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
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
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
good for the time wherein it was made and doth clearly justifie what we have said touching the nature and form of the Bread which Christians were accustomed to use in the celebration of the Eucharist I cannot find that there happened any other alteration until at last in the Eleventh Century they began in some Churches in the West to change the form and quality of the Bread which had been always used in this Sacrament using instead of it little Hosts like Wafers round and white and very thin and slender Whereof the Interpreter of the Roman Order who lived towards the end of the Eleventh Century of whom we have already spoke makes great complaints Apud Cassand in Liâ—turg p. 61. not enduring this great innovation The quantity saith he of a handful is the least of all measures to make Bread of which quantity is very justly appointed unto those which sacrificed for the Ministry of the Altar and if there is not to be found in all the Old nor the New Testament a smaller measure than a handful and if nothing ought to be done within the Temple of the Lord nor out of it without order and measure these despicable little Oblations seem no way unto me fit for Jesus Christ and the Church because they be without measure and without reason Cassander who had seen the Book and who relates several passages in his Liturgies adds This Author otherwise pious prudent Ibid. p. 62. and very well versed in the Traditions of the Church saith thereupon several other things it appears that he had much adoe to suffer that in his time in some Churches the Oblations of Bread which by an ancient custom of the Church were offered by the faithful people upon the Lords Table for the use of the Sacrifice were reduced unto the form of a Crown-Piece and a slight slender substance much different from the form of true Bread therefore it is that by contempt they call them slender Wafers made in the form of pieces of Money which we call Crowns they attribute unto them an imaginary shadowy lightness and affirm they do not deserve the name of Bread they are so thin and that by reason of them Divine Service and the Religion of Ecclesiastical Offices doth receive in all respects very great Damage and inveighs against them in sundry other sharp and harsh expressions all which things I have not thought fit here to recite But whatever this learned Interpreter of the Roman Order could say or do he could not hinder but that the use of these Wafers was established in the whole extent of the Latin Church and that also some other Christians who hold no Communion with the Latin Church have held and retained it amongst them although in other things they declare themselves to be contrary unto her both in Doctrine and Worship But yet things rested not there for instead of Bread in the Eucharist offered by Believers or at least Flower whereof it was made they obliged the people to offer pieces of Money as Honorius of Autun who lived in the Twelfth or Thirteenth Centuries doth inform us his words deserve to be here inserted Honor. Augustodun in gem anim c. 66. It is said that antiently the Priest received Flower from each house or Family which is still practised by the Greeks and that they made thereof the Bread of the Lord which they offered for the People and distributed it amongst them after it was consecrated for all those which offered Flower assisted at Mass and it was said for them in the Canon of all those which are here present which offer unto thee this Sacrifice of praise but after the Church was increased in number and decreased in holiness it was decreed by reason of carnal Men that those that could should communicate every Lords day or every third Sunday or on great Festival days or three times a year and by reason of the Peoples seldom communicating it was not needful to make so great a Loaf it was ordered that it should be made in the form of a piece of Money and that the People should offer pieces of Money instead of Meal which is to this time practised in the whole Communion of the Church of Rome I have inlarged upon this custom and have made no difficulty to examine it from first to last because that the change happened in this custom seems to me of greater importance than many imagine for men are not usually inclined unto the changes of this Nature without some weighty reasons it must needs be that those which have changed the form the consistence and the quality of the Eucharist have been thereunto induced for some great design there be some which think that the motive there soon following it such change in the Doctrine was nothing else but a design to remove and banish from the mind and thoughts of Communicants that that which was received by the hand at the Lords Table and was put into the mouth was Bread to which purpose say they these Wafers were very fit which were presented unto them or rather were put into their Mouths seeing they have neither the form nor Figure of true Bread and that never any People or Nation in the World used this kind of food and what doth the more confirm them in this belief is that this change hapned not as they suppose untill after the condemnation of Berengar viz. towards the end of the XI Century But as these conjectures do not much concern us so I leave unto the Reader to determine whether they are to be admitted or not and proceed to the examination of the Consecration of the Symbols CHAP. V. Of the Consecration of the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist and first of the place where they were Consecrated and of the matter of Chalices and Patins AFTER Jesus Christ had taken the Bread and the Cup the Evangelists observe that he gave thanks that is that he Blessed and Consecrated them the Church that imitated him in the first Action hath also done the like in the second although in process of time she hath added divers Ceremonies which were not therein at first but because the Consecration contains several things as the place where it is done the matter of Chalices and Patins the Language the Ceremonies and the Form of Consecrating that is to say the Consecrating Liturgy these things must be examined in Order to avoid obscurity and confusion In this Chapter I design to treat of the Place of Consecration and of the Matter of Chalices As to the Place it is to be considered either generally or particularly in the former sense it was the place where Christians assembled together for the worship of Almighty God wherein they performed their exercise of Piety and Devotion and wherein for a long time they eat altogether for in the same place wherein they made their Agapae and where they took these Love-feasts they also did celebrate the Sacrament and indeed all
they contented themselves in spreading upon their Communion-Table at the time of celebrating the Sacrament a clean Table-cloth for decency sake which is also practised by the Protestants And as there was but one Altar or one mystical Table in each Church so also the Eucharist was celebrated but once a day which also is the present practice in those three spacious Christian Communions above mentioned as the same Authors testifie whom we have alledged as Witnesses Id. cap 84. Alvarez observing further that the Abassins found fault with the Mass of the Romanists for not administring the Communion unto all that assisted Cassander Cassand in liturg c. 26. in his Liturgies has observed That in the Mass or Eucharist of the Armenians all did communicate which doth shew if I mistake not that this custom was very antient seeing this People who are fallen into ignorance and multiply the number of Ceremonies rather than lessen them have been careful faithfully to preserve it And we find by a Letter of Leo the First Bishop of Rome writing unto Dioscorus Bishop of Alexandria That in his time viz. in the fifth Century the Sacrament was not celebrated but once a day in each Church if it were not that the numbers of people were so great that the Church could not contain them which happened upon great Festivals in that case he adviseth Dioscorus to do at Alexandria as they did at Fome that is to re-iterate the Celebration of the Sacrament as often as the Church should be filled with a new Assembly Leo. 1. Ep. 81. c. 2. When any great Festival saith he makes the Assembly more numerous and that there meets together so great a number of Believers that one Church cannot contain them there is no question to be made but the Oblation of the Sacrifice must be renewed fearing lest that if only the former should be admitted unto this Worship the rest should seem to be excluded whereas it is a thing very just and reasonable to offer another Sacrifice at each time that the Church is filled with the presence of a new Assembly for if in keeping the custom of one only Mass those only which came first should be admitted to offer the Sacrifice of necessity some part of the people must be hindered from their Devotion Behold then the custom and practice of celebrating the Eucharist but once a day in each Church in the fifth Century both in East and West at Rome and at Alexandria excepting only such occasions as have been mentioned wherein it was permitted and could scarce be avoided to do otherwise than contrary to the usual custom it is said That Pope Deodat gave first this permission because 't is reported in his life in the Pontifical Book Apud Cassan in Liturg. c. 35. That he instituted a second Mass amongst the Clergy upon which words Verbetanus hath this observation Because that at that time there was but one Mass sung in the Church as the Greeks do which the antients thought best for edification I think both the unity of one Altar and the celebration of one Sacrament in one Church upon one day may be gathered from the Lausiack History of Palladius who wrote in the fifth Century for he makes mention of a great Church which was in the Mount of Nitria where there were eight Priests to conduct it Pallad Hist Lausiac c. 6. and observes That whilst the chiefest of them lived neither of the others could consecrate nor censure Apud Cassian in Litur c. 35. nor preach St. Francis writing unto the Priests of his Order conjures them Not to celebrate Mass but once a day in the places they shall dwell in after the example of the Church of Rome and if there be several Priests in the same place that but one of them do celebrate Goar in Euch. p. â—6 and the rest content themselves in hearing him Goar upon the Euchologie of the Greeks saith That for this cause there was not formerly at Rome nor at Paris nor in all the East but one Priest to each Church but that Churches were frequent that the people might satisfie the motions of their Piety and Devotion Apud Cassan uoâ— supra and Cochleus writing against Musculus a Protestant confesseth That within 400 years Altars have exceedingly multiplied But having sought for the place of consecrating the Eucharist let us consider the matter of Chalices and Patins the two sorts of vessels used both for the Consecration and distribution as for the Bread of the Sacrament it is put upon a Dish or Plate on a Linen-cloth and because this Bread after Consecration is called the Body of Jesus Christ this linen on which 't is laid is called the cloth of the Body there be some which call it Palla either for that it covers the sacred mystery or because it serves for a Vesture or Covering unto the Typical Body of Jesus Christ upon the Holy Table Optar l 6. p. 98. Optatus reproacheth the Donatists that they had taken away these Body Clothes and these Linens and that they had washed them as if they had been dirty and Victor Vict. Vitens de persec Afric l. 1. not of Vtica as he is commonly called but of Vita complains that Proculus Executioner of the cruelties of Gensericus King of the Vandales against Catholicks That he had made Shirts and Drawers of them this Body-cloth was to be of very fine Linen and not of Silk Raban de instit cleric l. 1. c. 33. nor of Purple nor of any coloured stuff as Rabanus Archbishop of Mayence reports which refers this ordinance unto Pope Silvester others refer it unto Pope Eusebius Venerable Bede Beda in c. 15. Marc. speaking of the action of Joseph of Arimathea who having obtained of Pilate the Body of Christ carried him in a sheet and makes this reflection Thence is taken the custom of the Church of celebrating the Sacrifice of the Altar not upon Silk or coloured stuff but upon Linen as the Body of our Lord was buried in a clean Linen Sheet Which he attributes unto Silvester as well as Rabanus Isid Pelus l. 1. Ep. 123. from whence S. Isidore of Damieta saith This clean Linen which is spead at the Celebration of the Divine gifts is the Ministry of Joseph of Arimathea for as he buried the Body of Jesus having wrapped it in a Sheet so also we consecrate the Shew-Bread upon a Linen or Table-Cloth Some write that in Italy and in Germany they use two Corporals of fine Linen whereas in France there was but one Radulph Tungrens de can observant propos ult But as for Chalices they were not at all times nor in all places of one and the same matter whil'st the Church was in an afflicted and low condition it is very probable they used Chalices made of ordinary matter and small price but when riches flowed in upon it in Constantine's time there 's no question but metal of
'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
their Difference with Origen was only in the Circumstance whether or no the holy Bread went unto the Place of Excrements Origen holding the Affirmative the others the Negative but as to the Ground of the Doctrine I find them all agreed and that all of them teach that what we receive at the Lord's Table is the Substance of Bread which some subject to the same fate of our common Food that goes into the Belly and from thence into the Draft others think this Bread doth pass into our Substance and if it feed our Souls by the virtue wherewith God accompanies it after Consecration and lawful Use of the Sacrament it also nourisheth and increaseth the Body by its proper Nature without turning into Excrements And the latter as I conceive are inclin'd unto this Opinion the rather because receiving but very little Bread and Wine in the Sacrament they made no difficulty to believe that it all turns into our Substance In the third place the holy Fathers testify that this Sacrament is consumed Aug. de Trin. lib. 3. c. 10. The Bread saith St. Austin which is made for that purpose is consumed in taking the Sacrament And again in the same Chapter What is put upon the Table is consumed the holy Colebration being ended Commonly there was no more alledged but this Passage of St. Austin to prove that the antient Christians believed that what was received at the Sacrament was of such a nature as to be in effect consumed Wherefore I hope the Reader will not be displeas'd if I lead him farther and make it appear this manner of Speech was us'd in the Church a long time after St. Austin's Death These Considerations we make upon the Doctrine of the holy Fathers are of such importance that we endeavour to find out in all Ages of the Christian Church what Foot-steps they have left us of it in their Writings Hugh Maynard in his Notes upon the Books of Sacraments of Gregory the first alledgeth and wholly transcribes a Pontifical Manuscript which is kept in the Church of Rouen and is as far as I can guess near to the eighth Century and probably of later times in this Pontifical the whole Ceremony of holy Thursday is represented and amongst many other Observations this is to be read When the Bishop washeth his Hands In Not. Menar in Sacram. Greg. p. 84. and the Deacons go unto the Altar to uncover the holy Things and that the Bishop comes to the Altar separates the Oblations to break them that he takes some of the whole ones to keep until next day the Day of Preparation and that they communicated without the Blood of the Lord because the Blood was wholly consumed the same Day It may be easily seen that the Blood mentioned by the Pontifical is not the proper Blood of Jesus Christ for all Christians unanimously confess that the real Blood of our Lord which was shed upon the Cross for the Salvation of Mankind is shed no more and is not in a state of being consumed in the Celebration of the Sacrament then saith the Protestant he must needs speak of a Typical and Figurative Blood I mean of the Mystical and Sanctified Wine which Believers drink at the holy Table and which is subject unto the fate of being consumed No other Explication can be given unto the Words of the Pontifical above-mentioned which doth not ill suit with those of St. Austin and I promise my self that the tenth Century however dark and ignorant it be represented by Historians will furnish us with another Witness an Abbot of a famous Monastery which will speak of the other Symbol what the Pontifical hath said of the Symbol of Wine In the fourth Place They avow that the Sacrament of the Eucharist is an inanimate Subject as Theophilus Arch-bishop of Alexandria for refuting the Opinion of Origen who denied that the holy Ghost exercised any Operation upon Things that have no Soul he speaks thus In affirming this he doth not consider Theop. Alex. Pasch 1. Bibl. Pat. t. 3. p. 87. that in Baptism the Mystical Waters are consecrated by the holy Ghost which descends and that the Bread of the Lord whereby the Body of the Lord is shewn forth and which we break for our Sanctification and the holy Cup which with the Bread is set upon the Table of the Church and which are things inanimate are sanctified by Prayers and by the coming of the holy Ghost St. Epiphanius was not far from this Belief when comparing the Bread after Consecration with the Body it self of our Saviour he said Epiphan in Anchor That the one is round as to its Form and insensible as to its Power but the other hath the Features and Lineaments of a Body and is all Life Motion and Action To thus much also amounts their Belief that the Change in the Sacrament concerned not the Nature of the Bread and Wine to change them into another thing but only to add unto them the Grace which they had not before that is to say a quickning and sanctifying virtue in the right use of the Sacrament Theod. dial 1. Jesus Christ saith Theodoret hath honoured the visible Symbols with the Name of his Body and Blood not in changing their Nature but in adding the Grace In the fifth place These same Fathers affirm that the substance of Bread and Wine remain after Consecration it is the Judgment ment of St. Chrysostom Chrysost ep ad Caesar The Bread of the Sacrament saith he is called Bread before it is sanctified but Divine Grace having sanctified it by the Ministry of the Priest it is no longer called Bread but it is judged worthy to be called the Body of Christ although the Nature of Bread remains Monsr de Marca in his French Treatise of the Eucharist Pag. 12 13. of the last Edit pag. 9. doth agree That until St. Chrysostom the Fathers believed that the Bread did not change its Nature after Consecration Moreover he confesseth for truth the Letter of St. Chrysostom unto Caesarius As also the Abbot Faggot doth in his Letter unto Monsr de Marca Son to that Illustrious Prelat and President of the Parliament of Paris he therein further informs us that this Letter of St. Chrysostom is in the custody of Monsr Bigot who in his Voyage into Italy found it in the Library whence Peter Martyr of Florence formerly procur'd it I mean in the Library of the Duke of Florence so that for the future there ought not to be any farther Contest of the validity of this Letter because the true Author of it cannot be unknown Theodoret a great admirer of St. Chrysostom Theod. dial 2. tells us That the Nature of the Symbols is not changed And in another of his Dialogues The Mystical Symbols saith he after Consecration do not change their proper Nature for they continue in their former Substance Gelas de duab in Christ natur ad Nestor â—ueych in
before it was made That which is is not made saith Athenagoras but that which is not Tertullian Nothing that is to be made is not without beginning but rather it begins to be when it begins to be made And before him St. Justin Martyr said in his Treatise against the Positions of Aristotle That that which is made and is to be was not yet before it was made and that all Motion is made by the change of that which was not before but which was to be Origen Nothing saith he could be made but what was not And St. Hilary Bishop of Poictiers All that is made saith he was not before it was made The famous St. Athanasius It is the property of Works and of Creatures that they are said to be of the number of things which were not and which existed not before they were made Phaebadius or as Severus Sulpitius calls him Foegadius Phoebad contr Arrian Ambros de incar Domin c. 3. t. 4. Greg. Nyss contr Eunom l. 11. August contr advers leg l. 1. c. 23. Vigil contr Eutich l 3. c. 3. Bishop of Agen in Guyen If he was made saith he he was not St. Ambrose What is made saith he begins that which was had no beginning but he foresaw it And the Brother of St. Basil Gregory of Nyss If he was made he was not St. Austin in one of the two Books he wrote against the Adversary of the Law To make saith he is to produce what was not before In fine for 't were endless to cite all the Passages of the Fathers Vigilius an African Bishop in his Books against Eutiches How is it saith he that he that was is made seeing that to be made is wont to be the property of him that had not subsisted before if it were not that he was made what he was not He speaks of Jesus Christ that was made Man for our sakes in the fulness of time Let the Reader judg now if these good and wise Doctors could speak so absolutely and without any restriction and receive into the Articles of their Belief the Doctrine of the substantial Conversion I will add unto this Consideration what Origen saith in his Commentaries upon Genesis Orig. apud Euseb de praeparat l. 6. in Philocal c. 23. related by Eusebius in his Book of Evangelical Preparation and in the Philocalie of St. Basil and of Gregory Nazianzen That which maketh a thing is elder than the thing made For a Man so Learned as Origen one of the clearest and transcendent Wits of his time in the Church or the whole World could not say some have spoke so weakly and at the same time have believed that Men every day make the true Body of Jesus Christ because by this reckoning the Cause should be after the Effect and those which make the Body of Jesus Christ much younger than this Divine Body contrary unto the Maxim of Origen which is grounded upon the Light of natural Reason or at least it should have been his Duty to have given us notice that altho this Maxim be undoubtedly true and that it takes place generally in all things that are made nevertheless there is one particular occasion wherein it is quite otherwise I mean the Subject of the Eucharist because then by an inconceivable Mystery the thing made is incomparably elder than those that make it yet nevertheless say they we do not find in any part of his Writings the least sign of any such Advertisement It must then be said that Origen was a Sot or that he believed not of the Eucharist what the Latins believe at this time I leave it to the liberty of those which will be pleased to take the pains to read this Treatise to decide the which of these two Opinions they think most agreeable unto Truth In the fourth place the Fathers have constantly believed That what contains is greater than what is contained Nevertheless say some if their belief upon the point of the Sacrament were the same with that of the Latin Church they ought to have excepted the Body of Jesus Christ from this Rule and teach with the Latins that altho for the most part the continent is greater than the thing contained and that in effect it is so Nevertheless it happens by a Miracle of the Almighty Power of God that the Body of Jesus Christ having all the dimensions of a true Body as well as ours yet doth subsist intirely in a little crum of Bread and in a drop of Wine if in advancing this fourth Maxim they made this exception in respect of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament they say it must be freely confessed and without being pâ—â—â—ccupi'd by a false Interest of any side that if they have not taught the Doctrine of the substantial Conversion as formally as the Latines they have at least owned and admitted one of its Consequences and that in that case cannot be drawn from the Testimony of the Holy Fathers the same advantage against the Belief of the Latin Church as otherwise might be done but also say they if these zealous and wise Conducters of the Christian Churches have spoken simply and without exception the Latins must needs confess that they knew not or rather refuted and opposed all the Consequences of their Doctrines which have been examined Let us see then how they have govern'd themselves in relation unto this and let us faithfully receive their Depositions Theophil Antioch ad Antolyc l. 2 p. 81. I will begin with Theophilus Bishop of Antioch a Writer of the second Century This saith he is a property of the true God not only to be every where c. But also not to be contained in one place otherwise the place which contained him would be greater than him for what containeth is greater than what is contained St. Irenaeus Bishop of Lyons in our France Iren. contr heres l. 2 c. 1. despising the extravagancy of Marcion which had invented two Gods one good the other bad Marcion's good God saith he is hid or lock'd up in some place and environed about with some other Strength which should in all likelihood be the greatest because what containeth is greater than what is contained Tertul. contr Marc. l. 1. c. 15. It was also the Language of Tertullian who also lays it down for infallible That nothing contains any thing which is not greater than the thing contained According to which teaching elsewhere that the Soul of Man is Corporal He saith that it cannot subsist but in a Body which may be fit and proportionable to its greatness and that it cannot be there if it be greater or less than it Id. de anim cap. 32. Greg Nyss de vit Mos p. 238. How saith he can the Soul of a Man either fit an Elephant or be contained in a Flea St. Gregory of Nyss followed the same Steps when he said If it be thought that the Divinity is inclosed
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
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
stirred up this cruel Emperour who by the first Edict he made to be published against Christians the 19. year of his Reign commanded to be demolished and destroyed to the ground their Oratories and Churches which continued untill Constantine imbraced the Christian Religion For then the Church breathing quietly under a Prince which cherisht her and gratify'd her in all that could be desired Christians were seen striving who could surpass each other in building magnificent and beautiful Churches and Temples which were so many illustrious Monuments of the Rest and Plenty which they enjoyed under the first Christian Emperour Having considered the Places wherein Christians assembled themselves but by relation unto the Celebration of the Sacrament I have not amply treated the Question of Temples or Churches and I have so done the rather because an occasion of examining it more at large may in some short time offer it self I only say that it was in the IV. Century that they began to be consecrated but after a manner intirely different from that at this time used amongst the Latins and that it was about the same time prohibitions were made of celebrating the Sacrament only in consecrated places This general consideration of the place where Christians assembled and where they celebrated their Sacrament may give us some light to design the particular place where the Consecration was made whilest they assembled in private houses there is no question to be made but that they placed in some convenient place in the Chamber a Table whereupon they did consecrate the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist and where they distributed the holy Communion unto Believers the example of Jesus Christ served them instead of a Law for he celebrated his Eucharist in the same place where he had eaten the paschal Lamb there he consecrated and distributed it neither the Evangelists nor S. Paul having said any thing that may make us think otherwise Moreover the Roman Catholicks and the Protestants confess that the Corinthians did celebrate the Eucharist in the same place where they made their Love-feasts and if there be any contests I do not say betwixt Communion and Communion but betwixt particular Doctors in each of both Communions it is not in regard of the place but in respect of the time to wit whether the Sacrament was celebrated before the Agapae or afterwards which doth not relate to the Subject we now treat of seeing then that the Corinthians made their Feasts of Charity and made altogether these Feasts upon Tables or at least on things that served to that purpose methinks it cannot be at all questioned but that they did celebrate and also consecrate their Eucharist upon the same Table seeing they did celebrate it in the same place and at the same time where they did eat together S. Justin Martyr in the Account of this Sacrament which he hath left us hath not mentioned the place where this Consecration was made but to consider the innocency of those times and the manner of consecrating the Symbols which he represents unto us one cannot but conclude but that it was upon a Table that they consecrated them after that the people had presented them unto the Passover as he saith the word Supper used by S. Paul directed them unto this use and practice as well as the example of Jesus Christ Origen l. 20. c. 2. For as S. Isidore of Sevill saith It is called a Supper from the Communion of those which eat Chrysost t. 5. homil 21. whereunto also doth amount what S. Chrysostom observed before him That the Apostle calleth the Supper of the Lord that of which all that are invited do participate in common and with love For those expressions do import a Holy and Divine repast common unto all the faithful and which requires a Table to take it and to eat of it altogether when therefore Christians had places destinated for the exercise of their holy Religion it is evident there was a certain place where this Eucharistical Table was placed there to consecrate this august Sacrament and there to distribute it unto all the faithful Communicants And when under Constantine the Great the Temples of Christians began to be Stately and Magnificent there was a particular place called the Sanctuary where the mystical Table was set whereupon Consecration was made In Minutius Felix the Infidel demands Min. Fel. in Octav. Wherefore Christians have no Altars and the Christian answers thus whereby he confesseth they have none Do you think that we hide what we do adore because we have no Temples nor Altars Orig. contr Cels l. 8. p 389. ult Edit The Philosopher Celsus gives them the same reproach in Origen saying that they would not erect Altars Which Origen doth not gainsay but saith only That every one of them hath his Soul and thought for an Altar from whence do ascend truely and intelligibly the perfumes of a sweet smell that is prayers from a pure conscience Christians nevertheless did not omit to celebrate and participate of the Sacrament it must needs follow then that it was upon a Table Nevertheless it is certain there is nothing more frequent in the writings of the Fathers than the name of Altar to design the place of Consecration and of celebrating the Eucharist yet I judge that the first place of Antiquity where the Altar is mentioned is if my memory fail me not in the Book of Prayer made by Tertullian Tertul. de Orat. c. ult Your Station saith he will be more solemn if you stand-upright at the Altar of God Since which time the Antient Doctors have frequently used that manner of Speech and as they frequently spake of the Altar so they commonly spake of the Table and I verily believe whosoever would collect the expressions of Table and Altar which are to be found in the writings of the Antients to denote the place where the Consecration of the Eucharist was made might compose a compleat Volume of them so that there being nothing more frequent in the Monuments of Ecclesiastical Antiquity than the terms of Altar and of Table to signify one and the same thing it were to tire the Readers patience to alledge proofs of so evident a truth and which is owned by all for I do not find that the Protestants deny unto the Roman Catholicks that the Fathers have often called the holy Table an Altar and in truth they cannot without renouncing all sincerity and modesty neither do I find that the Roman Catholicks do deny unto the Protestants but that the same Fathers do often make mention of the Eucharistical Table the Divine Table the Holy Table and the Mystical Table neither can they without a manifest contradiction against an infinite number of passages of Antiquity that are scarcely to be numbred in the writings of S. Chrysostom and S. Austin and if any desire to satisfie their curiosity thereupon they may consult of the former Oration 19. and 20. to the
in the Sclavonian Tongue unto those of that Nation whom he had Baptised that is to say Converted That as the matter was debated in the Sacred Colledge where there were several that opposed it there was a voice-heard as it were sent from Heaven saying Let all Flesh praise the Lord and every Tongue confess his Name upon which Cyrill was granted his request It is said that this Cyril is the same who in the Sclavonian Language is called Chiuppil That he lived about the Year 860. and that in the Days of Michael the Third Emperor of the East and of Pope Nicolas the First he with Methodius Converted unto the Faith of Jesus Christ the Mingrelians the Circassians and the Gazarites and afterwards several of the Sclavonians therefore in the Roman Martyrology is celebrated the day of his Birth as was antiently said amongst Christians that is of the Death of Cyrill and Methodius in the same day which is the ninth of March whence it is also that Pope John the Eighth wrote several Letters unto this Methodius Companion unto Cyrill and one of the Apostles of the Sclavonians according to the Language of those times and we find by the 247th Letter of this Pope written Anno 879. unto Sphentopulcher Prince of the Country That Methodius had been sent by this Prince unto John the Eighth who returned him back unto him to execute the Function of Archbishop with power to celebrate Mass and Divine Service in the Sclavonian Tongue We have just cause to commend saith this Pope Tom. 7. Concil part 1. Ep. 247. p. 91. writing unto Sphentopulcher the Sclavonian Characters invented by a certain Philosopher called Constantine whereby the Praises of God are published abroad and we command That in that same Language be recited the Sermons and Works of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ for we are warned by Divine Authority to praise the Lord not only in three Languages but also in all which Authority enjoyns us this Commandment when it saith All Nations praise the Lord and all People bless his name and the Apostles being filled with the Holy Ghost spake forth in all Languages the wonderful things of God Thence also it is that St. Paul that Heavenly Trumpet publisheth this Warning Let every Tongue confess that our Lord Jesus is the Christ to the Glory of the Father Touching which Languages also he instructeth us fully and plainly in the 14th Chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians how we are to edifie the Church in speaking several Languages and certainly it doth in no way prejudice the Faith or Doctrine to sing Masses in the Sclavonian Tongue or to read the holy Gospel or Divine Lessons of the Old and New Testament well translated and interpreted or to say or sing all the other Offices because he who made the three principal Languages the Hebrew Greek and Latine is the same which hath also created all other Languages for his Praise and Glory However we appoint that in all Churches under your inspection for the greater Honour the Gospel be read in Latine and because 't is translated into Sclavonian that it be read to the People who understand not Latin as it is practised in some Churches It were to be wished say the Protestants that the Christians of the Roman Communion would make serious reflection upon these words of Pope John the Eighth and that then they would consult the Decree of Innocent the Third at the Council of Lateran assembled in the year of our Lord 1215. T. 7. Concil Paâ—r part 2. Can. 9. p. 8â—9 Because that in most places in the same City and in the same Diocese there be people of divers Languages mingled together having under one Faith different Ceremonies and Customs we expresly enjoyn the Bishops of those Cities and Dioceses to provide for them persons fit to celebrate Divine Offices according to the different Ceremonies and Languages and to administer the Sacraments of the Church instructing them by their words and by Example Cardinal Cajetan who lived in Luther's time hath left in his Opuscula Opuscul t. 3. tract 15. art 8. That it were better for the edification of the Church thaâ— publick Service and Prayers which are made in presence of the People should be made in the Church rather in the vulgar than in the Latin Tongue and being blamed for it by some he answered That he grounded what he had said upon the 14th Chapter of the first to the Corinthians De offic pii viri p 865. George Cassander who lived and dyed in the Roman Church wished that it might have been so practised Methinks saith he it were much to be desired that according to the Apostles command and the custom of the antient Church some heed were to be taken of the People in the publick Prayers of the Church in the Psalms and Lessons which are used in their behalf and that the common People should not always be kept strangers from the knowledge of Prayers and Divine Service The words of St. Paul are clear That one cannot understand what is said if it be not said in a known Tongue and that he that by his ignorance understands not what is said cannot say Amen unto the Prayers of another Ibid. p. 866. And having alledged the words of Aeneas Sylvius and those of Cajetan he adds Vnto those who have the conduct and Government of the Church at this time it were no hard matter to establish and settle these and the like things according to the pure and antient practice of the Church if the minds of some persons were not seized with a vain and foolish fear and if they were not kept back by a vain Superstition nevertheless unless this be done I do not see that there is any great hope of an assured agreement and union in the Church nor that the Seeds of Schisms and Divisions will ever be rooted out and I cannot conceive how those persons unto whom the oversight of the Church is committed shall escape rendering an account of the Rents and Divisions in the Church which they have neglected and whereof they have not been careful according to their duty to prevent the growing Schisms and Heresies He repeats almost the same things in the consultation addressed unto the Emperors Ferdinand I. and Maximilian II. where he saith Pag. 995. amongst other things That 't was requisite Priests should so say Mass that the People may reap some benefit by it and not to be barely busied about an outward shew This was also the Testimony of Erasmus which is cited in the Margin of Cassander's Book just by the words first alledged Dâ— modo orandi It were saith he much to be desired that the whole Divine Service were said in a Language understood by all the People as it was wont to be practised in antient times and that all things were so plainly and so distinctly spoken that those which hearkened might understand them Queen Katherine
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
understood the sub-Deacons which shews that the Deacons were not comprised in the prohibition which was made unto these Ministers Also the IV. Council of Carthage suffers the Deacons to administer unto the people in case of necessity Concil Carthag 4. c. 38. Ambros de offic l. 1. c. 41. the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Lord even in the presence of the Priest but by his order St. Ambrose speaking of the Deacon and Martyr St. Lawrence saith that he distributed the Cup and St. Leo in a Sermon where he treats of his Martyrdom Serm. infestiv Laurent and of his Triumph advanceth his Dignity by administring of the Sacraments and elsewhere making the Panegyrick of St. Vincent who was also a Deacon and Levite In nativit Vincent c. 2. he saith that he administred the Cup of our Lord Jesus unto Believers for their Salvation George Cassander alledgeth in his Liturgies these words of a certain Book which treated of all the Divine Offices Apud Cassandr in liturg c. 31. The Deacons are those unto whom it belongs to set in order upon the Holy Table the offerings of the people which are to be consecrated and after the Consecration to distribute the Mysteries of the Body and Blood of our Lord unto the people And in the Dialogues of Gregory the First there is mention made of a certain Deacon who being affrighted at the cruelty of the Pagans Gregor l. in dial l. 1. c. 7. as he was administring the Cup unto the people let it fall to the ground whereby it was broken In Spain they administred the Bread and Wine in the VI. Century as appears by the first Canon of the Council of Ilerda assembled Anno 524. In the Greek Church it is the Deacons which administer the Sacrament unto the people and amongst the Abassins the Deacon gives the Bread in little bits and the sub-Deacon the other Symbol in a spoon of Gold Silver or of Wood. But it is needless to insist any longer on a matter so clear and besides which is not of the greatest moment therefore 't is sufficient to know that at the beginning of Christianity the Deacons gave both Symbols unto the Communicants that afterwards they administred but the Cup only he which celebrated giving the Bread although this custom was not so soon admitted in all parts there being some places where the Deacons in the IV. Century distributed the whole Sacrament unto the faithful people and if in some Churches they were disturbed in the possession of their Rights yet nevertheless they have commonly injoyed the priviledge of administring the Cup of our Lord unto Christians after he that consecrated had distributed the holy Bread and it is they who amongst the Greeks distribute the Communion unto the people In the Kingdom of Prester John the Deacon giveth the Bread and the sub-Deacon the Wine as well unto the Clergy as unto the People But this is worth the considering that in divers parts of the West Women were permitted to administer the Sacrament unto the people and forasmuch as this abuse as far as I remember began in Italy Gelas Ep. â— ad Episc â—ucan t. 3. Concil p. 636. Pope Gelasius was also the first if I am not mistaken who indeavoured to prevent it grievously censuring the Bishops of Lucania for giving this liberty to Women and suffering them to serve at the Altar Men being only called unto this Office But it seems that this censure of Gelasius had not all the success as could have been wished seeing that about 500. Years afterwards to wit about the end of the X. Century Ratherius Bishop of Verona in Italy T. 6. Concil p. 431. T. 2. Spicil p. 261. in his Synodal Letters unto the Priests of his Diocese which have passed until our daies for a Sermon of Pope Leo the Fourth was forced to forbid Women to come near the Altar or touch the Cup of our Lord because in all likelihood they administred it unto Communicants And it was not only in Italy this permission was given unto Women but also in divers Provinces of France whence it is That the VI. Council Assembled at Paris under Lewis the Debonair Anno 829. Concil Paris 6. l. 1. c. 15. forbids it in one of its Canons which is yet to be seen in the seventh Book Cap. 134. of the Capitularies of Charles the Great and of Lewis the Debonair his Son a Prohibition which Isaac Bishop of Langres Isaac Ling. can tit 5. c. 7. 11. c. 23. was constrained to renew some time after As for the persons admitted unto the Communion they were Believers therefore the Deacons made the Catechumeni the Energoumeni the penitents and generally all such as were not initiated in the Mysteries of Christian Religion to go out and those people were not only not suffered to participate of the Sacrament but they were not suffered to stay in the Assembly when it was celebrated Indeed that they were not suffered to assist at the Celebration of the Sacrament was not alwaies practis'd amongst Christians seeing that it is most certain that in the two first Centuries and probably a good part of the third they hid not their Mysteries and did not celebrate with the Doors shut as appears by the Works of Justin Martyr which shews plainly that the Liturgies which go in the name of S. James and S. Mark are forgeries for therein is mention of excluding these sorts of persons above mentioned the Deacon making them go out before the beginning of Consecrating the Divine Symbols which is also to be read in all the other Liturgies and I shall not stand to prove this matter being indisputable and owned by all the World the truth whereof is easily to be seen by such as please to read the Liturgies which we have remaining and which by the care taken therein by the Deacons to shut out the Catechumeni the Energoumeni the penitents and the uninitiated do manifestly shew that they have been made since the third Century whatever care the Authors of some of them have taken to shroud themselves under the name of some Apostle or Disciple of the Apostles And if only Belivers were obliged to Communicate this obligation regarded them all in general for the Penitents were not thought to be Believers during the time of their penance the sins they had committed and for which they had been censured to undergo the burden of this penance having made them fall from this priviledge and happy state when I speak of Believers I do not mean only such as were grown up and such as were of years of discretion but also Children Therefore we are necessarily ingaged to make two Considerations of the persons of Communicants the first shall treat of the Communion of Adults the second that of Children As for the Communion of persons of Age and years of discretion there is no question to be made but they were all obliged to Communicate when
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
tells us without falling into a great sin whereof he must be obliged to make great repentance From all which he concludes in favour of the steeped Sacrament and praiseth the wisdom of those who first established this manner of Communicating with the Bread steept in Wine saying That pious men had prudently directed that the little portion of the Body should not be given dry as our Lord had done but that it should be distributed unto Believers steeped in the Blood of our Lord and that by this means it should happen that according to the precept of our Saviour we should eat his Flesh and drink his Blood and that he that feared to sin in so great a matter might avoid the danger And he gives for a reason of this conduct That we eat dry and drink liquid what goes down the throat after having received it in the mouth either together or separately And because some considering that Jesus Christ had given the steept morsel unto Judas did not approve this manner of distributing the Sacrament he saith there 's a great deal of difference betwixt the Eucharist steeped and the Morsel which our Lord gave the Disciple that betray'd him because the actions which have a different occasion cannot agree well together Afterwards taking with many others the Decree of the Council of Braga of the year 675. against the steeped Sacrament for a Decree of Pope Julius he saith this Decree is no longer of force with modern persons and that the customs of the Church which surpasse all others as well in reason as in authority hath overcome this ancient Constitution that it should not be thought strange because the Decrees of other Popes are changed for the like and sometimes upon smaller occasions But although this Author of the XII Century of whom Cardinal Cusa cites something in Cassander in his Liturgies gives us this form of administring the Sacrament with steept Bread as establish'd in his time in the West it cannot be said that it was universally received in all Churches without exception In fine besides what we alledged out of the Micrologue and of Pope Paschal who made his Decree in the XII Century Arnold of Bonneval contemporary with S. Bernard in his Sermon of the Supper of the Lord in S. Cyprian's Works sheweth us sufficiently that in the same XII Century wherein he lived the use of the Cup was not forbidden the people when he saith Apud Cypr. p. 329. ult edit vid. p. 330. It was under the Doctor Christ Jesus that this Discipline first of all appeared in the World that Christians should drink Blood whereof the use was so strictly prohibited by the Authority of the ancient Law for the Law forbids eating of Blood and the Gospel commands to drink it And again We drink Blood Jesus Christ himself commanding it being partakers by and with him of everlasting life And at the conclusion of the Treatise he with several other Doctors of the Church who lived before him in that Believers are partakers of one Bread and of one Cup doth search a type of their union Ibid. p. 33â— or rather of their Spiritual unity in Christ Jesus who is the head of this Divine Body We also saith he being made his Body are tied and bound unto our head both by the Sacrament and by the matter of the Sacrament and being members one of another we mutually render each other the duties of love we communicate by charity we participate with eating one and the same meat and drink one and the same drink which flows and springs from the Spiritual Rock which meat and drink is our Lord Jesus Christ I believe we may join unto Arnold of Bonneval Peter de Celles Abbot of S. Remy of Rheims who lived at the end of the XII Century for in his Treatise of Cloister Discipline which is come to light but within these seven or eight years he speaks in this manner The communication of the Body of Christ T. 3. Spicil p. 99. and of the Blood of Christ poured forth to wit of the Lamb without spot purifieth us from all guilt and from all sin Let us say something more formal Peter of Tarantes Apud Cassand de Commun sub utraque specie p. 1043. afterwards Pope under the name of Innocent IV. writes That the most considerable as the Priests and Ministers of the Altar do receive the Sacrament under both kinds William of Montelaudana in sundry places saith he They communicate with the Bread and Wine that is to say with the whole Sacrament And Peter de Palude testifies that in his time It was the practice in several Churches to communicate under the one and the other species Richard de Mediavilla was of the same Judgement with Innocent IV. the one and the other giving for a reason that those unto whom they administer the Communion under both kinds Know very well how to yield thereunto the greater reverence and caution All these saith Cassander lived about the 1300. year of our Lord. Wherefore the same Cassander observes in the same place that Thomas Aquinas who defends the use of communicating under one kind doth not say that this custom was universally received but in some Churches only And to say the truth Christians found so much consolation and benefit in participating of the Cup of their Lord that when in latter times they began to tell them of the danger of effusion to dispose them to the use of communicating under one kind there were several Churches that rather than they would be deprived of the participation of the sacred Cup invented certain little Quills which were fastened unto the Chalices by means whereof they drank the Mystical Blood of our Lord as Beatus Rhenanus p. 438. testifies in his Notes upon Tertullian's Book De Corona Militis and Cassander in his Treatise of the Communion under both kinds p. 1036. both of them in their time having seen of these Quills or little Pipes which were used for communicating the Laity Let us descend yet lower and we shall find about 35. years before the Council of Constance an example of the Communion under both kinds in Rome it self not indeed of the People but of all the Cardinal Deacons for Vrban VI. who began the great Schism which lasted from the year 1378. until 1428. being Elected Pope at Rome Anno 1378. in the place of Gregory XI He solemnly celebrated Mass upon S. Peter 's Altar in his Pontifical Habit wherein all things were performed according to the order of the Rubrick and in fine he with his own hands gave the Communion unto all the Cardinal Deacons with the pretious Body and Blood of Christ as it was alwaies the manner of Popes to do T. 4. p. 306. Thus it was written unto Lewis Earl of Flanders Anno 1378. by Pileiâ—de Prata Archbishop of Ravenna and Cardinal in one of the Tomes of the collection of Dom Luke de Achery But as from the
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
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
took them out of the Scriptures and the holy Fathers to teach them unto such as desired to be instructed At the beginning of the Letter Id. ibi p. 1619. 1623. You examine me saith he upon a thing whereof several persons doubt Id. in Matt. l. 12. p. 1094. In his Commentary upon the 26th Chapter of St. Matthew I have treated of these things more at large and more expresly because I am informed that some reproved me as if in the Book of Sacraments which I published I had given unto the words of Jesus Christ more than the truth it self doth allow Ib. p. 1100. And again There are many that in these mystical things are of another Opinion and there are many that are blind and cannot see when they think this Bread and this Cup is nothing else but what is seen with the Eyes and which is tasted with the Mouth Wherefore the Anonymous Author before mentioned Aut Anonym uâ—i supra writes that some affirmed That what is received at the Altar is the same that was born of the Virgin and that others on the contrary denied it and said That it is another thing But having been told by Paschas himself that he had several Adversaries and Opposers We must farther learn of him what was the belief of this great number of Opposers for after having cited the words of Institution Take Eat this is my Body Paschas Ep. ad Frudegard Commentar in Matth. l. 12. he adds That those which will extenuate this term of Body saying That it is not the true Flesh of Jesus Christ which is celebrated in the Sacrament nor his true blood let them hear these words they pretend I know not what as if there was only in the Sacrament a certain vertue of the body and blood of Jesus Christ as if our Saviour had told a lye and that it was not his true Flesh and Blood c. When he broke and gave the Bread unto his Disciples he said not This is or there is in this Mystery a certain Vertue or Figure of my Body but he said This is my Body And a little after I admire that some would now say That it is not the reality of the Flesh and blood of Jesus Christ in the thing it self but in Sacrament a certain efficacy of the body and not the body a vertue of the blood and not the blood a figure and not the truth a shadow and not the substance It cannot then reasonably be after such formal and positive Declarations that the world should think any other Opinion can be attributed unto the Adversaries of Paschas but that of the Protestants of France and of all others of their Communion As the Belief of Paschas is that of the Roman Catholicks to say otherwise were to dissemble to renounce the truth and to be unworthy the esteem and credit of honest men Let it then be granted for certain that in this important point which we do examine Paschas was a Roman Catholick as 't is spoken now a days And that his Adversaries on the contrary were Protestant Calvinists from whence it will necessarily follow that if the followers of Paschas in the IX Century were more considerable and of greater numbers than his Adversaries the Opinion of the Latin Church had the victory over the other but if also the number of his Adversaries was greater their Name more famous and their Reputation better established it must be concluded That the Belief of the Protestants had the Victory it appears that so things are to be understood to do right unto both parties The better to succeed in this design I will begin with those that followed Paschas seeing it was him that obliged his Adversaries to contradict him and oppose themselves unto the Establishment of his Opinion which appeared new unto them and different from the ancient Faith of the Church It cannot be denied but Paschas Radbert had good Endowments as appears by his Works and that he was commended by some Writers of that time as a Man of great Learning and above the common sort Nevertheless as to the Subject in hand I have not observed in what I have read that many persons have declared in favour of him It is out of all question that Frudegard fell into his Opinion after having read his Treatise of the Body and Blood of Christ for in the Letter which Paschas writ him Paschas Ep. ad Frudeg pag. 1620. we therein find these words You say that you believed so formerly he speaks of his Opinion and that you read the same in the Book of Sacraments that I composed Since which time Frudegard having read the Advertisement which St. Austin gives in the third Book of Christian Doctrine of understanding figuratively what our Saviour speaks of eating his Flesh he was very much shaken and if he changed not quite it may be said that he continued in suspence without declaring for or against Paschas It is what he informs us Ibid. when he adds unto his first words But you say that you have since read in St. Austin 's third Book of Christian Doctrine that where it is said it is the body and blood of Christ it is a figurative manner of expression and if it is a figurative speech and a figure rather than the truth I cannot tell say you how it should be understood And you say afterwards And if I believe that it is the same body as that which he took from the holy Virgin his Mother this excellent Doctor that is to say St. Austin declares on the contrary that it is a great crime to wit to believe that it is the real body of Jesus Christ Paschas doth what he can to continue him in the Opinion he had been of before he had read this passage of St. Austin and the better to effect it he alledges this unto him under the name of this great Saint and as being taken out of his Sermons unto the Neophites Ibid. Receive in the Bread what was nailed upon the Cross and in the Cup that which came out of the Side of Jesus Christ Words which for certain are not of St. Austin and which are not to be found in any of his Works which we have in great numbers Paschas 't is true cites them as to the best of his remembrance and I cannot tell if in a matter so important as this it will serve turn to say As I remember or If my memory fail not In the main it not appearing that he satisfied Frudegard in his doubts the surest side we can take in this Conjuncture is to make him neither a Friend nor an Adversary of Paschas but to leave him in his doubts if we would not increase the Sect of Scepticks I will not say the same of the Anonymous Author which Father Cellot hath furnished us and whom we have twice mentioned already in this Chapter for it appears plainly he was
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
you that is to say if you participate not of my passion and if you believe not that I dyed for your salvation you have no life in you This is the constant Doctrine of St. Austin He also testifies in the following words that he gloried in being one of his followers The Mystery is the Faith Ibid. as St. Austin saith in his Letter unto the Bishop Boniface As then the Sacrament of the Body of Jesus Christ is after some sort the body of Jesus Christ and the Sacrament of his blood his blood so also the Sacrament of Faith is Faith so we may also say This is the Cup of my Blood of the New and Eternal Testament as if he should say This is my Blood which is given for you he could not say more plainly That the Cup that is the Wine which is in the Cup is the Blood of Jesus Christ as the Sacrament is the thing whereof it is the Sacrament And in another Letter unto one Guntard whom he calls his Son and that he was something dissatisfied because Amalarius did spit presently after having received the Sacrament he saith unto him Id. ad Guntard Ep. 6. p. 196. that he denied not but that we should venerate the Body of Jesus Christ above all other Food It is not at all likely he would have spoken after this manner if he had believed that what is received in the Sacrament is the very Body of Jesus Christ because there can be no comparison betwixt this Divine Body and our Ordinary Food but he might well say so of the Sacrament for the which we should have a more peculiar respect and veneration than for our other meats He explains himself and sheweth that he speaks not of the real Body of Jesus Christ but of his Typical Body when he saith That it belongs to our Lord to pour out his Body by the Members and Veins for our Eternal Salvation Ibid. p. 171. That it is the Body of Jesus Christ which may be cast out in spitting after having received it and whereof some part may be cast out of the mouth Unto all which he adds Having so received the Body of Christ with a good intention I don't intend to argue whether it be invisibly lifted up unto Heaven or whether it remains in our bodies until the day of our Death or whether it be exhaled into the Air or whether it departs out of the body with the blood or whether it goes out at the pores our Saviour saying Ibid. p. 172. Whatsoever enters in at the Mouth goes into the Belly and from thence into the draft only care is to be taken not to receive it with a heart of Judas not to misprise it but to distinguish it savingly from ordinary Food Thence it is that he requires That during Lent all Believers Id. de observatione Quadrages p. 174. excepting such as are Excommunicated should receive the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Jesâ— Christ and that the people should be warned not to draw near the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ irreverently I know not saith the Protestant if after all these Declarations it can be doubted that Amalarius was far from the Opinion of Paschas Id. de offic l. 3. c. 24. Ibid. c. 25. and that when he saith We believe that the plain Nature of Bread and Wine mixed is changed into a reasonable Nature of the body and blood of Jesus Christ That the Church believes it is the body and blood of our Saviour and that by this Morsel the Souls of Communicants are filled with a heavenly Benediction which are passages alledged by the Latins to support their Doctrine He meant not that they passed or as Rabanus told us that they are converted into a Sacrament of his Body and Blood And to say the truth adds he I find he hath so fully explained and cleared his intention that it must be concluded that he believed the Sacrament is not the Flesh it self born of the Virgin as Paschas taught but the Sacrament of this holy Flesh the Bread and Wine by sanctification passing into this Divine Sacrament as he said of the Oyl the People offered Ibid. l. 1. c. 12. That by benediction it is converted into a Sacrament Therefore he gives us to understand that this Sacrament which we receive and that he calls the Body of Jesus Christ because of some likeness as he explained himself by the words of St. Austin is subject unto divers accidents whereto the real Body of Jesus Christ cannot be expos'd particularly of going into the place of Excrements like other Meats Let the Reader judge if he please of this Dispute and Controversie Unto Rabanus and Amalarius I will joyn Wallafridus Strabo who in all probability wrote his Book of Ecclesiastical matters betwixt the years 840. and 849. In Poemate which was the time of his Decease In that he calls Rabanus his Father and Master it may give cause to conceive that he was of one Judgment with him but because meer surmises are not sufficient proof nor convincing Arguments Walafri Strabo lib. de Reb. Eccles c. 16. Bibl. p. 7. t. 10. let us learn from his own mouth what he believed of the Mystery which we examine Jesus Christ saith he gave to his Disciples the Sacraments of his body and blood in the substance of Bread and Wine teaching them to celebrate it in Commemoration of his most holy passion because there could nothing be found more fitting then these species to signifie the Unity of the head and his members for as the Bread is made of several Grains and is reduced into one body by means of Water and as the Wine is pressed from several Grapes so also the body of Jesus Christ is made of the Union of a multitude of believers And a little after he declares That Jesus Christ hath chosen for us a reasonable Sacrifice for the Mystery of his body and of his blood in that Melchisedek having offered Bread and Wine he gave unto believers the same kind of sacrifice And again That as for that great number of legal sacrifices Id. cap. 18. Jesus Christ gave us the Word of his Gospel so also for that great diversity of sacrifices believers should rest satisfied with the Oblation of Bread and Wine As all these passages are exceeding clear so it is very just and reasonable they should serve for a Commentary unto others if it had hapned that Wallafridus had spoken less clear any where else for then should that judicious rule of Tertullians be practised That the plainest things should prevail Tertull. de Resurrect carn c. 19. 21. and that the most certaine should prescribe against the uncertain things which are doubtful should be judged by those things which are certain and those which are obscure by those which are clear and manifest Let us apply this unto what Wallafridus saith in another place which the Latins forget
not that is to say Id. cap. 17. That the Mysteries of our Redemption are truly the body and blood of our Saviour And we shall find say the Protestants that he so explained himself in regard to their Efficacy and their Vertue and of the real and effectual communication of this Body and Blood in the lawful use of this Sacrament and not to say that they are substantially this Body and Blood because that is inconsistent with the Declaration he made just before That the Sacraments of the body and blood of Jesus Christ is the substance of Bread and Wine whereas these things accord very well with saying that although the Sacraments are Bread and Wine in substance yet they are for all that truly the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in Efficacy and in Vertue because they are indeed accompanied with the Vertue and Efficacy of his Divine Body and of his precious Blood the term of truly being opposed not unto figuratively or sacramentally for that would be a contradiction seeing he speaks of Mysteries but it is opposed unto untruth as if the Sacrament were not at all the Body of Jesus Christ unto vainly as if it had only the bare name and nefficaciously as if it had not the virtue And that this is the true sense of the words of Wallafridus it appears by the title of the Chapter entituled Of the vertue of the Sacraments in which Chapter the more to advance the efficacy he with many of the Ancients particularly with Rabanus his Master and with Ratramn his Contemporary interprets the 6th of St. John not of the Flesh and Blood it self of Jesus Christ but of the Sacraments of his Body and Blood or to speak with St. Fulgentius Of the Mysteries of the Truth Fulgent de Bapt. Aethiop and not of the Truth of the Mysteries This is the Reasoning of Protestants At the same time time that Wallafridus wrote his Book Heribald or Heribold Bishop of Auxerr was in great Reputation but because we have that to say of this Prelate as will give a very great weight unto his Testimony we will reserve him for a Chapter unto himself and in the mean while we will say something of Loup Abbot of Ferriers in Gastinais who in that he speaks horably of Heribold as shall be related hereafter may intimate that they were both of one Judgment But these sorts of Inferences are too weak to be insisted upon therefore I will seek for something in his Writings that is more material as in one of his Letters unto Amulus or Amulo Archbishop of Lyons in behalf of Guenilo Archbishop of Sans and of Count Gerrard in speaking of Jesus Christ Lupus Ferratiâ—n Ep. 81. Id. Ep. 40. he said That he raised his Humanity unto Heaven to be always present with him by his Divinity This that he calls Rabanus his Tutor and rendred him thanks for that he took care of instructing him doth no less confirm what he said and gives cause to think that in all likelihood Rabanus had instilled his Opinions into him because most commonly we embrace their Opinions whose Disciples we have been in our Youth especially when they are Opinions received by the Major part of the World Unto which may be added what he saith in the Book of three Questions Id. de tribus quaest p. 208 209. ult edit which Monsieur Baluze proves to be his to wit That God hath subjected spiritual Creatures unto time only but as for bodily things he hath subjected them unto time and unto place and that it cannot be questioned if it be considered that all bodies that have length breadth and depth and which are called solid are never contained but in one place It is evident that he means of being contained circumscriptively otherwise his Opposition would be insignificant being certain that Spirits for instance Angels also fill a place so that whilst they are here they are not there and this is termed to be in a place definitively But to be there circumscriptively appertains only unto Bodies which being made up of several parts are in such manner scituated in the place which they fill that each part of the Body answers unto each part of the place St. Fulgent ad Pet. Diac. c. 3. It not being given unto Bodies to exist after the manner of Spirits to use the terms of St. Fulgentius Seeing then that the Abbot de Ferriers speaks after this manner of the existing of Bodies and that he believes it inseparable from every Corporal Creature without excepting the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist it follows that he believed not this Existence after the manner of a Spirit which is attributed unto him in the Latin Church nor by consequence the real Presence whereupon it depends as one of its necessary Consequences This is what several do infer from this passage The Emperor Charles the Bald being informed that his Subjects were not all of one Opinion touching the Doctrine of the Sacrament thought it necessary to consult some of the most Learned of his Kingdom and such as were of greatest Credit and Esteem Amongst others which he made choice of to write on this Subject he chose two persons whom he esteemed very much the one was Bertram or as he is called by the Writers of that Age Ratramn which is his true name and the other was John Surnamed Erigenius of Scotland that is to say of Ireland according to the Language of our times Their Writings have not had the same fate for those of Ratramn have been preserved unto us but as for those of John they were condemned and burnt two hundred years after at the Council of Verceill And as they were two several Writers so we must also distinguish them in this History and that we speak of each of them severally To begin with Ratramn Priest of the Monastery of Corby and afterwards Abbot of Orbais I say he was a Man so esteemed in his time that all the Bishops of France made choice of him to defend the Latin Church against the Greeks and by the industry of Dom Luke d'Achery a Benedictine Friar we have in our hands the four Books which he composed and are such that when I compare them with that written by Eneas Bishop of Paris in the same Century and in defence of the same Cause I find as great difference betwixt them as betwixt Light and Darkness or at least betwixt the weak Essay of some illiterate person and the accomplished Work of an exquisite Artist because in truth the Work of Eneas is extreamly weak in comparison of that of Ratramn I say of that Ratramn unto whom the Abbot Trithemius ascribes such great Commendations in the XV Century and whom the Disciples of St. Austin Defenders of the free Grace of Jesus Christ so much admired when they made use of what he wrote touching the Doctrine of Predestination Therefore the President Mauguin speaking of him said Mauguin dissertat Hist
Austin that is to say in the V. Century Liber Sacrament in Sabbato Sancto p. 70. 71. And what inclines me to think so is first That in the time of Gregory the first it was practis'd in the Celebration of holy Baptism as it may be seen in his Book of Sacraments whence it may be inferred with great probability that it was also practised in the Celebration of the Sacrament Secondly St. Isidor Archbishop of Sevil who lived in the same time with Gregory although he dyed several years after him speaks formally of it Lib. 7. Etymol c. de Clericis as of a thing already established Those saith he which in Greek are called Acolytes are those which in Latin we call Linkbearers because they carry them when the Gospel is read or when the Sacrifice is offered for then they do light Candles and bear them not to dissipate darkness because the Sun shineth at that time but to express our joy thereby to declare under the Type of a corporal Light that Light spoken of in the Gospel That he is the true Light which enlighteneth every man which cometh into the World Since which time most of those which have treated of Divine Offices have not failed to speak of it and therein to seek as well as in all other things some mystical signification so that it would be but lost labour any farther to follow the traces of this Ceremony which was even at that time generally received amongst the Greeks and the Latins in the East and in the West Therefore may be seen in the Roman Order and elsewhere several prayers for blessing of Torches Candles and Flambeaus which are not necessary here to be inserted One shall suffice for all Ordo Roman t. 10. Bibl. Patr. p. 24. O Lord Jesus Christ bless this Wax we beseech thee and therein pour by the vertue of thy heavenly Cross a heavenly Benediction to the end that by the Sign of the Cross it might receive of thee who hast given it unto men to scatter the darkness of the Night such a force and benediction that in all places where it shall be lighted or set the Devil should avoid tremble and fly for fear with all his Imps from those places and habitations and that he may no more attempt to molest and seduce those that serve thee But having discoursed of the use of Lamps Candles and of Incense the Author of Constitutions called Apostolical obligeth us to speak somewhat of the Sign of the Cross because in his Liturgy of the Eucharist he represents the Bishop making of it when he addresseth himself unto the celebration of the Sacrament It is most certain that the Ancient Christians often made the sign of the Cross at least since the end of the II. Century as Tertullian informs us but before him I do not remember to have observed it a practice those Christians opposed unto the reproach which the Gentiles made them of believing in a Man that had been put to death upon a Cross so that by this sign they would manifest unto their Enemies that they were not ashamed of their crucified Jesus So it is that St. Cyril of Jerusalem explains himself when he said If after being crucified and buried Catech. 4. he had remained in the Grave then we should have cause to be ashamed but he is risen and ascended up into Heaven And elsewhere Id. Catech. 13 Arm your selves against the enemies of this Cross plant for a Trophy against all opposers the Faith of the Cross And when you engage in disputing with Unbelievers touching the Cross of our Saviour first of all make the sign of the Cross and you will put to silence your gainsayers Be not ashamed to confess the Cross of Jesus Christ that is to say of him that was crucified But how frequent soever the Sign of the Cross was amongst Christians I cannot find that during the three first Centuries they commonly used it in the publick Service of Religion and as I only treat at this time of the Sacrament I shall only say that the first places wherein there is any mention of the Sign of the Cross in the celebration of this Divine Sacrament are the Liturgies of the Apostolick Constitutions as hath been declared in this Chapter And this Treatise could not have been written but at the beginning of the IV. Century those attributed unto St. Peter St. James and St. Mark are not as I conceive any Elder having many things in them unknown unto the first Christians As for the Liturgy of Justin Martyr written in the II. Century there is not one word mentioned of it but what I dare not assure of the Sign of the Cross to wit that it doth not appear in the celebration of the Sacrament during the three first Centuries I shall not fear to affirm of the use of material Crosses because there were not yet any used in the Church therefore Tertullian reckons expresly amongst false Opinions Apolog. c. 15. 16. that some Pagans entertained of the object of the Adoration of Christians Minut. in Octav. the fancy of those which thought That they were Worshippers or Admirers of the Cross and in Minutius Felix Cecilius in his Invective against Christians having said That some persons esteemed that the cursed Wood of the Cross was part of their Ceremonies Octavius that excellent defender of Christianity answereth As for Crosses we neither care for them nor Worship them And it is very probable that Christians began not to use Crosses until after it was believed that Hellen Mother of Constantine had found the true Cross of Jesus Christ in the year 326. But if we yet draw nearer unto the Sacrament we shall not find any Cross therein used during all the time which hath been spoken of nor yet later for it doth not appear neither in the Liturgy of St. Justin Martyr nor in those which go under the names of St. James St. Peter and of St. Mark Nor in fine in those of the Apostolick Constitutions of St. Cyril of Jerusalem and of the pretended Dennis the Arcopagite But although the Author of this last lived not at soonest but at the V. Century I know not whether it may be said that the use of Sign of the Cross was not practiced in the publick action of the Sacraments of the Church seeing the contrary appears in the Writings of St. Chrysostom Hom. 55. in Matth. p. 487. Vide t. 5. quod Christ sit Deus pag 840. t. 6. de adorat cruc p. 615. When saith he we be regenerated that is to say Baptized the Cross is there and when we are fed with the mystical food and when we receive Ordination and whatever else we do this Victorious Symbol doth still accompany us But before this excellent Doctor who departed this life Anno 407. I do not find that Crosses were employed in the Service and Worship of Christians and besides the passages of St.
Fourth did institute this Holy Day in that Year if we do not also know that he was inclined thereunto by the desires and upon the Revelations of certain Women of the Country of Liege particularly of a Nun called Eve unto whom he wrote a Letter upon this Subject and another unto all the Bishops the which is contained in the Bull of Clement the Fifth in the third Book of Clementines tit 16. as we are fully informed by John Diesteim Blaerus Prior of St. James of Leige which he composed after having made as he saith an exact enquiry of what had passed in this Institution And to inform the Reader of the nature of these Revelations he adds That the first of these Women called Juliana in praying perceived a marvellous Aparition viz. The Moon as it were at Full but having some kind of Spots Whereupon she was divinely inspired that the Moon was the Church and that the Spot which appeared therein was the want of a Holy Day which as yet was wanting So that she received a Command from Heaven to begin this Solemnity and to pubish unto the World that it ought to be celebrated He saith moreover That this Juliana having communicated her Revelations unto one Isabella this Isabella knowing the troubles Juliana was in upon this Subject she desired of God by earnest Prayers that he would impart unto her the knowledge of these things and that going to visit Eve a Nun of the Church of St. Martins of Leige she no sooner kneeled down before the Crucifix but being ravished in mind she was shewed from Heaven that this particular Holy Day of the Eucharist had always been in the Council of the Soveraign Trinity and that now the time of revealing it unto Men was come for she affirmed that in her Extasie she saw all the Heavenly Host demand of God by their Prayers that he would speedily manifest this Solemnity unto the wavering World to confirm the Faith of the Church Militant I am not ignorant but that there be some which would attribute the cause of this Institution unto a Miracle of Blood which as they say fell from an Hosty in the hands of a Priest as he sang Mass But Besides what Diesteim and after him several others have related unto us we have touching the first cause of this Institution the Declaration of Urban himself which made it For in the Letter which he wrote unto all the Bishops inserted in the Bull of Clement the Fifth he thus speaks We have understood heretofore being in a lower Office that is to say when he was Arch-Deacon of the Church of Leige that it was revealed unto some Catholicks which were the three Women mentioned by Diesteim Juliana Isabella and Eve that such a Holy Day was to be generally celebrated in the Church And in that which he wrote unto Eve We are sensible Daughter that your Soul hath desired with great desire that a solemn Holy Day of the Body of Jesus Christ might be instituted in the Church to be celebrated by Believers unto perpetuity This is the ground and foundation of this Feast and the true cause of its Institution even according to the Testimony of the Life of Juliana the first of these three Women a Testimony whose proper terms is related by Molanus in his Martyrology of Saints in Flanders on the 5th of April But how great soever the Authority of Popes at that time was in the West the Decree of Urban was not observed in all Churches by reason of the newness of the thing therefore Clement the Fifth caused it to be published again about fifty years after as the Gloss upon the Decretal of Clement the Fifth wherein that of Urban is inserted expresly observes But notwithstanding all this it was not hitherto kept as Diesteim informs us in the ninth Article of his Book Although saith he the Apostolical Commands touching the Celebration of the new Holy Day of the venerable Sacrament hath been addressed unto all the Churches yet so it is nevertheless that none of the Churches were careful to give Obedience thereunto excepting the Church of Leige which as soon as it had with honour received the Apostolical Nuncio with the Bulls the Decretals and the Office which he had brought presently as a dutiful Daughter gave Obedience thereunto rejecting the Office which the Virgin Juliana caused to be made and using that which had been composed by Thomas Aquinas And so ever since those Bulls came the Diocess of Liege and no other else hath solemnized this Holy Day until the days of our Lord Pope John the Twenty second who lived in the Year of our Lord Jesus Christ 1315. who published all the Constitutions of Clement and sent them unto the Universities And now if it be demanded of Urban Clement lib. 3 tit 16. si Dominum what profit was made by this Institution he will answer That this Holy Day properly belongs unto the Sacrament because there is no Saint but hath its Holy Day although there is remembrance had of them in the Masses and in the Litanies That it must be celebrated once every year particularly to confound the Unbelief and Extravagance of Hereticks to make a solemn and more particular Commemoration of it to the end to frequent Churches with more and greater Devotion there to repair by attention by humility of Spirit and by purity of heart all the defaults wherein we have fallen in all the other Masses either by the disquiet of worldly cares or by the dulness and weakness of humane frailty and there with respect to receive this Sacrament and to receive increase of Graces Almost the very same thing is to be seen in the Breviary of the Latin Church The Feast of the Sacrament was attended by Procession wherein the Host is born with Pomp and Magnificence Diesteim saith Offic. fir 6. infra Oct. Corp. Christ lect 4. 5. that it was Pope John the Twenty second which introduced this custom But Bossius in his Chronicles and after him Genebrard in his Chronology Book IV. place it much later and say that it began a hundred years after the Institution of the Holy Day to be practised at Pavia from whence it spread it self abroad into all the Western Churches and especially at Anger 's where Berengarius had been Arch-Deacon Upon which several observe that this Institution is directly contrary unto the practice of the ancient Church that very far from carrying in Procession the sacred Symbols of the Body and Blood of our Saviour did administer them the Doors shut even from the III. Century and concealed them not only from Unbelievers and Idolaters but even also from the Catechumeny which were made to go out when this divine Sacrament was to be administred They add that this Procession was very ill resented by many persons that lived in the Communion of the Roman Church In fine Queen Catherine de Medicis wrote unto the Pope in the Year 1561. as Monsieur de Thoul
Milevis Optat. l. 6. p. 94. when he reproacheth the Donatists that they broke them and gathering up the pieces they melted them into lumps and sold it but this makes nothing against the simplicity of others who contented themselves with Glass Chalices for instance that of Tholouse in the time of S. Exuperius no body ever condemning this simplicity there were several that much commended it the Antient Christians never having been blamed for consecrating and administring the Sacrament in Glass Chalices CHAP. VI. Of the Language used at Consecration and wherein Service was generally performed HAving considered the place of Consecration and the Vessels used about this Ceremony the order which we proposed to follow requires that in this Chapter we treat of the Language which was used in the Celebration of the Sacrament and generally in the whole Divine Service When Jesus Christ consecrated and blessed the Bread and Wine it was in the Language of the Country which he spake always during his living in the Flesh and during the course of his Ministry otherwise he could not have been understood of the People whom he intended to instruct and bring unto his Knowledge and Communion And this Language was not pure Hebrew after the return of the Babylonish Captivity as it was before at the time of our Saviours coming into the World but was a corrupt Hebrew and altered and mixt with Chaldee and Syriack especially the latter so that the Jewish Language at that time was composed as much of Syriack as of the Hebrew It was then in that Language which was composed of two Languages that our Saviour consecrated and celebrated his Eucharist having even retained some expressions which the Father of the Family was wont to use amongst the Jews at the time of celebrating the Passover The Apostles did religiously follow the example of their Master who bestowed not upon them the gift of Tongues meerly for converting the World but also that they might preach the Gospel administer the Sacraments and in a word exercise all the other functions of their Divine and glorious Ministry in the Language of each Nation and People where his Providence should send them this is so evident a truth that there is no Christian never so little reasonable but will believe it but if any the least doubt rests upon him in this matter I doubt not but he will overcome it easily if he takes the pains to read what the Apostle hath left written of this Doctrine in the 14. Chap. of the 1. Epistle to the Corinthians as all the antient Commentators Greek and Latin St. Chrysostom Theodoret the Greek chain of Oecumenius Theophylact Hilary a Deacon of Rome Pelagius Primasius Sedulius Secondly the Translation of the Holy Bible into all Languages shews very clearly that every People and Nation desired to serve God in their own Language S. Chrysostom in his Homilies upon S. John Homil. 2. in Joan. Graec. The Syrians saith he the Egyptians the Indians the Persians the Ethiopians and a great number of other Nations have translated into their Language the Doctrines by him introduced he speaks of S. John and those Barbarous Men have begun to Philosophise Hom. 3. and upon the 2 Epistle of the Thessalonians These things have been spoken in Hebrew in Latin or in any other Tongue are they not declared in Greek because it was the Vulgar Tongue Theodoret upon the 14 Chap. In. cap 14. 1 ad Cor. of the 1 to the Corinthians saith It hath been given to Preachers by reason of the Diversities of mens Languages that those sent unto the Indians should carry unto them the predication of the word in their own Language and also conversing with Persians the Seythians the Romans the Egyptians they should preach unto them in their own Language the Evangelical Doctrine it would have been in vain for those who preached at Corinth to have used the Language of the Scythians Persians or Egyptians because the Corinthians could not have understood them And in his Therapeutick or manner of healing the affections of the Greeks Serm. 5. t. 4. p. 555. We do plainly and evidently shew unto you the force and vigour of the Prophetical and Evangelical Doctrine for all parts of the World under the Sun are filled with the fame of it See Cassâ—od on Psalm 44. and the Hebrew Tongue was not only translated into Greek but also into that of the Romans the Egyptians the Persians the Indians Armenians Scythians and Sarmatians and in a word into all Languages used throughout the world unto this day And a great while before Chrysostom and Theodoret Cap. 17. Eusebius said in his Oration on the praise of Constantine That the authority of the Books of the holy Scriptures was so great that having been translated throughout the World into the Languages of all Nations as well Greeks as Barbarians all Nations learned them diligently and believed that what they contained were Divine Oracles And in his Evangelical Demonstration Lib. 3. The Gospel saith he was in a very short space preached throughout the whole world and the Barbarians and the Greeks received in their Characters or Letters and in their own Languages the things which are written of Jesus Christ According whereunto we find by the Acts of the Martyr Procopius which Monsieur de Valois hath inserted in his Notes upon Eusebius his Ecclesiastical History that they were so accustomed to read the Holy Scriptures in the Christian Assemblies in the Language of the Country that if they read them in another Tongue they presently expounded them by an Interpreter in the Language understood by the People and the Martyr Procopius performed this office of Interpreter at Scythopolis in Palestine interpreting the holy Scriptures into the Language of the Country which was Syriack if they were read in Greek which the people did not understand And S. Jerom doth he not say in his Preface to the four Evangelists Ad Damas praefat 122. t. 3 p. 698. That the Holy Scriptures were translated into several Languages * Augustâ—in de doctr Christ l. 2. c 5. S. Austin From thence it is that the holy Scriptures which are a remedy of so many troubles in mens minds having begun to be published in a Language which might be so conveniently spread over the face of the Earth were manifested unto all Nations for their Salvation being spread far and wide by means of the divers Tongues of Interpreters As in the Gothick by Vlphilas Bishop of the Goths under the Emperour Constance as Socrates doth testifie in his Ecclesiastical History the Tripartite History Isidore of Sevil in his History of the Goths and sundry others whereunto probably Salvian had regard when he said in his fifth Book of Gods Providence That although those amongst barbarous Nations seem in their Books to have the holy Scriptures less altered and less strange yet they have them not but corrupted by the Tradition of their Antient Masters In
the Armenian Tongue by Chrysostom at the beginning of the fifth Century as many do believe and we do find Theodoret to affirm that in his time the Armenians had a Translation of the Holy Scriptures in their Language now Theodoret flourished about 40 years after the death of the great Chrysostom Into that of the Dalmatians by S. Jerom who dyed in the year of our Lord 420. In the Arabick Tongue Anno. 717. by John Archbishop of Sevil in Spain In Saxon by King Alfred who reigned in England in the VIII Century as is affirmed by those who have transferr'd unto us Bede's Ecclesiastical History in Anglo-Saxon and in Latin in the Preface to the Reader and Bede himself translated the Gospel of S. John into the vulgar Tongue as is to be seen in his life partly written by himself and partly by one of his Disciples Into the Slavonian Tongue by Methodius in the IX Century And I do not think that ever any body amongst the Christians ever thought of condemning this wise conduct of the Church until the year 1228 that a certain Council of Tholouse Tom. 2. Spicil c. 4. p. â— 24. assembled against the Albigenses and Waldenses made this Decree We also forbid to give unto the Lay-people permission to have the Books of the Old and of the New Testament except that probably some for devotion sake desire to have the Psalter or the Breviary for the Divine Service or the blessed Virgins Prayer-Book neither are they to have these Books in the Vulgar Tongue But this Decree did not hinder but that James de Voragine Translated the Bible into Italian about the year 1290. Nicholas Orem into French under Charles the fifth called the wise Son of King John and Father of Charles the sixth and at the beginning of the XV. Century an anonymous Author made an Apology in England for the Translation of the Holy Scriptures into the Language of the Country Dâ— Christian Eccl. succes p. 81. as is related by Vsher Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of Ireland At this time saith that Author our Bishops burn the Law of God because it hath been translated into our Mother Tongue But in fine the Council of Trent Session the fourth Anno. 1546. doth sufficiently give to understand that they tacitly condemn all the Translations of the Holy Scriptures in the Vulgar Languages allowing only the Latin Translation It is true say the Protestants that whilst the use of the Latin Tongue subsisted in the West and that that Language was common and frequent unto the Nations of the Western Empire there were a great many Latin Translations of the Bible but when the use of that Language ceased it was necessary to translate it into other Languages for the edification of the people and Nations which there inhabited as it had been translated elsewhere into Greek and Syriack and generally into all Languages used by all the Nations in the World Now it is very difficult say they to imagine that care could be taken to make all these Versions in the Vulgar Tongues if at the same time the people had been obliged to serve God in an unknown Tongue Besides may a man say I would desire to know wherefore the Holy Fathers have so frequently and carefully recommended the reading of the Scriptures unto the people if it had not been translated into their Language It is credible yea certain that the exhortations which are to be found in the works of S. Jerom and S. Chrysostom only for injoining the reading of them would make a just Volume and what need so many exhortations to read it but only that by so doing People might learn to serve God after a right manner But we must make a stricter inquiry into the Celebration of the Eucharist and the whole Divine Service to know more particularly if it were performed as hath been said in a Language understood by the People All men will agree if I mistake not that Prayers Invocation and giving praises unto God are the essential parts of the Worship and Service of God now Origen in his excellent work against Celsus doth formally declare that every Nation did praise and pray unto God in their own Language Lib. 8. ult Edit p. 402. The Christians saith he answering unto an objection of Celsus even in their Prayers do not make use of the names attributed unto God in the Holy Scriptures but the Greeks make use of Greek words the Romans of Roman words each one praying unto God in their own Language and celebrate his praise as they are able and the glory of all Languages doth hearken unto those which pray unto him in what Language soever it be as easily understanding those which pray so differently unto him as if it were as may be said all one voice For the Great God is not like those which have but one Language committed unto them whether Greek or Barbarian and are ignorant of all others and care not for those which speak in other Languages Thence also is it that S. Gaudentius Bishop of Bress exhorts his Neophytes Tract 4. t. 2. Bibl. Pat. p. 20. Regul brevior q. â—78 t. 2. to attend diligently with him unto Prayer S. Basil making this demand to himself How the Spirit of any one should pray and that his understanding should receive no fruit he thus answers That is said of those which made Prayers in an unknown Tongue with regard to those which heard them for the Apostle saith if I pray in an unknown Tongue I pray in the Spirit or by the Spirit but my understanding profiteth not for when the words of Prayer are not known by those which are present then the understanding of him which prayeth is without fruit no body being the better for it but when those which are present understand a prayer which may be profitable for the hearers then he who prayeth hath the benefit of the progress of those which profit by the prayer it is the same at all times when the word of God is proposed for it is written that it might be profitable to the edifying of Faith De Catechis rudib c. 9. t. 4. S. Austin Care must be taken to warn those which come from Schools that being cloathed with Christian humility they should learn not to despise those which endeavour rather to shun evil actions than words c. by so doing they will not jeer if by chance they perceive that some Bishops or Ministers of the Church use some Barbarisms or Soloecisms in praying to God or that they be not aware or understand not the words they pronounce and that they deliver confusedly not but that these things should be amended to the end the people might say Amen unto what they plainly understand But because it may be tolerated in those which have learned that blessings are given by Prayers in the Church as one doth bless in the publick place with the sound of the voice De divin offic l.
Sacrament It suffers only the Ministers of the Altar he means all the Clergy to draw near and enter into the place where the Altar was and there to Communicate Concil Tol. â— c. 18. The fourth Council of Toledo assembled Anno. 633. hath left us this Canon After the Lords Prayer and the joining of the Bread and the Cup the blessing shall be given unto the people and then in this manner they shall participate of the Body and Blood of our Lord the Priest and the Deacon shall communicate before the Altar the Clergy in the Quire and the people without the Quire And thence it is if I mistake not proceed all the prohibitions that Women and other Lay People should not enter into the close where the Altar Herard in cap. t. c. 24. and the Sacramental Table was as when Herard Archbishop of Tours ordered Anno 858. That the Women and Lay Persons should not approach the Altar it was probably what Pope Leo the fourth intended when he made this Decree as is seen in his life That whilst the solemnities of the Masses were celebrated no Lay Person should presume to stand in the Presbytery that is to say Vit. Leon. 4. t. 6. Concil p. 416. D. in the Quire or sit or enter therein but only such as are consecrated and appointed to perform Divine Service The Council in Trullo Anno 691. doth except the Emperour whom it permits to enter into the Sanctuary when he would offer his Oblation unto God Concil in Trullo c. 69. That it is not permitted say the Fathers unto any Lay Person to enter into the Sanctuary yet we do not pretend by virtue of a very antient Tradition to include the Emperors Majesty in this prohibition when hâ— desires to present his Oblations unto the Creator Balsamon Patriarch of Antioch and one of the most famous Canonists amongst the Greeks doth extend much farther this priviledge granted unto the Emperor he refutes their Opinion who restrain this liberty unto the time that the Emperor made his offering at the Holy Table as if he had not liberty to enter therein to offer unto God other acts of Adoration Balsam in can 69. Trullan For my part saith he I am not of that Opinion for the Orthodox Emperours who do make Patriarchs by Invocation of the Holy Trinity and which are the Lords anointed do without any opposition enter when they please into the Sanctuary and approach unto the Altar as often as they will But the Greeks having no Emperour of their Religion groaning for a long time under the Tyranny of the Turks there is none amongst the Lay people which partake of the priviledge which their Monarch and Sovereign enjoyed formerly therefore after the Clergy have participated of the Sacrament to wit him that celebrates either Bishop or Priest in the midst of the Altar the other Priests round the Altar and the Deacon behind but all generally within the rail of the Sanctuary the Lay people communicate without for the doors of that place being open the Deacons go out to distribute the Sacrament unto the People and the place where the Celebration is made is a little higher than the rest of the Quire as James Goar hath observed an Eye witness Goar in Encholog p. 150. n. 171. who also observes that the same was practised amongst the Latins in S. Jerom's days and proves it by these words of this holy Doctor writing against the â—uciferians Id. p. 151. n. 179. It pertains unto the Bishop to handle the Body of our Lord and from a higher place to distribute it unto the people It is very probable that all those who make profession of the Religion of the Greeks as the Muscovites and the Russians do observe the same custom it is also very near the same manner which is observed in communicating the people in Prester John's Country according to the report of Francis Alvarez a Portugueze that had travelled in those Countreys many years for he writes that the Seculars and Lay folks Alvar. de Aethiop c. 11. are near the chief door of the place where the Clergy is and it is there that both Men and Women receive the Communion As for the Posture and Gesture of the Communicant which is the last circumstance we intend to examine in this Chapter it is certain that when the Lord distributed his Eucharist unto his Disciples they were almost lying along that is leaning a little one upon another because that was the manner of eating at that time amongst the Jews and other Eastern Nations and that the Disciples changed not their posture in receiving the Sacrament but continued in the same posture they were in during the Supper of the Passover And because St. John the beloved Disciple leaned on the Body of our Lord Jesus Christ the Scripture mentions that he lay on his breast at the Table or leaned on his bosom the Christians of the following Age drew near and approached unto the holy Table presently after Consecration there to receive the sacred Symbols of their redemption as may be gathered from Justin Martyr's Liturgy where we do not see any Ceremony nor any kneeling practised by the Communicants in participating of this Divine Mystery only that going before unto the Communion they gave unto each other the kiss of Charity in token of their Love and Union whereof this venerable Sacrament was to be a more strict tye and from hence it is that in all the Liturgies the faithful are warned to kiss each other before they appear at the Lords Table although this warning is given in some sooner in others later but in all it is before the Communion in those very Liturgies which we have remaining we do not find any alteration to have hapned in the posture of the Communicant For after having shewed the Sacrament unto the people and invited them unto the Communion by these words Holy things are for the Holy each Believer draws near with the motions and desires of Piety and Devotion which he ought to have to partake worthily of this Divine Sacrament Denys Bishop of Alexandria gives sufficiently to understand Apud Euseb hist l. 7. c. 9. that in his time that is in the third Century the Communion was received at the holy Table standing and not kneeling when speaking of a certain Believer which often appeared at the Lords Table to partake of the Eucharist for he useth a term that properly signifies to present himself and to be there standing Vales in Euseb hist l. 7. c. 9. p. 145. which gave occasion unto this observation of Mounsier de Valois The Believers which were to communicate drew near the Altar and there they received from the Priests hand the Body of Jesus Christ standing and not kneeling as is at this day practised Tertullian had spoke before Denys of this custom of Communicating standing in his Book of Prayer Tertul. de Orat. c. ult wherein he speaks of
standing at the Altar of God that is to say at the Sacrament Table and St. Chrysostom informs us in one of his Homilies that it was so practised even in his time Chrysost t. 1. Hom. 22. de Simult ira p. 260. when he exhorts the Communicants or at least when he observes That they presented themselves at the Holy Table and that they there assisted standing on their legs But because this Sacrament is an Object worthy the respect of a Christian because it is the Memorial of the death of his Saviour and at the same time of his love and charity a bond of his Communion with him and an efficacious means savingly to apply unto him the holy Fruits of his bitter death and sufferings St. Cyrill of Jerusalem Cyrill Hiâ—roâ— Mystag 5. at the end of the IV. Century will have his Communicant approach unto the Holy Table not with the hand open and the fingers stretched out but in supporting the right hand with the left that he receive in the hollow of his hand the Body of Christ or as he says some lines before the Antitype of the Body of Christ that he takes care not to suffer any crum to fall to the ground and that having in this manner Communicated of the Body of Christ he draws near unto the Cup having the Body a little bowed in way of Adoration or Veneration to shew the religious respect with which we should participate of these Holy Mysteries The VI. Can. 101 t. 5. Concil Goarâ— in Euchol p. 150. Oecumenical Council ordained something of this kind to wit that one should present himself at the Communion holding his hands in form of a Cross which the Greeks observed a long while after and their Clergy observe it still at this day but as for the people for some time past they receive the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament both together in a spoon but I do not find that the people which came to the Communion were obliged to set themselves in Posture or Gesture of those which adore until that in the XIII Century the Adoration of the Sacrament was established in the Latin Church for this bowing of the Body which St. Cyrill desires is not properly the posture of him who really doth adore because he which adores prostrates himself on his knees before the Object of his Adoration to shew the motions of the profound humility of his Soul and his self-denial before him unto whom by this action he confesseth that he is but dust and ashes But as for St. Cyrill he only desires a little inclination of the Body in approaching unto the Mystical Table to shew the sentiments of veneration and respect which one ought to have for so great a Sacrament not to insist upon what the Eastern Council above mentioned was content to ordain three hundred years after St. Cyrill that we should go unto the Communion with the hands in form of a Cross without mentioning the bowing of the Body which St. Cyrill himself doth not prescribe unto the Communicant but for the reception of the Holy Cup. John Damaseen who borrowed of St. Cyrill and of the VI. Council what he saith of the posture of the Communicant in his time that is in the VIII Century doth not speak a word of this inclination of the Body Goar in Enchoi p. 1â—0 in Goars Notes upon the Ritual of the Greeks And what yet perswades me that Believers communicated standing in the antient Church and that this custom was always practised in the greatest Christian Communions excepting the Latin which changed this custom in the XIII Century is that besides the Greek Church which is of a very large extent and wherein they Communicate standing the Abassins who also make a very considerable Christian Communion do no otherwise receive the Sacrament Alvar. ubi supr During the time the Communion is distributed saith the same Priest Alvarez they are all standing Now it is most certain that the Christians which are fallen into ignorance as for example the Abassins and the Greeks have not taken away any antient customs but rather have added to the number of those observed by the antient Church which is the usual practice of ignorance so to do and if the custom of Communicating standing be still kept in the Eastern Churches it may also be affirmed it was observed in the West seeing that before the Latin Church had introduced in its service the Elevation of the Host to oblige the people to adore it and by consequence before the people were obliged to receive the Communion kneeling a considerable Body of Christians had separated from her and broke off which Body retained and practised the custom of Communicating standing as do at this time the Protestants of Europe called Calvinists excepting those of Holland who Communicate sitting and those of England who kneel in receiving the Communion but their Doctrine declaring sufficiently what they believe of the Sacrament it is easy to see that their kneeling is not addressed unto what they receive from the hands of the Priest at the Holy Table but only unto Jesus Christ who is in Heaven and whom they profoundly adore in the Act of the Communion as him who hath purchased for them this great Salvation whereof they are about to Communicate in receiving his Divine Sacrament and of himself by means of his Sacrament who dyed for their Sins and is risen again for their justification The same may also be said of the Protestants called Lutherans although their belief in this point is different from the belief of those in England for in that they kneel at receiving the Communion it is a token of the Adoration which they give unto Jesus Christ but it cannot be said without injustice that they address this Adoration unto the Sacrament because they hold and believe that it is the substance of Bread and Wine after Consecration and farther they do not render this Act of Adoration unto Jesus Christ in vertue of what they believe of his presence in the Sacrament because if so then all those in the assembly should kneel during the Celebration of the Mystery and yet it is only him that Communicates that kneels in the moment that he receives the Sacrament But before I leave this circumstance it may not probably be unnecessary to instance some customs that were practised in the antient Church in the act of the Communion for I find that Lay persons after having received the Sacrament at the hands of the Bishop or Pastour did kiss it It is what St. Jorom mentioneth in his Book against John Bishop of Jerusalem Hieron Ep. 62 Is there any one that hath Communion with you by force is there any one that after having stretched out his hand turns away his face and that in receiving the Holy Food gives you a Judas kiss Monsieur de Valois in his Notes upon Eusebiâ—s his History cites these words of Paul the Deacon speaking of the
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