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
liberty of writing and speaking against the Doctrines of the Church was never greater than in the first Ages of Christianity nor less in the West than since the Condemnation of Beranger I can find no other cause of so various and different proceeding but the difference of Doctrine which until Paschas his time was such that no Body had reason to take up Arms to dispute against it whereas ever since the establishing of his Opinion which altered the ancient Belief there hath been made continual Resistance and Opposition Now I come to the Disputes which the ancient Fathers have had against Hereticks wherein they have imployed the Mystery of the Eucharist The first which troubled the settlement of Christianity were the Saturnians the Menandrians Valentinians Marcionites and others I intend not to burden my Paper with all the Impieties of these Wretches but only to represent those against which the holy Doctors have made use of the belief of the Holy Sacrament and in what manner they have done it I find then there were three horrible Impieties held by these extravagant Persons against which they employed the Holy Sacrament by the first they taught that Jesus Christ had not a true human Body but a shadow of a Body and a meer form void of substance or solidity By the second they said that the Father of Jesus Christ was not the Creator of the World but that the World and all Creatures which we see in it are the effect of Passion of Nature and of Ignorance and not of the Father of Jesus Christ And by the third in fine they said that all these material Creatures should be wholly destroyed and that by Consequence our Bodies being of the number of these Creatures should not be raised being uncapable of receiving supernatural Incorruption nor of participating of the Grace of the Holy Spirit Flesh and Spirit not subsisting both together The Holy Fathers do alledge the Eucharist to refute the first of these Impieties but it is requisite to know how they do alledge it for if they had been in the belief of the Latin Church they would not have failed as the Protestants say to have told these Hereticks that they overthrew the Faith of the whole Church which holds that the Substance of Bread and Wine is turned into the Substance of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ which could not be if he had not a true Body They suppose this would have been the only means to have refuted them and they think the Latins would have used this course had they to do with such Hereticks They say also that the Argument would have been clear and convincing and that 't is to be believed the ancient Doctors would not have followed any other course if they had been of the same Opinions that yet nevertheless they do not argue after that manner to refute the first Error of these Instruments of Satan they only tell them that seeing the Eucharist is the Image and Figure of the Body of Jesus Christ then of necessity he hath a true Body because every Image and Figure doth presuppose the Existence and Truth of the thing that it represents and that it is the reasoning of Tertullian in his Excellent Treatise against Marcion Tertul. adyers Marc. l. 4. c. 40. Jesus Christ saith he made the Bread his Body saying This is my Body that is to say the Figure of my Body now it had not been a Figure if there had not been a true Body for a Shadow and empty Appearance such as is a Spirit is not capable of having a Figure The Author of the Dialogues against the Marcionites in Origens Works reasoneth after the same manner Author Dial contra Marc. inter Orig op Dial. 3. If Jesus Christ saith he had neither Flesh nor Blood as the Marcionites affirm of what Flesh and Blood is it that he hath given us the Images that is to say the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament when he commanded his Disciples to remember him by those things Against the second Impiety they also imply the Holy Sacrament and see here how they do it Tren contr heres l. 4. c. 34. They say The Holy Sacrament is an Acknowledgment which we make unto God under the Title of Creator in offering unto him the first Fruits of the Creatures which he hath made and that it were an injustice to the Father of Jesus Christ if he were not the Creator of the World to offer unto him things which belonged not unto him as if he coveted that which belonged to another and desired to have what was not his own That if the Creatures were the product of Passion of Nature and of Ignorance it were to wrong God instead of giving him Thanks to offer him the Fruits of Passion of Nature and of Ignorance It is after this manner St. Ireneus doth argue to confute the Adversaries which he opposed in shewing them that the Father of Jesus Christ must needs be the Creator of the World because he accepts the Oblations of Bread and Wine which is made unto him in the Eucharist for to say that it is no longer Bread and Wine after Consecration but the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and that 't was so St. Ireneus understood it the Protestants say this would have been yeilding the cause unto these Hereticks who teaching that Jesus Christ was not of the number of the Creatures of this World would not have failed to have inferred that his Father had not been the Creator because our Lord was offered unto him which was not the work of the Creator whereas in saying that there was offered unto him Creatures of this World as these Hereticks owned as well as the Orthodox that there was such offered unto him in the Eucharist he would have put them to silence all the shifts they could have made would have vanished away at the sight of this Truth because they confessed that Bread and Wine are of those Creatures whereof the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ would not have received an Oblation if he had not been the Maker of them Something of this Nature is seen in Tertullian's first Book against Marcion Chap. 14. It remains to see after what manner the Fathers have acted to refute the last Impiety of these Hereticks who denied the resurrection of the Body maintaining that all material Creatures shall be wholly destroyed and reduced to nothing Iren. advers haeres l 4. c. 34. and that the Flesh is uncapable of receiving Incorruption because Incorruption is a Grace of the Spirit which can have no Commerce nor Society with the Flesh We preach in the Eucharist saith St. Ireneus the Communion and Unity of the Flesh and Spirit for as the Bread which is of the Earth receiving the Invocation of God is no longer common Bread but is the Sacrament composed of two things the one Terrestrial the other Celestial so also our Bodies receiving the Eucharist are no more corruptible
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
it that is either to oblige the people to adore it or for some other reason The first that I can find who explained the cause and reason of this Elevation was German Patriarch of Constantinople in his Theory of Ecclesiastical things where he very curiously inquires the mystical reasons of what was practised in the Church and particularly in the celebration of Divine Mysteries a Treatise which most Authors attribute unto German who lived in the VIII Century and some unto another of the same name who was Patriarch in the XII After all the Author of this Theory being come unto the Inquiry of this Elevation crept into the Church about the VI. Century doth sufficiently give to understand that it intended not the adoration of the Sacrament but only to represent the Elevation of our Saviour upon the Cross Germ. Constantinop in Theor. t. 12. Bibl. Patr. p. 407. and that was its lawful and genuine use and end The Elevation of the pretious body saith he represents unto us the Elevation on the Cross the Death of our Lord upon the Cross and his Resurrection also As for the Latins the first that I remember who bethought himself of finding out a Mystery in the same Elevation was Ives of Chartres at the end of the XI Century but all the Mystery that he therein found was no more than had been found by this Patriarch of Constantinople near 300. years before him When the Bread and the Cup saith he are lifted up by the Ministry of the Deacon Ivo Carnens Ep. de Sacrif Miss t. 2. Bibl. Patr. p. 602. there is Commemoration made of the lifting up of the Body of Christ upon the Cross And as this is the first among the Latins who in the Elevation of the Sacrament hath discovered the Mystery of the Elevation of our Lord upon the Cross so also is he the first of the Latin Church if I mistake not who hath writ of this Elevation for there is no mention of it neither in S. Gregory nor in S. Isidore of Sevil who both flourished in the beginning of the VII Century nor in Amalarius Fortunatus nor in Rabunus Archbishop of Mayence nor in Walafridus Strabo nor in the pretended Alcuin Authors partly of the IX and partly of the X. Century although they all of them wrote of Divine Offices and indeavoured to discover the Mystical significations of all things practised in Religion in their times and especially in the Sacrament unless it were Gregrory the first who only left a Liturgy for the Celebration of the Sacrament It s true that at the end of Rabanus his first Book of the Institution of Clerks there is seen a Fragment by way of supplement wherein mention is made of the Elevation whereof we treat but against the truth of the Manuscripts wherein this Fragment is not to be found besides what the thing it self evidently declares that this Famous Prelate was not the Author of it Moreover the Author whosoever he was with German and Ives of Chartres refers the Elevation he mentions unto the Elevation of the Body of Jesus Christ upon the Cross The Elevation of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ by the Priest Adject ad Raban l. 1. de offic Bibl. patr t. 10. p. 586. Hug. de St. Victor l. 2. c. 28. de Miss observat Bibl. Patr. t. 10. p. 1408. and by the Deacon imports saith he his Elevation on the Cross for the salvation of the World Hugh of St. Victor an Author of the XII Century discourseth no other wise of this Mystery The Priest saith he after the sign of the Cross lifts with both hands the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and a little after lays it down which signifies the Elevation of Jesus Christ on the Cross and his laying down into the Grave The Learned of the Communion of Rome agree in all this with the Protestants and James Goar of the Order of preaching Fryers in his Notes upon the Ritual of the Greek Church observes Goar in Eucholog p. 146. n. 158. That it is not certainly known when the lifting up the Host was joyned unto the Consecration in the Latin Church and rejects the Opinion of Durandus who maintained it had never been separated from it and he proves his by the silence of the Writers above mentioned unto whom he joyns the Author of the Micrologue who lived by every bodies confession in the XI Century and the Roman Order which some suppose was writ at the same time And he saith that both these speak of the Elevation of the Oblation Ord. Rom. t. 10. Bibl. patr p. 15. which is true as to the Micrologue but as for the Roman Order it indeed makes mention of the Elevation of the Cup by the Deacon for as for the Elevation of the Host that is to say the consecrated Bread by the Bishop Goar ubi supra I find no mention thereof in the whole Book howsoever Goar gives to be understood that the Elevation spoken of by these two Authors tended not unto Adoration when he observes that it was not joyned unto Consecration but that it was made at the end of the Canon very near the Lords Prayer Hugh Maynard Hug. Menard in Sacram. Greg. p. 373 374 375. a Benedictine Fryer explains himself so fully in his Notes upon Gregory the first in his Book of Sacraments that nothing more can be said than what he hath written Now saith he in the Latin Church as soon as the Bread and Wine is consecrated they are lifted up that the people there present might adore them which practice I do not judge to be antient seeing there is no mention thereof to be found in our Books of the Sacraments Printed nor Written nor in Pamelius nor in the Roman Order nor in Alcuin Amalarius Walafridus Rabanus who have fully explained the Order of the Mass nor in the Micrologue who hath also very exactly laboured in the same Subject Afterwards this learned Fryer observes that it is clearer than the Sun at Noon day if the XV. Chapter of the Author of the Micrologue be considered who would not have failed to have writ of this Ceremony had it been used in his time that is in the XI Century because he makes mention of lifting up the Bread and the Cup together before the Lords Prayer which also appears more at large in the twenty third Chapter of the same Treatise Nevertheless he excepts the Mozarabick Office wherein mention is made of two Elevations of the Host one of which is made presently after Consecration and the other after these words Let us declare with the Mouth what we believe with the Heart but at the same time he saith by Parenthesis if nothing hath been added and to say the truth there is great likelyhood that it is an addition made since the introducing into the Latin Church the custom of lifting up the Host immediately after Consecration that it might be
Church this custom of breaking the Bread into little pieces to be distributed unto each of the Communicants was practised therein until the Twelfth Century as we have seen at large And this manner of speech was so frequent that although they have abolished the action which had introduced it Serm. de Azymo c. 4. extr yet they do not forbear at this day to give the name of Particules that is to say little pieces unto the Hosts which they distribute unto Communicants although they give them unto each of them whole and not broken But you must take notice that before the Latin Church had laid aside the use and custom of breaking the Bread of the Sacrament to distribute it unto Believers there was a very considerable Separation made from her by Berengarius and his followers and the Albigenses and Waldenses and their adherents whereby this practice and custom hath been still observed even in the West it self which is not now practised in the extent of the Church of Rome CHAP. X. Of the Distribution and of the Communion and first of the Time the Place and Posture of the Communicant IN the Celebration of the Sacrament the breaking of Bread should be followed by the Distribution but because the Distribution contains several things under its compass as the Time the Place the Posture of the Communicant the Persons which distribute it those which receive with the words both of the one and the other and in fine the Things distributed and received it is absolutely necessary to examine them severally to give the more light unto this part of the outward form of the Celebration of the Sacrament Therefore we will rest satisfied to consider in this Chapter the Time the Place with the Posture and Gesture of the Communicant As for the Time there 's no body can make any doubt but that Jesus Christ did institute and celebrate the Sacrament of the Eucharist after the Supper of the Passeover and at the end of the Supper the Evangelists do witness it and express themselves so fully as that they give us not the least cause to doubt of it which makes me believe that the Apostles and the Churches founded by their Preaching practised the same during life And to say the truth it seems to be plainly found in the Eleventh Chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians that the Belivers of that Church did celebrate this Divine Mysterie and participate thereof after having eaten altogether so that the Celebration of the Sacrament was as it were the Seal the Crown and accomplishment of those Agapes and Feasts of Charity I know that all be not of this Opinion and I do not intend to censure those who judge that the Celebration of the Sacrament was performed before the Agape I will only say that it is the Judgment of many Learned men which they ground upon the following Reasons which I am obliged to recite that the Reader might judge of their solidity In the first place it appears that the design of these first Christians was exactly to imitate the Order that was observed by Jesus Christ who as we said celebrated his Eucharist after Supper Secondly 1 Cor. 11.21 They pretend that the Apostle gives an evident proof of it when he saith That some advanceth and taketh his own supper before without staying for the rest for that could not be if they had begun with the Celebration of the Sacrament and ended with the Feast of Charity it being unlikely that the Sacrament would be solemnized before the Assembly was compleat and that all which were accustomed to be present were come In the third place had it been practised otherwise they think S. Paul should not have had so great cause to have charged the Corinthians of having received the Bread and the Cup of the Lord unworthily nor to command them to examine themselves before they come unto the Lords Table because by this reckoning the disorder he charges them with should have happened after the Celebration of the Sacrament and not before So that the Apostle should only have had cause to blame the disorder of their Feast without mingling therewith any discourse of the Sacrament yet nevertheless he doth the quite contrary for he insists much more upon the Sacrament than upon all the rest which doth evidently shew that these first Christians assembled for their Feasts of Charity began this Solemnity by the common Meal which they made all together and did end it by the Sacrament of the Eucharist whereof they did communicate after they had ended Supper after which the company was dismissed Unto all these proofs they add the marks of that ancient Custom which remained in the V. Century Tertullian saith in some of his Works That the Eucharist was celebrated at supper time Tertul. de corona c. 3. as Rigaut and Rhenanus confess upon the place But although that the practice of celebrating it also in the Morning was already very frequent in the Church I cannot see how it can be concluded from the words of this Learned African that the Celebration was made after the Meal rather than before no more than by what is observed by S. Cyprian about forty years after for disputing against those who celebrated the Sacrament in the Morning with Water and urging them with the Example of our Lord who did his with Wine he said Cypr. Ep. 63. that they happily imagined to be quit under colour That at Supper Wine was offered in the Cup. All that can be inferr'd from these two passages of Antiquity is That in those times the Eucharist was celebrated conjointly with the Agapes or Feasts of Charity but in such a manner that it was also very frequently celebrated and most commonly in the Morning and by consequence fasting Also is it not therein the marks of the ancient custom before mentioned are sought as also in what is said by S. Austin in the beginning of the V. Century Aug. Ep. 118. c. 7. That some were wont to receive the Sacrament after Meal time but upon one day of the year only to wit Thursday before Easter Concil Carth. 3. c 29. as is expresly observed by the Third Council of Carthage assembled at the same time ordering that this Sacrament should alwaies be celebrated fasting excepting only the day that our Lord's Supper is celebrated that is to say the day whereon Commemoration is made every year of the Supper of our Lord which is as every body knows upon Holy Thursday But as this Rule would serve as a Law only in Africa there were other Churches which used thus not on that day precisely but every week on Saturday And indeed two ancient Church Historians Socrates and Sozomen Socr. l. 5. c. 21. Grac. 22. Sozom. l. 7. c. 19. who wrote some years after the death of S. Austir inform us That the Christians of Egypt those of Thebais and about Alexandria in several Cities and Villages did
the true Sacrament is received under one species and that so as to what concerns the benefit such are not deprived of any grace necessary to salvation who receive but under one kind After all which the Council makes these three Canons If any one shall say Can. 1. that by the command of Christ or for necessity of Salvation all Believers in general and each one in particular is obliged to receive both kinds of the holy Sacrament of the Eucharist let him be Anathema If any one shall say Can. 2. that the holy Catholick Church was not moved by just causes and reasons to administer the Communion unto the Laity and Clergy not officiating under the species of Bread only or that she hath therein erred let him be Anathema If any body shall deny that whole Christ Can. 3. the Fountain and Author of all Graces is received under the sole species of Bread because as some falsely suggest he is not received according to Christ's own Institution under both kinds let him be accursed See here exactly whereunto things amounted in the West Whereupon some have made these Reflections In the first place that about 300. years before the use of the Cup was taken away from the people by publick Authority the Albigenses and Waldenses had separated themselves from the Latin Church to make a Body apart which Body hath alwaies practised the Communion under both kinds Secondly that at the time the Council of Constance made her Decree there was in Bohemia besides the Calixtins who only desired the use of the Cup agreeing in all other points with the Church of Rome the Taborites so called from the Mountain Tabor where they had their Assemblies unto whom some joining many of the Waldenses who according to the testimony of Dubravius had sheltered themselves in those parts ever since the XII Century and that there were not only of these Waldenses at that time in Bohemia only but also that there were great numbers of them in England in Provence the Valleys of Piedmont and elsewhere In the third place that when the Council of Trent in our Fathers daies renewed and confirmed the Decree of Constance touching the taking away the Cup from the Laity and Clergy that did not officiate yet it referred unto the Popes disposing and power to grant it unto those whom he should think fitting and upon what conditions he should judge convenient without insisting here upon the liberty our Kings have of Communicating under both kinds In the fourth place that since the Decree of the Council of Trent an infinite number of persons of that same Communion earnestly wished that the use of the Cup which had been taken away might be restored unto the people Those which be any thing curious may read what Cassander hath written a man of the Communion of the Roman Church and very intelligent in Ecclesiastical Antiquity I say in his Consultation Art 22. In his Defence of the Book touching the Duty of a Devout Man page 864. and in his Treatise of the Communion under both kinds and the demand which Catherine de Medicis Queen of France caused to be made unto the Pope in the behalf of France Anno 1561. as is related at large by Monsieur de Thou Hist Thuan. l. 27. in his History In fine that the practice of all Christians is contrary to that of the Latins because they all administer the Sacrament of the Lords Supper under both kinds to wit the Grecians the Melchites or Assyrians the Georgians Circassians and Mingrelians the Muscovites and Russians the Nestorians the Christians of S. Thomas in the Indies before they turned to the Latins which was but in the last Century heither did they renounce their belief or worship to imbrace the worship of the Latin Church till the year 1599. the Jacobites which are exceeding numerous the Cophtites or Christians in Egypt the Abassins under Prester John who is one of the greatest Princes in the World the Armenians and in fine the Maronites until that they submitted themselves unto the Latin Church in Clement VIII his time It is certain there is some difference in the manner of distributing the Sacrament under both kinds amongst these Christian Nations for some of them put the Bread and Wine both together in a Spoon as the Muscovites others administer the Sacrament steeped as the Armenians if we may credit some persons It is said that the Greeks at this time do so heretofore they distributed both kinds separately In effect I see that all agree that the Greeks give the Bread steept Therefore Humbert Cardinal of Blanoh-Selva writing against the Calumnies of the Greeks in the XI Century said That they put the Bread and Wine together as we said the Muscovites do who are of the Religion of the Greeks taking them in a Spoon which the Laity do at this time by relation of Goar in his Notes upon the Eâ—chology but the Clergy receive both kinds separately As for all the other Christians above mentioned they Communicate under both kinds separately unto whom we may join all the Protestant Christians but so it is that there is not any one Christian Communion in the whole World excepting only the Latin but believe that the use of both Symbols is necessary unto a lawful Communion whatever difference there may be amongst them in the manner of administring of it Now it is evident by what hath been said that unto this Communion under both kinds cannot be opposed that called the Communion of the Laity by the Ancients because that means nothing else as the learned on both sides agree but to communicate with the people and not with the Clergy for instance when a Clergy-man was degraded from his Office for some great sin he was reduced to the degree of the common people amongst whom he did communicate and not with the Clergy which is at this time practised amongst the Abyssins and amongst the Protestants but that makes nothing to the communicating under one kind because the people participated of both kinds Nor the peregrine Communion whereof mention is made but very seldom in the Monuments which remain unto us of Antiquity for all the certain knowledge we have of it by reason of the few places that speak of it is that it regarded strangers who came from some other parts unto some Church where they were admitted to receive the Sacrament but after the manner that 't was there celebrated under both kinds If this peregrine Communion may not better be understood of Clergy-men which travelled from one Church to another without Attestations or Certificates in which case they were civilly received by reason of their character but without admitting them unto the Communion of Divine Mysteries almost as S. Chrysostom served Ammonius and Isidorus which also administred unto Theophilus Bp. of Alexandria a pretext for persecuting S. Chrysostome Nor that Believers were suffered to carry home unto their Houses the Bread of the Eucharist
Jesus Christ cannot be in the Sacrament as dead but Typically and Mystically because he really dies no more But because our Saviour said after having distributed the Cup to the Disciples I will drink no more of this Fruit of the Vine until the Day that I shall drink it new with you in my Father's Kingdom I find the holy Fathers have taken notice of this Circumstance seâ—ing they have been pleased to declare unto us that Jesus Christ did call that the Fruit of the Vine that is Wine which he drank or gave unto his Disciples to drink in the Celebration of this divine Mystery This is as I conceive what Clement of Alexandria would intimate in these Words Clem. Alex. Paedag. l 2. c. 2. That what the Lord had blessed was Wine he would declare himself in saying to his Disciples I will drink no more of this Fruit of the Vine until I drink it with you in the Kingdom of my Father Origen in all likelihood had no other meaning when he observed Origen Hom. 7. in â—evit that Jesus Christ gave unto his Disciples Wine which he called the Production of the Vine and in as much as that he would not drink himself at the Celebration of the Sacrament it was that being ready to offer the Sacrifice of his Body he thought fit to shew in his Person the accomplishment of the Type and Figure which had gone before in Aaron and the High-Priest under the Law who were forbidden drinking Wine when they were to draw near the Altar to sacrifice The Poet Juvencus may also be here admitted if the Passage which might be alledged of his were in its purity and had received no alteration but because in all appearance it hath been altered I 'll pass it over in silence that no body may have cause of Exception and instead of Juvencus I 'll produce St. Athanasius which saith Athan. in Synops That when the Lord gave the Mystery or the Sacrament he said I will drink no more of this Vine And St. Hilary Hilar. in Mat. cap. 30. That having taken the Cup and broke the Bread they drank the Fruit of this Vine And this is the reason wherefore St. Basil to prove Basil lib. 2. contr Eâ—nem that we call the Product of the Earth Fruit and not Children thus alledges the Words of our Lord I will no more drink of the Fruit of the Vine that is to say of the Production of the Vine St. Epiphanius disputing against the Encratian Hereticks or the Hydroparastarians who used only Water in the celebration of the Eucharist and for that reason were called Hydroparastites or Aquarians refutes them by the Words of our Saviour saying Epiphan haeres 47. Their Sacraments are no Sacraments but they counterfeit them in imitation of the true therefore they shall therein be condemned by the Words of our Saviour which said I will not drink of the Fruit of the Vine St. Chrysostom observes something of the same Nature when he assures That Jesus Christ Chrysost hom 83. in Math. to pluck up by the Roots this pernicious Heresy and to shew us that when he distributed the Mysteries he gave Wine he said expresly of the Fruit of the Vine for the Vine saith he doth not produce Water but Wine Gennad lib. 1. Dogm Eccles cap 75. And Gennadius Priest of Marsellis blaming those which under a pretext of Sobriety used Water instead of Wine in the celebration of the Sacrament refutes them by this reason That there was Wine in the Mystery of our Redemption and he proves it by these Words of Jesus Christ From henceforth I will not drink of the Fruit of the Vine Amalarius Florus and Christian Druthmer spake no otherwise in the IXth Century but because we will not change the method prescribed we will at this time wave their Testimonies and the proof of this antient Tradition by the Testimony of several Witnesses which have been famous in the Church as St. Justin Martyr St. Irenaeus Tertullian and many others altho Chiliasts and Millenarians For St. Jerome informs us that to prove that our Lord should drink Wine during the Reign of a 1000 years which they believed he was to reign upon the Earth they made use of these Words of our Saviour Apud Hieron Ep. ad Hedib q. 2. I say unto you I will no more drink of the Fruit of the Vine until I drink it new with you in my Fathers Kingdom from this place saith St. Jerome some dream of the Fable of a 1000 years during which they argue Jesus Christ shall reign corporally and that he will drink Wine whereof he drank not from that time until the end of the World What St. Jerome dislikes in them is the reign of a 1000 years during which they imagined that Christ should drink Wine upon Earth whereof he had not tasted any from the moment which he drank in the celebration of the Sacrament and whereof he was not to drink until this pretended Reign of a 1000 years The first thing to be considered in a Discourse is the Scope and Design of him that speaks because 't is the Mind that sets the Tongue a going and that 't is with regard to his Intention when he hath discoursed of a Matter the Expressions made use of must be considered for representing his Thoughts without this we must needs stray or at least fall into one of these Inconveniencies either not to comprehend the Sense of what is read or to impute unto him that speaks things which are strange or even sometimes unjust and unreasonable For Example Jesus Christ commands us in the Gospel to imitate the Wisdom of the unjust Steward which had wickedly wasted the Goods committed by his Lord unto his Trust this Precept to consider it barely and litterally is very wide of the Mark which our Saviour intends contains a wicked Practice and quite different from that which he teacheth us in his Gospel which being pure and holy infinitely surpasseth what is best and most commendable in the Heathen Morals But if we consider his Scope and Intention there is nothing in this Precept which is not worthy the School of Christ What he requires of us is not to imitate the ill-dealing of this unjust Steward which wasted his Master's Goods he only would have us imitate his Wisdom in making Friends when he saw his Stewardship was like to be taken from him that is to say that we also should make good use of those Goods which he is pleased to bestow on us and whereof he makes us Stewards that we should employ them to the relief of the Poor that by means of our Alms-deeds and Charity we should make our selves Friends which may contribute unto the saving our Souls by the Prayers which they make unto God for us Nothing can be more reasonable than this Rule which St. Chrysostom lays down Chrysost Hom. in haec verba Pater si fieri
Antio in Marc. Seeing our Saviour hath said This is my Body This is my Blood those which offer or present the Bread must esteem after Prayer and Consecration that 't is the Body of Christ and participate of it and that also the Cup is instead of his Blood But I see nothing more positive and formal hereupon than what is said by Proclus Bishop of Constantinople in one of his Orations Proclus Orat. 17. where he exhorts his Hearers to imitate the Piety and Devotion of the wise Men which went to worship the Child Jesus in the Manger at Bethlehem for after having represented unto them that instead of Bethlehem they had the Church instead of a Stable the House of God and instead of a Manger the Altar or Communion-Table he adds instead of the Child we embrace the Bread which was blessed by the Infant And it shall appear in its place that Amalarius was very near of this Opinion when he taught That the Sacrament is that which is sacrificed instead of Jesus Christ But because the Fathers which say That the Bread and Wine are the Body of Jesus Christ say also that they pass and are changed into the Body and Blood they have taken care to explain unto us these latter Expressions as they also have fully done the former for they tell us that when they say That when the Bread and Wine pass into the Body and Blood of Christ they mean that they pass into the Sacrament of his Body and Blood This is the Explication which St. Isidore Arch-bishop of Sevil gives us in these Words Isid Hispal de offic Eccles l. 1. c. 18. The Bread which we break is the Body of Jesus Christ who saith I am the true Vine but the Bread because it strengthenâ— the Body is for this Reason called the Body of Jesus Christ and the Wine because it increaseth Blood in the Body for that cause refers unto the Blood of Jesus Christ now these two things are visible yet nevertheless being sanctified by the Holy Ghost they pass into the Sacrament of the divine Body It was also the Opinion of Bede Bed Hom. deâ— Sant in Epiphan Jesus Christ saith he daily washeth us in his Blood when we renew at the Altar the remembrance of his holy Passion when the Creatures of Bread and Wine pass into the Sacrament of his Flesh and Blood by the ineffable Sanctification of the Holy Ghost Raban Bishop of Mayans was of his mind but we may not speak of him now And when these same Fathers say That the Bread and Wine are changed and converted into the Body and Blood of our Lord they also tell us that it is into the Vertue and Efficacy of his Body It is in this sense that Theodotus said Apud Clem. Alex. p. 800. Vict. in Marc. 14. Manus That the Bread is changed into a spiritual Vertue St. Cyril of Alexandria cited by Victor of Antioch speaks yet plainer God saith he taking pity of our Infirmities communicates into the things offered an enlivening Vertue and changeth them into the Efficacy of his Flesh whereunto amounts what hath been already said by Theodoret Theod. Dial. 1. That Jesus Christ hath honoured the Symbols with the Name of his Body and Blood not in changing their Nature but in adding his Grace unto their Nature It is for that Reason he adds Ibid. That the Lord made an exchange of Names giving unto his Body the Name of Bread and unto the Bread the Name of his Body to the end saith he that those which participate of the Divine Mysteries should not stop at things which are seen but that by the change of Names they should believe the change which is made by his Grace It is just what Ephraim Apud Phot. God 229. Patriarch of Antioch intended by these Words The Sacrament doth not change the outward Form but it remains inseparable from the hidden Grace as it is in Baptism Ammon cat in Joan. 3.5 For as Ammenius saith The material Water is changed into a divine Vertue I think no other sense can be given unto these words of the 338 Bishop assembled in the Council at Constantinople Anno 754 In Conc. Nicaen 2. Act. 6. against Images As the natural Body of Jesus Christ is Holy because it was Deified so also this here which is his Body by Institution he speaks of the Substance of Bread and which is his Image is Holy as being made Divine by an Institution of Grace But we will retrench having voluntarily prescribed our selves this Law to avoid Confusion therefore it shall suffice to observe That from all these Considerations of the Holy Fathers which we have alledged there results two Doctrines from their Writings both which have been their Foundation for the Vertue and Efficacy which they attribute unto the Sacsament the first is that they regard it as a Sacrament which not only barely signifies but which also exhibits and communicates unto the believing Soul the thing which it signifies I mean the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ This is it which made St. Chrysostom say explaining these Words Chrysost Hom. â—4 in 1 ad Cor. The Bread which we break is the Communion of the Body of Christ wherefore did he not say that it is the Participation because he would give something more to be understood and shew a great Union For we not only communicate in that whereof we receive and take but also in that we are united for as this Body is united unto Jesus Christ so are we also united unto him by this Bread This was also the Judgment of St. Macarius when he said Macar Hom. 27. Dionys c. 3. Hier. Eceles That in participating of this visible Bread the Flesh of Christ is spiritually eaten And also of the Author of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy who calls the Bread and Wine the venerable Symbols whereby Jesus Christ is represented and whereby we enjoy him And of Victor of Antioch Vict. Antioch in Marc. c. 14. By the Symbol of Bread saith he we are made to participate of the Body of Christ and by the Cup we partake of his Blood St. Fulgentius had no other meaning when he thus read the words of St. Paul Fulg. de Baptis Aethiop the Breads which we break are they not the participation of the Body of the Lord. And in another place which we find in the Fragments of the ten Books he wrote against Fabian the Arrian he declares himself so fully that nothing can be said more expresly unto the Subject in hand The participation it self saith he of the Body and Blood of our Lord Id. ex l. 8. Fragm 28. when we eat his Bread and drink his Cup intimates this unto us to wit that we should dye to the World from hence it is they oppose the Communion of the Body and Blood of our Lord by means of the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist unto the participation of
conformable unto the Principles which they have set down Nevertheless because there be several others which we have not touched we find our selves absolutely obliged to handle them in this Chapter the better to clear the Truth which we seek for and if in what remains to be examined they have said any thing which might favour the Hypothesis of the real Conversion which the Latins have made an Article of their Faith it is certain that what they have said hitherto will not be of so much moment and will lose of its worth and vertue whereas if nothing can be found in what is yet to be seen contrary unto what hath been already examined it must then be necessarily concluded say the Protestants that there is nothing in all their Writings that agrees with the Hypothesis of the Latin Church In fine if these Holy Doctors have believed the change of the Substance of Bread and Wine into the Substance of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ then they must also have admitted of these following Maxims First That a Body may be in several Places at once but far from admitting this Maxim to be true they directly oppose it Tertullian disputing against the Heretick Hermogenes which made the Creature co-eternal unto God Tertul. advers Hermog c. 38. If it be in a place saith he it is then within the place if it be within the place it is then bounded by the place within which it is if it be bounded it hath a remote Line and being a Painter as you are your own Profession must needs inform you that the furthest Line is the end of any thing whereof it is the remotest Line And elsewhere Id. de anim c. 9 he establisheth the same Doctrine when he places the Extent and the three Dimensions that is the length breadth and heighth amongst the most essential Properties of a Body and which necessarily and absolutely belong to their Bulk and Mass Arnobius was so strongly of Tertullian's Opinion that he uses it as a Principle universally received to refute the Evasion of Pagans who taught that their Gods were in all the Images which were consecrated unto them Arnob. l. 6. p. 89. ult edit It is not possible saith he that one God should be at one and the same time in several different Images suppose that Vulcan hath ten thousand Statues consecrated unto him in all the World can he be present as I have said in all the ten thousand at one time I think not Why not Because that which is of a particular and singular Nature cannot multiply it self into several Subjects and yet preserve its singleness intire and whole From whence he concludes a little after That it must be said or confessed that there must be an infinite number of Vulcans if there be one in each of these Images or that he is in neither of them if there be but one Vulcan because being but one Nature cannot admit that he should be divided to be in several If the Christians of those times had believed that the Body of Jesus Christ their Saviour and God had been in a Million of places at once without being therefore multiplyed nor divided it must indeed be granted that they had chosen a miserable Advocate to defend their cause because instead of defending he betray'd it and exposed it to the scorn of Infidels in reproaching them with that to be impossible which they themselves held to be possible and which said happened daily unto the Body of their God but we intend not to do this Injury unto the memory of this Christian Orator that would be Injustice and Ingratitude so to serve him seeing he hath said nothing but what is conformable unto the Opinions of other Doctors of the Church For when a Man saith St. Hilar. de Trin. l 8. p. 41. l. in Psal â—24 p. 211. â— Hilary or his Resemblance is in a place he cannot be elsewhere at the same instant because that which is is contained where it is the Nature of him which is in any place where he is sustained being infirm and incapable of being every where Hence it is that the Fathers commonly prove the Divinity of the Holy Ghost by his being present in sundry places at once in opposition unto Creatures which can be but in one place at a time I will not here alledg all their Testimonies it shall suffice to produce some upon a matter that admits of no difficulty Amb de spirit l. 1. c. 7. t. 4. Seeing that every Creature saith St. Ambrose is circumscribed by its Nature by certain bounds and limits and that the Creatures even invisible Creatures are limited by the Propriety of their Substance who dares call the Holy Spirit a Creature which hath not a limited and bounded Power for he is over all and in all which is certainly the property of the Deity Didymus who flourished at Alexandria at the same time when Ephrem did at Edessa Didym de Spir. S. l. 1. If the Holy Ghost saith he were a Creature he should have a circumscribed Substance as all things which have been created for altho the invisible Creatures are not circumscribed by place and bounds yet they are bounded by the propriety of their Substance but as for the Holy Ghost seeing he is in many places he hath not a limited Nature And a little under he saith The Angel which was present with the Apostle when he prayed in Asia could not be present at the same time with others which were in other parts of the World Pasch de Spir. S. l. 1. c. 12. â— 9 Bibl. Patr. Paschas Deacon of the Church of Rome As all Creatures saith he are subject unto the beginning of time it is known also that they be local and bounded by certain Limits and Spaces but as for the Holy Ghost he is not inclosed within Bounds or Limits like a Creature I could add unto all these Witnesses the Depositions of several others but because it is a matter the Truth whereof is known unto those which are any thing verst in the Writings of the Ancients it is needless to insist any longer upon it but only to observe that the Holy Fathers do never except the Body of Jesus Christ from these general Maxims as if his Glorification had acquired him the propriety of being in several places at once their silence upon occasions of such weight and where they could not possibly dispense with themselves from making this Exception if their belief had admitted of it doth evidently prove that they constantly believed that when the Body of Christ was in one place it could not be in another no more than other Creatures his Glorification having indeed given him a Glory which he had not before but without taking away from him the qualities or properties of a true Body besides they are not content to inform us of their Belief by their Silence they also inform us by their Words for
very Testimonies which Wicliff had borrowed out of Rabanus for the defence of his Doctrine It is then most certain that this Archbishop of Mayans taught two things of the Sacrament of the Eucharist one that by reason of its substance and matter it was subject unto the meanest accidents of our ordinary food and in so saying he followed the Opinion of Origin who said so positively six hundred years before him The other thing which he taught is That the Sacrament doth feed our body and turns it self into our substance which he learned from St. Irenaeus St. Justin Martyr St. Austin St. Isidore of Sevil and others But let us hear what he intends himself to say unto us Raba Maur. de instit Cleric l. 1. c. 31. Our Saviour saith he chose rather that believers should receive with the mouth the Sacraments of his Body and Blood and that it should be converted into their nourishment or as it is cited by Thomas Waldensis agreeable to the Manuscript Copies into part of themselves to the end that by the visible thing the invisible effect should be shewn for as material food doth nourish the body and preserve it outwardly so in like manner the Word doth inwardly strengthen and preserve the soul And again Ibid. the Sacrament is one thing and the vertue of the Sacrament is another The Sacrament is converted into the nourishment of the body but by the vertue of the Sacrament we do acquire Eternal Life As then the Sacrament is converted into us when we do eat and drink it so also are we converted into the Body of Jesus Christ when we do live in Obedience and in Holiness And building always upon this Foundation Id. in Mat. c. 26 he saith elsewhere with venerable Bede That Jesus Christ Id. in Ecclesia li. 7. c. 8. in the room of the Paschal Lamb hath substituted the Sacrament of his Body and Blood That the Creator of the World Id. de Instit Cler. c. 31. l. 1. and the Redeemer of Mankind making of the Fruits of the Earth that is to say of Wheat and Wine a convenient Mystery converted it into a Sacrament of his Body and Blood That the Unlevened Bread and Wine mixed with Water are sanctified to be the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Then he gives the reason wherefore our Lord chose Bread and Wine to be made the Sacraments of his Body and Blood and saith That it is because Melchisedek did offer Bread and Wine Ibid. and that Jesus Christ being a Priest after the Order of Melchisedek he ought to imitate his Oblation And teaching us wherefore the Sacrament takes the name of the Body and Blood of our Saviour he saith with Isidore Archbishop of Sevill Ibid. Because bread doth strengthen the body it is fitly called the Body of Jesus Christ and because Wine increaseth blood in the body it doth for this cause resemble his Blood Now both these are visible yet nevertheless Ibid. c. 33. being sanctified by the Holy Ghost they pass into a Sacrament of the Divine Body a Sacrament which he calls the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ by opposition unto his natural Body from which he distinguisheth it It must then be granted that Rabanus Archbishop of Mayans did teach quite contrary unto what Paschas did teach After Rabanus I will receive the Deposition of Amalarius Fortunatus although a little ancienter It is something difficult to know who he was and what Ecclesiastical Dignity he enjoyed And this difficulty is occasioned because some make him a Deacon others a Priest others an Abbot and in fine others a Bishop but the difficulty is not great because it is most certain he was invested with these four Dignities one after the other unto which also they added that of Archipresbyter Let the Reader see the Preface of the 7th Tome of the Collections of Dom Luke d'Achery where this learned Benedictine proves what we now say And he alledges besides the Manuscript Copies Father Sirmond which called him only Deacon and refutes him the late Monsieur Blondell who wrote that he was also Bishop he approves and of Monsieur Baluze who speaks of him as Abbot and Archipresbyâ—â—r although hitherto cannot be discovered neither the place of his Monastery nor of his Diocess Remy Archbishop of Lyons and the Church of the same place have endeavoured to eclipse his Reputation Lib. de trâ—â—us Epist because he was not of the same Opinion with them touching Predestination which Subject at that time was very hotly disputed and controverted amongst the Prelates of France Agobard Archbishop of the same place hath mightily inveighed against him in a Book which he composed against Amalarius his four Books of Ecclesiastical Offices Agoâ—ard cont Amalar. index Chronolog 〈◊〉 Pat. in autor 9. secul maâ—usc Flori. He was no better treated by Florus Deacon of the same Church in a Book which he wrote expresly against him where he denies amongst other things what Amalarius had said of the Tripartite Body of Jesus Christ de triformi Corpore Christi an expression which also escaped not the Censure of Paschas Radbert who gives this intimation at the end of his Letter to Frudegard Follow not the fooleries of the Tripartite Body of Jesus Christ De Tripartito Christi Corpore But as men are always men and that they but too much suffer themselves to be lead by their Passions it would not be just to judge of the Merits of Amalarius by the Testimony of his Enemies for not to insist upon what is said in the Manuscripts alalledged by Dom Luke d'Achery in the Preface above-mentioned he is qualified with the Title of a Man most learned And those which after him have written of Divine Offices mention him with honour and great commendation Two things may inform us in what esteem he was The first is in that he was by the Emperor Lewis the Debonair sent unto Pope Gregory to search for Antiphonaries Amalar. in Prolog Antiphon as he testifies himself in the Preface of his Book of the Order of the Antiphonary The second is That the same Emperor having assembled a Council at Aaix la Chappell Anno 816. he ordered a Rule to be made for Prebends drawn out of the Writings of the holy Fathers that the Prebends should conform unto it as the Friars did unto St. Bennet's And it was this Amalarius that by Order of this Prince composed this Book as is testified by Ademar a Friar of Angoulesm in his Chronicle Whereunto may also be added Ademar in Chron. Anno 816. In Supplem Concil Gall. p. 110. that the same Amalarius was chosen with Halitgarius by the Council of Paris assembled Anno 824. against the worshiping of Images to present into the same Emperor the Letter written unto him by this Assembly of Prelates And therefore it is that in the Memoirs that Lewis the Deboâ—ur directed unto Jeremy Archbishop of Sens
Chron. c. 17. t. 2. p. 133. 135. that he was a learned Doctor of the Church Non levis Armaturae in Ecclesia Christi Militem Eminent in Probity and in Doctrine an undaunted and powerful Defender and Protector of the Catholick Verity against Innovators It was this Ratramn whom Charles the Bald consulted upon the Mystery of the Sacrament to be informed by him what was the true Opinion of the Church and who by his Order wrote the little Treatise Of the Body and Blood of our Saviour The Destiny whereof was more favourable than that of John Erigenius's Book which is destroyed whereas the other is still in Being Ep. ad Dom. Luc. d'Achery t. 2. Spicileg praes I know the late Monsieur de Marca said that the Book of John Erigenius and that of Bertram or Ratramn was but one and the same thing and that the true Author of it was John Erigenius who having concealed his Name cloaked it under that of Bertram but in truth nothing can be seen weaker than the Conjecture of this illustrious Prelate I have often admired that so learned and understanding a person as Monsieur de Marca should have such a thought for if he had taken the pains to have compared this little Treatise whereof we speak with the other Works of Ratramn and with what remains unto us of John Erigenius's he would never have gone about to have taken it from the one to have given it unto the other because the Style is wholly Ratramn's and is nothing like unto that of Joh. Scot for the saying that Berengarius frequently made mention of John Scot and that he made no mention of Ratramn is to say nothing to the purpose for it may be that Berengarius might speak of him and that it might not come unto our knowledge or if he did not speak of him it might be because Bertram's Book was not come to his hands as that of John Erigenius's was Doth it not very often come to pass that small Treatises as that of Ratramn's was do at first make a great noise but a hundred or two hundred years after they are as it were buried in Oblivion that scarce any hath knowledge of them And who knows but the same fate may one day befall the great and famous Works of this illustrious Archbishop I mean his eight Books of the Privileges of the Gallican Church This great Man adds the Testimony of Ascelin who making Answer unto a Letter of Berengarius doth make mention of an Interpretation given by John Erigenius unto some passages of Gregory the First very agreeable unto that which Ratramn also gives them and from thence infers to confirm his Hypothesis that the Book of Ratramn and of John Erigenius was but one and the same Book and composed by this latter But let me again take the liberty to say that this is no solid Reason John Erigenius and Ratramn disputed against one and the same Adversary they both pleaded the same Cause wherefore then might they not employ the like Arguments and explain after the same manner the words of Gregory now spoken of And to say the truth if the reasoning of Monsieur de Marca should be admitted it would follow that Tertullian and St. Austin should be but one and the same Author seeing they both write and almost in the same Terms that Jesus Christ gave unto his Disciples the Figure of his Body And that moreover it doth not appear that the Explication of John Erigenius is whole and entire word for word in Ratramn It is concerning these words of the ancient Latin Liturgy We beseech thee O Lord that thy Sacraments may accomplish in us what they contain to the end we may receive in substance what we now perform in appearance Ascelin upon whose Testimony this learned Prelate doth relie makes John Erigenius say Specie inquit geruntur ista non veritate But the words found in Ratramn are Dicit quod in specie gerantur ista non in veritate See here already some difference in the Construction and in the Terms Besides we know not if John Erigenius joyned unto his words this Paraphrase which Ratramn joyned unto his Id est per similitudinem non per ipsius rei manifestationem that is to say by resemblance and not by manifestation of the thing it self It cannot then be said for certain that the Explication of John Erigenius is to be found verbatim in Bertram for although they agree both as to the Ground of the Explication and that in substance they expressed themselves alike nevertheless it cannot be denied but that there was some difference in their Expressions I am very sorry that this illustrious Prelate had not always followed the truth and that it was his fortune sometimes to run against the constant Current and Truth of History as when he pretends to vindicate Pope honorius from being tainted with the Heresie of the Monothelites when he would make the Foundation of Churches in France to be ancienter than indeed it is when he undertook to derive the Institution of Archipresbyters from the Will and good Liking of Bishops of Cities and other things which it may be may some time or other be enquired into And to conclude that the Books of Ratramn and of John Erigenius should be but one and the same Book against the truth of History Cardinal Baronius said very well Baron Annal. Eccles num 12. That one ought to make light of what a new Writer doth relate of ancient Transactions if he be not countenanced by the Authority of some elder than himself Of much greater reason then should he be rejected when he directly opposeth the Testimony of the Ancients Here is a Question of a matter in the IX Century viz. whether Ratramn wrote against Paschas Monsieur de Marca denies it Is it just to believe him before a Writer of that Age and which was a favourer of Paschas and whose Interest it was by consequence to have supprest the Works of Ratramn I mean the Anonymous writer of whom we have formerly made mention Paschas Radbert saith he Anonym apud Cellot ubi supra abbot of Corby affirms under the name of St. Ambrose that it is no other flesh which is received at the Altar but that which was born of the Virgin Mary and which suffered on the Cross that is risen from the Dead and which is at this day offered for the Life of the World Rabanus in his Letter unto Egilon and one Ratramn in a Book which he composed and dedicated unto King Charles that is to say Charles the Bald do sufficiently argue against him Unto this Testimony may be joyned that of Sigibert in the XI Century and of Trythemius in the XV. besides the Witnesses of several written Manuscripts And after all this conclude that the Treatise of the Body and Blood of Christ which we have under the name of Ratramn is truly his and that it was published in the
which were read in the Assembly The other at Verceil in September where Berâ—en garius was warned to appear but he thought sufficient to send two Clergy-men in whose presence he was condemned a second time and with him the Book which John Erigenius had writ against the Opinion of Paschas about two hundred years before The Anonymous also failed not to begin the History of the divers Condemnations of Berengarius by these two Councils of Rome and of Verceil But these two Councils hindred not but that many wrote for him as there were many that wrote against him so it is expressed in Sigebert's Chronicle Sigebert in Chron ad ann 1051. of the Edition of Mireus at Antwerp Anno 1608. and it might also be seen in all the other Impressions had not care been taken to suppress it Many saith he disputed for and against him both by Word and in Writing In fine there is in Monsieur de Thou's Library a Manuscript Copy of the Chronicle of Sigebert wherein this is read France is troubled by reason of Berengarius of Towers who affirmed that the Sacrament which we receive at the Altar is not really the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ but the Figure of his Body and Blood for which cause several disputed with much heat for and against him by Word of mouth and by Writing As for Berengarius himself he so little valued the Anathema's of Rome and Verceil that he spake very slightly of Pope Leo the Ninth and of his See as it was seen formerly in Guitmond his Adversary before it was altered by the Expurgatory Indexes but that 's in vain Anonym p. 363. seeing Father Chifflet's Anonymous relates almost the same thing and near hand in the very same terms which I will save my self the trouble of transcribing because they be something sharp and full of Contempt Victor Successor unto Leo seeing that Berengarius still persisted in his Opinion and that he ceased not to publish it notwithstanding the thundring of Leo's two Councils caused one to be assembled at Towers Anno 1055. wherein his Sub-Deacon Hildebrand who was afterwards Pope under the name of Gregory the Seventh presided and the Adversaries of Berengarius Lanfranc Guitmond and the Anonymous before mentioned have writ that Berengarius there presented himself and dared not to defend his Cause chusing rather to submit unto what Rome had determined in the matter We not having the Acts of this Synod it would be difficult to speak certainly of it it not being just wholly to give Credit unto what his Adversaries relate of him which doth not appear to agree with the following part of the History For Nicholas the Second of that Name was obliged to assemble another Council at Rome five years after that of Tours Berengarius there appeared and if we will believe Lanfranc and Chifflet's Anonymous he dared not to defend his Belief Chron. Cassin l. 3. c. 33. Sigon de Regn. Ital. l. 9. ad An. 1059. But how shall we reconcile Lanfranc and the Anonymous with the History of Mount Cassin and with Sigonius for they observe that his Enemies could not tell what to reply unto his Reasons and that they were constrained to search in the Monastery of Mount Cassin for a Friar called Alberick which Pope Stephen saith Sigonius had made Cardinal-Deacon who being come and not being able to answer Berengarius his Arguments demanded a Weeks time to answer him but in fine Threatnings having greater efficacy than their Arguments Berengarius being affrighted signed the Revocation which Humbert Cardinal of Blanch-Selva had Order to draw up and which I do not here examine because I do not meddle with matter of Controversie and which moreover the Latin Church at this time doth not much like of and that it was for fear of death that he renounced cannot be doubted after the Testimony of Lanfranc his great Enemy who thus speaks unto him in the Book he composed against him You have in presence of the Council Tom. 6. Bibl. Pat. p. 189. confessed the Orthodox Faith not for love of the Truth but through fear of death Therefore Chifflet's Anonymous doth observe a considerable Circumstance and which as I think deserves to find place in this History of Berengarius for he said Anonym ubi supra that Alexander the Second which succeeded Nicholas Anno 1061. did in a very friendly manner by his Letters advise and desire Berengarius to lay aside his Opinion and not to scandalize the Church But that Berengarius would by no means depart from his Judgment and that he had the courage to declare so much unto the Pope by Letters Thence it was that Gregory the Seventh Successor unto Alexander gave him Audience in two Councils as the Anonymous observes who assisted at the latter assembled at Rome Anno 1079. As for the former held at the same place he mentions not at what time but so it is that in the latter Council there was drawn up another Confession of Faith much milder and more moderate than that which had been made in Nicholas his time and they obliged Berengarius to sign it After which Tom. 2. Spicil p. 5â—8 Gregory gave him Letters of Recommendation which Dom Luke d'Achery has caused to be printed in one of the Thomes of his Collections This Gregory I say of whom 1 In vita Hildebrandi Cardinal Benno and the 2 Ad Anno 1080. Abbot of Ursperg do write That wavering in the Faith he made his Cardinals to keep a solemn Fast to the end that God would shew whether the Church of Rome or Berengarius were in the truest Opinion touching the Body of our Lord. And it must be remembred that this Synod of Gregory's was full of Contests upon this Subject of the Sacrament there being yet a great many Prelates which defended the Opinions of Berengarius against the Reality of Paschas as appears by the Acts of this Council related by Thomas Waldensis and Hugh de Flavigny Tom. 2. c. 43. Chron. Verd. ad Ann. 1078. in the Chronicle of Verdun which is in the first Tome of the Library of Father l'Abbe who doth also give us the Abridgment with this difference That he assigns this Council unto the Year 1078. whereas it was held in the Year 1079. But in fine The Acts produced by Waldensis and what the Chronicle of Verdon alledges doth testifie that there were those in this Assembly which affirmed that the Eucharist is the Figure of the Body of Jesus Christ But that nothing may be wanting unto the History of Berengarius it is necessary to touch upon some Circumstances which have not yet been mentioned In the first place His Adversaries being enraged against him have not feared to charge him with some Errors touching Marriage and Infant-Baptism as if he taught the Dissolution of lawful Marriage and rejected the Baptizing of young Children but without any other Ground than meer Report which as the Poet
should be read 1106. because Bruno was not made Archbishop of Treves till after the year 1100. Bishop Usher makes mention of the Author of the Acts of Bruno who was present and is a Manuscript to be seen in England and he saith that this Author speaks of Assemblies which were made in the Diocess of Treves by those which denied the change of the substance of Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Waldens t. 2. c. 90. It is about this time that Honorius Priest and Theologal of the Church of Autun is said to flourish which Thomas Waldensis alledges against Wickliff as a Disciple and follower of the Heresie of Berengarius which he himself confesseth to agree with the Doctrine of Rabanus Archbishop of Mayance and great Adversary unto Paschas when he saith that Honorius est de secta panitarum Rabani that is to say of the Sect of those which believe with Rabanus That the Eucharist is bread in substance fit to nourish the body but the body of Jesus Christ in efficacy It is true Waldensis doth not particularly name Honorius but he means him so clearly by the entrance of his Treatise and by the passages he alledgeth and which is therein now to be seen that no body can doubt but that 't was of Honorius he spake Neither do I find that any are at variance hereupon The first testimony produced by Waldensis and which Wickliff alledged for the defence of his Opinion Honorius Augustod in gemma animae l. 1. c. â—6 is set down in these terms It is said that formerly the Priests received Flower from each House or Family which the Greeks do still practice and that of this Flower they made the Bread of our Lord which they offered for the People and after having consecrated it they distributed it unto them The second mentioned by Waldensis is borrowed of Rabanus Id. l. 1. c. 111. and is thus read The Sacrament which is received by the mouth is turned into the nourishment of the body but the vertue of the Sacrament is that whereby the inward Man is satisfied and by this vertue is acquired Eternal Life The same Author saith again Id. ib. c. 63. that the Host is broken Because the bread of Angels was broken for us upon the Cross that the Bishop bites part of it that he divides it into three parts Id. c. 64. that it is not received whole but broke into three bits Ibid. c. 85. and that when the Bread is put into the Wine it is represented that the Soul of our Lord returned into his body And he calls it Ibid. c. 63. to break the Body of our Lord when he observes That the Sub-Deacon receives from the Deacon the body of our Lord and that he carries it to the Priests to break it unto the People All Men do confess that the glorified Body of Jesus Christ cannot be broken and divided into parts of necessity he must then speak of the Sacrament which is called the Body of Jesus Christ not by reason of the accidents which is never qualified with this name by the Ancients but in regard of its substance therefore Honorius declareth plainly that it is Bread when he saith That the Consecrated bread is distributed unto the People and that the bread is put into the Wine And so far he favours the cause of the Protestants in following the Judgment of Berengarius and of Rabanus as is testified by Thomas Waldensis an Enemy both of the one and the other and by consequence of Honorius Nevertheless there be other places in the Treatise of this Author from whence the Roman Catholicks strive to draw advantage for example from these words The name of Mystery is used Ibid. c. 106. when one thing is seen and another thing is understood the Species of Bread and Wine is seen but it is believed to be the body and blood of Jesus Christ It is true that all Christians confess that the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament after Consecration are the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and the Author not specifying if it be in substance as the Church of Rome doth teach or in vertue as the Protestants which are called Calvinists do say I do not think that either the one or the other can draw any advantage from these words But besides these there be yet others which seem to be more favourable unto the Hypothesis of the Latins we may put in this order what he saith Ibid. c. 34. That the bread is changed into Flesh and that the Wine turns into blood and elsewhere That as the World was made of nothing by the word of God Ibid. c. 105. so by the words of our Lord the Species of these things he means the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament is truly changed into the body of Jesus Christ It must be confessed that had we only these two last passages of Honorius the Latin Church would undoubtedly have cause to boast over those which reject her belief but that which hinders that she cannot draw all the advantage from it she desires is that the Protestants rely in the first place upon the declaration of Thomas Waldensis who highly condemning the Opinion of Rabanus and of Berengarius as contrary unto the belief of the Latins doth nevertheless ingenuously confess that Honorius of Autun followed the Opinion of these two men whose Doctrine he condemns In the second place inasmuch as the first testimonies instanced in could receive no favourable interpretation for the Hypothesis of Roman Catholicks whereas the later whereof they pretend to take hold may conveniently be explained in a way which might no way prejudice the Doctrine of those called Calvinists who say that the conversion and the change spoken of by Honorius is not a change of substance but a change of efficacy and vertue inasmuch as the Bread and Wine do become by Sanctification the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of our Lord but Sacraments in their lawful Celebration accompanied with all the vertue and with all the efficacy of the Body and Blood so that for that reason it is said that they be changed into this efficacy and into this vertue according to the language of Theodotus of St. Cyril of Alexandria of Theophilact c. alledging to confirm their Interpretation Ibid. c. 106. what is said by the same Honorius That Jesus Christ changed the Bread and Wine into the Sacrament of his Body and Blood which St. Isidore Arch-bishop of Sevil venerable Bede and Rabanus Arch-bishop of Mayans had said before him as hath been mentioned in some part of this History And that in speaking of dividing the Host into three parts Ibid. c. 64. he declares That that which is put into the Cup is the glorified Body of our Lord and that which the Priest eats is the Body of Jesus Christ that is to say the Church which yet is militant here on Earth
say they that the Consecration being ended the Body of Jesus Christ is not really under the species of Bread and Wine but only in resemblance and in figure and that Jesus Christ did not transubstantiate really the Bread and Wine into his Body and Blood but only in type and in figure One may lay what stress they please upon the testimonies of these two men which may be looked upon but as of one seeing the one transcribed it from the other As for my part I shall only say that I take the present Armenians to be so grosly ignorant that they scarce know what they do believe of this Mystery Prateolus doth positively teach the same thing De haeres l. 1. haer 67. which is also confirmed by the testimony of Thomas Herbert an English man which had been so informed upon the place as he declares in the relation of his Voyage of the Translation of Mr. Wick fort What I say of the Armenians I may almost say of all the Greeks in general for it cannot be denied but they be fallen into very great ignorance of the Mysteries of Christian Religion and have corrupted their primitive Faith by many Alterations Nevertheless Learning having flourished a long time amongst them their ignorance is not so very great as that of other Christian Communions of the East They have had but very few that have written since the Ages which we have examined in the precedent Chapter yet have they had some few as Nicholas de Methona Nicholas Cabasilas Mark of Ephesus and Jeremy Patriarch of Constantinople As for Bessarion I do not put him into the number because he turned unto the party of the Latins who to requite him honoured him with a Cardinals Cap whereas the others died in the Communion of the Greek Church If you would know of them what they believed of the Eucharist they will answer That the Bread and Wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and that after Consecration they are his Body Blood And so far the Roman Catholicks have cause to believe they be of their side But it must be confessed also that they say things which do not agree well with the Hypothesis of the Latins and which make the Protestants conclude that the change whereof they speak is not a change of substance but of vertue and efficacy for not here to repeat what is said by Euthymius in the foregoing Chapter In Matth. 26. That the nature of the things offered is not to be considered In exposit liturg c. 32. 43 t. 2. Bibl. Pat. Graeco-Lat but their vertue And without insisting upon Cabasilas his regarding the Body of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament as dead and crucified for us which by the confession of all Christians cannot be true in the reality of the thing but only in the signification of the Mystery nor in that he saith that all those unto whom the Priest gives the Communion do not receive the Body of our Lord. De Corpore sanguin Christi ibid. Nicholas de Methona doth formally affirm the Union of the Symbols unto the Divinity which is exactly the Opinion of Damascen an Opinion which as hath been shewed doth presuppose the Existence of the Bread and Wine Jesus Christ saith he doth this that is to say communicates unto us his Flesh and Blood by things which are familiar unto Nature in joyning unto them his Divinity and saying This is my Body This is my Blood Jeremy Patriarch of Constantinople saith as the others That the Bread is changed into the Body of Jesus Christ But he adds Respon 1. c. 10 That Jesus Christ for all that did not give the flesh which he carried unto his Disciples to eat And elsewhere Ibid. c. 7. That the Grace of the Holy Ghost doth spiritually sanctifie our Souls and our Bodies are sanctified by the sensible things to wit the Water the Oyl the Bread the Wine and the other things sanctified by the Holy Ghost Which language agrees better with Damascen whom he cites in his second Answer than with the Latins because the first preserves the substance of Bread and Wine but the latter quite destroys it The Cardinal of Guise being at Venice had a Conference with the Greeks and amongst several Questions that he asked them he demanded of them what they believed of the Sacrament Cum Sigismundo Libero de rebus Moscovit Basileae 1571. See here the Answer they made him We believe and confess that the Bread is so changed into the Body of Jesus Christ and the Wine into his Blood that neither the Bread nor the accidents of its substance do remain but are changed into a divine substance Were there no more but this in the Answer of the Greeks it might be said either that they did not well understand themselves or that through complaisance unto the Latins amongst whom they lived they allowed the change of the substance of the Bread in such a manner nevertheless that to shew that they followed not the Opinion of the Roman Catholicks they say That the very accidents do not remain which is inconsistent with the Doctrine of Transubstantiation But because in this Answer they alledge as well the words of Theophelact upon Mar. 14. by which he declares That the Bread and Wine is changed into the vertue of the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ as also several passages of Damascen some of which have already been examined in the 12th Chapter to strengthen their Belief and Opinion we are obliged to believe that the change whereof they speak is quite different from that of the Latin Church It is true that scarce any of them explained themselves as fully as Cyril of Lucar Patriarch of Constantinople who a little above thirty years ago said Cyrillus Constantinop Patriarch confession fidei c. 17. We believe that the other Sacrament which our Lord did institute is that which we call Eucharist for the night wherein he was betrayed taking Bread and blessing it he said unto the Disciples Take eat this is my Body And taking the Cup he gave thanks and said Drink ye all of this it is my Blood which is shed for you Do this in remembrance of me And St. Paul adds As often as ye eat of this Bread and drink of this Cup ye shew the Lord's death This is the plain the true and lawful Tradition of this admirable Mystery in the administration and knowledge whereof we confess and believe the true and certain presence of our Saviour Jesus Christ to wit that which Faith teacheth and giveth unto us and not that which Transubstantiation rashly and unadvisedly invented doth teach If I would write the History of this Patriarch I should be obliged to speak of his Country I mean of the Isle of Crete now Candia of the great affection he had unto Learning the marvellous progress he made therein during his stay in Italy of the Voyage which he made â—â—to
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