Id. ibid. l. 6. p. 3 5. that we should believe that God is born of a Virgin saying that God intending to send a Spirit had no need to form it by his Breath in the Womb of a Woman because knowing before how to make a Body he could have made one for himself without sending his Spirit in so filthy a place And to render the more ridiculous this great Mystery of our holy Religion he compares it unto the Fables of Danae Id. lib. 1. p. 30. Id. l. 3. p. 131. 8. p 385. of Menalippe of Auge and of Antiope He could not suffer they should adore and as he saies elsewhere that they should honour with a Worship religious above all Religion a Man that had been a Prisoner and was dead As also for that Reason justifies the Plurality of his Gods as if Christians contented not themselves in worshipping one alone under a Shadow that they worshipped Jesus Christ Id. l. 8. p. 385. If Christians saith he worshipped but one only God they might it may be have some Pretext of despising all others but they render infinite Honours unto this which hath appeared but of late nevertheless they think they do not offend God when they serve and honour his Minister What St. Cyril of Alexandria hath written against Julian the Apostate sufficiently informs us of all the Blasphemies which this Back slider from the Christian Religion spewed out against all that was most Holy and Sacred in the most important and essential Mysteries of our Religion He denied the Incarnation of the Divinity of Jesus Christ which is the Ground and Foundation of all our Hopes the Salvation he hath purchased for us with the Price of his Blood he reviles us with the glorious Title of Mother of God which we give unto the holy Virgin Julian Ap Cyril Alex. l. 8. p. 262. t. 6. You cease not saith he to call Mary Mother of God He refutes the Mystery of the Trinity of Persons in the Unity of Essence accusing us of contradicting Moses who saith there is but one God whereas we admit of Father Son and Holy Ghost Id l. 9. p. 290 291. Moses saith he taught there is but one God but you have invented Things which agree not with what Moses said for you teach that the Son is God with the Father Id. l. 8. p. 262. And in the foregoing Book They will tell me it may be they admit not of two nor three but I 'le shew that they do admit of it by the Testimony of John when he saith In the Beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God Id. ibid. p. 276. If the Word is God saith he again as you assure it is begotten of the Substance of the Father wherefore say you that the Virgin is the Mother of God For how can a Woman of the same human Nature with us bring forth a God And morover seeing God said positively It is I and there is no Saviour but me how then dare you call him your Saviour which is born of a Woman Accordingly we read in the Acts of the Martyrdom of Terachus of Probus and Andronicus which Cardinal Baronius inserts in his Annals but which Mr. Emery Bigot unto whom the whole Republick of Learning is obliged hath given us more entire in Latin two or three Years since and from whom we daily expect it in Greek we there read it I say that the Judg Maximius a Pagan hearing Terachus which he caused to be tormented say That he trusted in the Name of God and of his Christ failed not from thence to take Occasion to treat him with Unjust and Cursed and to tax him with the Plurality of Gods Pâ—ass SS Tarachi c. p. 7. False and wicked that thou art said he thou adorest then two Gods which thou confessest with the Mouth and thou deniest those which we do serve But to return to the great Enemy of the Christian Name I mean Julian the Apostate he also hath vilified our holy Baptism reproaching us with what we believe of the Vertue and Efficacy of these mystical and healing Waters See saith he what St. Paul saies unto them Julian Ap. Cyril Alex. l. 7. p. 245. that they have been cleansed and sanctified through the washing of Water as if Water penetrated unto the Soul to wash and to purifie it But Baptism cannot heal a Leper non a Scurf nor a Scab nor a Gout nor a Dysentery nor a Dropsie nor the least Sickness of the Body and then how much more unable is it to remove Adulteries Rapines and all other Impurities of the Soul This wretched Apostate hath ever undertaken to condemn the wise and just Conduct of the God which we adore in punishing of some for the Sins of others and for the same Reason he makes some Attempt against the Doctrine of Original Sin he urgeth what is written That God visiteth the Iniquities of the Fathers upon the Children and insolently condemns what God said in the Book of Numbers touching Phineas who ran a Javelin through the Israelitish Man which defiled himself with the Midianitish Woman till that he had turned away his Anger from the Children of Israel and hindred that he had not consumed them Id ibid l. 5. p. 160 161. Suppose saith he there had been a Thousand which had undertaken to transgress the Laws of God ought six hundred thousand been destroyed for the Sin of one thousand It seemes to me saith he it had been much better to save one wicked Man with so many thousands of Good than to have destroyed so many thousands of good Men in the Destruction of one wicked Man There is scarce one of all our Mysteries but have been attacqued by the Jews or the Gentiles and have been censured by them which doth evidently shew that they had Knowledg of them and that they were not ignorant of what was believed and practised in the Christian Religion either by reading our Books or by the Relation of some Apostates that fell away what we have hitherto said sufficiently testifies it Lactant. Instit l. 5. c 2. and what Lactantius saith of a Heathen which wrote against the Religion of Jesus Christ doth fully confirm it He related saith he so many Things and Things so secret and private that he seemed to have formerly been of the same Belief That which causeth Admiration in a great many is that amongst so many Things as they have said of our Religion amongst so many Reproaches which they have made against Christians touching the Nature of their Mysteries amongst so many Accusations
have been horrible Lyers in denying that they did eat Human Flesh without ever excepting the Sacrament they betrayed their own Judgment and erring shamefully in this Point they rendred themselves unworthy of being believed in what they have transmitted unto us touching the Faith and Belief of the Church But when on the other Hand I consider their Candor and Sincerity their Piety Zeal and the great Inclinations they had to glorifie God by their Death and the little Account they made of their Lives I dare not accuse them of Prevarication nor of Hypocrisie I too much honour their Memory and have too great a Love for their Vertue God forbid saith he that I should ever do them so great Injury or have any evil Thoughts of them because I own their Proceedings to be sincere and always accompanied with Truth as for my particular I leave it unto indifferent Persons to judge of the Consequence that hath been made of their Conduct But if the Silence of the Fathers hath served to shew what was the Belief of the ancient Church touching the Point of the Eucharist what the Holy Fathers have spoken against the Gods of the Gentiles will no less discover it In the first place they reproach them that by Consecration which consisted in certain precise Words and Formalities they rendred the Divinity which they adored present in the Image and inclosed him as one may say in his Statue as hath been shewed in the 7th Chapter of the first Part whereunto I will only add these Words of St. Chrysostom Chrysost Hom. in Christ nat t. 5. p. 477. Is it not an exceeding great Folly to introduce their Gods into Wood and Stone and into Statues of a low Price and to shut them up as it were in Prison and yet to think that they do nor say nothing that is amiss Let the Reader judge if the Fathers would have spoke after this manner if they had been of the same Belief the Latin Church is of and if they had not given their Enemies some Advantage over them In the second place 1 Apol. 2. p. 69. St. Justin Martyr 2 L. 5. p. 91. the Author of the Recognitions 3 Ad Demeâ— p. 201. St. Cyprian 4 Arnob. l. 6. p. 89. Arnobius 5 Inst l. 2. c. 4. Lactantius 6 Homil. 57. in Genes t. 2. Tertul. Apol. c. 13. St. Chrysostom do tell them their Gods may be stollen and that they should watch them and lock them up safe In truth saith the Protestant it would be hard to excuse them of Impudence and want of Judgment for these holy Doctors to have insulted after this manner over the Vanities of the Gods of the Heathen if they had believed of the Sacrament what is believed by the Latin Church because it is most certain that the Host of the Roman Catholicks which they look upon as their God and Saviour is carefully kept under Lock and Key and is subject and in danger to be stollen In fine Tertullian deriding the Domestick Heathen Gods saith amongst other things That sometimes they gave them in pawn Every particular Christian might have done the same by the Sacrament because at that time they were permitted to carry it home to their Houses and keep it And Cardinal Du Perron saith Du Perr de l' Euch. l. 3. c. 29. p. 918. upon the Report of Paul Jovius and Gennebrard That for certain St. Lewis King of France left an Host for Pledg of the Ransom which he had promised the Sultan of Egypt for granting him his Liberty There be others which have observed Obsâ—rvat upon the History of Chalcondyle that Vladislaus King of Hungary who was slain at the Battel of Varn Ann. 1444 also gave one unto Amurath the second Emperor of the Turks for a Pledg of his Faith upon the concluding of peace with him It is not very likely that Tertullian who was of a wise and very solid Judgment should make Reproaches against his Enemies which they might have retorted upon himself if he had believed that the Eucharist is our God and our Redeemer he sheweth then in doing so that he believed not so as the Latin Church believes at this present These are the Inferences which the Protestants draw from what hath been written in this Chapter CHAP. X. The last Proof drawn from what hath passed in regard of Hereticks either referring unto the Customs of some of them or in reference to their Silence or in fine of the Holy Fathers disputing against them THE Emperors Valentinian and Marcian Collect. Rom. bipart i. p. 104. speaking of Hereticks said thus The Enemies of our Religion have obliged us to seek God more carefully to find him more manifestly for the Light that shineth after Darkness seems to be greater and drink is most pleasant unto those that are a thirst as rest is most agreeable unto those which be weary In effect Hereticks have formerly as it were challenged the Holy Fathers unto the Combate and have invited them unto the occasion of meditating more particularly of the Truth of the Mysteries which they attacked therefore as they were obliged to stand the closer upon their Guard having to do with Enemies which took all advantages against the purity of our Religion I believe it may be safely said that of all the Works of these Holy Doctors there are scarce any more solid and more compleat than their Polemicks I mean the Books they wrote against these Enemies of Christianity it is true they had no Controversy with Hereticks upon the point of the Sacrament but nevertheless because the Holy Fathers do sometimes employ this Divine Mistery to refute some of their Heresies we will not omit drawing from those places some Light for illustrating the matter which we examine but before we proceed so far we will endeavour to explain some Inductions from certain Customs practised by some of them and of their Silence As to the former of these two Heads we see in the second Chapter of the first part that the Heretick Marc pretended to consecrate Challices wherein there was Wine and even White Wine as some think and that insisting very long upon the Words of Invocation and Prayer he made it appear red and of a Purple Colour to the end it should be believed that the Divinity which he called Grace should from the highest Heavens distil his Blood into the Cup by means of his Invocation whereupon it is said that if the Catholicks of his time had believed that the Wine of the Sacred Cup was changed by the vertue of Consecration into the real substance of the Blood of Jesus Christ the imposture of this Deceiver would not have been so much regarded by those miserable Wretches which he seduced for they might have said unto him that he took a great deal of pains to little purpose in making the Blood of the God which he preached come into the Cup seeing that the Catholicks and Orthodox without
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
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
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
may happen in going about to adjust some ancient expressions with his new Opinion to make his disguise succeed the better He proceeded by way of Explication it shall suffice to say that it seems it may be so gathered from the words of his Letter unto Frudegard Although saith he I have writ nothing in this Book Pasch ep ad Frude p. 1â—25 which I have dedicated unto a certain young Man which might be worthy the Reader nevertheless as I am informed I have excited several persons to the understanding of this Mystery Thence it is that in his Treatise of the Body and Blood of our Lord he speaks of his Explication as of an admirable thing and whereof sufficient heed had not yet been taken Id de corp sang Dom. c. 1. To the end saith he I might yet say something more admirable But the chief is to know wherein his opinion did consist Those that will a little consider his Writings may observe he taught That what is received in the Sacrament is the same Flesh of that which was born of the Virgin Mary Id ibid. and which suffered Death for us Although saith he the Figure of Bread and Wine doth remain yet you must absolutely believe that after Consecration it is nothing but the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ for which reason the Truth it self said unto his Disciples It is my Flesh for the Life of the World and to say something more admirable It is no other Flesh but that which was born of the Virgin Mary that suffered upon the Cross and which is raised out of the Sepulchre So it is that he explains himself also again in the 4th Chapter of the same Book and several times in his Letter unto Frudegard It is the testimony that an Anonymus Author gives us which Father Cellot hath published Aut Anonym l. de Euchar. apud Cellot in append histor Gostech op 7. and which was one of his Adherents Paschas saith he establisheth under the name of St. Ambrose That what is received at the Altar is no other Flesh than that born of the Virgin Mary which suffered on the Cross which was raised out of the Grave and is at present offered for the Life of the World Against which Rabanus in his Letter to the Abbot Egilon sufficiently doth argue In fine we shall be informed by Rabanus and by Ratramn that it was the Opinion of Paschas and that nothing should be wanting to the establishing of his Opinion he wrote two Books of the Virgins being delivered of Child which Books had always gone in the name of Ildefons Archbishop of Tolledo T. 1. Spicileg praes ad Ratiam and are at this time under that name in the last Edition of the Library of the holy Fathers But Dom Luke d'Achery a Benedictine Friar hath informed us by the help of Manuscripts that Paschas was the true Author of them In these two Books he teacheth that the blessed Virgin was Delivered after an extraordinary and miraculous manner and that Jesus Christ was not born after the common course of Nature but that he came out of the Womb of this blessed Maid without any opening and not as Tertullian saith in some of his Writings Lege patefacti Corporis But as Bertram or Ratramn refuted the ground of the Doctrine of Paschas so he also refuted this progress of it by a little Treatise he wrote on purpose on the Birth of Jesus Christ wherein several times he qualifies with the name of Heresie the Opinion which he refutes whereas I do not find that he ever gave this name unto what his Adversary had taught of the Sacrament which gives me occasion to make this conjecture which I freely submit unto the Reader 's Judgment to wit That Paschas having proceeded in what he wrote of the Sacrament by way of Explication and as one that did seek for the true knowledge of this Mystery His Adversaries did not call this Doctrine Heresie how erroneous soever they knew him to be in other ther things because in the Church it was not the custom to call any single error Heresie unless it was attended with Obstinacy But Ratramn having seen the Books of the Virgins Delivery which were written after what he had taught of the Sacrament and as he drew near his Death Ratram de nativit Christ c. 4.5.9 t. 1. Specileg or as he saith himself in the Preface of Dom Luke d'Achery Multo jam senio confectus And having thereby judged That he was not now a man that desired to be instructed but was strongly confirmed in the Opinion he had taught and which he endeavoured to support by establishing the consequences which might best suit with his Principles he made no scruple to render this of which we speak odious in calling it Heresie but after all whatever my conjecture may be Paschas de corp sang Dom. c. 14. it is certain that Paschas omitted nothing that might set off his Opinion not Visions it self and Apparitions of Jesus Christ during the Celebration of the Sacrament not fearing to be jeered that he was the first that bethought himself of speaking of these kinds of Apparitions unknown unto Christians for above 800. years seeing that in effect there is no certain Author found that hath made any mention of them yet that hindred not but Cardinal Bellarmine and Father Sirmond consider'd him as the first that cleared and explained the Mystery of the Sacrament Bellarm. de script Eccles This Author saith Bellarmine was the first that wrote seriously and amply of the truth of the body and blood of our Saviour in the Eucharist And Sirmond Sirmond in vita Paschas operibus ciupraeâ—ixa He first of all so explained the true sense of the Catholick Church that he open'd the way unto all others that have since written of the same matter But so it is that if the belief of Paschas was the Ancient Belief of the Church he deserv'd to be loaden with blessings and thanks for having so happily laboured for the Instruction and Edification of Christians and in all likelihood no body would have dared to contradict or oppose the Doctrine which he published or if any one undertook so to do he should make himself the Object of hatred and aversion unto all the World It is then requisite to know how men carryed it towards him after that he had published his Opinion If we enquire of himself he will inform us that he was accused of departing from the common Belief and of having rashly spread abroad the thoughts of a young head for see here how he writes unto his intimate Friend Frudegard Pasch Ep. ad Frudegard pag. 1632. You have saith he at the end of this little Book the Sentences of Catholick Fathers succinctly noted by which you may see that it was not out of a hasty fit that I formerly meditated these things in my younger days but that I
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
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
Friars transport him into the great Church and to interr him more honourably near the Altar with this Epitaph which is to be seen in the History of William of Malmesbury Guliel Malms l. 2. c. 5. Here lieth John the holy Philosopher who in his life was enriched with marvellous Learning and who at last had the honour to ascend by Martyrdom unto the Kingdom of Jesus Christ where the Saints reign everlastingly The same Historian said in the same place He was esteemed a Martyr which I do not say by way of doubt to do wrong unto this holy Soul And after his death he was put into the Catalogue of Saints for Thomas Fuller in his Ecclesiastical History of England saith that he was accounted a Martyr of Jesus Christ Histor Eccles Angl. l. 2. p. 119. and that his Anniversary Commemoration was celebrated the 4th of the Ides of November in the Martyrology printed at Antwerp Anno 1586. by the Command of Gregory the Thirteenth He adds That it was Baronius that put him out of the Martyrology out of hatred because he had written against the Real Presence alledging upon this Subject Henry Fitz Simond in 2. Edit Catal. S.S. Hibern who defends the Action of Baronius and saith That there was preparing even in his time an Apology for justifying this Proceeding Bishop Usher also testifieth That in the Catalogue of Saints buried in England drawn out of ancient English Monuments Usser de Eccl. Christian success statu c. 20. by a Friar of Canterbury in the time of Anselm that is in the beginning of the XII Century there are these words St. Adelm and John the Wise are recorded to be laid in the place called Adelmisbirig that is to say Malmesbury Molanus Professor of Divinity in the University of Lovain hath left this in Writing in his Appendix in the Martyrology of Ussuard John Erigenius Martyr Molan Appen ad Usuard littera l. translated the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy of Dennis He was afterwards by the Command of the Popes put in the number of the Martyrs of Jesus Christ Hector Deidonat in his History of Scotland Which words have been inserted in the Appendix of the Martyrology of the Gallican Church which was left us by the Bishop of Thoul having recorded in the Supplement at the 4th of the Ides of November the Commemoration which is made of St. John Surnamed Erigenius Martyr kill'd at Malmesbury by some young Debauchees See here exactly what the Man was that wrote of the Sacrament by Command of Charles the Bald as Ratramn also did as we are given to understand by a Letter of Berengarius written unto one Richard who had some Access unto King Philip. In this Letter printed some years past by the care of Dom Luke d'Achery he desires him to speak for him unto this Prince to the end he would be pleased to repair by his Liberality the Losses and Damages which he had unjustly sustained After which he adds Epistola Berengarii ad Richard t. 2. Spicil p. 510. If he doth not do it yet nevertheless I shall be ready to prove by the Scriptures unto his Majesty and those whom he shall appoint and to make appear that John Erigenius was very unjustly condemned by the Council at Verceil and Paschas very unjustly vindicated And afterwards To the end the King should not reject this service of my fidelity he may know that what John Erigenius hath written he wrote it at the desire and by order of Charles the Great he means the Bald one of his Predecessors who was as affectionate unto Religious things as he was valiant in his Expeditions lest the folly of ignorant and carnal men should prevail And he commanded John that learned Man to collect from the Scriptures what might check this folly Whence it follows saith he that the King is obliged to take up the Defence of the Deceased against the Slanders of those alive not to shew himself unworthy of the Succession and Throne of his Illustrious Predecessors that desired this Service of this learned Man not to scatter Darkness over the Light of the Truth but to inform himself carefully in the Knowledge of the holy Scriptures Berengarius complains of the Condemnation of John at the Council of Verceil in the year 1050. because it was there his Book was read and condemned to be burnt about two hundred years after he wrote it as we are informed by Lanfranc who owns him to be an Adversary of Paschas whereof he was himself a great favourer Therefore Berengarius wrote to him Tereng Ep. ad Lanâ—ranc If John whose Judgment we approve touching the Sacrament be esteemed by you to be a Heretick you must also hold for Hereticks St. Jerome St. Ambrose and St. Austin not to mention others That which renders John Erigenius's Testimony the more Authentick in this Debate is for having had four Enemies to wit the learned Church of Lyons Florus its Deacon Prudens Bishop of Troys the Councils of Valencia and of Langres which spared him not upon the matter of Predestination it is very likely they would have less spared him upon the Subject of the Eucharist had he differed from the Belief generally received in the Church upon so important a Point as is that of the holy Sacrament This truth will yet be more evident if we consider that many do believe Prudens Bishop of Troys and Florus Deacon of the Church of Lyons two Enemies which his Opinion of Predestination had stirred up against him were also opposite unto the Opinion of Paschas so that it hapned unto those People much after the same manner as we have seen it hath done in our days unto those called Jansenists and Molinists for however they be divided in the matters of Predestination and free Grace yet nevertheless both the one and the other still retain the great point of the real presence of the Latin Church so although Prudens and Florus did censure what John wrote of Predestination yet for all that they were well agreed as to what concerned the Sacrament Prudens indeed hath writ nothing or at least there is nothing of his come unto our knowledge But the Archbishop Hincmar suffers us not to be ignorant of what Prudens believed when joyning him with John Erigenius against whom nevertheless he observes he wrote upon the Subject of Predestination he saith that they both held Hinemar de praedest cap 31. That the Sacraments of the Altar are not the real Body and the real Blood of our Saviour but only the memorial of his true Body and Blood And when I speak of Prudens I speak of one of the greatest Ornaments of his Age in Piety and Learning and of a Man whose memory is Annually Honoured with great Solemnity I shall content my self with relating the character which the Bishop of Thoul gives of him in the Martyrology of France the 6th day of April Martyrol Gallican Andr du Saussay 5. Id. April
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
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
which were read in the Assembly The other at Verceil in September where Berâ—en garius was warned to appear but he thought sufficient to send two Clergy-men in whose presence he was condemned a second time and with him the Book which John Erigenius had writ against the Opinion of Paschas about two hundred years before The Anonymous also failed not to begin the History of the divers Condemnations of Berengarius by these two Councils of Rome and of Verceil But these two Councils hindred not but that many wrote for him as there were many that wrote against him so it is expressed in Sigebert's Chronicle Sigebert in Chron ad ann 1051. of the Edition of Mireus at Antwerp Anno 1608. and it might also be seen in all the other Impressions had not care been taken to suppress it Many saith he disputed for and against him both by Word and in Writing In fine there is in Monsieur de Thou's Library a Manuscript Copy of the Chronicle of Sigebert wherein this is read France is troubled by reason of Berengarius of Towers who affirmed that the Sacrament which we receive at the Altar is not really the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ but the Figure of his Body and Blood for which cause several disputed with much heat for and against him by Word of mouth and by Writing As for Berengarius himself he so little valued the Anathema's of Rome and Verceil that he spake very slightly of Pope Leo the Ninth and of his See as it was seen formerly in Guitmond his Adversary before it was altered by the Expurgatory Indexes but that 's in vain Anonym p. 363. seeing Father Chifflet's Anonymous relates almost the same thing and near hand in the very same terms which I will save my self the trouble of transcribing because they be something sharp and full of Contempt Victor Successor unto Leo seeing that Berengarius still persisted in his Opinion and that he ceased not to publish it notwithstanding the thundring of Leo's two Councils caused one to be assembled at Towers Anno 1055. wherein his Sub-Deacon Hildebrand who was afterwards Pope under the name of Gregory the Seventh presided and the Adversaries of Berengarius Lanfranc Guitmond and the Anonymous before mentioned have writ that Berengarius there presented himself and dared not to defend his Cause chusing rather to submit unto what Rome had determined in the matter We not having the Acts of this Synod it would be difficult to speak certainly of it it not being just wholly to give Credit unto what his Adversaries relate of him which doth not appear to agree with the following part of the History For Nicholas the Second of that Name was obliged to assemble another Council at Rome five years after that of Tours Berengarius there appeared and if we will believe Lanfranc and Chifflet's Anonymous he dared not to defend his Belief Chron. Cassin l. 3. c. 33. Sigon de Regn. Ital. l. 9. ad An. 1059. But how shall we reconcile Lanfranc and the Anonymous with the History of Mount Cassin and with Sigonius for they observe that his Enemies could not tell what to reply unto his Reasons and that they were constrained to search in the Monastery of Mount Cassin for a Friar called Alberick which Pope Stephen saith Sigonius had made Cardinal-Deacon who being come and not being able to answer Berengarius his Arguments demanded a Weeks time to answer him but in fine Threatnings having greater efficacy than their Arguments Berengarius being affrighted signed the Revocation which Humbert Cardinal of Blanch-Selva had Order to draw up and which I do not here examine because I do not meddle with matter of Controversie and which moreover the Latin Church at this time doth not much like of and that it was for fear of death that he renounced cannot be doubted after the Testimony of Lanfranc his great Enemy who thus speaks unto him in the Book he composed against him You have in presence of the Council Tom. 6. Bibl. Pat. p. 189. confessed the Orthodox Faith not for love of the Truth but through fear of death Therefore Chifflet's Anonymous doth observe a considerable Circumstance and which as I think deserves to find place in this History of Berengarius for he said Anonym ubi supra that Alexander the Second which succeeded Nicholas Anno 1061. did in a very friendly manner by his Letters advise and desire Berengarius to lay aside his Opinion and not to scandalize the Church But that Berengarius would by no means depart from his Judgment and that he had the courage to declare so much unto the Pope by Letters Thence it was that Gregory the Seventh Successor unto Alexander gave him Audience in two Councils as the Anonymous observes who assisted at the latter assembled at Rome Anno 1079. As for the former held at the same place he mentions not at what time but so it is that in the latter Council there was drawn up another Confession of Faith much milder and more moderate than that which had been made in Nicholas his time and they obliged Berengarius to sign it After which Tom. 2. Spicil p. 5â—8 Gregory gave him Letters of Recommendation which Dom Luke d'Achery has caused to be printed in one of the Thomes of his Collections This Gregory I say of whom 1 In vita Hildebrandi Cardinal Benno and the 2 Ad Anno 1080. Abbot of Ursperg do write That wavering in the Faith he made his Cardinals to keep a solemn Fast to the end that God would shew whether the Church of Rome or Berengarius were in the truest Opinion touching the Body of our Lord. And it must be remembred that this Synod of Gregory's was full of Contests upon this Subject of the Sacrament there being yet a great many Prelates which defended the Opinions of Berengarius against the Reality of Paschas as appears by the Acts of this Council related by Thomas Waldensis and Hugh de Flavigny Tom. 2. c. 43. Chron. Verd. ad Ann. 1078. in the Chronicle of Verdun which is in the first Tome of the Library of Father l'Abbe who doth also give us the Abridgment with this difference That he assigns this Council unto the Year 1078. whereas it was held in the Year 1079. But in fine The Acts produced by Waldensis and what the Chronicle of Verdon alledges doth testifie that there were those in this Assembly which affirmed that the Eucharist is the Figure of the Body of Jesus Christ But that nothing may be wanting unto the History of Berengarius it is necessary to touch upon some Circumstances which have not yet been mentioned In the first place His Adversaries being enraged against him have not feared to charge him with some Errors touching Marriage and Infant-Baptism as if he taught the Dissolution of lawful Marriage and rejected the Baptizing of young Children but without any other Ground than meer Report which as the Poet
their Opinions makes all the Accusations contrary thereunto to be void because we cannot judge of the Faith of a Society and of a Communion but by the Confession which it makes to the prejudice whereof nothing more can lawfully be charged upon it It seems to me to be the true means certainly to judge of the Belief of those of whom we speak and of the Accusations which have been laid to their charge Peter of Cluny writing against the Petrobrusians that is to say against the Disciples of Peter de Bruis or against the Albigensis saith That the report is Peter Cluny contra Petrobrus that they believe neither in Jesus Christ nor in the Prophets nor Apostles and that they deny the Old and New Testament that they reject the whole Canon of the Scriptures Which nevertheless I will not believe saith he nor accuse them of things so uncertain Which Proceeding so far appeared very just and reasonable for a Christian's Charity should not be suspicious And in fine see here what they declared in the Year 1120. Hist of Albing by Paul Perrin c. 1. l. 3. forty years before Waldo appeared It is evident say they both by the Old and New Testament that a Christian is obliged by the Commandment enjoyned him that he should depart from Antichrist which they prove by sundry passages of Esay Jeremiah Ezekiel of Leviticus Numbers Exodus Deuteronomy of St. Matthew St. John and the Revelations The report was also as the same Peter de Cluny saith That they denied that little Children under a reasonable age could be saved by the Baptism of Jesus Christ Nevertheless I only can find this in their Confession Ubi supra c. 4. What is not necessary in the Administration of Baptism are the Exorcisms blowing the sign of the Cross upon the breast and face of the Infant the Salt which is put into the mouth and the Spittle put into their ears and nose c. And about eighty or ninety years after Waldo began to appear Reynerus one of their greatest Enemies Cap 5. 3. gives them this Testimony They commonly have by heart the Text of the new Testament and good part of the old they have the old and new Testament translated into the vulgar Tongue and so they do teach and learn it I saw and heard one of their Peasants who repeated word by word the Book of Job and several others of them who repeated perfectly all the New Testament And elsewhere Cap. 4. all other kind of Sects saith he are monstrous by reason of the Blasphemies which they audaciously offer against God but as for the Sect of the Leonists that is to say the Waldensis they have a great appearance of piety because they live uprightly and justly in the sight of Men and have a sound Belief for all that concerns God and of all the Articles which are contained in the Creed If those people had good and sound thoughts touching God and a right Belief of all the Articles of the Apostle's Creed as their very Adversaries do confess as well as their own Confession of Faith it is impossible they should either be Arians or Manicheans It must then be said that those which charged them with both these Heresies were very ill informed of their Belief And to say the truth Reynerus their Persecutor hath spoken so much in their commendation that he sufficiently warrants them from the impiety of Manes and the Heresie of Arius Also in the same Treatise he carefully distinguisheth them from the Catharians and Manicheans Cap. 6. for he saith That there was not in the whole World above four thousand Catharians Men and Women but as for the Believers they were without number for so it is he calls the Walaensis Cap. 1. 12. as also doth Pilichdorphius who wrote against them and observes that the Waldensis rejected several Sects of Hereticks which were then in the World Hist Albin c. 2. In Prol. chron And Peter de Vaux-Sernay and William de Puy-Lawrans Authors of that Age make a difference betwixt the Albigensis and the Waldensis and the Manicheans and Arians Thence it is that neither Pilichdorfius nor Bernard Abbot de Fon-caude nor Emery do not accuse them of Manicheism nor of Arianism in the List of the Errors which they impute unto them which consists chiefly in denying most of the Doctrines of the Latin Church which the Protestants do also reject Certainly William de Newbridge although their great Enemy cleareth them from all suspition of these two Impieties Rerum Angl. l. 2. c. 13. when speaking of the Albigensis under the name of Publicans which passed from Gascoygne into England he saith Being examined by order upon the Articles of their Faith they answered very well as to what regarded the Essence of the chief Physitian but ill as to the Remedies whereby he is pleased to heal humane Infirmities that is to say the Divine Sacraments All these considerations makes me not approve the proceedings of Mariana and of Gretzer who to make believe that these Christians were really guilty of the abominations of Manes and the Blasphemies of Arius have chang'd the title of certain Authors which they have published and which have written not only against the Albigensis and Waldensis but also against others for instance Luke 〈◊〉 Tude had given this Title unto his Book Of the life to come and of Controversies of Faith But Mariana to make the Readers believe this work only regarded the Albigensis hath given it this Title In Ep. ad Carvajalium Cauricus Episcop Against the Error of the Albigensis And in his Letter unto Carvajalius I purpose saith he to publish Luke de Tude his Dispute against the Hereticks of his time that is to say the Albigensis for this Sect was strong in the days of Luke Reynerius had thus entituled his Book A Treatise touching Hereticks And Gretzer hath given it this inscription Against the Waldensis Although the Author doth testifie that he writeth also against others which were of Opinions different from those of the Waldensis And whereas Everard de Bethuna was content with this Title Antihaeresis that is to say against Heresies In which Treatise he refutes chiefly the Mannicheans without naming them the same Gretzer hath made no scruple to intitle it Against the Waldensis Bernard de Fon-caude gave this name unto his Treatise Against the Waldensis and against the Arians so evidently distinguishing in that manner the Waldensis from the Arians but Gretzer contented himself with this only against the Waldensis In fine Ermingard had placed this Title to his Book Against the Hereticks which believe and say that this World and all visible things are not the work of God but of the Devil that is to say against the Manicheans and Gretzer hath placed over each page against the Waldensis But this kind of conduct is so far from rendring those people more odious according to the intention of those which do it
from the beginning of the XI Century all the Doctors had erred in the point of the Sacrament of the Altar except Berengarius and himself and their followers It must then be granted that the Doctrine of John Wickliff upon the subject of the Sacrament was the same with that of Berengarius and by consequence directly contrary unto that of the Latin Church a Doctrine which according to the testimony of Walsingham he taught publickly in his Lectures in his Sermons and in his Writings maintaining as is elsewhere shewed by this English Historian That after the Consecration made by the Priest in the Mass In Richard H. ad an 1282. the Bread and Wine doth therein remain as they were before Pope Gregory the IX had indeed condemned the Doctrine of Wickliff as Heretical in the year 1377. and had certified so much by Letters unto the University of Oxford unto the Archbishop of Canterbury the Bishop of London and unto King Edward himself commanding them to order matters so In Richardo II. That Wickliff should be apprehended and put into prison But Walsingham who every where Vomits Thunder and Lightning against him testifies that the Bulls of Gregory had no effect the University having consulted whether it should receive these Bulls honourably or reject them with scorn the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of London carrying themselves very negligently and coldly either of their own inclination or by reason of the People which favoured him or it may be for both together as for the King we do not find that the Popes Letters made any Impression upon his spirit In Epist ad Mart. V. on the contrary this Historian informs us That the Lords and Princes of the Kingdom did favour Wickliff Which Thomas Waldensis interprets of the King himself and of his Son of the Duke of Lancaster and several other great Lords of the Kingdom Therefore it is not to be wondred at if Walsingham says That the Princes and great Lords protected him the which he repeats over again in the Life of Edward the Third And he observes in that of Richard the Second upon the year 1381. that he seduced great numbers throughout the whole Kingdom and that he had Agents which he employed therein he neglecting no opportunity himself on his own part Amongst those which sided with him In Richardo H. ad an 1381 he makes mention of one William which preached at Leicester on Palm-Sunday That the Sacrament of the Altar was true Bread after Consecration And as the Bishop of Lincoln disposed himself to punish him in depriving him of the liberty of Preaching the People appearing in his behalf so affrighted the Bishop that he durst proceed no farther against him After which he mentions several other Learned Men that professed the same Faith and which Preached it boldly and publickly not only in the Cities and Villages but also at the University of Oxford on the Eves of Holy-days particularly Nicholas Hertford Chancellor of the University Ibid. and a certain Prebend of Leicester All these saith he and several others their Adherents published their sin like Sodom and did not hide it and not being content to have evil Opinions touching the Catholick Faith and other points wherein they erred they drew the People into the Precipice of their Error by publick Sermons William Arch-Bishop of Canterbury seeing that infinite numbers of people departed daily from the Communion of the Church of Rome assembled his Suffragan Bishops and some other Assistants which as Walsingham saith had not followed after Baal with several Professors of Divinity and in this Assembly caused to be condemned twenty Propositions of Wickliff's who notwithstanding this Condemnation did not forbear teaching and writing as before as is testified by Thomas Waldensis Prolog t. 2. doctrin 12. But it may not be passed over in silence that amongst these Propositions of Wickliff which were condemned the first of which denied Transubstantion the seventh imports That God ought to be subject to the Devil a most horrible Proposition which I think could not proceed out of the mouth of any man that bears the name of a Christian Therefore it is but charity not too easily to give credit to these kinds of Accusations without having convincing proofs of it Of all Wickliff's Works Vid. l. 2. c. 13. l. 4. c. 3. there is but one printed that I know of entituled Trialogus Now in this Treatise there is contained several things which absolutely destory this devilish Proposition Moreover if Wickliff presented unto the English Nobility assembled in Parliament at London the Propositions now spoken of as the Friar Walsingham doth testifie Is it probable that having a design to invite them to embrace his Opinions as the same Historian doth intimate he would have proposed such a Thesis which had been sufficient to have exasperated them against him and rather have made them his Enemies than his Protectors Neither do I find that Widdeford who reports and opposeth all Wickliff's Articles which Thomas Arch-Bishop of Canterbury the Pope's Legat condemned four years after in a Synod at London I say I cannot find that he maketh any mention of this blasphemous Proposition That God should obey the Devil Let the Reader give his Judgment thereupon as for my part I will prosecute the course of my History in saying that Wickliff departed this life in the Year 1385. in the Parish of Lutleworth whereof he was Curate after having composed and written several Books and Treatises for Eneas Silvius who was afterwards Pope under the name of Pius the Second Cap. 35. writes in his History of Bohemia That it was supposed they were above two hundred Volumes The Friar Walsingham 1 Ad an 1387. who was his sworn Enemy by reason of the Thesis which he published against the Friars describes his death in such a manner as sufficiently expresseth his passion and resentment 2 In Ricard II. ad an 1385. grounding his relation upon hear-say As it is reported Nevertheless he is not ashamed to say that he died distracted and that he was damned In hist Bohem. c. 35. quite contrary unto John Hus who by the relation of Eneas Silvius That he had rendred himself famous by the reputation he had acquired by a holy and pious life for he often said in his Sermons Ibid. That he desired to go after his death unto the same place where the Soul of Wickliff was gone making no doubt but that he was a good and holy man and worthy of Heaven The Doctrine of Wickliff did not expire with his person for Nicholas Herreford Doctor in Divinity defended those which were his followers and which professed the Doctrine which he had taught as 1 In Ricard II. ad an 1387. Walsingham doth write 2 Ad an 1389. in Hypodigm Neust ad an 1395. which he represents unto us to have been in very great numbers under the name of Lollards in all that
unto whom with thy Father and thy good holy and quickning Spirit appertains the Glory both now and for ever Amen As for what regards the Latin Church it is no less difficult precisely to determine the time when Perfume was first offered in the Celebration of the Sacrament It may very well be inferred from what hath been alledged of St. Austin that this practice was not received in his days in the West at least in the Church of Africa I say not in the Church of Africa for I find in the Life of Boniface the first Contemporary with St. Austin this Ordinance That no Woman or Nun In lib. Pontific t 1. Concil p. 884. should touch nor wash the sacred Corporal nor cause to be burnt any Incense in the Church saving the Deacons only I know the Pontifical Book from whence this Life is taken is a Book upon which no solid foundation can be laid those which have any knowledge of Ecclesiastical Antiquity make no esteem of it And the Impostor that forged the Decretals of the first Popes hath made Soter to make a Decrete in the II. Century like unto that of Boniface in the V. but for all that I would not so absolutely deny the truth of the Ordinance of Boniface as I would that of Soter for although the Pontifical Book is not always to be believed nevertheless it cannot be said as positively as of the Decretal of Soter that it is forged There is but one thing that sticks with me and is the reason that I cannot give credit to the Decrete which is to be seen in the Life of Boniface It is that in all the Books of Sacraments of Gregory the First nor in those of Ecclesiastical Offices of St. Isidore Arch-Bishop of Sevil there is no mention at all made to the best of my remembrance touching the Oblation of Perfume It is not so of the Book called The Roman Order wherein there is express mention made of it as also in Amalarius Fortunatus who lived in the IX Century but as for the Roman Order all are not agreed of its age most thinking it was written towards the end of the VIII Century and some in the XI After all in admitting the Decrete of Pope Boniface the First it will follow that the use of Perfume and Incense in the Worship and Service of Religion was not received by the Latins before the V. Century if it be certain that it was then it self received In a Book which treateth of Divine Offices which Melchior Historpius caused to be printed together with the Roman Order there is several Prayers for consecrating and blessing the Censer and the Incense of each it will suffice to relate one I say in the first place for the Censer in blessing whereof this Prayer is made unto God Tom. 10. Bibl. Pat. O Lord God who at the time that the Children of Israel were devoured by fire by reason of their Rebellion thou wert pleased to hear the prayers of thy High Priest Aaron standing betwixt the Dead and the Living and offering thee Incense and saving the people out of the midst of the fire bless we pray thee this Censer and grant that as often as we therein offer Incense unto thee we may become a Temple of a sweet savour acceptable unto thy Christ And for the Perfume and Incense Ibid. O Almighty Lord God of Abraham of Isaac and of Jacob send upon this Creature of Perfume and of Incense the strength and vertue of thy savour to the end it may serve for a protection and defence unto thy Servants to hinder the Enemy from entring into their hearts and there fix his abode and residence through Jesus Christ our Lord Amen And in the Pontifical Pontific Rom. par 2. fol. 136. 2 Venise 1582. O Lord God Almighty in whose presence doth stand with trembling the Army of holy Angels whose service is wholly spiritual and full of zeal be pleased to behold bless and sanctifie this Incense and Perfume to the end that all the failures the infirmities and all the stratagems of the Enemy smelling its savour may fly away and depart from thy Creatures which thou hast ransomed with the precious Blood of thy Son never to be wounded by the biting of the wicked Serpent through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen But because that which is called the Apostles fourth Canon joyns unto Incense the Oyl for the Lights or Lamps at the time of celebrating the Sacrament it will not be amiss to enquire into the first Original of this Custom as we have done into that of Incense To this purpose the Reader need not expect that we should treat of the primitive Christians making use of Lamps and Candles in their Assemblies because every body knows they did not use them for Ceremony but through pure necessity being forced to assemble in the night and early before day-light for fear of Persecution From thence did proceed the unjust slanders wherewith they were charged in Minucius Foelix of causing the Lights to be extinguished the more greedily to satisfie their Lusts and sensual Appetites Neither will I speak of the Wax Candles and Flambeaus which were used on Easter Eve nor stand to shew when their use began not only on this occasion but also in Feasts and Funerals as well as unto the honour of Images These things may probably be answered at some more convenient time for the present we must limit our selves within the matter which concerns the Sacrament whereof we write the History and by consequence only consider the use of the light of Lamps and Candles in that which relates unto the Worship and Service of God Tertullian accounted it as a great Superstition in the Gentiles for using Candles and Flambeaus in the day time and saith Christians do not so Apolog. c. 35. We saith he do not burn day-light with Candles and Flambeaus And he saith so upon account of what was acted by the Pagans upon Holy Days and publick Rejoycings particularly unto the honour of the Emperors But elsewhere he speaketh in a manner which giveth plainly to understand that the Christians of his time did not at all admit for Ceremony the use of Candles Flambeaus or other Lights in the Worship of their Religion so that if they made use of any it was only during their Nocturnal Assemblies their Enemies not suffering them to meet together in the day time Let them saith he every day light Flambeaus he speaks of what was done in the Temples of Idols which are absolutely in darkness De Idol c. 15. Let them which are threatned with eternal fire fasten Lawrels at their doors that they might afterwards burn them for these tokens of darkness and these fore-runners of pains and punishments become them very well Could a Christian have spoke after this manner against a Heathen Superstition if in his Religion he had practised the use of Lights and Flambeaus He would have spoke in another manner and
Chrysostom may be understood of the Sign of the Cross only and not of the Cross it self especially if the passages are understood in their full compose and extent Besides these things which have been examined the Original whereof we have endeavoured to discover there be some others which have been hinted at as for instance divers Hymns as well regarding the Clergy as the People the reading the holy Scriptures several prayers the turning out of the Catechumeny the Energumeny and the Penitents whereto we may add in regard of the Greeks the preparing the Oblation that is to say the Symbols of Bread and Wine upon the Table of Proposition the carrying of these gifts unto the Mystical Table to be Consecrated whereof we say nothing now having treated thereof at large in the first Part of this History As also of the time the place and of the Vessels necessary unto Celebration Whereunto may be joyned the Ceremony of Vestments appointed unto this use whereof I find no mention at all made before Pope Sylvester who held the Pontifical See at the beginning of the IV. Century that is from the year 314 until the year 336. For in his Life there is mention made of Dalmaticks for the Deacons Tom. 1. Concil p. 258. and of a certain Cloth wherewith their left hand was to be covered The Author of the questions upon the Old and New Testament in the works of St. Austin but before his time Tom. 4. in append q. 46. p. 436. Tom. 1. Concil p. 729. Hom. 83. in Matth. Liturg. Chrysost speaketh also of the Dalmaticks which Deacons used in his time The 41 Canon of the 4th Council of Carthage doth formally prescribe them the use of the Cope during the reading of the Gospel and at the time of Oblation only St. Chrysostom makes mention of White Vestures in the celebration of the Sacrament and in the Liturgy which goes in his name may be seen the prayers made unto God whilst he that Officiates is putting on the holy Vestments an action which is not omitted by the Author of the Apostolick Constitutions as hath been before shewed According unto which St. Jerom observes Lib. 1. advers Pelag. c. 9. p. 565. Ep. 3. that all the Clergy have White Vestures when the Eucharist is celebrated and in his Letter unto Heliodorus upon the death of Nepotian he saith that Nepotian at his death bequeathed him the Coat which he used in doing the functions of a Priest Since which time in the Life of St. Gregory by John the Deacon and in the Authors which have treated of Divine Offices there is frequent mention made of these Priestly Habits for it cannot reasonably be referred unto this custom what Policrates said of St. John That he bore a Golden Plate upon his forehead as the High Priests of the Jews did But all that is nothing in comparison of what is seen in the Latin Church for there is to be seen six several sorts of Vestments or if you will Ornaments which belong unto the Priests which Officiate and eight or nine unto the Bishop and there is not one of them but they have searched some mysterious signification for it and whereunto they have destined a particular Consecration not to insist of the diversity of colours which are there to be seen nor of the sundry occasions which sometimes require one sometimes others and the practice and use is esteemed so necessary that if it be ever so little neglected the celebration of Mass is in a manner counted imperfect Those which desire particularly to inform themselves of these things now hinted at may but read what Durandus Bishop of Mende and the President Duranti have writ on this subject For it shall suffice me here to observe that Jesus Christ and his Apostles unto whom we may joyn the Christians of the first Ages did not celebrate the Eucharist but in their ordinary Apparel Therefore Wallafridus Strabo wrote in the IX Century that Priestly Vestments were multiplyed in time unto the degree they were then in For in the first Ages saith he Masses was celebrated with ordinary Apparel Lib. de reb Eccles c. 24. as it is said that several in the Eastern Churches do still practice Lib. 1. Gemm amm c. 89. And Honorius of Autun said about 400 years ago That the Apostles and their Successors did celebrate the mysteries in their ordinary Cloaths and with Challices of Wood. As for the bowings of the Body before a Crucifix no more then before an Image and before an Altar which is so frequently practised amongst the Latins by those which say Mass I see no footsteps of it neither in the constitutions which are called the Apostles nor in St. Cyril of Jerusalem no nor in the pretended Dennis the Arcopagite whose Writings could not see light before the end of the V. Century although all of them have very exactly represented that which was observed in their times in the celebration of the Eucharist from whence I infer that what is to be seen in one part of the Liturgy attributed unto St. Chrysostom to wit That he that celebrates turns himself towards the Image of Jesus Christ with bowing of the body is not of this holy Doctor but that in all likelihood it was foisted into the Liturgy since the contests of the Greeks about the subject of Images and what confirms me in this thought is that the favourers of Image Worship have not alledged these words not so much as the Deacon Epiphanius in the second Council of Nice although he answers unto some passages of this Father which the Iconoclasticks had cited against this Worship What might be alledged from a Homily which is in the works of St. Chrysostom and hath for Title That there is one only Law-giver of the Old and New Testament is of no moment because this Homily is none of his as hath been long since remarked by Fronton du Duke a Learned Jesuite who laboured with great success upon the works of this incomparable Writer The Muscovites Apud Euseb Hist l. 5. c. 24. Vide Lit. Cassander although they be of the Religion of the Greeks yet they seem to celebrate the Sacrament with less Ceremony than the Greeks the Armenians much like these latter and the Abyssins although they have no want yet methinks have not so many as the Greeks nor Armenians But to see a very great number you need only have recourse unto what is done by the Latins in the Roman Order in the Mychrology in the Pontifical in the Ceremonial of Bishops and in the Book of the Sacred Ceremonies of the Church of Rome which are more or less in number according to the days and persons which celebrate especially when 't is the Pope himself that says Mass whereas by the testimony of Gregory the first and of several others the Apostles only repeated the words of Institution with the Lord's prayer which simplicity Amalarius Fortunatus a Writer of the IX
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
I may become happy by the sight of thy Glory And this other I salute thee Light of the World Gloss ad decret Greg. l. 3. tit 41. de Miss celebr c. 10. sane Word of the Father true Hosty living Flesh perfect God true Man It must not be forgot that just at the beginning of the XIII Century a few years before Honorius the Third had made his Constitution for the Adoration of the Sacrament Odo Bishop of Paris ordained Statut Synod c. 5. t. 6. Bibl. Pat. That the people should often be exhorted to bow the knee before the Body as before their Maker and Lord as often as they should see it pass before them This Prelate caused several precautions to be added unto this Decree in case it should happen that any part of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ should fall to the ground or that any Fly or Spider should chance to fall into the Blood 'T is true Odo was not the first that prescribed these kinds of precautions for from the VIII Century somewhat of this nature is to be seen in a Penitential attributed unto Pope Gregory the XIII which held the Chair according unto Bellarmine's computation from the Year 731. unto the Year 741. I say this Penitential is attributed unto him for it is not very certain that it is his but in fine it is in this Book which is inserted in one of the Tomes of the Councils Tom. 5. p. 471. that Precautions like unto those established by Odo Bishop of Paris are to be seen And it is as I conceive of this Penitential Book De Consecr distinct 2. c. si per negligentiam attributed unto Gregory the Thirteenth that the Canonist Gratian hath taken the words he cites in his Decrete under the name of Pope Pius the first who lived about the middle of the II. Century In fine besides that they agree much better with the time of Gregory than with that of Pius who as yet was ignorant of these kinds of Precautions The words related by Gratian as spoken by Pius are at this day to be found verbatim in the Penitential given us under the name of Gregory the XIII The first Christians were careful that no part of the sacred Symbols of the Eucharist should fall to the ground but we do not find that they made any Ordinance touching what might through neglect fall to the ground of the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament that was an effect of after Ages which being in process of time become infinitely more scrupulous than former Christians became also more liberal of their Decrees and Constitutions especially in what concerned the Sacrament of the Eucharist insomuch that Hubert Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and Legat of Pope Celestine made this Decree at the end of the XII Century never regarding the simplicity with which the Sacrament was sent unto sick people in the first Ages of Christianity Apud Roger. de Hoveden in Richard I. That Priests as often as there is need to communicate the Sick should themselves carry the Host in their Priestly Habits suitable unto so great a Sacrament and that Lights should be carried before it if stormy Weather the badness of the Ways or some other reason doth not hinder Odo Bishop of Paris did moreover ordain That all persons should kneel down unto it when it passed by which if my Memory fail not is the first Decree made for adoring the Host yet it must not be imagined that the Adoration of the Sacrament was not at all practised in the Latin Church before this Ordinance of Odo which was made in the beginning of the XIII Century There be some which think that it was established by Durandus Abbot of Troarn in the XI Century a little after Berengarius had declared himself against the Dostrine of the Real Presence But if Durandus made no mention of the Adoration of the Sacrament as in effect there be those which refer his words unto the blessed Humanity of our Redeemer whereof he maketh mention in the same place and unto which they pretend that the act of Adoration should be addressed according to the design of this Abbot it cannot be denied but Alger formally taught it in the XII Century De Sacram. l. 2. c. 3. for as to what we read in the ancient Customs of the Monastery of Cluny That all those which meet the Priest Lib. 3. c. 18. t. 4. Spicil p. 217. bearing the Body of the Lord unto a sick person should demand Forgiveness I do not see that all do explain this action after one manner Dom Luke d'Achery which caused them to be printed understands it of Adoration having caused this little Annotation to be put in the Margin That is to say that they should prostrate and adore Others say that these words Demand Pardon do only signifie that those which meet the Sacrament should demand Forgiveness either of the Priest the same as in communicating Ibid. l. 2. c. 30. p. 145. for they all demanded Pardon of each other and kissed the Priest's hand before they received the holy Sacrament or of God in consideration of the death of Jesus Christ Ibid. l. 1. c. 13. p. 58. c. 38. p. 92. whereof the Sacrament is a Memorial Whereunto they add that the same was practised in this famous Assembly when the Cross was uncovered on Good-Friday and the day called The Exaltation of the Holy Cross and that the Pardon which they asked upon these two occasions is distinguished from Adoration Moreover they say that in the thirtieth Chapter of the second Book of these Customs wherein is exactly represented what was practised in those times in this famous Monastery in the Consecration and in the Communion of the Eucharist there is not one word said of the Elevation of the Host Whence they infer that they did not practise the Adoration of the Sacrament which in the Latin Church for some Ages past doth immediately follow the Elevation of it After all should the words in question be applied unto the Adoration of the Host no other consequence could from thence be drawn but this to wit that in the XI Century at the end whereof was collected together in three Books all these ancient Customs this Adoration began to be practised that is to say after the Condemnation of Berengarius although there was no Decree for it until the XIII Century And as before the XIII Century there was no Decree made touching the Adoration of the Sacrament so also before that time there was no Holy Day dedicated unto its honour from whence the Protestants do not fail to make their advantage against the Adoration of the Eucharist saying That if this Adoration had been practised in the ancient Church Christians would not have referred it unto Urban the Fourth the care of instituting the Feast of the Sacrament which he did in the Year 1264. But it is not sufficient to know that Urban the
Fourth did institute this Holy Day in that Year if we do not also know that he was inclined thereunto by the desires and upon the Revelations of certain Women of the Country of Liege particularly of a Nun called Eve unto whom he wrote a Letter upon this Subject and another unto all the Bishops the which is contained in the Bull of Clement the Fifth in the third Book of Clementines tit 16. as we are fully informed by John Diesteim Blaerus Prior of St. James of Leige which he composed after having made as he saith an exact enquiry of what had passed in this Institution And to inform the Reader of the nature of these Revelations he adds That the first of these Women called Juliana in praying perceived a marvellous Aparition viz. The Moon as it were at Full but having some kind of Spots Whereupon she was divinely inspired that the Moon was the Church and that the Spot which appeared therein was the want of a Holy Day which as yet was wanting So that she received a Command from Heaven to begin this Solemnity and to pubish unto the World that it ought to be celebrated He saith moreover That this Juliana having communicated her Revelations unto one Isabella this Isabella knowing the troubles Juliana was in upon this Subject she desired of God by earnest Prayers that he would impart unto her the knowledge of these things and that going to visit Eve a Nun of the Church of St. Martins of Leige she no sooner kneeled down before the Crucifix but being ravished in mind she was shewed from Heaven that this particular Holy Day of the Eucharist had always been in the Council of the Soveraign Trinity and that now the time of revealing it unto Men was come for she affirmed that in her Extasie she saw all the Heavenly Host demand of God by their Prayers that he would speedily manifest this Solemnity unto the wavering World to confirm the Faith of the Church Militant I am not ignorant but that there be some which would attribute the cause of this Institution unto a Miracle of Blood which as they say fell from an Hosty in the hands of a Priest as he sang Mass But Besides what Diesteim and after him several others have related unto us we have touching the first cause of this Institution the Declaration of Urban himself which made it For in the Letter which he wrote unto all the Bishops inserted in the Bull of Clement the Fifth he thus speaks We have understood heretofore being in a lower Office that is to say when he was Arch-Deacon of the Church of Leige that it was revealed unto some Catholicks which were the three Women mentioned by Diesteim Juliana Isabella and Eve that such a Holy Day was to be generally celebrated in the Church And in that which he wrote unto Eve We are sensible Daughter that your Soul hath desired with great desire that a solemn Holy Day of the Body of Jesus Christ might be instituted in the Church to be celebrated by Believers unto perpetuity This is the ground and foundation of this Feast and the true cause of its Institution even according to the Testimony of the Life of Juliana the first of these three Women a Testimony whose proper terms is related by Molanus in his Martyrology of Saints in Flanders on the 5th of April But how great soever the Authority of Popes at that time was in the West the Decree of Urban was not observed in all Churches by reason of the newness of the thing therefore Clement the Fifth caused it to be published again about fifty years after as the Gloss upon the Decretal of Clement the Fifth wherein that of Urban is inserted expresly observes But notwithstanding all this it was not hitherto kept as Diesteim informs us in the ninth Article of his Book Although saith he the Apostolical Commands touching the Celebration of the new Holy Day of the venerable Sacrament hath been addressed unto all the Churches yet so it is nevertheless that none of the Churches were careful to give Obedience thereunto excepting the Church of Leige which as soon as it had with honour received the Apostolical Nuncio with the Bulls the Decretals and the Office which he had brought presently as a dutiful Daughter gave Obedience thereunto rejecting the Office which the Virgin Juliana caused to be made and using that which had been composed by Thomas Aquinas And so ever since those Bulls came the Diocess of Liege and no other else hath solemnized this Holy Day until the days of our Lord Pope John the Twenty second who lived in the Year of our Lord Jesus Christ 1315. who published all the Constitutions of Clement and sent them unto the Universities And now if it be demanded of Urban Clement lib. 3 tit 16. si Dominum what profit was made by this Institution he will answer That this Holy Day properly belongs unto the Sacrament because there is no Saint but hath its Holy Day although there is remembrance had of them in the Masses and in the Litanies That it must be celebrated once every year particularly to confound the Unbelief and Extravagance of Hereticks to make a solemn and more particular Commemoration of it to the end to frequent Churches with more and greater Devotion there to repair by attention by humility of Spirit and by purity of heart all the defaults wherein we have fallen in all the other Masses either by the disquiet of worldly cares or by the dulness and weakness of humane frailty and there with respect to receive this Sacrament and to receive increase of Graces Almost the very same thing is to be seen in the Breviary of the Latin Church The Feast of the Sacrament was attended by Procession wherein the Host is born with Pomp and Magnificence Diesteim saith Offic. fir 6. infra Oct. Corp. Christ lect 4. 5. that it was Pope John the Twenty second which introduced this custom But Bossius in his Chronicles and after him Genebrard in his Chronology Book IV. place it much later and say that it began a hundred years after the Institution of the Holy Day to be practised at Pavia from whence it spread it self abroad into all the Western Churches and especially at Anger 's where Berengarius had been Arch-Deacon Upon which several observe that this Institution is directly contrary unto the practice of the ancient Church that very far from carrying in Procession the sacred Symbols of the Body and Blood of our Saviour did administer them the Doors shut even from the III. Century and concealed them not only from Unbelievers and Idolaters but even also from the Catechumeny which were made to go out when this divine Sacrament was to be administred They add that this Procession was very ill resented by many persons that lived in the Communion of the Roman Church In fine Queen Catherine de Medicis wrote unto the Pope in the Year 1561. as Monsieur de Thoul
Christ is present with the believing Soul by the Intercourse of Devotion Id. 241 Jesus Christ must be sought in Heaven in Communicating Id. 242 The Body of Jesus Christ which was made 1600 Years ago cannot be made every day B. Ch. 5. 251 In what sense the Books of Charlemain condemn the term of Image in respect of the Sacrament B. Ch. 12. 380 John Scot wrote of the Sacrament by Command of Charles the Bald. B. Ch. 13. 403 Adversaries of John Scot upon the Point of Predestination Id. 415 John Scot never accused by his Adversaries to have erred upon the Point of the Eucharist Id. ibid. John Scot enrolled in the number of Saints after his death Id. 413 The Book composed by John Scot by Command of the Emperor Charles the Bald burnt at the Council of Verceil 200 years after viz. An. 1050. Id. 414 L. A Body cannot be in several places at once no not the glorified Body of our our Lord Jesus Christ B. Ch. 5. p. 247 The glorified Body of Jesus Christ cannot exist invisibly and after the manner of a Spirit in one place nor by consequence in the Eucharist Id. 248 The place which containeth is greater than what is contained Id. 251 Two Bodies cannot be in one and the same place and there cannot be Penetration of Dimensions Id. 261 Every part of a Body should answer unto every part of the place Id. ibid. A Body cannot be whole and entire in one of its parts Id. ibid. The Original of using Lamps and Lights in the Celebration of the Eucharist C. Ch. 1. 531 M. THe Flesh of Jesus Christ is to be eaten spiritually and corporally B. Ch. 4. 234 The Wicked do not eat the Body of Jesus Christ but the Sacrament of it only Idem 237 John Hus and Jerome of Prague put to death as Enemies of Transubstantiation although they ever believed it B. Ch. 19. 508 c. What a Mystery doth mean B. Ch. 5. 259 c. N. THe Nature of Bread remains after Consecration B. Ch. 2. 206 Nicholas the First keeps silent during the Disputes of the IX Century B. Ch. 15. 430 The Silence of Nicholas the First no way favourable unto Paschas Id. 431 O. JOhn Damascen his particular Opinion of the Eucharist B. Ch. 12. 365 Paschas Radbert a Friar of the Monastery of Corby near Amiens his Opinion He was after Abbot of the same Convent B. Ch. 13. 385 Opinion of the Adversaries of Paschas Id. 393 c. The Opinion of Paschas is that of Roman Catholicks and the Opinion of his Adversaries that of Protestants which are called Calvinists Id. 405 The Opinion of his Adversaries followed by the greatest Men in the IX Century Idem 430 The Silence of the Popes Adrian the Second and Nicholas the First prejudicial to the Opinion of Paschas B. Ch. 15. 431 The Opinion of Paschas had no advantage over that of his Adversaries during the X. Century B. Ch. 16. 440 It began to be established in the XI Century B. Ch. 17. 451 Berengarius and his Followers Opposition with his several Condemnations which hindred not but he persevered unto his death Id. 455 Berengarius calls the Opinion contrary to his the Folly of Paschas of the People and of Lanfrank Id. 454 Berengarius his Opinion condemned after his death by Urban the Second in a Council held at Plaisance Anno 1095. B. Ch. 18. 465 Those which held this Belief assembled themselves in the Arch-bishoprick of Treves Anno 1106. Id. 466 P. REflections of the holy Fathers upon the words of Institution of the Eucharist B. Ch. 1. 187 How they understood these words This is my Body Id. 188 No Body can participate of himself B. Ch. 5. 262 How the Fathers instructed their Catechumeny B. Ch. 7. 283 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies not only to adore but venerate and respect therefore it is to be explained according to the nature of the Subject in hand C. Ch. 4. 563 c. Q. THe Question of Communicating under both Kinds discussed at large A. Ch. 12. 141 c. Who opposeth not an Error approves it B. Ch. 15. 431 Whosoever recovereth not a Man from Error sheweth that he erreth himself Id. ibid. Whosoever defends not a Truth suppresseth it Id. ibid. The Question of the Adoration of the Sacrament fully examined C. Ch. 4. 563 c. R. THe Christians reproached for sacrificing Bread to God A. Ch. 3. 25 Christians reproached for serving Ceres and Bacchus Id. ibid. Religious Women called the Blood of Jesus Christ common Wine B. Ch. 6. 273 Remy of Auxerr as well as Damascen believed the Union of the Bread unto the Divinity B. Ch. 13. 391 Rupert de Duitz believed the Assumption of the Bread and followed near hand the Opinion of Damascen and of Remy of Auxerr B. Ch. 18. 468 S. THe Sacraments are simple in the Act and wonderful in effect Preface The Sacrifice of Christians is a Sacrifice of Bread and Wine A. Ch. 8. 82 The reason why the Fathers gave the Eucharist the name of Sacrifice but improperly Id. 83 c. They confess unto the Pagans they have neither Altars nor Sacrifices Id. 94 They never oppose the Eucharist unto the Sacrifices of the Law but the Actions of Piety and Christian Religion and the Sacrifice of the Cross Id. 96 The Elevation of the Sacrament to represent the Elevation of Christ on the Cross when begun to be practised A. Ch. 9. 101 The Elevation converted into the Adoration of the Host in the XIII Century Idem 105 There hath been always People in the West which have celebrated the Sacrament without Elevation or Adoration Id. 103 The breaking of the Bread of the Sacrament always practised in the Church even amongst the Latins until the XII Century A. Ch. 9. 106 The Sacraments have no Miracles in them B. Ch. 2. 212 It is unto the vertue and efficacy of the Sacrament that we must refer the Communion which we have with Jesus Christ and our Vinification B. Ch. 3. 230 The Testimony of the Senses is infallible B. Ch. 5. 257 The Use of Flowers practised by the Latins in honour to the Sacrament unknown unto the primitive Christians C. Ch. 4. 573 T. ALtar or Eucharistical Table one and the same thing in the Writings of the ancient Fathers of the Church A. Ch. 5. 44 45. It was for a long time made of Wood in the same form of Tables to eat upon and not in the form of an Altar Id. ibid. There was but one Table or one Altar in a Church Id. 47 The Greeks Muscovites and Abyssins now retain the same Custom Id. 50 What Fraud and Deceipt is B. Ch. 5. 260 The Taborites of Bohemia and their Belief B. Ch. 19. 505 John Hus and Jerome of Prague ever held Transubstantiation Id. 508 V. THere can no Prescription be alledged against Truth Preface The Truth of God must be followed and not the Traditions of Men. A. Ch. 1. p. 1 A Body should be visible and palbable B. Ch. 5. 247 What may be seen and felt is a Body Id. 264 Waldensis their Doctrine Manners and the Persecutions used against them B. Ch. 18. 472 c. Waldensis in Italy in the XIV Century B. Ch. 19. 502 Wickliff his Doctrine and Followers which were very numerous in England under the name of Lollards in the XIV Century Id. 499 The Waldensis of Provence and Piedmont Id. 512 The Original of holy Vestments used in the Celebration of the Eucharist C. Ch. 1. 539 FINIS