with the Hand although the Church of Rome her self practised it so formerly for several Ages From whence again could proceed this Change but from the Change of Doctrine whilst it was believed that what was received at the mystical Table was true Bread and Wine but Bread and Wine which the Consecration had separated from the common Use they had in Nature to apply them unto a holy and religious Use in Grace Communicants were permitted to receive the Sacrament in their Hands But when they taught that it was the real Body of Jesus Christ they began to put it into the Mouth of such as presented themselves at the Communion judging their Hands were not worthy to receive the Flesh it self of their Saviour and fearing that some by Neglect should let fall to the Ground this pretious Body an Inconvenience which their Forefathers never thought of or if they did think of it they did not so much fear it though otherwise they were as circumspect in the Celebration of this Divine Sacrament so far as to take Care with incomparable Exactness that none of it should fall to the Ground Let every body judge the Reason of so notable a Difference But if the Sacrament was put into the Hand of Communicants they were wont also for a long time to carry it home along with them to their Houses At present amongst the Latins it would be a criminal Action Father Petau tells us and held for a Prophanation of this Sacrament As for my part I cannot blame this Severity of the Latin Church because she believes that it is the adorable Body of the Son of God whereunto is owing Soveraign Respect What shall we then say unto the ancient Fathers which permitted it and which believed not as St. Basil tells us that this Custom was not worthy of Blame We cannot but know that their Zeal was greater than ours and their Piety more ardent than what appears in us at this time How then have they so long time tolerated this Practice in the Church and even in that of Rome as St. Jerom hath made appear From whence the Protestant concludes That one cannot reasonably forbear attributing the Reason of this Toleration to any thing but the Difference of their Doctrine and to say that their Belief upon this Point being quite contrary they made no Scruple of suffering what the Latins would not suffer at present for all the World And as they suffered Communicants to carry the Sacrament to their Houses to keep and take it when they pleased they also suffered them to carry it in their Travels and Journeys even by Sea where they made no Difficulty of celebrating and participating of it when Occasion required as the Example of Maximinian Bishop of Syracusa and his Companions do testifie for being in Danger of suffering Shipwrack they received it is said the Body and Blood of their Redeemer But in the Latin Church it is practised quite contrary at this time it not being permitted to celebrate the whole Mass neither at the Sea nor upon Rivers but only to read the Epistle and Gospel to say the Lords Prayer and give the Benediction In a Word to say that which was anciently called the Mass of the Catechumeny that is to say unto that Part called the Canon Thom Valdens Guilhelm Duranâ— apud Cassand in Liturg. c. 34. Cassand ib. Whence it is Cassander makes this Observation drawn from a Book of the Order of the Mass according to the Use of the Church of Rome This dry Mass that is to say without Consecration and Communion is also called Naval because it is judged it can only be said after that manner in an unsteady place and where there is motion as at Sea and upon Rivers in which places it is believed that an intire Mass cannot be said Pope Gregory the first nevertheless blamed not what was done by Maximinian and his Companions when he relates the History of it in his Dialogues no more than St. Ambrose doth the Action of his Brother Satyrus All which again gives Ground to believe that in all likelihood they had not then that Opinion of the Sacrament which Roman Catholicks now have for they would not have failed to have taken the same Caution Anciently in the Church the Communion was freely sent unto sick Folks by Lay-persons by Boys Men or Women which continued in the West until the IXth and Xth Centuries What Appearance is there they would so long have tolerated this Custem if the Belief of those times had been the same of that of the Latin Church at present it is thought they would have been more reserved and that they would not have so slightly entrusted the Body of Jesus Christ unto all Sorts of Persons indifferently But besides all these Customs which we have instanced and from whence we have drawn the necessary Inferences there be yet others which we already examined in the first Part the Consequences whereof we are also obliged to shew The ancient Christians made no Difficulty to imploy the Sacrament to make Plaisters as St. Austin hath assured us every body knows that to make a Plaister sometimes Drugs are used that must be bruised and pounded in a Mortar sometimes Roots are used that must be boiled and which by means of certain Liquors are reduced into the consistence of an Oyntment or thick matter and such as may conveniently be spread upon a Linen-cloth or upon Flax afterwards to apply it unto the distemper'd part which wants Ease Was there ever any Christian that believed such a Sort of Medicine could be made of the proper and natural Body of Jesus Christ that it could be beat and pounded in a Mortar or boiled with Liquor or in a Word reduced in the State which they are wont to do those Things which are requisite to make Plaisters or if any were so extravagant to believe it or so wicked and senseless to attempt it had it been possible to be done all others would they not have exclaimed against such a Person would they not have esteemed him monstrous and worthy enduring the greatest of all Punishments Nevertheless there hath been found those which made Plaisters of the Eucharist and which far from being blamed have been praised and commended by pious and devout Persons fearing God witness that Mother mentioned by St. Austin Seeing then that a Plaister cannot be made of the true Body of Jesus Christ it necessarily follows that where there was one made it was of the Substance of the Symbols and that the Christians that did so were perswaded that it was not the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ but a Substance of Bread and Wine In the ancient Church the Sacrament was buried with the Dead as there is no Christian but knows that Christ died that he was buried and rose again the third Day neither is there any but do know that he dieth no more and that he shall no more be buried Those then which heretofore buried the
Jesus Christ that he take care that not a crumb of it fall to the ground and having in this manner communicated of the Body of Jesus Christ he should approach unto the Cup having the Body bowed in way of Adoration or Veneration But besides say some St. Cyril doth not desire of his Communicant this inclination of body for Reception of the other Symbol which he represents unto us and doth call it the Body of Jesus Christ such as some crumbs whereof may fall to the ground it is that the Cup unto which he desires he should draw near with this inclination of Body contains a Liquor the moisture of which and the humidity remains as he saith upon the lips which cannot be said of the proper Blood of the Son of God The posture then which he prescribes for receiving of the Cup must necessarily be understood not of an act of Adoration which he doth not teach in any part of his Catechisms unto his Neophites but according to our second Consideration of the Veneration and respect which we ought to have for so great a Sacrament the Greek word used by St. Cyril being to be understood by that of veneration and respect because he speaks of an Object which is not adorable with the Adoration of Latery that is to say of the Sacrament and that besides he would not have said barely Approach with a little bowing the body but he would precisely have commanded to have adored it before receiving of it this action being of too great moment to speak so indifferently of and not to have commanded it after a more exact manner I will ad unto all these reasons that St. Cyril requires nothing of his Communicants but what what St. Chrysostom doth require of his also and yet in stronger terms of his Catechumeny when the time of their Catechising was expired that they presented themselves to be baptized In illud simile est regnum coelor patrifamil t. 6. p. 550. When you shall saith he come into the Closet of the holy Spirit when you shall run into the Marriage-Chamber of Grace when you shall be near unto that terrible and also desirable Pool prostrate your selves as Captives before your King cast your selves all together on your knees and lifting up your hands unto Heaven where the King of us all is sitting on his Royal Throne and lifting up your eyes unto that Eye which never slumbers use these words unto that Lover of Mankind c. Is not this approaching unto Baptism in a way of Worship and Adoration as St. Cyril desired one should approach unto the holy Communion And yet Christians never inferred from the words of St. Chrysostom that the Water of this Sacrament of our Regeneration was to be adored But what I say of the water of Baptism the same Chrysostom requires we should also do of the hearing of the Word of God The King himself saith he will not have his Diadem upon his head In illud ne eleemos vestr sac t. 6. p. 528. but lays it aside in reverence unto God speaking in the holy Gospel What saith he I know his Dignity which hath given me mine I adore his Kingdom which hath been pleased to make me reign And to say the truth we owe the same respect and veneration unto the Word of God and to his Sacraments which we do owe unto him which is the Author of them by giving him the Soveraign Adoration which we are obliged to render him at all times especially when we hear his Word read and preached and when we participate of his divine Sacraments If we descend yet lower than St. Austin we may inform our selves of what hath been practised in the Church since his death upon the Subject of the Adoration of the Sacrament for we have in the Works of St. Ambrose two Treatises touching the same matter made in the behalf of those newly initiated of which the latter entituled Of the Sacraments is more ample than the other We have that of Ecclesiastical Offices composed by St. Isidore Arch-Bishop of Sevil the Book of Sacraments of Gregory the First that made by Maximius Abbot of Constantinople expounding very mystically all the Action of the Sacrament German Patriarch of the same place also employed himself upon the same Subject and hath at large all that long History of Ceremonies practised in an Age which had already departed very much from the simplicity of the primitive times The Book called The Roman Order doth also examine all the particulars of the publick Service practiced in the Church of Rome We have in the IX Century the Treatise of Rabanus Arch-Bishop of Mayans of the Institution of Clerks that of Ecclesiastical Offices of Amalarius Fortunatus that of Walfridus Strabo almost under the same Title that of Florus under the name of Explication of the Mass In fine we have several other Treatises of the manner and order that ought to be observed in the Celebration of the Mass or of the Eucharist which Hugh Mainard a learned Benedictine hath caused to be printed with the Books of Sacraments of Gregory the Great as that he took from the Manuscript of Ratold Abbot of Corby about the Year 986. Another from the Library of du Tillet and which he saith is the Roman Order of the Year 1032. and a third of the Priory of Saluse in Normandy of the Prebends of the Order of St. Austin about the Year 1079. But in all this we do not find one word of the Adoration of the Sacrament no more than the Interpreters and Commentators of the History of the Institution of it which are not a few Moreover the expressions of the ancient Doctors of the Church will not a little contribute unto the illustrating of this matter for if they had a design to have Christians worship the Sacrament before receiving of it or at the instant of communicating methinks they should have spoke in a manner and way which should have possessed them with thoughts and dispositions suitable and which should have made them to conceive of it the same Opinion which one hath for an Object which is truly adorable Nevertheless instead of so doing I find their Instructions tended rather to divert than to incline them unto this Homage In fine I cannot comprehend that the people could dispose themselves unto the Adoration of the Eucharist when they heard the holy Fathers unanimously call it Bread and Wine even in the very act of Communion Wheat the Fruit of the Vine the Fruit of the Harvest and the like things They testifie it is Bread which is broke positively affirm that it is Bread and Wine Bread which nourisheth our Bodies which is inanimate which is digested the substance whereof remains after Consecration in a word Bread subject unto the same accidents with our common food For these are so many formal Declarations which these holy Doctors have made unto us in the second Chapter of the second Part. Must it not be
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
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
Decission of Popes and their Councils in favour of the Doctrine of Paschas separated themselves openly from their Communion and gave their Reasons for so doing in a Book which they published to that purpose in the vulgar Tongue wherein they made this Declaration of their Faith touching the Eucharist Hist de Albigensis de Paul Perrin l. 3. c. 4. The eating of the Sacramental Bread is the eating of the Body of Jesus Christ figuratively Jesus Christ having said As often as you do this do it in remembrance of me This Book as is observed by him that inserted it wholly in his History of the Albigensis and the Waldensis was taken from a Manuscript wherein was contained several Sermons of the Barbes so it was that those people called their Pastors it is dated in the Year 1120. which I find nothing strange when I consider that in the Year 1119. Pope Calixtus the Second assembled a Council at Tholouse in his own presence wherein certain Hereticks were condemned who rejected the Sacrament of the Eucharist that is to say which in all likelihood did not believe what the Latin Church believed We are obliged for the Canons of this Council unto Monsieur Baluze who hath inserted them wholly in a Book of Monsieur de Marca's touching the Liberties of the Gallican Church In the third of these Canons this Ordinance is made Apud Marc. de Concord l. 8. c. 18. p. 344. We expel out of the Church as Hereticks and condemn those who making a shew of piety do not approve the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Lord c. We command all Secular Powers to punish them and we bind with the same Bond of Excommunication those which shall protect them until such time as they shall repent This Canon as far as I see concerns only these Albigensis who not approving the Doctrine of the Latin Church upon the point of the Eucharist separated themselves from their Communion after it had condemned the Doctrine taught by Berengarius and established that of Paschas in the XI Century although it had not admitted thereof before And what confirms me in this Opinion is what I find in the Chronicle of St. Tron in the Country of Liege touching Radolph Abbot of that Monastery and besides Author of the Chronicle viz. That being gone to Rome in Pope Honorius the Second his time who was advanced to this Dignity in the Year 1125. and held the Chair five years he had a design to travel into another Country which he doth not name but that he was informed that it was infected with the Heresie of the Sacramentarians that is to say the Doctrine which was condemned in the person of Berengarius It adds Moreover Tom. 7. Spicil d'Ach. p. 493. he understood that the Country towards which he had a design to travel in going farther it was infected with the old Heresie of the Body and Blood of our Lord. This Radolph was Abbot of Tron Anno 1108. and he wrote his Chronicle about the Year 1125. There was then at that time a Country wherein Profession was made of a Belief contrary unto that of the Latin Church in the point of the Sacrament and because this Abbot had received and approved the Decisions of Leo Victor Nicholas and of Gregory against Berengarius and against his Doctrine he calls the other Opinion Heresie and not only Heresie but the old Heresie this is the very term he useth which sheweth that the Belief which he condemns was no new Invention according to the Judgment of this Author but that it had of a long time been much spoken of and that it was publickly professed by great numbers of people especially in the Country mentioned by him which in all probability was the Country of Languedock wherein the followers of Berengarius spread and published abroad his Doctrine immediately after his death not valuing the Prohibitions and Decrees of the Councils of Verceil of Rome and of Tours On the contrary seeing they authorized and passed into an Article of Faith an Opinion which they esteemed to be Novel and contrary unto the ancient Doctrine of Christians they separated and broke off from the Latin Church in whose Communion they had lived till that time These people had for their chief Conducter Peter de Bruis who after having defended and maintained this Faith and Doctrine having preached and published it for the space of twenty years in Languedock in Gascoygne and elsewhere was at last Martyred and burnt at St. Giles in Languedock by the care and diligence of the Latin Church preferring rather to suffer death and to seal with his Blood the Doctrine which he had taught and which infinite numbers of people openly professed than to return unto the Communion which he had forsaken After Peter de Bruis succeeded Henry who with some others defended the Faith of these Churches which after his Name were called Henritians as they had been also called Petrobusians from the Name of his Predecessor It is true that those which had caused Peter de Bruis to be burnt found means also to suppress Henry by Order of Pope Eugenius for Cardinal Alberick Vita S. Bernardi l. 3. c. 5. Bishop of Osty his Legat having got him into his power order'd matters so that he was never heard of after neither could it be heard of what manner of death he died but we know very well that Pope Eugenius being informed of the great progress made by Henry after the death of Peter de Bruis whose Martyrdom did only increase and heighten his Zeal for the Defence of the Faith we know I say that the Pope sent Alberick his Legat who with Gaufrid Bishop of Chartres St. Bernard Abbot of Clervaux who was at that time in great esteem with some others Baron ad An. 1147. who went towards Tholouse to pluck up these Thorns as Cardinal Baronius saith St. Bernard wrote beforehand unto Alphonsus Count of St. Giles in Languedock who favoured Henry with his Protection notwithstanding the violent death which Peter de Bruis had suffered Bernard Ep. 240. In this Letter St. Bernard saith several things against the Doctrine and the Conversation of Henry who from a Friar that he was had embraced the Opinion and Party of Peter his Colleague less modest therein than Peter de Cluny his Contemporary and also a great Enemy of the Albigensis Contr. Petrobrus against whom he wrote under the name of Petrobusians for he declares that he will suspend his Judgment of what was reported of Henry until he was more certainly informed of it So that I cannot tell if it might not be applied unto St. Bernard In Frideric l. 1. c. 47. in this occasion what was said by Otto de Frisinge That by a mildness which was natural unto him he became in a manner over credulous In fine St. Bernard being come to Tholouse Vita Bernard l. 3. c. 5 6. he bestirred himself with much
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
carried sundry sorts of meat unto the Monuments of Martyrs and after Prayers they carried them to their Houses ate of them and gave Alms with an opinion that they were sanctified by the merits of the Martyrs But now 't is high time to enquire what was the form of the Bread which was offered for the Celebration of the Eucharist The Apostle S. Paul saies in the tenth Chapter of the first to the Corinthians That we are all partakers of one Bread This makes me think that they offered upon the holy Table a Loaf greater or less according to the number of Communicants the unity of this Loaf representing the unity of the Mystical Body of Christ and this Loaf was broken into pieces to give a share unto each Communicant The Author of the Letter unto the Philadelphians under the name of St. Ignatius gives us no leave to doubt of it for we therein read these words There is one only Bread broke unto all Ign. ad Philad Id. ad Ephes and in that to the Ephesians he speaks after this sort of breaking one only Loaf Durandus hath well observed it in his Rational above 300 years ago They offered saith he a great Loaf which served them all Durand Bat. l. 4. c. 53. â—â— 3 It is said the Greeks still observe the same Custom which is very true and also several Christian Communions observe it at this present time that is that they proportion the Bread of the Eucharist unto the number of Communicants whether they offer them whole upon the Table of the Church as it is supposed to be the practice at this day amongst the Abassins or whether it be divided into pieces or parcels before they are offered Epiph. in Anch. Greg. 1. Dial. l. 4. c. 55. These Loaves were of a round form as S. Epiphanus tells us and were like Loaves or Cakes therefore in the Dialogues of Gregory the first they are called Crowns for he makes mention of a Priest that carried to a certain person two Crowns of Oblations therefore a certain Interpreter of the Roman Order in Cassander has this observation Apud Cassan in Liturg. p. 60. That although it appear'd that the form and measure of Oblations did antiently depend on the Zeal and Devotion of each particular person yet we may gather from the works of St. Gregory some marks of this custom And having produced what hath been above alledged of the Fourth Book of his Dialogues he adds These Crowns were like those which Christians were wont to offer unto God at that time for themselves and for theirs Then again saith he it appears of what bigness and form the Oblations of Sacrificers ought to be which they are bound to make of a bandful of Flower and in form of a Crown which is to offer a Loaf of Bread Such were the Oblations which were found in the Grave of S. Othmar in the Eighth Century when Solomon Bishop of Constance opened it Vâ—t O hmar apud Sur. An. â—20 16. Nov. for 't is said That there were found under his head certain pieces of Bread of a round form which are commonly called Oblations At this time many would call them Wafers but then they were still called Oblations and there is no question to be made but those Loaves were for their greatness and bigness proportioned unto the number of Believers which were to Communicate This custom was so well setled that 't is not to be found in the Books of the Ancients that there befell any alteration until the end of the Seventh Century that some Priests in Spain bethought themselves of raising into a round form a little Crust of bread which they had prepared for their own use the which they employed in making their Sacrament But the Sixteenth Council of Toledo assembled Anno 693. provided against this disorder and abuse by the Sixth Canon which contains this excellent Rule Concil 16. Tolet c. 6. It is come unto the knowledge of our Assembly that in some part of Spain certain Priests either through ignorance or impudent temerity do not offer upon the Lord's Table Loaves of Bread fitted and prepared on purpose but as each one is thereto enclined by necessity or carried by inclination they raise hastily and in a round form little Crusts of Bread intended for their particular use and offer them at the Altar with Water and Wine for an holy Oblation and thereupon having alledged the Texts of three Evangelists and of St. Paul the Council doth thus determine In fine what we can collect is That taking a whole Loaf he brake it and blessed it and gave it by Parcels unto each of his Disciples to shew us to do the like for time to come and without doubt to signifie that each morsel is Bread but that all Bread is not a Morsel whence it is that he saith in the following words pointing at him that was to betray him Unto whom I shall give the Sop he it is therefore seeing the words of our Redeemer shew that he took a whole Loaf and not a morsel and that he gave it by parcels unto his Disciples in breaking it after having blessed it and also seeing the Apostle St. Paul mentions that he took Bread and broke it giving Thanks c. is it not to teach us that we should take a whole Loaf and set it upon the Lords Table to be Blessed and not a piece of Bread seeing that our Lord did not so for if man be careful with affection to employ all the diligence he can possible for preserving his Life how much more care and exactness ought he to shew for the purity which ought to be observed in the service of God therefore desiring to set bounds unto this temerity or ignorance we have with a full consent thought fit that the Bread set upon the Table of the Lord to be sanctified by the Ministerial Benediction should be an entire clean and whole Loaf prepared for that purpose Afterwards the Fathers do recommend the use of midling Oblations intending as I conjecture that the quantity of Bread should be proportioned to the number of Communicants to the end that what remains say they may the better be kept or if it be eaten that it should not incommode the Stomach by its quantity and weight and that it may appear that 't is intended rather to feed the Soul than the Body It may therefore easily be conceived that these midling Oblations mentioned by the Council of Toledo are so called in reference to the number of Communicants which were to participate of the holy Sacrament unto whom the Bread offered for the Communion was to be proportioned and that they should not be made too big fearing lest it should be thought that more regard was had unto the matter of the Sacrament than unto the Virtue and to feeding the Body by digestion than to strengthening the Soul by Heavenly and Spiritual Nourishment Yet nevertheless this Decree be very
't is very uncertain whose the Sermon is the words whereof we intend to cite They are consecrated by the invocation of Almighty God De Pasch Hom. 5. Lib. 9. p. 405. and in the same Sermon he attributes it unto sanctification The Sanctification saith he being pronounced he saith Take and drink Facundus of Hermiane The Lord called his Body and Blood the Bread which he had blessed and the Cup which he gave unto his Disciples Gregory the first Bishop of Rome Epist l. 7. What we say of the Lords Prayer presently after invocation it is because the Apostles were wont to consecrate the host of the Oblation Epist 63. by that Prayer only Which some have observed after him that have written of Ecclesiastical Offices as Amalarius Lib. 4. Cap. 26. Walafridus Strabo cap. 20 and Berno cap. 1. Isidore of Sevill De Eccles offic l. 1. c. 15. St. Peter first of all instituted the order of Prayers by the which are consecrated the Sacrifices offered unto God And elsewhere it is called a Sacrifice as a holy action because it is consecrated by mystical Prayer in remembrance of the passion which our Lord suffered for us The Books of Charlemain touching Images The Sacrament of the Body and blood of our Lord c. is consecrated by the Priest by the invocation of the name of God De Instit Cler. l. 1. c. 32. Rabanus Maurus The Lord first of all consecrated by Prayers and Thanksgiving the Sacraments of his Body and Blood and gave them unto his Disciples which his Apostles imitating practised afterwards and taught their Successors to do so likewise which the whole Church doth now practise all the World over Ibid. c. 33. And again As the Body of Jesus Christ was embalmed with sweet Spices was duely put into a new Sepulchre so in like manner in his Church his mystical Body being prepared with the perfumes of Holy Prayer it is administred in sacred Vessels by the Ministry of Priests Serm. 11 t. 4. Bibl. Patr. part 2. to the end Believers might receive it Egberâ— against the Cathari in the XII Century seems also to refer the Consecration unto the Benediction although his Doctrine is quite different from that of Rabanus Had we no other testimonies but these above-mentioned and which are frequently alledged they were doubtless sufficient to prove that in the Primitive Church the Consecration of the Symbols of the Eucharist was performed by Prayers and giving of Thanks but because the thing is of great importance the Reader will not be displeased if I joyn the following testimonies unto the former To begin with St. Fulgentius who in the Fragments of his Books against Fabian saith Ex libro 8. p. 202. You have imagined touching the Prayer by the which at the time of Sacrifice the Descent of the Holy Ghost is implored that it would seem to imply that he is locally present and a little after The Holy Spirit doth sanctifie the Sacrifice and Baptism by his Divine Vertue Macarius Bishop of Antioch in the eighth Act of the VI. general Council We saith he Tom. 5. Concil p. 99. E. draw near unto the mystical Blessings and are sanctified being made partakers of the holy Body and of the precious blood of Jesus Christ the Saviour of all The XVI Council of Toledo assembled Anno. 693. saith Can. 6. t. 5. Concil p. 430. C. That the Apostle taught us to take a whole loaf and to put it upon the Table or Altar to be blessed And again Our assembly hath appointed by a general consent that there should be presented at the Lords Table an intire and good loaf to be consecrated by the Ministerial benediction A Council of Constantinople composed of 338. Bishops assembled Anno. 754. said That the Lord would that the Bread of the Eucharist Act 6. Concil 2. Niceni t. 5. Concil p. 756. as a true figure or image of his natural Body being sanctified by the coming of the Holy Ghost did become his Divine Body and would you know how The Priest which makes the Oblation say the Fathers interposing to make it Holy whereas it was common to wit by his Prayers whereby he begs of God the presence of the Holy Ghost George Pachimer In Epist 9. t. 1. p. 290. Paraphraser of the pretended Denys the Areopagite declares That the mysteries are consecrated upon the Holy Table by Blessing the Bread and the Holy Cup. In the antient Formularies of an uncertain Author published by the late Monsieur Bignon C. 8. p. 121. ult edit the Author whereof lived in the days of Louis the Debonnair we find that this Prince to honour the Church ordered that all those should be set free and at liberty that were admitted into holy Orders and saith he who consecrate by the intervention of their Prayers De ordine baptism tit 18. the Body and Blood of our Lord. Theodulph Bishop of Orleans by the invisible Consecration of the Holy Ghost Pope Nicolas the first writing unto the Emperor of Constantinople Tom. 6. Concil p. 489. attributes the Consecration unto the benediction and Sanctification of the Holy Ghost Which words are found cited in the IV. Act of the Council assembled against Photius Ibid. p 738. which the Latins call the VIII Oecumenical Council The Council of Cressy assembled Anno. 858. saith Tom. 3. Conc. Gall. p. 129. That Consecratton is made by Prayer and by the sign of the Cross Charles the Bald King of France and Emperour of the West writing unto Pope Adrian the second complaining of some sharp and bitter words which this Pope used against him writes unto him amongst other things We cannot think that such words can proceed out of your mouth Supplem Conc. Gal. p. 265. as make the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ by devout and holy Prayer Hugh Maynard a Benedictine Frier alledges in his notes upon the Books of the Sacraments of Gregory the first two Manuscripts of the Library of Corby viz an old explication of the Canon of the Mass and an ancient Treatise of the Mass in both which the Consecration is attributed unto Prayers In the former of these Manuscripts are found these words by Maynard's relation The Sacrifices are those which are consecrated with Prayers P. 12. P. 13. and in the other Sacrifices that is things made holy because they are consecrated by mistical Prayer Which words as is observed by this learned Frier were upon a matter taken out of S. Isidore lib. 6. Orig. c. 19. Ratherius Bishop of Verona in Italy in the tenth Century in his Treatise of the contempt of Canons Tom. 2. Spicil p. 183. first Part. The Oblation saith he which is to be presented and distributed unto the People is consecrated chiefly by the Prayer wherein we say unto God Our Father which art in Heaven Which in all likelihood he borrowed from Gregory the first In fine the whole Greek Church
this holy Religion of the Son of God for in all their Apologies they spake not one word of the external Sacrifices of Christians though they were not ignorant that it had been the fittest and most effectual way to have invited the Pagans and Jews unto the Profession of the Gospel on the contrary they explain themselves so clearly on this matter that it is not to be wondered at that their Enemies should shun a Religion wherein by the confession and owning of those very persons who defended it by the purity and innocency of their writings there were no such Sacrifices as those whom they desired to convert did look for and expect for instance St Justin Martry retorting the calumny of Atheism and Impiety wherewith the Jews and Pagans endeavoured to slander our holy Religion by reason thereof is content to say Just Marr. Apol. 2. vel 1. p. 58 60. That there are no other Sacrifices to be made but Prayers and giving Thanks which sweeten all the other Oblations which we make unto God to honour him as we are bound and according to his Merit Id. Ep. ad Diogn p. 495 496. And in another part of his Works he rejects the Sacrifices of Jews and Pagans but without assigning unto Christians any which to speak properly may be so called He also doth almost the very same in disputing against Tryphon the Jew Id. contr Tryph. p. 238 239 240. wherein he sheweth that the Service of God doth not consist in their Sacrifices and that therefore is the reason Christians do not offer any without saying they have others different from theirs he indeed confesseth in the same Dialogue That the Christians offer unto God an Oblation well pleasing in his sight according to the Prophecy of Malachy when they do celebrate their Eucharist of Bread and Wine And when his Adversary explains these Oblations and Sacrifices of Malachy of Prayers and Invocations which those of the Jewish Nation who were in Captivity addressed unto our Lord for removing their Calamity and Misery St. Justin makes this Answer Ibid. p. 344 345. I fay also That the Prayers and Thanksgivings of Saints and Believers are the only Sacrifices perfect and well pleasing unto God and that they be the only Sacrifices which Christians have learned to make even then it self when they celebrate the Sacrament It is what he designs by the wet and dry Food and it is therein he saith that they shew forth a commemoration of the Death of the Lord. Afterwards this holy Doctor observes That in the days of Malachy there were no Jews scattered abroad over the World whereas amongst all Nations and all Countries of the World at the time our glorious Martyr wrote there were offered unto God the Creator of all things Prayers and Thanksgivings in the Name of Christ Jesus whence it is that he saith of Christians in general Ibid. p. 314. C. That they are a Royal Priesthood offering unto God holy and agreeable Sacrifices God not accepting any but of his own Priests Athenagoras in his Apology for the Christians making himself the same objection that Justin Martyr did on the behalf of the Enemies of the Gospel of Jesus Christ answereth no otherwise than he had done he represents That God who made all things hath no need of Blood of Odors Flowers nor Perfumes That the great Sacrifice which he desires is That we should know him That we should be instructed in the greatness of his power whereby he hath stretched out the Heavens gathered the Waters together in the Sea divided betwixt Light and Darkness beautified the Sky with Stars caused the Earth to encrease created Beasts and made Man That it sufficeth to lift up pure hands to him who standeth not in need of any other Oblation or more splendid Sacrifice Athenag pro Christ p. 13. Minut. in Octav. Whereunto he adds But what need have I to be troubled for Offerings and Sacrifices seeing God careth not for them he requires an unbloody Sacrifice a reasonable Service and when the Pagan asks this Question of the Christian in Minutius Felix Wherefore the Christians have no Temples nor Altars the Christian answers Do you think that we do conceal what we worship under a shew that we have no Temples nor Altars and thereupon he makes this excellent reflection worthy of the School of Jesus Christ That the Sacrifice which ought to be offered unto God is a good Soul a pure Conscience and Faith unfeigned That to live uprightly do Justice abstain from Evil and hinder his Neighbour from hurt is to offer a fat Sacrifice These are our Sacrifices Orig. contr Cels l. 8. p. 389. ult Edit saith he this is our Service The Philosopher Celsus in Origen reproaching Christians that they have no Altars this learned Man agrees with the Pagan and confesseth that by consequence they also had no Sacrifice because there is a strict relation betwixt a a true Altar and a Sacrifice properly so called And in the same Book Ibid. p. 487. he opposeth unto the Sacrifices offered by the Pagans for the Emperours the Prayers which Christians made for the conservation of their persons the prosperity of their souls and the establishing of their Empire and saith That by them they fought like Priests of God which made Tertullian say as was before mentioned Tertul. Apol. C. 30. That the fairest and fattest Sacrifice which God requires is prayer from a pure heart an innocent soul and a holy mind and that 't is that also which they offer for the preservation of the Emperours It is of prayer also that he explains in the same work Ibid. c. 39. this excellent Oblation and that he saith elsewhere That that is done by prayer only which God hath commanded Ibid. ad Scap. c. 2. Clem. Alex. Strom. l. 7. p. 707. because the Creator of the Vniverse hath no need of Blood and of Incense And Clement of Alexandria doth not he make this Declaration That we do not sacrifice unto God who standeth in need of nothing but that we do glorifie him that was sacrificed for us in sacrificing of our own selves that we honour him by prayers Ibid. p. 717. that we do justly offer unto him this most excellent and most holy Sacrifice Ibid. that the Altar which we have upon Earth is the Assembly of those which are dedicated unto prayer as if they had but one heart and one mind Ibid. p. 719. That the Sacrifice of the Church is the Word which like sweet Incense proceeds from devout souls That the truly sound Altar is the just upright soul That not sumptuous Sacrifices should be offered unto God but such as may be acceptable unto him That the Sacrifices of Christians are prayers praises Ibid. p. 728. the reading the holy Scriptures Hymns and Psalms the instructing the ignorant and liberality to the Poor But nothing can be seen clearer and more positive than what is
said by Arnobius in the beginning of the Fourth Century this Christian Orator having related at the end of his Sixth Book that the Pagans were wont to make grievous reproaches against the Christians and to call them Atheists because they did not sacrifice He thus begins his Seventh Book What then will some say Arnob. contr gent. lib. 7. init think you that no Sacrifice at all ought to be made There ought indeed none to be made saith he to the end to give you the opinion of your Varro and not ours only Lactantius his Contemporary and of the same profession Lactant. instit l. 6. c. 25. having undertaken to treat of a Sacrifice therein considers two things The Gift and the Sacrifice it self And he saith That the one and the other ought to be incorporeal that is Spiritual to be offered unto God that the integrity of the soul is the Oblation that the Praise and Hymn is the Sacrifice That if God is invisible he must then be served with invisible things He approves the Maxime of Trismegistus That the Benediction only is the Sacrifice of the true God And thence he concludes That the highest manner of serving God is the praise offered unto him by the mouth of a just man And elsewhere he saith That he will shew what is the orue Sacrifice of God and the truest manner of serving him And see here how he doth it He saith first That God doth not require of us either Sacrifices or perfumes or other the like presents that for incorporeal that is Spiritual Natures there must be an incorporeal Sacrifice that is to say Spiritual And afterwards What is it then Id. Epitemâ— c. 2. saith he that God requires of man but the service of the understanding which is pure and holy for as for the things done with the Fingers or that are without the man they are not a true Sacrifice the true Sacrifice is what proceeds out of the heart and not what is taken out of the Coffer â— it is what 's offered not with the hand but with the heart it is the agreeable Sacrifice which the soul offers of it self In fine he concludes that righteousness is the only thing which God requires of us and that it is therein the service and Sacrifice consists which God desires Cyril Alex. l. 10. contr Julian t. 6 p. 343. It will not be unnecessary to join unto these Witnesses S. Cyril Bishop of Alexandria who refutes the Writing published against the Christians by Julian the Apostate about seventy years before in which Writing this foul Deserter of the Truth taxed them amongst other things that they approached not unto the Sacrifices and Oblations of the Altars and that they did not sacrifice yet this wicked wretch was not ignorant of what was practised in the Worship and Service of the Church and therefore this reproach must needs have some shew of truth otherwise he had exposed himself unto the scorn and contempt of all the World And S. Cyril answering in order unto all that this Apostate had spewed out against the Religion of Jesus Christ would not have failed to have cried O the Impostor if the Christians of his time that is of the Fifth Century had truly sacrificed and if they had amongst them real Sacrifices Let us then see and without prejudice exactly examine what S. Cyril replyed unto this Wretch's reproach Ibid. p. 344. B. He freely confesseth that Christians do not sacrifice any more Because the types and figures having given place unto the truth we are commanded to consecrate unto God Almighty a pure and spiritual service Ibid. p. 345. B. Vnto fire which formerly came down from Heaven upon the Sacrifices and which we have not now he opposeth the Holy Ghost Ibid. C. which proceeding from the Father by the Son comes and illuminates the Church Vnto Oxen Sheep Pidgeons Doves unto the Fruits Meal and Oyl of the Israelites be opposeth our spiritual and reasonable Oblations And explaining unto us wherein they consist and their nature and quality We offer unto God saith he an Odour of a sweet savour all manner of vertue or truth Faith Hope Charity Justice Temperance Obedience Humility a continual Praise and Thanksgiving of the Lord and his works and all the other vertues for this Sacrifice purely Spiritual agrees well with God whose Nature is purely simple and immaterial the life and actions of a truly good man are the perfumes of a reasonable service And having alledged some passages of the holy Scriptures to confirm this Doctrine He concludes as he began Ibid. p. 346. C. We sacrifice unto God saith he Spiritual things and instead of material fire we are filled with the Holy Ghost From this same Fountain proceeds another Doctrine of these first Conducters of the Christian Churches which consists in instructing Believers and teaching them what had succeeded unto the Sacrifices of the Law I do not find after an exact scrutiny that they alledge or insist upon the Sacrament but they are contented to oppose unto the Mosaical Sacrifices either the Spiritutal Sacrifices which we offer unto God under the Gospel or the truly propitiatory Sacrifice of the Cross or both of them together In regard of the former the Author of the Apostolical Constitutions Const Apost l. 2. c. 25. said That unto the Sacrifices of the Law succeeded prayers vows and giving of thanks and that the First fruits Tythes and portions and gifts of those times are now changed into the Oblations which the Bishops offer unto God through Jesus Christ who died for all He means the Oblations of Bread and Wine which Believers made and generally all things presented by them unto God in behalf of the Christian people Thence it is that he saith also elsewhere Id. l. 6. c. 23. That instead of Sacrifices which were made by shedding of blood Jesus Christ hath given to us a reasonable Sacrifice Mystical and unbloody which is celebrated in remembrance of his death by the Symbols of his Body and Blood In which words indeed he makes mention of the Eucharist but as of a Mystical and Spiritual Sacrifice and in the same sense which he said That our Sacrifices at present are prayers and giving of thanks Origen in all his Homilies upon Leviticus doth very exactly after his manner seek for all the mystical significations of the ancient Sacrifices but I do not find that he doth once speak of a propitiatory Sacrifice offered every day unto God by Christians Origen Hom. 2. in Levit. In the second Homily he mentions at large the means which we have under the Gospel besides that of holy Baptism to obtain the remission of our sins Ib. Hom. 5. but amongst all those means I do not find the Sacrifice of the Eucharist In the fifth he shews how the Ministers of the Gospel do make propitiation for the sins of the people but he only alledges for that the instructions and
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
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.
Concil Nicaen 2 act 6. assembled at Constantinople against Images in the year 754. Jesus Christ say these Fathers having taken Bread blessed it and having given Thanks he brake it and giving it to his Disciples he said Take eat for the Remission of Sins This is my Body in like manner having given the Cup he said This is my Blood do this in remembrance of me there being no other kind of Thing nor Figure chosen by him that could so fitly represent his Incarnation See then the Image of his quickning Body made honourably and gloriously Here are eleven substantial Witnesses which being added unto the five others which we passed over and shall appear in due time make up the number of sixteen without touching those which may by evident and necessary Consequences be drawn unto the same Testimonyâ— for I have made choice only of those which seemed most evident and of those also some speak in more express Terms than others The Reader may judg if all these Witnesses which speak of Bread Wine Fruit of the Vine of Figure Sign Type Symbol Sacrament of Representation of Fruits of the Earth do not give a figurative sense unto these Words This is my Body This is my Blood And to do it the better let him exactly see if any of these antient Commentators have spoken of Reality of bodily Conversion and of local Presence in interpreting them for say the Protestants they could not pass over in silence so important a Doctrine as that in an occasion which indispensably obliged them to say something of it without rendring themselves guilty of horrid Hypocrisy and Injustice So that if they have not done it and that there appears no such thing in what hath been produced and examined as indeed say they whatever Scrutiny we could make no such thing nor like it doth appear it may be safely and lawfully concluded that all these Fathers have taken these Words not in a proper and literal Sense but in a figurative and metaphorical Sense Moreover all these Reflections of the Ancients upon these Words of the Institution of the Sacrament amount just to the manner of understanding them commanded by the Council of Trent when it forbids to interpret the holy Scriptures Sess 4. contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers Because as 't is explained by Melchior Canus Locor l 7. c. 3. num 10. Bishop of the Canaries who assisted at the Council The Sense of all the Saints is the Sense of the Holy Ghost CHAP. II. Of what the Father 's believed concerning what we receive in the Sacrament and what they have said of it BEsides the many Reflections made by the ancient Doctors upon the Words used by our Saviour in the instituting this most august Sacrament which we have sufficiently enumerated and set down in the foregoing Chapter I find they have said many other things which may direct us unto the true understanding of their Belief which we will enquire into in this second Chapter In the first place they have called the Eucharist Bread and Wine in the very act of communicating There is given unto each of these present Just Mart. Apol. 2. vol. 1. Iâ—en l. 4. c 34. saith Justin Martyr the Bread the Wine and the Water which have been consecrated St. Irenaeus Bishop of Lyons gives it the same Name calling it The Bread upon which Prayers and Thanks have been made And I make no question Contr. Tryph. p. 260. Orig. contr Cels l. 8. Id. ibid. Id. Homil. 5. in Levitic Cyprian Ep. 76. 63 Apud Euseb Hist l. 6 c. 43. prope fin but 't is also for the same reason that our Christian Philosopher I mean St. Justin speaks of the Eucharist of Bread and Wine Origen against Celsus The Bread which is called the Eucharist the Symbol of our Duty towards God And in the same Book The Bread offered with Thanksgivings and Prayers made for the Mercies bestowed on us And in his Homilies upon Leviticus The Bread which the Lord gave unto his Disciples St. Cyprian was of the same Judgment when he called it The Bread of the Lord And in his Treatise of the Cup or in his Epistle to Cecilius he very often calls it Bread and Wine mix'd with Water and saith That the Body of the Lord is not Flower only nor Water only but a composition of these two things kneaded and moulded together and made into the substance of Bread And Cornelius Bishop of Rome writing unto Fabian Bishop of Antioch of what passed in the undue Ordination of Novatian unto the Episcopacy and speaking of the Sacrament in the act of distribution and reception he calls it That Bread From hence 't is that Tertullian disputing against the Marcionites Tertul. contr Marc. l. 1. c. 23. who taught that the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ was not the Creator he reproaches them That they were baptized in the name of another God upon anothers Earth and with anothers Water and that they made Prayers and gave Thanks unto another God upon the Bread of another It is easy to understand that in speaking in that manner to Marcion he presupposed that the Orthodox made their Prayers unto God the Creator upon this Bread that is to say The Bread of the Eucharist And the Author of the Epistle to the Philadelphians under Ignatius's Name Ep. ad Philad saith That there is one Bread broken unto all If we descend lower Conc. Ancyr c. 2. Conc. Neoces c. 13. we shall find that the Council of Ancyrus in the year 314 forbids Deacons that had sacrificed unto Idols To present the Bread and the Cup. And that of Neocesarea of the same Year saith That the Country-Priests cannot offer nor give the Bread in Prayer nor the Cup in the chief Church in the City if the Bishop or the Priests of the City are present Euseb dem l. 5. c. 3. Eusebius Bishop of Cesarea wrote about the year 328. That the Ministers of the Christian Church express darkly by the Bread and Wine the Mysteries of the Body and Blood of Christ It was also the opinion of St. Hilary Bishop of Poictiers Bil. in Matth. c. 30. when he said That the Passover of our Lord was made the Lord having taken the Cup and broke the Bread Macar Hom. 27. St. Macarius followed the same Steps in saying That in the Church one participates of visible Bread to eat spiritually the Flesh of our Lord. Concil Laod. c. 25. The Council of Laodicea assembled about the year 360 ordains That Ministers ought not that is to say the Deacons or rather Sub-Deacons to administer the Bread nor bless the Cup. A Council of Carthage made this Decree Concil Carth. c. 24. That in the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of our Lord nothing else should be offered but what the Lord himself had done to wit Bread and Wine mingled with Water This Decree is the 37th in the Code
Adim c. 12. is that of Sign St. Austin saith That our Lord made no difficulty to say This is my Body when he gave the Sign of his Body The third is that of Figure Tertul. contr Marc. l. 4. c. 40. according to which Tertullian said That Jesus Christ made the Bread his Body in saying This is my Body that is to say the Figure of my Body Id. l. 3. c. 19. and in the foregoing Book he said That our Lord gave unto the Bread the Figure of his Body St. Gaudentius Bishop of Bress Gaud. tract 2. in Exod. Aug. in Psal 3. said That the Wine is offered in Figure of the Passion of our Lord that is to say of his Blood And St. Austin declares that Jesus Christ in his first Sacrament recommended and gave unto his Apostles the Figure of his Body and Blood It was also the Opinion of the Author of the Treatise of the Sacraments L. 4. de Sacram. apâ—d Ambros falsly attributed unto St. Ambrose when he calls the Oblation of the Eucharist The Figure of the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ This Passage also is alledged by Paschas Rathbert â—ede in Luc. c. 22. in his Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord. Venerable Bede who died Anno 735 spoke the same Language for in his Commentary upon the Gospel according to St. Luke he saith That instead of the Flesh and Blood of the Jews Passover Our Lord substituted the Sacrament of his Flesh and Blood in the Figure of Bread and Wine Id. in Psal 3. And upon the 3d Psalm he repeats the Words of St. Austin and saith That our Lord in his Sacrament gave unto his Disciples the Figure of his Body and Blood This Expression continued longer in the Latin Church seeing Charlemain who lived until the Year 814 used it in one of his Letters unto Alcuin De Ration Sepâ—â—uzg ad Alcuin wherein he treats of the Reason of the Septuagesima Our Lord saith he Supping with his Disciples broke Bread and also gave them the Cup for the Figure of his Body and Blood and left them a great Sacrament for our Benefit Christian Druthmar will employ the same Word in the IXth Century The fourth is that of Type Eâ—â—r de natur Dei non serut in this sense Ephrem the Syrian saith in the IVth Century That our Lord taking Bread into his Hands broke it and blessed it for a Type of his immaculate Body and that he blessed the Cup and gave it to his Disciples for a Type of his Blood Cyril Hiâ—ros Mystag 4. St. Cyril of Jerusalem In the Type of the Bread is the Body given unto you and the Blood in the Type of Wine St. Gregory of Nazianzen Greg. Nazian Orat. 42. vol. 2. de Pasch We are made Partakers of the Passover and nevertheless typically although this Passover is more manifest than the old one for the legal Passover I dare affirm was an obscure Type of another Type that is to say of the Eucharist And again Id. Orat. 17. p. 273. Hieron in Jerem. c. 31. Id. l 2. contr Jovin Ibid. Theod Dialog 3. Id. Dialog 1. he calls the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament The Types of his Salvation St. Jerome in his Commentary upon Jeremiah The Type of the Blood of Jesus Christ is made with Wine And again Jesus Christ offered not Water but Wine for a Type of his Blood And again The Mystery which our Lord expressed in Type of his Passion Theodoret speaking of the Holy Bread calls it The venerable and saving Type of the Body of Jesus Christ And in another place he said That the Eucharist is the Type of the Passion of our Lord and that the Holy Food is the Type of his Body and of his Blood The fifth is that of Anti-type Const Apost l. 5. c. 13. the Author of the Apostolical Constitutions saith That our Lord gave unto his Disciples the Mysteries Anti-types of his Body and precious Blood Judas not being there present And again He calls the Eucharist Ibid. l. 6. c. 29. Ibid. l. 7. c. 26. the Anti-type of the Royal Body of Jesus Christ And again he affirms That we celebrate the Anti-types of the Body and Blood of our Lord. St. Macarius Macar Hom. 27. There is offered in the Church Bread and Wine the Anti-type of his Flesh and of his Blood Eustatius Bishop of Antioch Act. 6. Cenc Nicaen 2. expounding these Words of the 9th Chapter of Proverbs Eat of my Bread and drink the Wine which I have mingled by the Bread and Wine saith he he meaneth the Anti-types of the bodily Members of Jesus Christ Basil Liturg. St. Basil in his Liturgy We beseech thee presenting the Anti-types of the Body and Blood of thy Christ St. Gregory of Nazianzen Greg. Nazian de obiâ—u Gorgon vel Orat. 11. Id. Orat. 1. Cyril Hierosol Mystag 5. Theod. Dial. 2. Id. Dial. 3. extr his intimate Friend to express both parts of the Eucharist saith The Anti-types of the precious Body and Blood And in his Apologetick he considers the Sacrament as The Anti-type of great Mysteries St. Cyril of Jerusalem saith That we eat the Anti-type of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Theodoret The Divine Mysteries saith he are the Anti-types of the true Body And elsewhere He speaks of participating of the Anti-types of the Body Now the words Types and Anti-types are nothing else but the Form the Expression and a Representation and they signify almost the same as the word Figure doth The sixth is that of Symbol which signifies a Sign Signal or Mark as Grammarians say so in the Apostolical Constitutions Consâ—â—t Apost l. 6. c. 23. there is mention of a Sacrifice which is celebrated in memorial of the Death of Jesus Christ and which was instituted to be the Symbol of his Body and of his Blood Dionvs Hier. Eccles l. 9. The Author of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy under the Name of Dennis the Areopagite declares That Jesus Christ is signified and that we partake of him by the venerable Symbols Ibid. And again he observes That the Bishop that officiates washeth his Hands before the sacred Symbols and that this washing is done before the most holy Symbols as in the Presence of Christ himself Euseb demonst l. 1. c. 10. who knows our most secret Thoughts Eusebius saith we have received or learned to make the Memorial of this Sacrifice of our Lord upon the Table with the Symbols of his saving Body and Blood Ib. l. 8. a Gen. And in the same Treatise he saith That Jesus Christ commanded his Apostles to make use of Bread for a Symbol of his Body and accordingly he calleth the Wine the Symbol of his Blood Ibid. and testifies that our Lord himself gave unto his Disciples the Symbols of the Divine Oeconomy that is to say Chrys Hom. 83. in Matth. Palled
make the Bread is meant the Union of the whole Church which is baked into one body by the fire of the Holy Ghost to the end the Members should be united unto their Head c. And by the Wine the Blood of the Passion of our Lord is exhibited and so when in the Sacraments the Water is mingled with the Flower and the Wine the faithful People is incorporated and joyned unto Jesus Christ He follows the steps of St. Cyprian from whence he borrowed the expression And elsewhere he disputeth against Christ's Presence upon Earth Id. in Joan. l. 5. c. 28. He was saith he to continue but a little time corporally with his Church but as for the Poor they were to remain always so that we might always give unto them Ibid. l. 6. c. 34 35. And in the same Treatise If I depart by the absence of my Body I will come by the presence of my Divinity whereby I will be with you unto the end of the World And again in the sense of venerable Bede Ibid. c. 37. It is expedient that I should remove from before your eyes the form of a Servant to the end that the love of the Divinity might sink deeper into your hearts It is necessary I should carry into Heaven this Form which is known unto you to the end you should the more ardently desire to be in that place And according to what St. Austin said in explaining the 6th Chapter of St. John Whosoever eateth my flesh Ibid. l. 3. c. 15. and drinketh my blood dwelleth in me and I in him This eating saith he his Flesh and drinking his Blood is to dwell in Jesus Christ and to have Jesus Christ dwelling in us And so he that dwelleth not in Jesus Christ and in whom Jesus Christ dwelleth not for certain eateth not spiritually the Flesh although he visibly and carnally doth eat the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ but rather he eateth and drinketh unto his Condemnation the Sacrament of so great a thing because being impure he presumed to come to the Sacraments of Jesus Christ which none receive worthily but those that are holy After all this let it be judged which side Alcuin was of Although the Book called the Roman Order is not of any certain date and that the Learned do not agree at what time it first appeared Nevertheless because there be some that judge that it was written about the time that the Books of Images were composed under the name of Charlemain but they are deceived Ord. Rom. de Offic. Miss t. 10 Bibl. Pat. ed. 4. p. 5. the Author being much younger We will make no difficulty of joyning it unto what we have alledged of those Books and of the Works of Alcuin The Sub-Deacons saith he having seen the Chalice wherein is the Blood of our Lord covered with a Linnen Cloth and having heard Deliver us from Evil depart and prepare the Cups and clean Cloaths wherein they receive the Body of the Lord fearing it should fall to the ground and be turned to dust Let it be imagined if that could befall the true Body of Jesus Christ And again Ibid. in the same place The Bishop breaketh the Oblation that is to say the Bread on the right side and leaves the piece he broke upon the Altar He speaks of a Subject that may be broken into bits and pieces Ibid p. 6. And in the following Page The Fraction or as 't is read in the Margin the Consecration being done the youngest of the Deacons taking the pattern from the Sub-Deacon carries it unto the place where the Bishop is to the end he may communicate and having communicated he delivers unto the Arch-Deacon the holy Host which he had bit See again if the Flesh of Jesus Christ could be bit and if it could be said of the real Blood of Jesus Christ what he observes in the same place Ibid. That it is made in the Cup where there is put a portion of the holy Host a mixture of the Body and Blood of our Lord. Ibid. p. 10. And in the same Treatise That the Deacon saith he holding the Cup and the Quill doth stand before the Bishop until he hath taken what he thinks fit of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ I cannot tell if one may take more or less of the true Body of Jesus Christ and whether it depends on the free Will of men to take as they list and as much as they please In fine Ibid. he will have the Deacon take care with much precaution that there be nothing left remaining in the Cup and Plate of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Is it to to be conceived say the Protestants that any drop of the Blood of our Saviour could remain in the Cup or any part of his glorified Body in the Paten In the Roman Order of those times which this Author afterward relates there is to be read what we have alledged of the Cannon of the Mass in the 8th Chapter of the first Part. Whence it is inferred that the Oblation presented unto God was after Consecration an Oblation of Bread and Wine according to the Inference which was made at the end of the 6th Chapter of this Second Part which 't is not needful to repeat again in this place CHAP. XIII Containing the History of the IX Century WHatever change hapned unto the Ancient Expressions relating to the point of the Sacrament nevertheless the Belief of the Church received no alteration during the eight first Centuries the Doctrine still continued sound as I think hath been fully justified hitherto but at last in the IX Century Paschas Radbert a Friar of Corby near Amiens yet bolder than Anastatius of Mount Sina who contented himself in giving an assault unto the ancient manner of Expressions about the year 818. attacked the Doctrine it self the Providence of God permitting that the Innovations which arose in the terms and in the belief took beginning by two Friars which being both of them inclosed in their Cloisters departed in their meditations the one from the Expressions the other from the Belief of their Ancestors I said that Paschas began to write of this matter in the year 818. because it was in that year he composed his Treatise of the Body and Blood of the Lord as may be collected from the Preface to his Scholar Placidus where speaking unto Adelard his Abbot under the name of one Arsenius an old Hermit he sufficiently shews that he wrote in the year that Bernard King of Italy and some others had their eyes put out for conspiring against Lewis the Debonaire and that some Bishops that were of the same Combination were banish'd and depos'd which hapned exactly in the year 818. the Rebellion having begun in the year 817. as the Historians of those times inform us I will not mention that Paschas appears sometimes to be disturbed at what
Jesus Christ And as this Bread and Wine pass into the Body of Jesus Christ so also all those that eat it worthily in the Church are one sole Body of Jesus Christ as himself hath said Whosoever eateth my Flesh and drinks my Blood dwelleth in me and I in him Nevertheless this Flesh which he hath taken and this Bread Id. ibid. in cap. â—1 and the whole Church are not three Bodies of Jesus Christ but one Body And afterwards Although this Bread is brought from several places and that it is Consecrated throughout the whole World by several Priests nevertheless the Divinity that filleth all things filleth it also and maketh it to be one sole Body of Jesus Christ and all those which receive it â—d in Canone Idiss â— t. 6. Bibl. Pat. p. 441. do make this same Body of Jesus Christ which is one and not two And elsewhere As the Divinity of the Son which filleth all the World is one so also although this Body is Consecrated in sundry places and in an infinite number of different days yet they are not several Bodies of Jesus Christ nor several Cups but one sole Body and one Blood with that which he took from the Virgin and gave unto the Apostles for the Divinity fills it is joyned to it and causeth that as it is one so also it should be joyned unto the Body of Jesus Christ and should be one Body of Jesus Christ in verity This Author whoever he was says two or three things which sufficiently inform us of his intention for he saith that the Divinity joyns the Bread unto the Body of Jesus Christ of necessity then he must needs believe that it subsisted still after Consecration because a thing that is not cannot be joyned unto another thing the uniting and joyning of two different subjects presupposeth the Existence of the one and the other he saith also that the Church as well as the Sacrament is one Body with the natural Body of Jesus Christ he affirms it no more of the Sacrament than of the Church he then meant that they were both so after one and the same manner In fine see here how he argues the Natural Body of Jesus Christ the Sacrament and the Church are filled with one and the same vertue and animated if it may be so said with the same Spirit they are not then three Bodies but one the Unity of one Body depending on the unity of the Principle that acts in him So that because the same Principle that acts in the natural Body of Jesus Christ acts also in the Bread of the Eucharist and in the Church they should not be according to this Author but one and the same Body because that though considering them severally they be three different Bodies yet to consider them in the unity of this Principle and in the Numerical Identity if I may so say of the same vertue they become one sole Body This is as far as I can comprehend the Opinion of Remy which though not favouring the Opinion of Paschas yet is not for all that the Opinion of his Adversaries Therefore we will let him stand alone to receive the Depositions of others which present themselves to be heard The first is Rabanus very illustrious for his Dignity and for his Merit Historians vie with each other to celebrate his Praises as of the greatest Man of that Age and unto whom none was to be compared He was first a Friar in the Abby of Fulda then Abbot of the same Monastery and at last Archbishop of Mayance This illustrious Prelate and the most famous Disciple of the great Alcuin Tutor unto Charlemain being informed of the Opinion of Paschas Radbert touching the Sacrament set himself in a posture of arguing and openly opposing himself against it as against a Doctrine that appeared new and strange unto him and contrary to the ancient Belief of the Church This is the Declaration which the Anonimous Author and favourer of Paschas hath made us saying That Rabanus disputed against him at large Autor Anonym ubi supra in his Letter unto the Abbot Egilon But if we had not the Testimony of this Disciple of Paschas we cannot be ignorant of this matter seeing Rabanus himself hath transmitted the thing unto us for in his Penitential which Peter Stuart Professor in Divinity in the College of Ingolstat hath published he speaks after this sort Raban Maur. in Poenitent c. 33 de Eucharist It is not long since some persons holding erroneous Opinions touching the Eucharist of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ have said That it is the Body it self and the Blood of Jesus Christ which was born of the Virgin Mary and wherein our Saviour suffered upon the Cross and rose again from the Dead which Error we have opposed as much as we could and have signified in writing unto the Abbot Egilon what ought to be believed of the Body it self It cannot then be doubted but Rabanus wrote directly against Paschas seeing that the Opinion which he condemns and which he opposeth as erroneous is just that of Paschas as we have plainly demonstrated This Letter is lost either through the length of time or the malice of Men which have lived since that time But 't is sufficient that we do know that he wrote it and by consequence was a great Enemy of Paschas as unhe plainly testifies by several of his other Works which are come to our hands for he teacheth that the substance of Bread and Wine remain after Consecration and that these divine Symbols being received by Communicants part of it turns into their substance and the rest goes as their other ordinary food doth unto the place where Nature dischargeth it self Autor Anonym ubi supra The Anonymous Author already cited several times saith positively That he held the Sacrament to be subject unto this Accident And William of Malmesbury wrote to his Brother Robert in the Preface of the Epitome of Amalarius of Divine Offices which is to be seen in a Manuscript at Oxford Guillelm Malmesbur in All-Souls College I gave you notice saith he that amongst those which have writ of these things there is one that you are to avoid which is called Rabanus which in the Books of Ecclesiastical Offices saith That the Sacraments of the Altar are profitable to nourishment and for that reason are subject to corruption or malady or age or to be cast into the draft or to death it self See how dangerous a thing it is to say to believe and to write these things of the Body and Blood of our Saviour Tho. Waldens t. 1. doctrin in praesat t. 2. c. 19.52 62. Thomas Waldensis testifies the same in divers parts of his Writings where he reproacheth Wicliff That as he teacheth that the Eucharist is digested and passeth into our substance so he might also teach with Rabanus that it passeth into the draft And he instanceth the
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
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
Whence they conclude that seeing the Bread of the Sacrament is not by Honorius his saying the natural Body of Jesus Christ but as it is his mystical Body that is to say the Church for he makes no difference betwixt them it cannot be it properly and by an Idendity of substance as it is spoken but only in Mystery and in Sacrament If there were only occasion to shew who they were that admitted not of the Doctrine of the Real Presence we might here instance in Robert de Duitz nere Cologne because it is certain by the confession of both sides that he believed it not but because we also search the Testimonies of those which followed the Opinion of the Adversaries of Paschas which was that of Berengarius of which number we cannot affirm that Robert was we will leave him as a man that was neither a follower of Paschas nor of his Adversaries but a Disciple of John Damascen and of Remy of Auxerr teaching as they did the Assumption of the Bread by the Divinity to make by this Union with the Divinity one sole Body with the Body of Jesus Christ It is not the same with a certain Abbot called Francus of whom the Centuriators of Magdebourg observe Centur. 12. c. 5. That he had no sound thoughts touching the Communion affirming that the real Body of Jesus Christ was not in the Sacrament One would fain know who this Abbot was of whom the Centuriators say nothing else and to say truth it is very hard precisely to determine it but because positive Proofs are wanting Conjectures that have likelihood and probability may the better be admitted therefore I will not fear speaking what I think of him I conceive then that it was Franco Abbot of Lobbes in the Country of Liege There were two of this name in that Monastery one of which lived in the time of Lewis the Son of Charles the Bald and he was reckoned the twelfth Abbot but it cannot be him we seek for because the Centuriators place him towards the middle of the XII Century therefore we must rather insist upon the other who succeeded unto Lambert about the Year 1153. which is just the time designed by the Centuriators for Lambert succeeded unto Leonius Anno 1140. and governed the Monastery thirteen years De gestis Abbatum Lob. t. 6. Spicil p. 621 622 628 629 630 631 633. so that our Franco or Francus was chosen in his place Anno 1153. or 1154. he was Head of the Monastery eleven years And I the rather am induced to believe that the Centuriators speak of this Franco Abbot of Lobbes because that he spake nothing of the Sacrament but what two of his Predecessors Folcuin and Hertiger had taught before in the X. Century as we have declared in writing what passed in that Age upon the Subject of the Sacrament In the time that Franco was Abbot of Lobbes Gautier of Mauritania was Prebend of Anthona and he was chosen to go to Rome to defend the Cause of the Prebends of Anthona against the Abbot Franco for a Prebendary which the Friars of Lobbes laid claim unto as having been time out of mind in the Disposal of their Abbots But so it is that this Gautier is styled in the Continuation of the History of the Abbots of Lobbes Ubi supra p. 631. The most eminent and chiefest of all the Doctors of France Also from Prebend of Anthona he became Bishop of Laon. But that matters not See here how he speaks of the Presence of Jesus Christ whilst he was Bishop in a Letter which he wrote touching the Mystery of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ and wherein expounding these words of the 3d. of St. John Galterus Episcopus Laudun Ep. 2. t. 2. Spicil p. 464. No man ascended up into Heaven but the Son of Man which came down from Heaven he speaks after this manner By the Son of Man we are here to understand the Word made Flesh that is to say the Son of God which was omnipresent and not the Body and Soul that is to say the Humane Nature which he had taken and which was not yet ascended into Heaven for the Flesh which he had assumed was not present in all places but in shifting place it went fom one place unto another which our Saviour sheweth in saying unto his Apostles I am glad for your sakes that I was not there The Angel declares the same unto the Women saying You seek Jesus who was crucified he is risen he is not here From thence it is saith he that St. Gregory saith He is not here by the presence of his Body which nevertheless was never absent in regard of the presence of his Majesty And elsewhere Id. ibid. Ep. 2. p. 468. The Son of God saith he is on Earth by the presence of his Divinity although he is in Heaven at the Right Hand of the Father by the presence of his Body and of his Divinity which he himself declared being ready to ascend up into Heaven in the presence of his Disciples saying I am with you unto the end of the World Which words St. Gregory thus expounds The Word made Flesh remains and he departs he goes in regard of his Body but he remains in regard of his Divinity And in all the rest of the Epistle he proves by Authority of the Scriptures and of the Fathers the Omnipresence of the Divinity of Jesus Christ in opposition unto his Humanity which he hath so represented unto us to be in one place that it could not be at the same time in another We may add unto these Witnesses that which Father Chifflet gives us in the Preface which he hath made unto the Confession of Faith which he attributes unto Alcuin Tutor unto Charlemain where disputing against the Disciples of St. Austin followers of Jansenius he saith that he might apply unto them what Hugh Metellus Prebend of Thoul had said above five hundred years ago unto Gerland Sacramentarian of the Sect of Berengarius You relie upon the words of St. Austin Chiffict Jesuita in praefar ad confess Alcuin do not put your dependance upon them he is not of the same Opinion you are of you are much mistaken You assure us with St. Austin that the words of Jesus Christ unto his Disciples are figurative for they declare one thing literally and they signifie another thing you affirm what he affirmed but you do not believe what he believed It may then be concluded from what hath been said and particularly from the words of this Prebend of Thoul that at the beginning of the XII Century those which were called Berengarians maintained a Doctrine contrary unto that which was established by the Decisions of Councils which several Popes caused to be assembled against Berengarius in the XI Century But all these Testimonies are nothing in comparison of what happened in the persons of those called Albigensis who refusing to submit and acquiess unto the