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
inanimate that the substance of Bread and Wine remain after Consecration and because one is found amongst them that much varies from this language I represent unto the Reader what some have said to reconcile this Authour with others who have expressed themselves otherwise than he hath done Then re-assuming the thred of my History I make appear that these same Doctors have believed that participating of the Eucharist broke the fast and that they have spoken of what is received in the Communion as of a thing whereof one received a little a morsel a piece a small portion And having seen what they believed and what they said of the things which we receive in the Eucharist I inquire what they taught of the Use the Office and Imploy of the sacred Symbols And they tell us that the Eucharist is the Sacrament the Sign the Figure the Type the Antitype the Symbol the Image the Similitude and the resemblance of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ And the better to instruct us in the nature and force of these expressions they will have us make these two observations First that when they speak of the Eucharist as of a Sign a Figure an Image it is in opposition to the reality which they consider as absent The other is that they constantly hold that the Image and the Figure cannot be that whereof they are the Image and Figure And indeed not to leave their Doctrine exposed unto the stroaks of Calumny they declare that if the Eucharist be a Figure and an Image it is not a bare Figure nor an Image without operation but a Figure an Image and a Sacrament replenished with all the vertue and all the efficacy of the Body and Blood of our blessed Saviour clothed if it may be so said with the Majesty of his person and accompanied in the lawful Celebration with all the fruits and with all the benefits of his death and Sufferings But because the same Fathers who affirm that the Eucharist is Bread and Wine and who say that it is the Sign the Symbol the Figure and the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Saviour do say also That it is his Body and his Blood that it passeth and is turned into his Body and Blood I have not omitted to report the explications which they give us thereupon and to shew which of those sorts of expressions they have limited for by this means it is easie to comprehend their words and intentions Having ended the Examination of their Doctrine I have applied my self unto the search and inquiry of its consequence to know if they believed the eating of the Flesh of Jesus Christ with the mouth of the body the eating of the same Flesh by the wicked as well as by the righteous and the presence of the Lord upon Earth as to his Humanity and how they understood the following Maxims whether a Body can be in several places at the same time whether it can subsist invisibly after the manner of a Spirit without occupying any space whether what hath been done long since can still be done every day whether the Cause can be later than the Effect whether that which containeth ought not to be greater than that which is contained whether Accidents can exist without their Subject whether the Senses may be deceived in the report they make of sensible Objects when there is no defect in the Organ or in the medium or situation of the Object whether a Body ought to be visible and palpable and whether it ought to have its parts so distinguished the one from the other that each part ought to answer the respective part of place whether there may be penetration of dimensions whether one may dwell in himself whether a Body may be all intirely in one of its parts and whether whatsoever is seen and touched and falls under sense be a Body And to the end nothing be wanting to establish the Doctrine of the Fathers in the point of the Eucharist I add unto direct proofs a great many indirect proofs taken from their words and actions whence are drawn several inductions which contribute very much to shew what were their sentiments of this Article of our Faith Then I represent the Alterations and changes happened in the ancient expressions and Doctrine the contests of the Ninth Age whereunto if I mistake not I have given much light by certain considerations which shew as clear as the light which of the two Opinions had the better that of Paschasius or that of his Adversaries The History of the Tenth Age shall be represented in such a manner I hope as will not be displeasing unto the candid Reader seeing it will inform him that in that Age which I consider neither as an Age of Darkness nor of Light but participating of both wherein things passed otherwise than hath been hitherto believed I treat exactly of what passed in the Eleventh Century in regard of Berengarius and his Followers in regard of the Albigenses and Waldenses in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries of Wicklif and the Lollards in England in the Fourteenth Age of the Taborites in Bohemia in the Fifteenth and until the separation of the Protestants with some Observations which I make from Age to Age upon the Greek Church And in the last Part wherein I treat of the Worship I examine the preparations which precede the Celebration I inquire the time wherein Christians began to introduce in the exercise of their Religion the use of Incense and Candles especially at the Celebration of the Sacrament Unto this practice I add that of the sign of the Cross and also of material Crosses the consideration of holy Vestments and of those particularly appointed for this holy Ceremony not forgetting that of Flowers which were used in form of Coronets or otherwise in honour of the Eucharist I make one Chapter of the dispositions requisite for a Communicant in respect of God and of Jesus Christ and another of those which he ought to have in regard of the Sacrament which ingageth me to speak something of Auricular Confession and to inquire whether the Holy Fathers have requir'd it as a disposition absolutely necessary unto a lawful Communion And I conclude the whole Work with the question of the Adoration of the Sacrament which I treat of with some care and exactness to the end the Reader might see what hath been the Belief and practice of the ancient Church on so important a point as this is and when the first Decrees were made for worshipping the Host I know very well there can be nothing of testimony be it never so clear but the subtilty of men will find means to elude and this is it which hath rendred and will render the disputes of Religion immortal many of those who handle them seeking more their own than Gods glory and examining the passages of the Ancients with the prejudices they have been before prepossess'd with Thence it is that beholding them
that example should inviolably be kept now it declares two several times That Jesus Christ having taken a whole Leaf and broken it in blessing it gave it by parcels unto each of his Disciples Yet I will not deny but that I have observed in the Seventh Century examples of the Sacrament being put into the mouth of Communicants but upon occasions that as I suppose are not to be insisted upon In the Appendix of the fifth Tome of de Achery's Collection is seen the life of S. Magnobode Bishop of Anger 's which is supposed to be written by one that lived at that time and as these sorts of Lives are full of Miracles which those should have done whose actions are to be written amongst several attributed unto S. Magnobode there is mention first made of a certain blind person that being drawn by the great reputation of this Bishop came unto him as he was celebrating Divine Service desiring him earnestly and with a loud voice to restore him his sight this Prelate being touched with his complaints prayed for his recovery and having ended the office of the Mass He put saith the Author into his mouth with the Benediction Vita Magnob c. 9. Append. t. 5. Spicileg p. 137. the perception of the holy Body Secondly there is mention of a young Maid of Quality at Rome who being for three years space exceedingly afflicted with a most grievous Feaver which all men thought incurable she with tears desired to be carried to the man of God Magnobode whose Miracles had already been noised abroad which her Parents resolved to do and carried her to Anger 's where they found him at the same Exercise that the blind man above mentioned had done whom he restored to sight so that understanding the cause of so great a Journey Ibid. c. 5. p. 141. He received them courteously and put into the little Maids mouth the Mystery or the Sacrament of the Body of the Lord which he handled with his holy hands It is evident if I mistake not that these two occasions were extraordinary either if the persons be considered on whom these two Miraculous Recoveries were made or if the exercise wherein they found this Prelate be considered so that there can no consequence be drawn for the practice of putting the Sacrament in the mouth of Communicants In the Life of S. Eloy Bishop of Noyon which is in the same Tome of Dom Luke de Achery's Collection and who lived also in the Seventh Century it appears that this Bishop forbids amongst other things to sing the Songs of Pagans and he gives this reason T. 7. Spiâ—â— 217. That it is not just they should proceed out of the mouth of Christians wherein is put the Sacrament of Christ But the Sacrament being there put either by him that celebrates or him that communicates and moreover the custom confirmed by the Decree of an universal Council in the year 691. requiring Communicants to receive it with the hand and that they should themselves put it in their mouth it cannot be reasonably thought these words of S. Eloy make any thing against the commonly received practice In fine at the end of the Seventh Century it was received with the hand in England which then related unto the Latin State wherein we travel for venerable Bede tells us of a certain man called Caedmon who having passed most of his life as a Secular and without holy Orders at last became a Frier at the request of an Abbess This man falling sick Bed Hist Angl. l. 4. c. 24. and finding his death at hand desired the Sacrament might be brought And having received it in his hand saith the Historian he asked if they were all in Charity with him Since that time there began to appear in the West but not suddenly some alteration in this antient custom but without abolishing it quite for in the Book of the Roman Order written as some imagine in the Ninth or the end of the Eighth Century or as others suppose in the Eleventh which I conceive to be the most likely in the Chapter of the Order of Procession if sometimes the Bishop please to celebrate Mass on Holy daies there it may be seen that the Priests and Deacons receive the Communion with the hand and the sub-Deacons with the mouth Ordo Rom. Bibl. Pat. t. 10. p. 10. ult edit That the Priests and Deacons in kissing the Bishop receive of him with their hands the Body of Christ but the sub-Deacons in kissing the Bishops hand let them receive from him the Body of Christ in their mouth And Hugh Maynard in his Notes upon the Book of Sacraments of Gregory the Great alledges something of this Nature touching the Priests and Deacons relating to the Mass of Illyrica Pag. 383. written as Maynard conjectures a little before the beginning of the Eleventh Century that is towards the end of the Tenth he calls it the Mass of Illyria because it was taken out of the Palatinate Library Pag. 380. and published by Matthias Illyricus a Protestant Lutheran Of this Mass this Benedictine Frier cites these words Pag. 390. Then the Priests and Deacons receiving the Body in their hands it is said unto each of the Communicants Peace be with you But it must not be imagined that this manner of Communicating was peculiar unto Priests and Deacons to the utter exclusion of other Communicants at least in the Ninth Century for we have been informed by Reginon's Chronicle that in the year 869. Pope Adrian the Second at Rome it self gave the Communion unto King Lothair and that this Prince received in his hands the Body and Blood of our Lord Regin in Chron. ad an 869. which is also to be concluded of all those which attended him unto whom the Pope administred the Sacrament I shall then make no difficulty to believe that what the Roman Order speaks of sub-Deacons communicating with the mouth was done by reason of the solemnity of the day on these occasions to distinguish betwixt the sub-Deacons and the Priests and Deacons who are superiour unto them besides that this distinction began not to be made until before the Eleventh Century But in fine if we enter in the Tenth Century we shall find it something divided concerning this custom Ratherius Bishop of Verona died in the year 974. in what we have resting of his works there may be seen the two wayes of receiving the Sacrament with the hand and with the mouth in the second Sermon of Easter he speaks thus But O sadness T. 2. Spicileg p. 314. I have seen some sleight this Council and would to God it were not such as ought to give example unto others that they continually lay snares to destroy even him who puts the consecrated Bread in their mouths saying The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ profit you unto eternal life But in the following page see here what he saith Ibid. p. 315. If they had
Testimony but now alledged amongst the things whereof he fears that Truth may be endangered if the Faith of the Senses are mistrusted he mentions expresly the Wine of the Sacrament Tert. de anim Christians saith he are not permitted to call the Testimony of their Senses in question fearing least they should say that Jesus Christ tasted some other savour than that of Wine which he consecrated in remembrance of his Blood He alledges to defend the Fidelity of the Senses the Savour of the Wine of the Sacrament but say they it cannot be imagined that he could have reasoned after that manner if he had believed what the Latins now believe because according to their Hypothesis our Senses are grosly deceived in taking that to be Wine which is nothing less than Wine but another substance infinitely different Shall we then conclude say they that he indiscreetly betray'd his Cause and that he ignorantly chose for a convincing Proof that which was an unsurmountable Difficulty but should we say so we should undoubtedly draw upon us all the Learned who look'd upon him as one of the greatest Wits of his Time whose Mind being so enlightned and his Judgment so solid could not be charged with such a Mistake and not to call his great Reputation in question they had rather conclude according to all appearance that he was not of the belief of the present Latin Church which I refer unto the Reader 's Discretion but that nothing may be wanting to the clearing the question we now treat of and not to make the Holy Fathers contradict one another it must be observed that they considered two things as some say in the Sacrament of Christians I mean the sign and the thing signified As for the thing signified all the World agree that it falls not under the Senses and that so we should not expect that they should render us any Testimony It is Faith that must instruct and give us a Testimony it is of Faith to direct and apply to us the Efficacy and Vertue As to the Signs and Symbols they also say that they have therein also distinguished two things the Substance and their Nature and their Use and Employment that is to say the quality of the Sacraments wherewith they are qualified by favour of the Benediction For example in Baptism they pretend that Water which is the Symbol hath two Relations one of the bare Element of the Nature which keeps its Substance and the other of the Sacrament of Religion which Consecration gives it It is the same in the Eucharist for besides the Nature and Substance of Bread and Wine which are the Signs and Symbols they bear the quality of Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and it is Grace which God adds unto Nature Now to apply this unto our Subject they say that the Senses being Organs purely Natural they cannot lift themselves above Nature nor make us a true report of what doth not depend upon their Laws but whilst they keep within the bounds of their Nature and that they undertake nothing beyond their Strength and the Priviledges granted unto them their Testimony is infallible and their Deposition true and certain therefore when they shew us that the Water in Baptism is truly Water according to its Substance and the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist but Bread and Wine also in regard of their Substance they judge that we ought to believe them after what the Fathers have told us because then they do not pass the limits that God hath set them but when they will pass further and tell us that the Water of Baptism is but bare Water and the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament but bare Bread and Wine we should command their silence because they pass beyond their Bounds and passing beyond the Limits of Nature they take upon them to penetrate into the Mysteries of Grace which have been only given unto Faith to dispose of they also observe that 't is in these occasions that the same Fathers forbid us to hearken unto them or receive their Testimony and that 't is so must be understood the Author of the Book of them which are initiated in St. Ambrose What have you seen Ambros l. 3. de init c. 3. l. 4. saith he I have seen Water indeed but not Water only I also see the Deacons saying Service and the Bishop examining and consecrating for the Apostle hath taught you that before all things you should look not to the things seen which are temporary Ibid. but unto those which are invisible which be eternal and again believe not the Eyes of the Body only what is not seen is most seen because the one is Temporal and the other Eternal and that which is Eternal is not perceived by the Eyes but is seen by the Spirit and by the Understanding And the Author of the Book of Sacraments Apud Ambros l. 1. de Sacram. c. 3. You have seen what may be seen with the Eyes of the Body and human Perception but you have not seen the things which operate because they are invisible those which are not seen are much more considerable than those which are seen because the things which are visible are Temporal and the things invisible are Eternal And because there is this difference betwixt the Believer and the Unbeliever that the Unbeliever hath only the Eyes of the Body and of Nature whereas the Believer hath besides the Eyes of the Body and of Nature those of the Spirit and of Faith St. Chrysostom saith that the Infidel seeth only the substance of the Symbols staying at the exterior of the Sacraments but as for the Believer he understands the Excellency the Vertue and the Meaning that is to say with the Eyes of Faith when he seeth as well as the Unbeliever the matter and substance of the Symbols with the Eyes of Nature and of the Body Câ—rysost Hom. 7. in 1 ad Cor. p. 378. The Unbeliever saith he hearing mention made of Baptism thinks that it is but Water but as for me I do not only look upon what is seen I consider also the cleansing of the Soul which is done by the Holy Ghost he thinks that my Body only is washed and I do believe my Soul is also purified and sanctified for I do not judge by the bodily Eyes of what is seen but by those of the Understanding I hear the Body of Christ named I conceive it after one manner and the Unbeliever understands it after another Which he illustrates by this excellent Comparison An illiterate Person saith he receiving a Letter takes it only for Paper and Ink but a Person that understands Letters finds quite another thing he hears a Voice and speaks with a Person absent and will in his time say what he lists and will make himself to be understood by means of Letters It is the same with the Mysteries for Unbelievers understand nothing of what they hear spoken
upon a serious and impartial Debate it will not be attributed unto the Difference of Judgment it not being to be imagin'd that Christians so good and zealous and fervent for the Religion of Jesus Christ as those were of whom we speak and have had the same Belief of the Sacrament that the Latin Church at this time hath which for some time past doth not suffer the Use of Glass-Chalices that they had not at least used so much Precaution as she doth to consecrate and distribute the Sacrament I mean they would have made it a Scruple of Conscience of putting the Body of their God and Saviour in so brittle a Thing as Glass those which were so careful that none of the sacred Symbols of their Bread and Wine should fall to the Ground The ancient Christians gave the Eucharist to young sucking Children at the Breast a Custom which continued in the West until the XIIth Century and which is still practised in most Christian Communions excepting the Roman Catholicks and the Protestants How came it to pass this Abuse was so long tolerated in the Church if it had been always believed therein what the Latins do believe at present who cannot justly be blamed by little and little to have abolished this Custom One could not without Horror see exposed what was believed to be the Body and Blood of Christ unto the undecent and sad Accidents which oftentimes of necessity happen in communicating of young Children those little Creatures being uncapable by reason of their tender Age of receiving the Sacrament with Respect which is due unto the Body it self of Jesus Christ our Redeemer But wherefore did the ancient Church for so many Ages suffer such an Abuse or at least having tolerated it some time wherefore had she not bethought her self of abolishing it instead of letting it take root in the midst of it Was it not so wise as the Church at this time is Had she less Zeal less Piety and less Prudence had she less love for Jesus Christ or less Veneration for his sacred Person certainly I suppose not This Difference then of Conduct cannot be grounded upon any other Reason but upon the Difference of Faith whilst Christians believed that what they received in the Eucharist was Bread and Wine in Substance but that at the same time they were also the Divine Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Christ the Reasons which moved them to give the Eucharist unto young Children made them pass by the Indecencies which might be feared on the Behalf of these little Creatures But when the Doctrine changed in the West and that in the Latin Church they began to say that it was the very Body and Blood of Jesus Christ this ancient Custom was abolished it not agreeing well with their Belief And indeed we see this Abolition was made about the time when this notable Change happened in their Doctrine And because that in other Christian Communions there is no Alteration happened by any publick Decree in the Tradition of their Fathers upon the Subject of the Sacrament they have innocently retained the ancient Custom of giving the Sacrament unto little Children I confess this Practise is contrary to what St. Paul desires of Communicants which is to examine themselves before they draw near unto the holy Table of which Proof little Children are uncapable But as we do not here treat but only of what was done by the ancient Christians and of what is still practised by several Christian Churches and not of what ought to be done I 'le say no more of it referring the Induction which the Protestants draw from this Practise unto the Judgment of all reasonable Persons which will take the Pains to read this History The Communion under both Kinds was practis'd in the Church until these last Ages wherein the Latins deprived the People of the Use of the sacred Cup for as for all other Christian Societies which hold not Correspondence with her they retain the Custom of administring the Sacrament under both Symbols altho with some little Difference The great Ground of the Latin Church for so doing being through Fear of shedding it But how comes it to pass that this Fear is so lately crept into their Thoughts Whence is it that she her self practis'd the Communion under both Kinds for above a thousand Years without any body scrupling it On the contrary when she began to forbid the Use of the Cup unto the People by a Decree at the beginning of the XVth Century a great many Persons complained of it and whole Countries earnestly desired it might be restored unto them Wherefore did she so long time grant unto her People the Communion under both Symbols distinctly Was there then less cause of Fear of shedding than when they deprived them of this Advantage particularly at the time when in Rome it self they used Chalices of Glass For it must be owned that Glass being a weak thing there was never greater ground to fear spilling than during the time those Chalices were used yet nevertheless when there was most cause of this Fear they suffered the People to participate of the Cup of our Lord as well as of his Bread and when there is less Danger Glass-Chalices being no longer in Use they are refused it Whence say they proceeds such a notable Change which could have no shew of Reason if the Doctrine had not been altered but because wise and prudent Persons do not incline unto these Sorts of Changes without some powerful Motives it must be freely confessed that no other can be found whatever Scrutiny could be made but the Change of Belief And in truth say they again if this Change be not presupposed it will be a very hard matter to forbear censuring those of Lightness which made it a Change I say of the Nature that is of and in a thing which was grounded upon the Authority of Christ himself and the constant Practice of so many Ages Whereas if the prohibiting the Cup be considered as a Consequence of this Change it will not be hard to conceive that the Fear of shedding the real Blood of the Son of God obliged them to forbid unto the People the Use of the holy Cup rather chusing to deprive them of this Comfort and Consolation than to fall into the Inconvenience of some negligent spilling of the Substance it self of the Blood of their Divine Saviour A Fear which hath not seised the other Christian Communions because they have not practis'd any Innovation in this particular or that at least there hath not any been made by any publick Determination In the ancient Church the Eucharist was delivered into the Communicants Hand who with the Hand put it into their Mouth as hath been proved and we may produce Examples of this Practice in the XIIth Century in Flanders At this time in the Latin Church it is put directly into the Communicants Mouth unto whom it is not permitted to receive it
purpose after curious questions fit rather to engender strifes and quarrels than to edifie and instruct Christians I shall only desire the Reader seriously to consider if either or both of these Opinions can agree or hold with the Doctrine of the Latins for those which held that the Mysteries were incorruptible alledge for their reason That the Sacrament is a Confession and Commemoration of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ instead of saying that it is the glorified Body it self of our Lord And the others which affirm that it is corruptible say That the Bread of the Sacrament is the dead Flesh of Jesus Christ which cannot be in the reality of the thing because all Christians do confess that our Lord dyeth no more and that his state of Death and Crucifiction hath been past above XVI Ages ago whereby may be judged the disposition of Zonarus which held of both sides and of the strange manner wherein he explains himself I know not if I should make mention of one Samonas Bishop of Gaza who is placed in the XIII Century for all do not receive his testimony which is wholly favourable unto that of the cause of the Latins seeing he saith in a Dispute against Achmet a Sarrazin Tom. 12. Bibl. patr p. 524 525 526. touching the Eucharist That the Bread and Wine are not the Antitypes of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ but that they are by Consecration changed into the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and that the Division which is made to wit by means of breaking it is of sensible Accidents Were there nothing to be objected in the Nature of a Witness it could not be denied but this Greek Bishop was of the Belief of the Latin Church But the Protestants do deny that ever there was any such Dispute affirming That no Author hath made any mention of this Samonas because at that time there was no Greek Bishop at Gaza nor in all Pallastine being possessed by the Sarrazens having expell'd the Latins which had before setled Bishops of their own Language And in fine because the greatest part of this Writing was taken word for word from the Dispute of Anastatius the Sinaite against the Gaianites whereof mention hath been made in the History of the VII Century Whereunto may be added that this pretended Samonas speaketh formally of the Union of the Bread and Wine unto the Divinity which is just the Opinion of John Damascen as also what he saith Ibid. p. 525. that the Bread and Wine is taken that is to say that the Divinity joyns and unites them unto it self All the Protestants do not indeed say that there was not any Greek Bishop in all Pallastine in the XIII Century but they all agree to say That it belongs to the Roman Catholicks to prove that there was at that time at Gaza a Greek Bishop called Samonas seeing they produce him as a Witness and is such a Witness as no Writer makes any mention of In the same Tome of the Library of the Holy Fathers there is a Confession of Faith made by Nicetas in the XIII Century in favour of those which should be converted from Mahumetism unto the Religion of Jesus Christ wherein he saith Tom. 12. Biâ—â— Patr. p. 53â— That Christians do sacrifice Mystically Bread and Wine and that they participate thereof in the Divine Mysteries He adds nevertheless That he believes they are also truly the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ having been changed by his Divine Power in a Spiritual and Invisible manner above and beyond all Natural comprehension only known unto himself And it is so also saith he that I intend to participate thereof for the sanctifying of Body and Soul for Life Eternal and for inheriting the Kingdom of Heaven This Author saith That what Christians sacrifice and receive at the Holy Table is Bread and Wine that this Bread and Wine are in truth the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ having been changed by his Divine Power not unto all Communicants indifferently but only for them which Communicate with a true and sincere Faith Let the belief of this man be guessed at after all this But now I call to mind that I had almost forgot two Witnesses of the Greek Church of the XII Century one of the Ages whose History we examine in this Chapter to wit Euthymius and Zonarus In Matth. 26. The first saith thus Our Lord did not say These are the Signs of my Body and of my Blood but he said This is my Body and Blood And again As our Saviour Deified the Flesh which he assumed supernaturally so also he changeth these things into his quickning Body Words which Roman Catholicks mightily prize and value thinking that they favour their Hypothesis But it must not be concealed also that in another Treatise Euthymius testifies that he follows the Opinion of Damascen touching the Sacrament alledging to this effect a great passage out of his 4th Book of Orthodox Faith Panopl part 2. titul 21. Now the Opinion of Damascen was neither that of the Roman Catholicks nor the Protestants as hath been shewed in the 12th Chapter And Euthemius seems to assure so much in the words but now alledged when he compares the change befallen unto the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist unto that happened unto the Humane Nature of Jesus Christ when it was taken into the Unity of one person by the Eternal Word besides that in the same place whence both the mentioned passages were taken he said That not the nature of the things proposed should be considered but their vertue which shews that he believed with Damascen that the substance of the Symbols do remain As for Zonarus another Greek Friar we have already seen how he embraced as well the side of those which held that the Mysteries were corruptible as those which supposed them to be incorruptible besides he expoundeth elsewhere the 32. Canon of the Council in Trullo In Concil 6. in Trullo can 32. The Divine Mysteries saith he I mean the Bread and the Cup represents unto us the Body and Blood of our Saviour for giving the Bread unto his Disciples he said Take Eat This is my Body and giving them the Cup he said Drink ye all of it This is my Blood CHAP. XIX An Account or Narrative of the XIV and XV. Centuries DUring the Papacy of Boniface the VIII who had so great a contest with Philip the Fair one of our Kings there was in Italy great numbers of Waldensis who were called Fratelli because they stiled themselves Brethren as the Primitive Christians who frequently so denominated themselves where it was that the whole Body of the Church was called the Brotherhood and what induces me to believe that these Fratellis were Waldensis and Albigensis many of whom retired themselves into the Vallies of Piedmont at the time that Waldo and his Adherents were driven away from Lyons is that an uncertain Author which wrote against
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