in the Sclavonian Tongue unto those of that Nation whom he had Baptised that is to say Converted That as the matter was debated in the Sacred Colledge where there were several that opposed it there was a voice-heard as it were sent from Heaven saying Let all Flesh praise the Lord and every Tongue confess his Name upon which Cyrill was granted his request It is said that this Cyril is the same who in the Sclavonian Language is called Chiuppil That he lived about the Year 860. and that in the Days of Michael the Third Emperor of the East and of Pope Nicolas the First he with Methodius Converted unto the Faith of Jesus Christ the Mingrelians the Circassians and the Gazarites and afterwards several of the Sclavonians therefore in the Roman Martyrology is celebrated the day of his Birth as was antiently said amongst Christians that is of the Death of Cyrill and Methodius in the same day which is the ninth of March whence it is also that Pope John the Eighth wrote several Letters unto this Methodius Companion unto Cyrill and one of the Apostles of the Sclavonians according to the Language of those times and we find by the 247th Letter of this Pope written Anno 879. unto Sphentopulcher Prince of the Country That Methodius had been sent by this Prince unto John the Eighth who returned him back unto him to execute the Function of Archbishop with power to celebrate Mass and Divine Service in the Sclavonian Tongue We have just cause to commend saith this Pope Tom. 7. Concil part 1. Ep. 247. p. 91. writing unto Sphentopulcher the Sclavonian Characters invented by a certain Philosopher called Constantine whereby the Praises of God are published abroad and we command That in that same Language be recited the Sermons and Works of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ for we are warned by Divine Authority to praise the Lord not only in three Languages but also in all which Authority enjoyns us this Commandment when it saith All Nations praise the Lord and all People bless his name and the Apostles being filled with the Holy Ghost spake forth in all Languages the wonderful things of God Thence also it is that St. Paul that Heavenly Trumpet publisheth this Warning Let every Tongue confess that our Lord Jesus is the Christ to the Glory of the Father Touching which Languages also he instructeth us fully and plainly in the 14th Chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians how we are to edifie the Church in speaking several Languages and certainly it doth in no way prejudice the Faith or Doctrine to sing Masses in the Sclavonian Tongue or to read the holy Gospel or Divine Lessons of the Old and New Testament well translated and interpreted or to say or sing all the other Offices because he who made the three principal Languages the Hebrew Greek and Latine is the same which hath also created all other Languages for his Praise and Glory However we appoint that in all Churches under your inspection for the greater Honour the Gospel be read in Latine and because 't is translated into Sclavonian that it be read to the People who understand not Latin as it is practised in some Churches It were to be wished say the Protestants that the Christians of the Roman Communion would make serious reflection upon these words of Pope John the Eighth and that then they would consult the Decree of Innocent the Third at the Council of Lateran assembled in the year of our Lord 1215. T. 7. Concil Paâ—r part 2. Can. 9. p. 8â—9 Because that in most places in the same City and in the same Diocese there be people of divers Languages mingled together having under one Faith different Ceremonies and Customs we expresly enjoyn the Bishops of those Cities and Dioceses to provide for them persons fit to celebrate Divine Offices according to the different Ceremonies and Languages and to administer the Sacraments of the Church instructing them by their words and by Example Cardinal Cajetan who lived in Luther's time hath left in his Opuscula Opuscul t. 3. tract 15. art 8. That it were better for the edification of the Church thaâ— publick Service and Prayers which are made in presence of the People should be made in the Church rather in the vulgar than in the Latin Tongue and being blamed for it by some he answered That he grounded what he had said upon the 14th Chapter of the first to the Corinthians De offic pii viri p 865. George Cassander who lived and dyed in the Roman Church wished that it might have been so practised Methinks saith he it were much to be desired that according to the Apostles command and the custom of the antient Church some heed were to be taken of the People in the publick Prayers of the Church in the Psalms and Lessons which are used in their behalf and that the common People should not always be kept strangers from the knowledge of Prayers and Divine Service The words of St. Paul are clear That one cannot understand what is said if it be not said in a known Tongue and that he that by his ignorance understands not what is said cannot say Amen unto the Prayers of another Ibid. p. 866. And having alledged the words of Aeneas Sylvius and those of Cajetan he adds Vnto those who have the conduct and Government of the Church at this time it were no hard matter to establish and settle these and the like things according to the pure and antient practice of the Church if the minds of some persons were not seized with a vain and foolish fear and if they were not kept back by a vain Superstition nevertheless unless this be done I do not see that there is any great hope of an assured agreement and union in the Church nor that the Seeds of Schisms and Divisions will ever be rooted out and I cannot conceive how those persons unto whom the oversight of the Church is committed shall escape rendering an account of the Rents and Divisions in the Church which they have neglected and whereof they have not been careful according to their duty to prevent the growing Schisms and Heresies He repeats almost the same things in the consultation addressed unto the Emperors Ferdinand I. and Maximilian II. where he saith Pag. 995. amongst other things That 't was requisite Priests should so say Mass that the People may reap some benefit by it and not to be barely busied about an outward shew This was also the Testimony of Erasmus which is cited in the Margin of Cassander's Book just by the words first alledged Dâ— modo orandi It were saith he much to be desired that the whole Divine Service were said in a Language understood by all the People as it was wont to be practised in antient times and that all things were so plainly and so distinctly spoken that those which hearkened might understand them Queen Katherine
Concil Nicaen 2 act 6. assembled at Constantinople against Images in the year 754. Jesus Christ say these Fathers having taken Bread blessed it and having given Thanks he brake it and giving it to his Disciples he said Take eat for the Remission of Sins This is my Body in like manner having given the Cup he said This is my Blood do this in remembrance of me there being no other kind of Thing nor Figure chosen by him that could so fitly represent his Incarnation See then the Image of his quickning Body made honourably and gloriously Here are eleven substantial Witnesses which being added unto the five others which we passed over and shall appear in due time make up the number of sixteen without touching those which may by evident and necessary Consequences be drawn unto the same Testimonyâ— for I have made choice only of those which seemed most evident and of those also some speak in more express Terms than others The Reader may judg if all these Witnesses which speak of Bread Wine Fruit of the Vine of Figure Sign Type Symbol Sacrament of Representation of Fruits of the Earth do not give a figurative sense unto these Words This is my Body This is my Blood And to do it the better let him exactly see if any of these antient Commentators have spoken of Reality of bodily Conversion and of local Presence in interpreting them for say the Protestants they could not pass over in silence so important a Doctrine as that in an occasion which indispensably obliged them to say something of it without rendring themselves guilty of horrid Hypocrisy and Injustice So that if they have not done it and that there appears no such thing in what hath been produced and examined as indeed say they whatever Scrutiny we could make no such thing nor like it doth appear it may be safely and lawfully concluded that all these Fathers have taken these Words not in a proper and literal Sense but in a figurative and metaphorical Sense Moreover all these Reflections of the Ancients upon these Words of the Institution of the Sacrament amount just to the manner of understanding them commanded by the Council of Trent when it forbids to interpret the holy Scriptures Sess 4. contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers Because as 't is explained by Melchior Canus Locor l 7. c. 3. num 10. Bishop of the Canaries who assisted at the Council The Sense of all the Saints is the Sense of the Holy Ghost CHAP. II. Of what the Father 's believed concerning what we receive in the Sacrament and what they have said of it BEsides the many Reflections made by the ancient Doctors upon the Words used by our Saviour in the instituting this most august Sacrament which we have sufficiently enumerated and set down in the foregoing Chapter I find they have said many other things which may direct us unto the true understanding of their Belief which we will enquire into in this second Chapter In the first place they have called the Eucharist Bread and Wine in the very act of communicating There is given unto each of these present Just Mart. Apol. 2. vol. 1. Iâ—en l. 4. c 34. saith Justin Martyr the Bread the Wine and the Water which have been consecrated St. Irenaeus Bishop of Lyons gives it the same Name calling it The Bread upon which Prayers and Thanks have been made And I make no question Contr. Tryph. p. 260. Orig. contr Cels l. 8. Id. ibid. Id. Homil. 5. in Levitic Cyprian Ep. 76. 63 Apud Euseb Hist l. 6 c. 43. prope fin but 't is also for the same reason that our Christian Philosopher I mean St. Justin speaks of the Eucharist of Bread and Wine Origen against Celsus The Bread which is called the Eucharist the Symbol of our Duty towards God And in the same Book The Bread offered with Thanksgivings and Prayers made for the Mercies bestowed on us And in his Homilies upon Leviticus The Bread which the Lord gave unto his Disciples St. Cyprian was of the same Judgment when he called it The Bread of the Lord And in his Treatise of the Cup or in his Epistle to Cecilius he very often calls it Bread and Wine mix'd with Water and saith That the Body of the Lord is not Flower only nor Water only but a composition of these two things kneaded and moulded together and made into the substance of Bread And Cornelius Bishop of Rome writing unto Fabian Bishop of Antioch of what passed in the undue Ordination of Novatian unto the Episcopacy and speaking of the Sacrament in the act of distribution and reception he calls it That Bread From hence 't is that Tertullian disputing against the Marcionites Tertul. contr Marc. l. 1. c. 23. who taught that the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ was not the Creator he reproaches them That they were baptized in the name of another God upon anothers Earth and with anothers Water and that they made Prayers and gave Thanks unto another God upon the Bread of another It is easy to understand that in speaking in that manner to Marcion he presupposed that the Orthodox made their Prayers unto God the Creator upon this Bread that is to say The Bread of the Eucharist And the Author of the Epistle to the Philadelphians under Ignatius's Name Ep. ad Philad saith That there is one Bread broken unto all If we descend lower Conc. Ancyr c. 2. Conc. Neoces c. 13. we shall find that the Council of Ancyrus in the year 314 forbids Deacons that had sacrificed unto Idols To present the Bread and the Cup. And that of Neocesarea of the same Year saith That the Country-Priests cannot offer nor give the Bread in Prayer nor the Cup in the chief Church in the City if the Bishop or the Priests of the City are present Euseb dem l. 5. c. 3. Eusebius Bishop of Cesarea wrote about the year 328. That the Ministers of the Christian Church express darkly by the Bread and Wine the Mysteries of the Body and Blood of Christ It was also the opinion of St. Hilary Bishop of Poictiers Bil. in Matth. c. 30. when he said That the Passover of our Lord was made the Lord having taken the Cup and broke the Bread Macar Hom. 27. St. Macarius followed the same Steps in saying That in the Church one participates of visible Bread to eat spiritually the Flesh of our Lord. Concil Laod. c. 25. The Council of Laodicea assembled about the year 360 ordains That Ministers ought not that is to say the Deacons or rather Sub-Deacons to administer the Bread nor bless the Cup. A Council of Carthage made this Decree Concil Carth. c. 24. That in the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of our Lord nothing else should be offered but what the Lord himself had done to wit Bread and Wine mingled with Water This Decree is the 37th in the Code
to be guilty of some great neglect Secondly It was the custom in this Monastery not to keep any part of the Communion until the next day but they caused to be eaten at the same time all that remained which say some would not have been done if they had believed that it had been the real Body of Jesus Christ because they just before received it in Communicating which makes them easily believe that the abolishing of this Custom Ibid. l. â—â— 13. p. 58. which was not observed when the Friar Ulrick wrote did follow the change of belief Formerly saith he there was such care taken that after all had Communicated the very Priests and Priors which had brought whereof to Communicate did with a great deal of respect and caution Eat all that remained of the Eucharist without keeping any part of it until next day of which Custom nevertheless little heed is taken here at present but all is kept that remains after the Communion In the third place we therein find that the day before the Preparation that is to say on Holy Thursday Ibid. p. 58. There was so much of the Sacrament kept as needed for to Communicate them all Ibid. l. 2. c. 30 p. 140. that it was broken and distributed as they could conveniently take it And elsewhere The Cup is carefully rubbed without fearing there should remain any part of the Wine and of the Water and being Consecrated that it might be lost They believed then that the Wine and Water did still subsist after Consecration Ibid. p. 141. for the true Body of Jesus Christ cannot be lost And again The Priest divides the Host and puts part of it into the Blood of one half he Communicates himself and with the rest he Communicates the Deacon Ibid. p. 145. Many think it cannot be so spoken of the glorious Body and Blood of Jesus Christ And then again When the Priest hath broken the Host he puts part of it into the Cup according to the custom and two parts upon the Patten and he covers both with the Corporal but first of all he carefully rubs the outside of the Challice and shakes it with the same Fingers wherewith he touched it fearing lest that in performing the fraction there might not remain some part of the Body of our Lord which cannot be spoken of the real Body of the Son of God And in another place Ibid. p. 148. it is prescribed what ought to be done If it so happens that there remains ever so little of the Body of Christ which is expounded to be a very little crum and as it may be said indivisible part like to an Atom In fine treating of the Communicating sick Folks Ibid. l. 3. c. 28. it is observed That the Body of our Lord is brought from the Church that it is broken and that the Priest holds upon the Cup the portion that he should bring Now let any body judge if a part of the real Body of Christ can be separated from the whole and be carried into some other place and that after all that hath been alledged of these Ancient Customs it ought not to be concluded that this famous Congregation was not always of the belief it is at this time in the point of the Sacrament and that during the X. Century they embraced not the Opinion of Paschas This is the Inference which persons draw from these Customs But it is not yet time to have done with this Age we must first take a view of Italy and of Rome it self to be informed of Ratherius Bishop of Verona who departed this Life in the year 974. what the belief of the Church was in Italy in his time touching the Eucharist I do not intend here to write the History of this Prelate nor the Vicissitudes which happened him during his life for of a Friar that he was in the Monastery of Lobes he became Bishop of Verona from whence some time after he was expell'd and made Bishop of Liege but for three years only and then he lost this Dignity Those which desire to be particularly informed of his Adventures and of the Reputation which he had acquired by his Learning although it may be he cannot be wholly excused of inconstancy in his conduct may read the Preface of the Second Tome of the Collection of Dom Luke d'Achery from whom we take what shall be alledged I will not insist upon his speaking Ratherius Veron Serm. 2 de Pasch p. 314 315. t. 2. Spicil Serm. 3. p. 317. alibi Id. Serm. 1. de quadrag p. 282 of giving the holy Bread of presenting the morsel of receiving the holy things and the gift of so great a Sacrament although these expressions are not much after the practise of the present Latin Church no more than when he saith That he which observeth the Fast of Holy Thursday suppeth with our Saviour that is to say that he receives the Sacraments of his Body and Blood which were instituted on that day I will insist upon one part of his works wherein he plainly sheweth as is pretended that the Doctrine of the real Presence was not yet received in his time in the Church that is to say after his promotion unto the Diocess of Verona whereof he had been twice dispossessed for he wrote what we are about to alledge whilst he was Bishop This Ratherius having cited a passage of Zeno of Verona which restrains the eating of the Flesh of Christ unto believers only Id. de contempt canon part â— p. 181. as hath been shewed he adds As to the Corporal Substance which the Communicant doth receive seeing that it is I that do now state the question I must therefore answer and I thereunto willingly agree for because unto him that receiveth worthily it is true Flesh although it is seen that the Bread is the same it was before and also true Blood although the Wine is seen to be what it was I confess I cannot think nor say what it is unto him which receiveth unworthily that is to say unto him which dwelleth not in God By the Doctrine of the real Presence what is received at the Holy Table is the real Body of Jesus Christ unto the good and to the wicked there is no examining if the proper Body of the Son of God be received worthily or unworthily they only say that if this Doctrine had been in vogue in Ratherius his time he would not have been to seek to know what it was the wicked did receive in the Communion because he could not but have known that it is the real Body of Jesus Christ nevertheless he declares positively that he is throughly persuaded that the Corporal substance which is received in the Sacrament is unto Believers the true Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and truly with great reason because then the Sacrament is accompanied with all the Vertue and Efficacy of this holy Flesh and of this precious
rejected it but upon another Principle the reproaches of Jews and other Enemies and the difference betwixt the Greek and Latin Churches about Bread leaven'd or unleaven'd SAint Ignatius was a Disciple of the Apostles and particularly of St. John Bishop and Pastor of the Church of Antioch and moreover a glorious Martyr of Jesus Christ for he suffer'd Martyrdom at Rome the first of February Anno 107. or 109. in the Eleventh Year of the Emperor Trajan and if the Epistles which go in his name were truely his it were not to be questioned but that towards the end of the first age of Christianity or at farthest the beginning of the second there were Hereticks which rejected the use of the Sacrament When I mention his Epistles I speak not generally of all those which go in his name but only of the seven most antient seeing 't is above 1300 years since Eusebius saw them and after Eusebius they were cited by some of the Fathers of the Church because it is of these seven that the moderate persons both Roman Catholiks and Protestants seem to make greatest difficulty I mean the Protestants that admit them as legitimate for I find several that question them all and that cannot perswade themselves that they were the genuine Issue of that Illustrious Martyr as Messieurs de Saumaise Blondel Aubertin Daillé this latter having also examined in a particular Treatise all the marks of forgery that he could discover in these Epistles I freely confess my self to be in this Error if it be an Error and that of a long time I have therein observed several things which suffered me not to believe that S. Ignatius had writ them but as this is not the place to shew it and that besides it hath been performed by others it shall suffice to consider what he hath said of these Hereticks Ignat. Ep. ad Smyrn They abstain saith he from the Eucharist and from Prayer because they believe not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ which suffered for our sins and which the Father raised up by his goodness It is a long time since Theodoret cited this passage but instead of these words they abstained from the Eucharist and Prayer he used these they admitted not Sacraments nor Oblations I think the word Oblations is more significant than that of Prayer for there 's nothing more frivolous than to represent unto us those Hereticks as abstaining from Prayer because they owned not the Eucharist to be the flesh of Jesus Christ and I see no connexion betwixt these two things nor that they have any dependance the one upon the other unless some will say that they did not mean generally all manner of Prayer but only that whereby the Symbols of the Sacrament were consecrated and which many think was the Lords Prayer which they suppose the Apostles used for the consecrating this Mystery and therefore it is probable that the Fathers called it the Mystical Prayer and that it was not permitted unto the Catechumeni to repeat it because not having yet received holy Baptism they could not as they supposed call God Father nor participate of the Sacrament whereunto they were admitted immediately after Baptism but in fine these very words make me suspect the truth of the Epistle it might be and I 'll not deny but that towards the end of the third Century there might be Hereticks which did so and that he who forged the Epistle of S. Ignatius living at that time and opposing these Enemies of Christianity hath expresly observed it not considering as it often happens to that sort of men that it was not so in the time of this glorious Martyr under whose name he would cover himself I farther confess that if those Hereticks which I suppose to be the Docetes and Putatives that is those which denyed the Incarnation of Jesus Christ and which only allow'd him an imaginary Body a fantome and shadow of a Body I say I grant that had they acted according to their Hypothesis they would not have allowed of the Eucharist seeing they could not allow it without ruining their abominable Doctrine by an infallible consequence But this is not the place to consider what they ought to have done but what they did now it is most certain that in the time of the true S. Ignatius none of these Hereticks denyed the Eucharist for none of the Antients have observed it which they would not have omitted to do as well those which have treated of Heresies as those which have written particularly against the Hereticks whereof we now treat The first which refused to celebrate the Sacrament were as we have been informed by the Holy Fathers the Ascodrupites which were a Limb of the Impostor Mark and Mark an unhappy Branch of Valentine which Valentine began not to appear till thirty years after the death of S. Ignatius and as for those concerned in the Epistle which we examine how could they abstain from the Eucharist in the time of our glorious Martyr seeing they abstained not from it a hundred years after Tertul. advers Marc. l. 1. c. 14. For Tertullian doth formally tellus that Marcion which was one of the chief of these Hereticks persisted in the use of the Sacrament seeing he declares that the God of Marcion shews his Body by the Bread otherwise the Orthodox could not have drawn from the Sacrament any advantage against them for the truth of his Body and for the incarnation of Jesus Christ for when one disputes with another they must dispute upon common principles and which are acknowled on both sides I should think then and to end the consideration of this matter that these Hereticks which opposed not so much the Sacrament of the Eucharist Lib. 1. de Euchar. c. 1. §. ne auth as the mystery of the incarnation of Christ as Cardinal Bellarmin hath well observed taking notice of the neglect of their Predecessors and seeing they admitted the use of the Sacrament they gave the Catholicks strong Arms to contradict them they abstained from celebrating it as the Ascodrupites had done a long while before them although upon another account but besides these two sorts of Hereticks both which the one after the other rejected the celebrating of the Sacrament of the Eucharist although upon different principles we shall see in the XII Century a new Heretick that towards Flanders and especially in Brabant where he spread abroad his Heresie and the poyson of his pernitious Doctrine it was one called Tanchelin who having a design to ruin the Sacrament of the Eucharist and to forbid the use of it unto all those which he could seduce did so well by his cunning and by the help of the evil Spirit under whom he had enrolled himself that he perswaded the people of Antwerp a great and populous City that the participation of the Eucharist was not necessary unto Salvation wherefore they continued several years without communicating as the
4. c. 20. for describing the Outrages which the Pagans committed in the Church of Theonas at Alexandria he speaks of the Altar of this Church as being but one In like manner the Priests Libel prec p. 64. 79. Marcellini and Faustin representing in their request unto the Emperors the ruine of two Temples one in Spain the other in Egypt mention but one Altar in each Church Whereunto may be added that the Author of the Letter to the Philadelphians under the name of St. Ignatius writes Ignat. Ep. ad Philad That there is but one Altar in each Church as there is but one Bishop and he speaks of it as of a thing known to every body and which admits of no difficulty Agobard Archbishop of Lyons writing against Amalarius in the Ninth Century speaks of one sole Altar in each Church If then the Fathers sometimes speak of Altars in the Plural number of necessity they must then intend or mean several Churches or that it must be an indefinite proposition and not to be applied unto any particular place This custom of one Table or one Altar in each Church hath been retained even until our days amongst the greatest Christian Communions excepting the Latins as amongst the Greeks which admit but of one Altar in a Church Goar in Eucholog p. 16. Sigism Baro de rebus Moscov Lib. itin Aeth c. 11. as Goar observes in his Notes upon the Euchologie or Ritual of that Nation nor amongst the Moscovites by the relation of Sigismond in his Memoirs of Muscovia and amongst the Abassins which are in Prester John's Country as appears by the relation of Francis Alvarez an Eye-witness The Pontifical Book which is improperly attributed unto Pope Damasus never speaks but of one Altar in the Singular in all the Lives of Popes until Adrian the First who lived towards the end of the Eighth Age for in his life there is mention made of the great Altar to distinguish it from other Altars which might be in the same Church which is also observed in the Lives of several Popes who held the Chair after Adrian whereas before there was mention made but of one Altar which sheweth that by the Thirteen Altars which by the relation of Gregory the First had been erected by Palladius Bishop of Xaintus must not be understood Altars or Sacramental Tables properly so called but Tombs of Martyrs which by corruption of Speech were called Altars or Tables as appears by Optatus Bishop of Milevis in Numidia as is confessed by Monsieur de Laubespine late Bishop of Orleans in his Notes upon this Author For if Optatus made no scruple so to call the Tombs of the false Martyrs of the Donatists whereof he treats in that place much less would he have feared if occasion had presented to attribute this name unto those of Catholick Martyrs because the Sacrament was there from time to time celebrated But in fine since Adrian the First that is to say since the eighth Century and probably since the end of the seventh Capit. Dom. Car. M. c. 6. 1.2 Coneil Gal. Capit. Car. M. c. append 1. ad l. 4. c. 7. they began in such a manner to multiply Altars in Churches that the Emperour Charlemain Contemporary with Pope Adrian was forced to prohibit in his Capitularies the too great number of Altars But to the end nothing may be wanting unto the Question of Altars the Reader may take notice if he please That movable Altars were not introduced amongst Christians but since the eleventh Century and also it would be very difficult precisely to determine in what Age since the eleventh Century they began to be used That which some alledge of Ives of Chartres who died in the twelfth Century not regarding as I suppose the use of these kinds of Altars whatever may be Hist Relig c. 20. it sufficiently appears that they were unknown in the fifth Century because Theodoret made use of the hands of his Deacons Philost l. 2. c. 14. instead of an Altar to celebrate the Sacrament in the Cell of Maris and before him the Martyr Lucian made use of his Breast Niceph. Caldist l. 8. c. 31. It may be inferr'd from what hath been said That the antient Christians did not believe as the Latins do at this time That an Altar was absolutely necessary for the Celebration of the Sacrament much less a consecrated Altar In fine the three first Ages did not practise the consecrating of Altars which the Latins at this time believe so necessary that without it the Celebration there performed is unlawful but it was otherwise at the beginning Add. 9. Noveâ—b lect 4. Therefore there is to be read in the Roman Breviary That it is said that Silvester who was Pope in the Year 314 was the first that instituted the Ceremonies observed by the Roman Church in the consecrating of Churches and Altars And I do not find that there is any mention of this Consecration made in the Writers of the fourth and fifth Ages Orat. in Chr. bapt t. 3. for that whereof mention is made by Gregory of Nyssen doth not import any Ceremony nor any form of Consecration but only a bare application unto a Religious use which draws a Blessing of God by the Celebration of the Sacrament whereunto amounts also what is said by St. Chrysostom in some of his Homilies Hom 20. in 2 Cor. That the Altar is by nature a Stone but it becomes holy when it receives the Body of Jesus Christ The first unsuspected place of Antiquity wherein there is mention made of the consecration of Altars is the Council of Agde in the year 506. for it prescribes this Rule â—â—ath Conc. â— 14. It hath seemed good unto the Council that the Altars should be consecrated not only by the Vnction of Chrisme but also by the Priestly Benediction â— 26. The Council of Epaumâ— Anno 517. only speaketh of the Unction of Chrisme In the ninth Century they added Water unto the Chrisme and the Odor of Incense as we read in Rabaâ—us de instit Cler. l. 2. c. 45. de reb Eccl. c. 9. and in Walafridus Strabo who refer unto the Council of Agde the first Institution of the Consecration and Benediction of Altars But men rested not there they augmented by degrees the ceremonies of this Consecration until at length they had reduced them unto the form they are now in amongst the Latins and which may be seen represented at large in the second part of the Roman Pontifical in the Title of consecrating of Churches Unto this mysterious Consecration the Latins add the consecrating of three Table-cloths of several fashions wherewith they cover their Altars and of a kind of a Vail of several colours according to the quality of the day wherewith they are wont to cover it as may be read in the Roman Missal On Holy-Thursday they keep it uncovered until Saturday As for the antient Christians
they contented themselves in spreading upon their Communion-Table at the time of celebrating the Sacrament a clean Table-cloth for decency sake which is also practised by the Protestants And as there was but one Altar or one mystical Table in each Church so also the Eucharist was celebrated but once a day which also is the present practice in those three spacious Christian Communions above mentioned as the same Authors testifie whom we have alledged as Witnesses Id. cap 84. Alvarez observing further that the Abassins found fault with the Mass of the Romanists for not administring the Communion unto all that assisted Cassander Cassand in liturg c. 26. in his Liturgies has observed That in the Mass or Eucharist of the Armenians all did communicate which doth shew if I mistake not that this custom was very antient seeing this People who are fallen into ignorance and multiply the number of Ceremonies rather than lessen them have been careful faithfully to preserve it And we find by a Letter of Leo the First Bishop of Rome writing unto Dioscorus Bishop of Alexandria That in his time viz. in the fifth Century the Sacrament was not celebrated but once a day in each Church if it were not that the numbers of people were so great that the Church could not contain them which happened upon great Festivals in that case he adviseth Dioscorus to do at Alexandria as they did at Fome that is to re-iterate the Celebration of the Sacrament as often as the Church should be filled with a new Assembly Leo. 1. Ep. 81. c. 2. When any great Festival saith he makes the Assembly more numerous and that there meets together so great a number of Believers that one Church cannot contain them there is no question to be made but the Oblation of the Sacrifice must be renewed fearing lest that if only the former should be admitted unto this Worship the rest should seem to be excluded whereas it is a thing very just and reasonable to offer another Sacrifice at each time that the Church is filled with the presence of a new Assembly for if in keeping the custom of one only Mass those only which came first should be admitted to offer the Sacrifice of necessity some part of the people must be hindered from their Devotion Behold then the custom and practice of celebrating the Eucharist but once a day in each Church in the fifth Century both in East and West at Rome and at Alexandria excepting only such occasions as have been mentioned wherein it was permitted and could scarce be avoided to do otherwise than contrary to the usual custom it is said That Pope Deodat gave first this permission because 't is reported in his life in the Pontifical Book Apud Cassan in Liturg. c. 35. That he instituted a second Mass amongst the Clergy upon which words Verbetanus hath this observation Because that at that time there was but one Mass sung in the Church as the Greeks do which the antients thought best for edification I think both the unity of one Altar and the celebration of one Sacrament in one Church upon one day may be gathered from the Lausiack History of Palladius who wrote in the fifth Century for he makes mention of a great Church which was in the Mount of Nitria where there were eight Priests to conduct it Pallad Hist Lausiac c. 6. and observes That whilst the chiefest of them lived neither of the others could consecrate nor censure Apud Cassian in Litur c. 35. nor preach St. Francis writing unto the Priests of his Order conjures them Not to celebrate Mass but once a day in the places they shall dwell in after the example of the Church of Rome and if there be several Priests in the same place that but one of them do celebrate Goar in Euch. p. â—6 and the rest content themselves in hearing him Goar upon the Euchologie of the Greeks saith That for this cause there was not formerly at Rome nor at Paris nor in all the East but one Priest to each Church but that Churches were frequent that the people might satisfie the motions of their Piety and Devotion Apud Cassan uoâ— supra and Cochleus writing against Musculus a Protestant confesseth That within 400 years Altars have exceedingly multiplied But having sought for the place of consecrating the Eucharist let us consider the matter of Chalices and Patins the two sorts of vessels used both for the Consecration and distribution as for the Bread of the Sacrament it is put upon a Dish or Plate on a Linen-cloth and because this Bread after Consecration is called the Body of Jesus Christ this linen on which 't is laid is called the cloth of the Body there be some which call it Palla either for that it covers the sacred mystery or because it serves for a Vesture or Covering unto the Typical Body of Jesus Christ upon the Holy Table Optar l 6. p. 98. Optatus reproacheth the Donatists that they had taken away these Body Clothes and these Linens and that they had washed them as if they had been dirty and Victor Vict. Vitens de persec Afric l. 1. not of Vtica as he is commonly called but of Vita complains that Proculus Executioner of the cruelties of Gensericus King of the Vandales against Catholicks That he had made Shirts and Drawers of them this Body-cloth was to be of very fine Linen and not of Silk Raban de instit cleric l. 1. c. 33. nor of Purple nor of any coloured stuff as Rabanus Archbishop of Mayence reports which refers this ordinance unto Pope Silvester others refer it unto Pope Eusebius Venerable Bede Beda in c. 15. Marc. speaking of the action of Joseph of Arimathea who having obtained of Pilate the Body of Christ carried him in a sheet and makes this reflection Thence is taken the custom of the Church of celebrating the Sacrifice of the Altar not upon Silk or coloured stuff but upon Linen as the Body of our Lord was buried in a clean Linen Sheet Which he attributes unto Silvester as well as Rabanus Isid Pelus l. 1. Ep. 123. from whence S. Isidore of Damieta saith This clean Linen which is spead at the Celebration of the Divine gifts is the Ministry of Joseph of Arimathea for as he buried the Body of Jesus having wrapped it in a Sheet so also we consecrate the Shew-Bread upon a Linen or Table-Cloth Some write that in Italy and in Germany they use two Corporals of fine Linen whereas in France there was but one Radulph Tungrens de can observant propos ult But as for Chalices they were not at all times nor in all places of one and the same matter whil'st the Church was in an afflicted and low condition it is very probable they used Chalices made of ordinary matter and small price but when riches flowed in upon it in Constantine's time there 's no question but metal of
greater value was chosen to make their Chalices but of greater and less price according to the substance and stock of each Church but at first in sundry places they were made of Glass or of Wood as will appear and to speak the truth if at Rome in the beginning of the III. Century they used Glass Chalices it is very probable they did so in many other places Now that they used such at Rome at that time may be gathered from some passages of Tertullian for answering an argument which the Catholicks drew from a picture they had in their Chalices and which represented the good Shepherd carying the lost Sheep upon his back Put in practice saith he the very Pictures of your Chalices Tertul. de pudic c. 7. Ibid. c. 10 and to mark that these Chalices were Glass he opposeth unto this Painting The writing of the Shepherd which cannot be blotted out Exuperius Bishop of Tholouse towards the end of the IV. Century and at the beginning of the V. made use of no other Chalices but of Glass S. Jerom who presseth him very much Hieron ep 4. extr saith amongst other things of him That nothing is richer than him which carries the Body of our Lord in a little wicker Basket and his blood in a Glass In the VI. Century Cyprian not the famous Bishop of Carthage which was dead three hundred years before but another Cyprian a French Man Vi◠〈◊〉 Arel Author of the life of Caesarius Bishop of Arles who died towards the middle of the VI. Century observing as an action worthy of commendation that he redeemed a great many Slaves with the Gold and Silver of the Church saying that a great many praised him for so doing but would not follow his example he adds The blood of Christ is it not in a Glass And although this Author saith there were many who would not imitate him in an Action which they could not but commend yet I cannot be perswaded but that there were to be found other good Bishops who considering as Exuperius of Tholouse and S. Caesarius of Arles that the riches of the Church are the Patrimony of the Poor did in suffering and calamitous times imploy all the Gold and Silver of their Churches either to sustain their Poor or redeem Captives and that they had rather make use of Chalices of Glass as those did than to be wanting in this necessary duty of Christian charity Greg. 1. dialog l. 1. c. 7. In the Dialogues of Gregory the first there is mention of one Donatus who by his Prayers mended a Glass Chalice which had been broke but let us hear what Cardinal Baronius saith upon this Subject Baron Martyr Rom. 7. Agust The Chalices of Glass and Plates or Patins of Glass were antiently made use of in Livine Service there is mention made of Plates of Glass in the Pontifical in the life of Pope Zephyrin of a Glass Chalice in the 4th Epistle of S. Jerom to Rusticus speaking of S. Exuperius Bishop of Tholouse and also our French Cyprian in the life of Caesarius Bishop of Arles who flourished in the time of Theodorick King of Italy Is not saith he the Blood of Christ kept in a Glass for it seemeth that Glass Chalices have been used ever since the Apostles days whence 't is that Mark the Heretick who lived presently after their days to imitate the Catholick Church using a Glass Chalice in his divine Service betwitched the people with certain impostures and by Sorcery making the Wine which looked white in the Glass to turn Red by his slights so that the Wine seemed to be changed into Blood but in the Council of Rheems held under Charles the great Glass Chalices were forbidden and that very reasonably because of the danger there was in that brittle stuff you have thereupon the Canon ut Calix de Consecrat distinct 1. as also the Chalices of wood are forbidden in the Canon Vasa in quibus in the same distinction Binius relates almost the very same thing upon the life of Pope Zephyrin What Baronius saith of the prohibiting of Glass Chalices in the Reign of Charlemain T. 1. Concil p. 96. in one of the Councils of Rheems he takes from the Canonist Gratian whose authority is not always to be allowed no more than the other Collectors of Canons for as Monsieur de Launoy a Doctor of Sorbon hath judiciously observed in his Treatise of the times antiently appointed for administring holy Baptism Cap. 9. p. 184. The Antient Collectors do change and cut off from the Canons of Councils what things they suppose either to be abolished and useless or different from the customs of their times They have saith he fitted the Antient Canons to the discipline of their own times Ibid. And Cardinal Bellarmine in his Treatise of Ecclesiastical Writers In Grat. ad an 1145. saith in particular of Gratian That he had not well chosen the Authors from whence he had gathered his Decrees and he instances in some examples which he pretends to be so many mistakes in the Author and indeed to return to the prohibition of Glass Chalicesby a Council of Rheems we find no such matter if my memory fail not in any of the Councils held under Charlemain although we have a great number of them as for Wooden Chalices we have at this time the Canon whence Gratian took it it is the 18. of the council of Trybur assembled Anno 895. Tom. 7. Concil p. 151. That for the future no Priest dare presume in any wise to consecrate in Chalices of Wood the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Lord. But the Council doth observe in the same Canon that Boniface Bishop of Mayence being asked if it were lawful to consecrate the Sacraments in Vessels of Wood he made this answer Heretofore Golden Priests made use of Wooden Chalices and now on the contrary Wooden Priests do use Golden Chalices But it is plainly evident by what hath been said that Chalices of Glass and of Wood were used in the Church for the space of eight or nine hundred years and what is said of Chalices may also be said of Plates or Patins whereupon we have said was put the Bread of the Sacrament they were at least broad round Vessels a little hollow which cannot be resembled to any thing better than Dishes which were greater or less according to the number of Communicants The Latin Church doth not suffer Consecration to be made in any thing but a Gold or Silver Chalice or at least of Pewter and a Council of Albi assembled Anno. 1254 commanded all Churches whose Rents amounted yearly unto fifteen livres French Money to have a Silver Chalice T. 2. Spâ—cil c. 12. p. 638. I deny not but in the four first Ages of Christianity several Churches had Silver Chalices and it may be also of Gold such as whereof in all likelihood those were spoken of by Optatus Bishop of
the Armenian Tongue by Chrysostom at the beginning of the fifth Century as many do believe and we do find Theodoret to affirm that in his time the Armenians had a Translation of the Holy Scriptures in their Language now Theodoret flourished about 40 years after the death of the great Chrysostom Into that of the Dalmatians by S. Jerom who dyed in the year of our Lord 420. In the Arabick Tongue Anno. 717. by John Archbishop of Sevil in Spain In Saxon by King Alfred who reigned in England in the VIII Century as is affirmed by those who have transferr'd unto us Bede's Ecclesiastical History in Anglo-Saxon and in Latin in the Preface to the Reader and Bede himself translated the Gospel of S. John into the vulgar Tongue as is to be seen in his life partly written by himself and partly by one of his Disciples Into the Slavonian Tongue by Methodius in the IX Century And I do not think that ever any body amongst the Christians ever thought of condemning this wise conduct of the Church until the year 1228 that a certain Council of Tholouse Tom. 2. Spicil c. 4. p. â— 24. assembled against the Albigenses and Waldenses made this Decree We also forbid to give unto the Lay-people permission to have the Books of the Old and of the New Testament except that probably some for devotion sake desire to have the Psalter or the Breviary for the Divine Service or the blessed Virgins Prayer-Book neither are they to have these Books in the Vulgar Tongue But this Decree did not hinder but that James de Voragine Translated the Bible into Italian about the year 1290. Nicholas Orem into French under Charles the fifth called the wise Son of King John and Father of Charles the sixth and at the beginning of the XV. Century an anonymous Author made an Apology in England for the Translation of the Holy Scriptures into the Language of the Country Dâ— Christian Eccl. succes p. 81. as is related by Vsher Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of Ireland At this time saith that Author our Bishops burn the Law of God because it hath been translated into our Mother Tongue But in fine the Council of Trent Session the fourth Anno. 1546. doth sufficiently give to understand that they tacitly condemn all the Translations of the Holy Scriptures in the Vulgar Languages allowing only the Latin Translation It is true say the Protestants that whilst the use of the Latin Tongue subsisted in the West and that that Language was common and frequent unto the Nations of the Western Empire there were a great many Latin Translations of the Bible but when the use of that Language ceased it was necessary to translate it into other Languages for the edification of the people and Nations which there inhabited as it had been translated elsewhere into Greek and Syriack and generally into all Languages used by all the Nations in the World Now it is very difficult say they to imagine that care could be taken to make all these Versions in the Vulgar Tongues if at the same time the people had been obliged to serve God in an unknown Tongue Besides may a man say I would desire to know wherefore the Holy Fathers have so frequently and carefully recommended the reading of the Scriptures unto the people if it had not been translated into their Language It is credible yea certain that the exhortations which are to be found in the works of S. Jerom and S. Chrysostom only for injoining the reading of them would make a just Volume and what need so many exhortations to read it but only that by so doing People might learn to serve God after a right manner But we must make a stricter inquiry into the Celebration of the Eucharist and the whole Divine Service to know more particularly if it were performed as hath been said in a Language understood by the People All men will agree if I mistake not that Prayers Invocation and giving praises unto God are the essential parts of the Worship and Service of God now Origen in his excellent work against Celsus doth formally declare that every Nation did praise and pray unto God in their own Language Lib. 8. ult Edit p. 402. The Christians saith he answering unto an objection of Celsus even in their Prayers do not make use of the names attributed unto God in the Holy Scriptures but the Greeks make use of Greek words the Romans of Roman words each one praying unto God in their own Language and celebrate his praise as they are able and the glory of all Languages doth hearken unto those which pray unto him in what Language soever it be as easily understanding those which pray so differently unto him as if it were as may be said all one voice For the Great God is not like those which have but one Language committed unto them whether Greek or Barbarian and are ignorant of all others and care not for those which speak in other Languages Thence also is it that S. Gaudentius Bishop of Bress exhorts his Neophytes Tract 4. t. 2. Bibl. Pat. p. 20. Regul brevior q. â—78 t. 2. to attend diligently with him unto Prayer S. Basil making this demand to himself How the Spirit of any one should pray and that his understanding should receive no fruit he thus answers That is said of those which made Prayers in an unknown Tongue with regard to those which heard them for the Apostle saith if I pray in an unknown Tongue I pray in the Spirit or by the Spirit but my understanding profiteth not for when the words of Prayer are not known by those which are present then the understanding of him which prayeth is without fruit no body being the better for it but when those which are present understand a prayer which may be profitable for the hearers then he who prayeth hath the benefit of the progress of those which profit by the prayer it is the same at all times when the word of God is proposed for it is written that it might be profitable to the edifying of Faith De Catechis rudib c. 9. t. 4. S. Austin Care must be taken to warn those which come from Schools that being cloathed with Christian humility they should learn not to despise those which endeavour rather to shun evil actions than words c. by so doing they will not jeer if by chance they perceive that some Bishops or Ministers of the Church use some Barbarisms or Soloecisms in praying to God or that they be not aware or understand not the words they pronounce and that they deliver confusedly not but that these things should be amended to the end the people might say Amen unto what they plainly understand But because it may be tolerated in those which have learned that blessings are given by Prayers in the Church as one doth bless in the publick place with the sound of the voice De divin offic l.
1. c. 10. Isidore of Sevil The reading of the word of God is of no small profit unto those which hearken unto it therefore when one sings all must sing and when one prays all must pray when one reads let all hearken It is the same thing in keeping silence for although some one supply at reading let him be cuntent to worship God and having made the sign of the Cross let him hearken attentively there is a time to pray when all do pray to pray in private there is also a time do not lose the reading under pretext of prayer because one cannot always have the opportunity of reading whereas one may pray when they will therefore the Deacon with a loud voice commands silence to the end that whether we sing or read unity may be kept by all and that what is preached unto all may equally be heard by all Lib. 3. c. 9. Amalarius treating of Divine offices The prayer of the Priest is called by the one and the other name that is by the name of Blessing and by the name of Prayer the Apostle saith of blessing if thou bless in the spirit how shall the ignorant know to say Amen seeing he knoweth not what thou sayest S. Ambrose calls this Benediction a prayer saying for the ignorant hearing what he understandeth not knoweth not the scope of the prayer and saith not Amen that is so be it to the end the benediction should be confirmed for the confirmation of the prayer is compleated by those which say Amen Cassander in his Liturgies cites these words out of an antient Manuscript of the Roman order Cap. 36. of the Ordination of Readers The benediction of Readers O Lord Holy Father O eternal omnipotent God be pleased to bless these thy servants N.N. to perform the office of Readers to the end that being diligent in reading they may be fit to declare the word of Life and to instruct the people in things to be understood by the distinction of the Spirit and of the Voice And the Roman Pontifical Imprinted at Venice Anno 1582. speaking of the Ordination of Readers Pontif. Rom. p. 8. The Reader must read what he doth preach and that he sing the Lessons c. Study therefore to pronounce distinctly and clearly without Lying or any fraud the Words of God that is to say the holy Lessons for the Instruction and Edification of Believers to the end that the verity of Divine Lessons may not be corrupted through your negligence to the prejudice of those who hear and believe with the heart what you read with the mouth to the end you may teach your Hearers both by your word and example Now let us come to the Celebration of the Eucharist to see also if it was not done in a Language understood by the Communicants In the first place all the antient Liturgies are full of the Answers of the people who could not have answered if they had not understood what the Priest said in officiating and in celebrating and the thing is so evident that there is no need to produce many Proofs of it there 's no need but to look into the Liturgies which we have to see if the people do not therein often speak for instance St. Cyprian informs us and all the Liturgies after him That the people were prepared unto the Communion by this warning Lift up your hearts and the people answered We lift them up unto thee O Lord. From thence it was that Gregory of Nazianzen said of Nonna his Mother in his 13th Oration That her voice was never heard in the holy Assemblies excepting at the necessary and mystical words Secondly Tertullian Cornelius Bishop of Rome St. Cyrill of Jerusalem and several others do teach That the Communicants answered Amen in receiving the Sacrament therefore of necessity it must needs be that they spake to them in a Language which was understood by them In the third place it was antiently the custom amongst Christians that when the Pastor had made an end of the Prayer wherewith he consecrated the Eucharist all the people joyning their Vows were wont to say with a loud voice Amen that is to say So be it So be it done an evident sign that the Prayer of him who consecrated was understood by them This is what may be seen in Justin Martyr's second Apology whose Testimony shall suffice in so evident a matter to add another which not only justifies the Language to be understood of the people in the Celebration of the Eucharist but also in the Administration of Baptism It is of Denys of Alexandria in a Letter which he wrote unto Sixtus Bishop of Rome wherein he speaks of one of the Brethren who was present with others at the Assemblies of the Church and who was supposed of a long time to have been a Believer that is to say to have been Baptized Apud Euseb hist Eccles l. 7. c. 9. he saith then of him That he had assisted at the Baptism of those which had of late been Baptised and that he had heard their Questions and their Answers afterwards speaking of the Eucharist He had saith he often heard the Prayers and answered Amen with the rest And I am apt to believe that St. Paul alluded unto this custom when he saith in the fourteenth Chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians In Cap. 14.1 ad Coriâ—â—h If you bless with the Spirit how shall the Ignorant say Amen unto your Prayers for he knoweth not what you say And I find that the Deacon Hilary in St. Ambrose his Works doth judge that the Apostle doth there hint at some amongst the Jews who to make themselves the more considerable sometimes used the Syriack Tongue and oftener the Hebrew in Sermons and at the Oblations in presence of the Greeks Venerable Bede observes in his Ecclesiastical History That the unity of the Faith was kept in England in five Languages by five several Nations the English Britans Scotch that is Irish the Picts and the Latins And what he saith of the unity of the Faith ought if I mistake not to be understood also of the unity of Worship in essential things for as each of those Nations retained the unity of the Faith in their own Language which was very different from each other so they had the service and Worship in their own Language The Reader may take notice if he please That Bede departed this Life about the middle of the Eighth Century and if from the Eighth we pass to the Ninth Century we shall find the Sclavonians celebrating Divine Service in their Mother-Tongue which was allowed them by the Pope at the request of one Cyrill who had been instrumental in their Conversion Aeneas Sylvius afterwards Pope under the name of Pius the second thus relates it in his History of Bohemia Hist Bohem. c. 13. It is said that Cyrill being at Rome desired the Pope that he might be suffered to say Divine Service
Greeks unto the Pope to see after what manner he was to sign it and that he commanded them to hear the discourse which the Bishop of Nice would make and that he no sooner began to speak but Cardinal Julian bid the Protonotary write and as this Bishop spake by order of the Emperor and drew near the end of his discourse he bid him speak touching the mystical Sacrifice saying Id. ibid. c. 8. p. 293. What the Roman Church believeth touching the Consecration of Divine Gifts or Oblations we believe also viz. That the Divine words of our Saviour Take eat This is my Body drink ye all of this This is my Blood are those which sanctifie and consecrate them herein we agree with you yet we say also that the Priest doth contribute thereunto as the Husband-man by his Labour contributes unto the production of the Fruits of the Earth but we refer the whole unto these words of our Saviour and are therein of the same opinion with you Let us now hear what the Historian saith unto this discourse of the Bishop of Nice who spoke so well that he obtained a Cardinals Cap and was afterwards sufficiently known by the name of Cardinal Bessarion Ibid. p. 293 294. It was saith the Historian the design and scope of the Cardinal of Nice to deliver himself in the Eloquence of a great Orator as if he had spoke in the name of all although we knew nothing of it and that we had not given our consent unto what he had spoke for it was all made up of Artifice and cunning and the Latins demanded this speech might be inserted in the Decree of the union which the Emperor refused absolutely to yield unto he feared that being returned unto Constantinople he should give occasion unto those that had a mind to talk that he had overthrown the Divine Liturgy which the great St. Basil and the Divine Chrysostom had left having received it of James the Brother of the Lord. But the Latins being earnest and desiring to have our consent in writing touching this Article the Emperor so ordered the matter that the Bishop of Nice should repeat these matters before the Pope some of our men being also present as if they had been come from the whole Assembly of the Greeks which being written by the Latins were published in all their Provinces which was done by force and surprise and contrary unto our knowledge see here with what sincerity what advice liberty and concord things were carried It was then after this manner things passed at Florence upon the Article of the manner of consecrating of the Eucharist which makes good what we have said That the Greek Church hath retained unto this day the custom of consecrating by Prayers and Supplications Let us now to reassume our discourse say That if some of the antient Doctors of the Church made the Consecration of the Symboles depend on the pronouncing of these words This is my Body it is of the number of those which have declared in favour of the Consecration by Prayer as for Instance St. Chrysostome and some others with him and in this case that they should not jar amongst themselves it may be said they have not attributed the Consecration unto these words This is my Body but as unto words declaring what was before befaln unto the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist for it is often said that a thing is done when it is declared that it hath been done or it may also be said That they considered these words as containing a promise of God whereby he tacitly accompanies with his Blessing and his Grace the Prayers which are addressed unto him for the Consecration of the Sacrament But if the Fathers who attributed the Consecration unto these words This is my Body are not of the number of those who have already declared in favour of a Consecration by the vertue of Prayer of necessity their thoughts must be interpreted after the manner as hath been said or freely confess that they have digressed from the common Road and that so their testimonies are not to be received nor allowed against so constant and so universal a tradition For in these rencounters we ought to follow the advice given unto us by Vincentius Lerinensis Common If sometimes the different opinion of one or a few more that are deceived rise up and thwart the received opinion of all or of a greater number of Catholicks the rashness of one or of a few ought to be opposed in the first place by the general Decrees of an universal Council if there be any in the second place if there be none That the Opinion of several great Doctors be followed who agree together For as he saith a little after Ibid. Whatsoever a private person believes more than others or against others were he Doctor Bishop Confessor Martyr let them be accounted as low opinions proper to himself hidden and private and let it not be owned to have the authority of an opinion commonly publickly and generally received Arcudius a Greek Latinized doth not differ much from the thoughts of Vincentius when speaking of the manner and form of Consecration L. 3. de concoâ—d c. 31. he saith It seems indeed there is some discord amongst the holy Fathers but those which seem obscure must be explained by those which are clear joyn the lesser number unto the greater and follow the judgment of the most considerable the most learned and of those which are much of the greatest number which words Goar finds much to his liking In Euchol p. 140. saying That Arcudius gave an advice which indeed was short but very discreet and convenient But that nothing might be wanting unto this Observation and that we may the better understand the nature of this Consecration and the great consequence of it let us compare the Consecration of Pagans unto that of Christians for many times these sorts of Comparisons do tend very much to the clearing of matters in question The Pagans called Consecration a certain Formulary whereby their Priests caused the Divinity which they adored to be present in his Image and this Formulary was nothing but certain precise and formal words whereby they thought to operate this presence in the Images which were made for that purpose Wherefore Tertullian told them in his Apology These Images are of the same matter with our Pans and Kettles Apol. c. 12. Minut. in Oct. but they change their fate by Consecration And Minutius Felix See it is melted forged wrought and is not yet a God see it is polished built erected and is no God see here it is beautified consecrated invoked and then 't is God when Men would have it so and do dedicate it Origen in his Books against Celsus upon these words of the 95th Psalm and according to the Hebrew the 96th L. 7. p. 378 ult Edit All the Gods of the Nations are but Devils That appears saith
Bishop Fidelis In not Valâ—â— ad Euseb p. 134. Go your way saith he Communicate and give us the kiss It may be thought that Cornelius Bishop of Rome makes allusion unto this custom when speaking of one of the Bishops who had given Ordination unto the Schismatick Novatian and whom Cornelius had degraded amongst the common people he saith Apud Euseb hist l. 6. â— 43. We have admitted him unto the Communion as a Lay person I farther observe that as Believers went unto the Communion the Deacon often pronounced these words Chrysost oraâ— 1. cont Jud. t. 1. p. 440. Observe know and take notice one of the other that they should take care that there were no profane Person and that no Jew crept in amongst them to approach unto the Holy Table S. Chrysostom informs us so in one of his Orations against the Jews I know not whether the Emperor Constantine did not think of this innocent custom when he exhorted the guides of Christian Churches unto Union and Peace De vit Constant l. 2. c. 71. Exâ—r and that he said unto them amongst other things Know ye one another And it may be the Heretick Marcion intended the same custom when having met the venerable old man St. Polycarp Pastour of the Church of Smyrna and glorious Martyr of Jesus Christ he said unto him Know us as 't is recited by St. Apud Euseb hist l. 4. c. 14. Inâ—naeus in Eusebius In the Liturgy which bears S. Chrysostom's name which the Greeks make use of the Deacon fitting himself for the Communion â—â—uâ—g Chrysost asks pardon and kisseth the hand of him who gives him the Holy Bread And James Goar in his Notes upon this part of the Liturgy writes that every one amongst the People setting himself in a readiness to approach unto the Communion Table asks pardon of all that are present saying in the vulgar Tongue Goar in Eucholog p. 149. n. 169. Christians forgive me and that those present answer with a tender love and charity God forgive you he saith moreover that these words are amongst the Eastern Nations a certain and infallible sign of a sincere and reciprocal Love and Charity that if any one should be found so obstinate as not to grant the pardon unto him which desires it publickly on this occasion according to the custom they are at that instant by the authority of the Church deprived of the Communion in these Divine Mysteries It were much to be wished that this custom were sincerely practised amongst Christians and I confess it savours of the tenderness and love which our Saviour requires in his Children for he will have them forgive one another as he hath forgiven them Therefore St. Chrysostom addressed this excellent Exhortation unto his Flock Chrysost de prodiâ— Jud. t. 5. p. 465. Let us be mindful of the holy kiss which unites our souls reconciles Spirits and which unites us all into one body and seeing we are all partakers of one body let us all be mingled into one Body not in mingling our Bodies but in strictly uniting our Souls by the bonds of charity to the end that by so doing we may with assurance enjoy the fruits of the Table which is prepared for though we exceed in good works if we neglect peace and reconciliation we shall gather no benefit for our Salvation And this custom of demanding pardon before Communicating is not so particular unto the Nation of the Greeks but that I see it practised amongst the Latins and even in our France in the XI Century for the antient customs of the Monastery of Clnny written in that Age testify L. 2. c. 30. t. 4. Spicileg p. 145. That they all demanded forgiveness before they Communicated and that they kissed the hand of the Priest CHAP. XI Of him who administred and of the Communicant and of the Words of both of them HAVING treated of the Time and Place of the Communion and of the Posture and Gesture of the Communicant we are obliged to say something of the Persons who distribute the Sacrament of them who receive it and of the Words both of the one and the other As for the Persons who distributed it we find by the Holy Writers that as it was Jesus Christ who Blessed and Consecrated his Eucharist it was also him that distributed it for there was none but himself who did the office and functions of Celebration the Apostles assisting at this Divine Ceremony but as particular Believers which were to receive at the hands of their master this pretious pledge of their Salvation A little above a hundred years after Christians received the Communion from the hands of the Deacons for assoon as the Pastour or as St. Justin Martyr speaks him that presided in the assembly had Blessed and Consecrated the Bread and Wine which had been presented unto him Just Martyr Apolog. 2. Those whom we call Deacons saith this Saint give unto each one that is present the Bread Wine and Water which were consecrated It appears by St. Cyprian Cyprian de Laps p. 175. ultim edit that about a hundred years after the decease of St. Justin the Deacons yet administred the Sacrament at least the holy Cup for he speaks only of the administration of this Symbol because the Bishop or Priest who did celebrate gave the holy Bread unto the Believers yet this practice was not so well setled but that in the IV. Century the Deacons who had done nothing unworthy the degree they held in the Church had liberty to distribute the Bread and Wine as may be gathered from one of the Canons of the Council of Ancyra Concil Ancyr c. 2. Concil Arelat 1. c. 15. assembled Anno 314. Nevertheless the Council of Arles in the same year did forbid it by this Canon Touching Deacons which we are informed do offer in sundry places we have thought good that it should not be done Offer is their taken for administring according to the explication of the XV. Canon of the second Council of the same place Anno 452. from whence it may be inferred that the Deacons might administer the Sacraments in the absence of the Priests It seems also that the great Council of Nice which forbids them to give the Eucharist unto Priests Concil Nicaen 1. c. 18. or to touch it before the Bishops doth not forbid them to distribute it unto the people The Council of Laodicea about the year 360. hath a Canon yet more express for it is in these terms Concil Laodic c. 25. The Ministers must not give the Bread neither may they bless the Cup. Commonly by the Ministers is meant the Deacons but I do not judge they are so to be understood in this place and indeed in all the Canons of this Council I find that these Ministers are distinguished from the Deacons as being a degree below them therefore I make no doubt but by these Ministers is to be
Constance and from that time until the Council of Trent Justin Martyr affirms Apolog. 1. that in his time there was distributed Consecrated Bread and Wine unto all the Communicants Ep. ad Philadelph The pretended Ignatius tells us of one only Cup distributed unto all And S. Irenaeus disputing against certain Hereticks who denied the Resurrection of the Body Advers haer l. 5. c. 2. How saith he do they deny that the Body is capable of the gift of God which is life eternal which is nourished with the Blood and Body of Christ L. 4. c. 34. And again How do they again say that the Body corrupteth that is to say with a final corruption and that it receiveth not life to wit in rising again being nourished with the Body and Blood of Christ Hom. 16. Origen on the Book of Numbers What is this people which are wont to drink Blood the Christian people the faithful people follow him who said If you eat not my Flesh and drink not my Blood you have no life in you because my Flesh is Meat indeed and my Blood is drink indeed And to shew that he speaks of the Sacramental Communion Hom. 14. in Matth. he adds It is said that we drink the Blood of Jesus Christ not only in the Celebration of the Sacraments but also when we receive his words And elsewhere he speaks of unadvisedly taking the Bread of our Lord and his Cup. The blessed Martyr S. Cyprian Ep. 63. hath written a Treatise expresly of the Sacrament of the Cup as S. Austin calls it where he amply proves this Communion which we examin and in another place writing with his Brethren unto Cornelius Bishop of Rome touching the resolution they had taken to admit into the unity of the Church those who had flinched in times of persecution and speaking of the excellent Motive which they found in communicating of the Cup to incourage Christians unto Martyrdom see here what they said Ep. 54. How should we incourage them to shed their blood for the confession of the name of Jesus if going to the Combat we should deny them the Blood of Christ Or how should we make them fit to drink the Cup of Martyrdom if we do not admit them first to drink in the Church the Cup of the Lord by the right of Communication And in his Treatise of those that had fallen during the persecution of the Church he saith P. 175. ult edit That the Deacon presented the Cup unto them who were present as Justin Martyr also hath taught us The Councils of Ancyra Anno 314. Apud Athanas Apolog. p. 732. in the second Canon and that of Neocaesarea the same Year in the XIII Canon inform us also the same thing as also a Synod of Alexandria Assembled during the Persecutions stirred up by the Arrians against S. Athanasius Thence it is that Leo the First In natal ejus c. 2. L. 1. contr Parmen speaking in the V. Century of S. Vincent Levite that is to say Deacon and glorious Martyr saith That he administred the Cup unto the Christians for their salvation Optatus Bishop of Milevis in Numidia observes the same of Cecilian as he was yet but Deacon of the Church of Carthage and writes also that what drew on him the hatred of Lucilla a powerful and factious Woman who by her Riches and Credit supported the Party of the â—onatists against Cecilian promoted to be a Bishop was That Cecilian performing the Office of a Deacon pronounced a severe Sentence against her because in presenting her the Cup she kissed the Bone of some dead person or Martyr before she put her lips unto the Cup of the Lord. Mystag 5. p. 245. vide p. 244. L. de Baptism c. 3. S. Cyril of Jerusalem in his Mystagogicks Aster having communicated of the Body of Christ draw near unto the Cup of his Blood c. S. Basil said the benefit of the words of the Institution of the Eucharist is That eating and drinking we should alwaies have him in remembrance who Died and is Risen again for us And elsewhere Ep. 289. It is a thing good and profitable to communicate daily and to participate of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ The Liturgies also which go in his name may be here alledged and all the others which are now remaining from which it is easie to collect the use and practice of communicating under both kinds S Chrysostom in his Homilies upon S. Matthew Hom. 32. Graec. p. 319. E. The same Table is offered unto all the same Drink is given unto all but not only the same Liquor but it is also given unto us all to drink of one and the same Cup for our Father injoining us to love one another he so ordered it that we should drink of the same Cup And upon S. John speaking of the Water and Blood which came out of Christs side Hom. 85. Graec. The Mysteries do from thence take their Original to the end as oft as ye approach unto the terrible Cup ye should draw near as if it were to drink out of his side it self And upon the Second to the Corinthians Hom. 18. There are certain times when there is no difference betwixt the Priest and those over whom he doth preside as when they are to participate of the terrible Mysteries for we are all equally admitted there it is not as under the old Law the Priest ate some things and the people other things and the people were not permitted to eat of what the Priest did eat but now it is otherwise for one Body and one Cup is offered unto all S. Austin in his Questions upon Leviticus The Lord saying L. 3. c. 57. t. 4. If you eat not my Flesh and drink my Blood you have no life in you What was the reason of so strictly prohibiting the people from the Blood of the Sacrifices offered for sins if those Sacrifices did represent the only Sacrifice wherein the true and full remission of sins is made nevertheless no person is hindred from taking this Sacrifice for his nourishment but rather all those who would be saved are exhorted to drink it Leo the First in his Lent Sermon speaking of the Manicheans who not to appear what they were frequented the Assemblies of Believers and did also participate with them of their Sacraments Serm. â— c. 5. To hide saith he their Infidelity they have the impudence to assist at our Mysteries they so dispose themselves in the Communion of the Sacraments to shelter themselves the better they receive with an unworthy mouth the Body of Christ but they absolutely refuse drinking the Blood of our Redemption Therefore we give your Holiness notice of it to the end this kind of men may be known by these marks and that such other Sacrilegious Dissimulation hath been discovered may be marked and that being forbidden to be present in the Society
steeped therefore we will rest satisfied with alledging that which properly relates to the Subject in hand T. 4. Concil p. 832. We are given to understand that some Persons present unto the people as a perfect Communion the Eucharist steeped And having touched another abuse and having proved by the Scriptures that Milk should not be offered in stead of Wine in divine Sacrifices the Fathers add And whereas they give unto the people as a perfect Communion the Eucharist steeped the example of the Scripture which is alledged where Jesus Christ recommended his Body and Blood unto his Apostles will not admit of it for it is said that he bid them take his Body apart and his Blood apart And we do not read that Jesus Christ gave the steeped Bread unto any but the Disciple which should be known to be him to whom 't was given even him that would betray his Master and not to shew the Institution of the Sacrament We are then arrived at the end of the VII Century without seeing any other attempt against the Communion under both kinds separately but that which was vigorously condemned and censured by the Council of Braga Let us continue to give farther proofs of this use A Council at Paris assembled Anno 829 under Lewis the Debonnair it is the VI. which unto that time was there celebrated this Council I say in the first Book Canon the 45. condemns an abuse which was crept into certain Provinces T. 3. Concil Gall. Where the Women distributed unto the people that is in the Churches the Body and Blood of our Lord and in the 47. Canon it forbids Priests to celebrate Masses any where but in consecrated places unless it be in case of necessity To the end the people should not be without the celebration of Masses and the participation of the Body and Blood of our Lord. De ord Bapt. z. c. 18. Theodulph Bishop of Orleans in the same Century speaking of life eternal To obtain saith he this life we are Baptized and we eat the flesh of Christ and do drink his Blood and afterwards the Church continues the custom of receiving the Eucharist which was bequeathed unto her by Jesus Christ that is when any one is new born by Water and the spirit that is to say is Baptized he is nourished with the body of our Lord and drinks his Blood because that immediately after Baptism T. 7. Spicil p. 174. they received the Sacrament Amalarius Fortunatus It is to be observed saith he that every Sunday in Lent all the believers except such as are excommunicated ought to receive the Sacraments of the Body and blood of Christ Pope Nicholas the First in his answer to the Bulgarians requires T. 6. Concil p. 619. c. 65. that the venerable Body of Christ and his pretious Blood be distinguished and discerned from other meat and that the one and the other be received Regino in his Chronicle of the year of our Lord 869. observes that Pope Adrian the second gave the Sacrament unto King Lothair after that he had sworn that he had dismist for ever Waldrad his Concubine Regino in Chro. ad an 869. and that this Prince received in his hands the Body and Blood of the Lord and that it may not be thought it was a priviledge belonging to Lothair by reason of his Kingly Dignity the Historian saith that Pope Adrian did present the Communion unto all those which accompanied Lothair with these words If you have not been assisting unto Lothair your Lord and King in the sin of Adultery laid to his charge and if you have no way consented thereunto and have had no communication with Waldrad and others who have been excommunicated by this Apostolical Chair the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ be profitable unto you for life everlasting Ratherius Bishop of Verona in Italy De Contempt can part 1. t. 2. Spicileg p. 182. Ib. p. 262. towards the end of the X. Century Let all evil intentions be laid aside as well of those which receive as of those which administer the Body and Blood of the Lord in his Synodical unto his Priests he orders them to warn Believers to come four times a year to the Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ and in his first Sermon of Easter P. 309. Let us saith he celebrate the Feast that is to say let us eat the flesh of the Lord and drink his Blood And again Lay aside wickedness Page 310. if you will eat the flesh of the Lamb of God and drink his Blood And again speaking of him that had unduly celebrated the precedent Easter P. 311. He dared approach to receive the Body and Blood of the Lamb of God And of him that had not followed the example of the Saints P. 313. How doth he presume without sighing and grieving this day to receive the Body and Blood of the Lord And in his second Sermon P. 320. Let us with joy receive the Body and Blood of Christ which was sacrificed for us And in the third Let every one examine himself to see if the Priest hath said true of him that is to say if he hath received the Body and Blood of the Lord with the unlevened Bread of sincerity and of truth Ratherius dyed Anno 974. yet it is true that the practice of administring the Eucharist steeped was introduced into some places about the time Ratherius did write for Hugh Maynard above mentioned amongst several Manuscripts he used in his work upon the Book of Sacraments of Gregory the First makes use of one under the name of Ratold Abbot of Corby written about the year of our Lord 986. wherein it is read that the Bishop should give the Communion unto the sub-Deacons In mingling the Sacrifice that is to say in mingling the holy Bread with the consecrated Wine for as for the Priests and Deacons he will have them to taste with their lips the Blood in the Cup the sub-Deacon holding it And another of John Bishop of Auranch whose title is The antient manner of celebrating Mass which he got from an antient Manuscript of the Priory of Saluza of the Prebends of the Order of St. Austin in Normandy of Vexin near Vernon But it appears by the beginning of the Manuscript cited by Maynard that this John Bishop of Auranch is Author of the piece which he dedicated to Maurill Archbishop of Roan and this John dyed as the same Maynard in his Notes observes P. 277. in the year 1079. there this is to be read That the Priest should communicate not with steeped Bread but according to the definition of the Council of Toledo in all likelihood he means that of Braga in the year 675. The Body apart and the Blood apart excepting the people unto whom he is permitted to give the Communion with steeped Bread not by authority but by great necessity for fear of shedding the Blood of
c. 31. Some saith he having divided the Eucharist according to the usual manner suffered each one of the people to take part of it Cardinal Cajetan was of opinion that Jesus Christ did after the same manner and that the Primitive Church Religiously followed his example and it is at this time the manner of Communicating amongst the Protestants in Holland yet this is still receiving the Sacrament with the hand which was observed in S. Cyprians time Cyprian Ep. 56. that is to say in the Third Century as appears by these words Let us arm the right hand with the Spiritual Sword that it may couragiously reject wicked Sacrifices being mindful of the Eucharist and that which receives the Body of the Lord might afterwards imbrace Christ himself that hand which is to receive the price of immortal Crowns So it is that Mr. Rigaut hath in his Notes corrected this passage by the Manuscript Copies of the Vatican And again Id. de laps p. 175. He that is fallen threatens those which stand those which are wounded them which are not and the sacrilegious Person is offended at the Priests because he doth not presently receive the Body of Christ with defiled hands or that he drinks not the Blood of the Lord with an impure mouth And in another Treatise where he teacheth that the works of the flesh are overcome by means of patience Id. de bono patient p. 226. Let patience saith he be strong and well rooted in the heart that the sanctified Body and Temple of God defile not it self by Adultery and that the hand after having received the Eucharist defile not it self with the Sword and Blood-shedding Cornelius Bishop of Rome contemporary with St. Cyprian also sheweth plainly that it was so practised in the Church of Rome when writing unto Fabius Bishop of Antioch he tells him that Novatian the Heretick made those who came unto him to receive the Communion to swear that they would be of his party Apud Euseb hist l. 6. c. 43. Vales After he had made the Oblations saith he and that he had distributed and given unto every one part of the Sacrament he constrained these wretches to swear unto him instead of the benediction and Prayers taking with both his hands the hands of him who received and letting them not loose till they had ingaged unto him by Oath We have again in the same Eusebius another example of this use and custom about the same time which Cornelius wrote for we there find that Denys Bishop of Alexandria writing unto Sixtus Bishop of Rome speaks unto him of a Brother that is to say a Believer who had lived a great while in the Church after he had entred into its Communion and forsaken the Hereticks amongst whom he had been Baptized and amongst many things which he saith he observes this circumstance That he presented himself at the holy Table Ibid. l. 7. c. 3. that he had stretched out his hands to receive this holy nourishment that he had received it and that he had been a great while partaker of the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ It was unto this custom doubtless that Gregory Nazianzen had respect when he said of Julian the Apostate Greg. Nazian orat 1. in Jul. p. 70. He pollutes his hands to the end there should remain nothing of the unbloody Sacrifice whereby we communicate of Jesus Christ of his sufferings and of his Divinity The Abbot of Billy one of the Scholiasticks of Gregory subscribes thereunto and observes upon the place That almost all the Antients after Turtullian testifie that antiently the Eucharist was given into the peoples hand And in the funeral Oration of Gorgonia his Sister he sufficiently teacheth the same when he saith That her hand had hid some of the Antitypes of the Body and Blood of Id. orat 11. p. 187. Jesus Christ St. Basil his intimate friend deposeth in favour of this same practice about the end of the V. Century Basil Ep. 289. t. 3. In the Church saith he the Priest gives one part that is of the Sacrament and he which receiveth it keeps it with all freedom and so bears it with his own hand to his mouth St. Cyril of Jerusalem suffers us not to make any question of it when he speaks of receiving the Body of Jesus Christ in the hollow of the hand and that he warns the Communicant Cyril Hieros Mystag 5. Ambros Hex l. 6. p. 103. t. 1. id de el. jejun c. 10. Chrysost ad Pop. Antioch Hom. 21. t. 1. p. 266. That he take care that he lose none of it and that not a crum of it fall or be lost And St. Ambrose doth he not say That the hand is that whereby we receive the heavenly Sacraments And elsewhere he declares that we receive the Sacraments at the Altar St. Chrysostom who dyed the in beginning of the V. Century gives us several proofs of this antient custom Consider saith he what you receive with the hand and be not so inconsiderate as to strike any Body and after having honoured it with so great a gift do not dishonour it in imploying it to strike consider what 't is you receive with the hand and keep it free from all covetousness c. Think that not only you receive it with the hand but also that you put it unto the mouth Id. Hom. de simult p. 285. And in the same Tome See here I preach I conjure I warn with a loud voice that he who hath an Enemy should not approach unto the Holy Table and that he should not receive the Body of Jesus Christ Id. in Seraph p. 891. And in the third Tome The Seraphin durst not touch it with his hand but with the Tongs and you you receive him with the hand It is unto this time must be referred what Sozomâ—n the Historian hath left us upon Record of the Woman which being of the Sect of Macedonius who denyed the Divinity of the holy Ghost went through complaisance to her Husband who had quitted this Sect by the powerful Sermons of St Chrysostom Sozom. hist l. 8. c. 5. unto the Church of the Catholicks and disposed her self to communicate with them but he saith That retaining what she had received she bowed her self as if she would have prayed and that at the same instant her maid who was there with her gave her privately what she had in her hand and that she had brought along with her but she had it no sooner between her teeth but it became a stone Unto the same purpose may be applyed what St. Apud Theodoret Hist l. 5. c. 17. Isid Pelus l. 5. Ep. ult Ambrose said unto the great Theodosius after the severe vengeance which he used against the inhabitants of Thessalonica and St. Isidore of Damiette reproacheth a Priest called Zosimus that Believers rather chose to abstain from the Communion than receive it from his
impure hands In a Council at Saragosse in Spain T. 1. Concil p. 684. Ib. p. 739. assembled Anno 380. there is a Canon against those who received the Eucharist and did not eat it an Ordinance which is found to be renewed in the fourteenth Canon of the Council of Toledo in the year four hundred upon which Canon Page 47. Garsias Loaysa a Spaniard observes That antiently the Church was wont to give the Eucharist unto Believers in their hand and he proves it by several testimonies some whereof we have already cited The prohibition made by a Council of Carthage Anno 419. of giving the Eucharist unto dead Bodies doth no less justifie this practice because the Fathers alledge for a reason that it is written Can. 18. in Cod. Afric Take eat and that dead Bodies can neither take nor eat St. Austin who was present at this Council intended not to depart from this use for writing against the Donatist Petilian Contra Petil. l. 2. c. 23. t. 7. he saith unto him When you celebrated the Sacraments unto whom did you give the kiss of Charity into whose hand did you give the Sacrament and unto whom at your turn reached you out the hand to receive it of him that gave it Hitherto Communicants received the Eucharist with the naked hand but in this V. Century there began some difference to be made betwixt Men and Women so that in some places the Women were obliged to receive the Sacrament with the hand indeed Serm. 252. de temp t. 10. but upon it a clean Linen-cloth The Men saith St. Austin when they desire to communicate wash their hands and the Women present clean Cloths whereon they receive the Body of Christ A Diocesan Synod of Auxerr assembled Anno 578. by Aunacharius the Bishop of that See calls the Linen-cloth used by the Women to receive the Sacrament The Dominical That each Woman saith the 42. Canon T. 1. Concil Gall. Sirmond when she communicates have her Dominical and if there be any which hath it not let her not receive until the next Lords day And in the 36. Canon it made this Decree A Woman is not permitted to receive the Sacrament with her naked hand But in a word it was still received with the hand seeing that a few years after this Synod of Auxerr Cautin Bishop of Clermont in Auvergne saith unto Count Eulalius by the report of Gregory of Tours in his History Hist l. 10. c. 8. Take the part of the Sacrament and put it into your mouth Cardinal Baronius in his Ecclesiastical Annals attributes unto Maximus who lived about the year of our Lord 650. and whom he stiles defender of the Catholick verity against the Monothelites the same words but now alledged of St. Austins or very near them Apud Baronium Annal. Eccl. ad an 57. n. 148. That all men who desire to communicate do first wash their hands to the end that with a clear understanding and purified conscience they may receive the Sacraments of Christ That the Women also present clean Cloaths whereon they receive the Body of Christ with a pure understanding and a clear conscience Nevertheless the VI. Universal Council assembled Anno 681. made a certain number of Canons ten years after that is in the year 691. in one of which it expresly prohibits receiving the Sacrament any other way but with the hand only and blames all those who imploy any thing else for this use and because this Canon is none of the worst Monuments of Antiquity we will make no scruple of inserting it here at large Can. 101. T. 5. Concil p. 349. The Apostle St. Paul doth boldly call man created after the image of God the Body and Temple of Christ he then that is above any sensible Creature hath obtained a Heavenly Dignity by the saving passion eating or drinking Jesus Christ is absolutely disposed and fitted for eternal life and partaketh of Divine grace being sanctified both in Body and Soul Therefore if any desire to participate of the immaculate Body and will present himself at the Communion in the Assembly let him put his hands in form of a Cross and so draw near and receive the Communion of Love as for those who instead of the hand make use of Vessels of Gold or of any other matter to receive the Divine Gift and who therein receive the immaculate Communion we do by no means admit them because they prefer an inanimate thing and which is inferiour unto them before the Image of God if any one therefore be taken giving the blessed Communion unto such as bring such Vessels let him be Excommunicated with him that brings them We are then come unto the end of the VII Century wherein the custom of receiving the Eucharist with the hand continued without any other alteration than what hath been mentioned either with the linnen cloths with which the Women in the V. Century were obliged in some places to receive the Communion at least if the Sermon above cited in S. Austin's name be his which is not over certain in which case we must descend towards the end of the VI. Century and besides not pass the limits of the Diocese of Auxerr or of those little Vessels forbidden by the VI. Oecumenical Council establishing the ancient use of receiving the Sacrament with the hand only And I do not see that the Roman Catholicks Ad an 57. n. 147 148. or the Protestants do deny it for Cardinal Baronius in his Annals the Frier Combefis in his Augmentation of the Library of the Holy Fathers Gabriel de Laubespine Bishop of Orleance T. 2. p. 1014. L. 1. obser 16. a very learned Prelate in the Discipline of the ancient Church in his Ecclesiastical Observations the famous Monsieur Arnold in his excellent Book of frequent Communicating Part. 1. p. 265. Pâ—g 403. Pag. 747. and the Abbot of Billy upon Gregory Nazianzen's first Oration against Julian the Apostate and Garsias Loaysa upon the 14. Canon of the first Council of Toledo in the first Tome of the Councils of the last Edition at Paris all those I say and others also concurr herein with the Protestants It is true Baronius and Combesis observe that this custom continued longer in the Eastern Church which I do not judge ought absolutely to be deny'd but the better to follow its traces in the Western Church it will be requisite further to survey what remains to be seen in the Latin World The XI Council of Toledo Anno 675. in the Eleventh Canon doth explain the XIV Concil Tolet. 11. can 11. Canon of the first Council of the same place Against those who having received the Eucharist did not ' eat it And the XVI Council in the sixth Canon Anno 693. Concil Tolet. 16. câ—n 6. alledging against some Priests who made a little round crust for the Communion the example of Jesus Christ sufficiently gives to understand that they intended
c. 7. p. 94. and keep it would be an Act punishable saith the learned Petau and held for a Profanation of this Sacrament and I do not see that any one can justly blame this Severity of the Latin Church seeing they believe Transubstantiation and that what is received at the Lords Table is the adorable Body of the Son of God unto which a Sovereign respect is due the Protestants themselves who have not the same belief would not suffer this abuse and to say the truth it were to expose this august Sacrament unto many indecencies which must needs happen if Communicants should be suffered to carry it home along with them and keep it CHAP. XV. The Sacrament sent unto such as were absent unto the Sick and that sometimes by the Laity THE Sacrament of the Eucharist being a Sacrament of Communion not only with Jesus Christ but also with Believers who find in this Divine Mystery a pretious Earnest of the strict and intimate Union which they ought to have together the primitive Christians which were of one Heart and one Soul never celebrated the Sacrament but that they sent it unto such of their Brethren as could not be present in the Assembly at the time of Consecration to the end that by the participation of the same Bread it might appear they were but one Body with the rest St. Justin Martyr teacheth so much when he saith That the Deacon distributes unto every one of those who are present the consecrated Bread and Wine mingled with Water and that they should carry of it unto those that were absent and accordingly we read in the Acts of the Martyr St. Just Mart. Apol. 1. Lucian one of the Priests of the Church of Antioch who glorified God by suffering Death in the 311th year of our Lord and the last of the Persecution of Dioclesian That he celebrated the holy Sacrament in Prison with many other Christians who were detained for the Gospel sake making his Breast serve for the mystical Table the posture he was put in by the cruelty of his Persecutors not admitting him to do otherwise and that after he had participated himself of the Sacrament he sent of it unto those who were absent I have mentioned this passage as it is related by Cardinal Baronius in his Annals Apud Baron ad ann 311.9 S. although neither Philostorgius nor Nicephorus of Caliste which mention this business to the best of my remembrance say any thing of this circumstance but only that these Believers did visit him in Prison Saint Irenaeus in Eusebius tells us of a custom whereby the Bishops used to send the Eucharist unto each other in token of peace and Communion not considering the distance of place and the Seas over which it was sometimes to pass This holy man writing a Letter unto Pope Victor who had Excommunicated the Churches of Asia for celebrating Easter the fourteenth day of March in this Letter he speaks thus to the Pope 〈…〉 The Priests saith he which have been before you do send the Sacrament unto Priests of the Churches that used that custom And it appears that was commonly done at the Feast of Easter which the Council of Laodicea prohibited by one of its Canons Concil Laod. c. 14. The holy Sacrament must not be sent unto other Churches at the Feast of Easter under the name of Eulogies But so 't is that I find great difference betwixt what is said by Justin Martyr and what is said by Irenaeus the former speaketh of what was done towards the Members of the same Church which could not be present in the Assembly with their Brethren and unto whom was sent their share of the Sacrament at the time when it was celebrated in the Church and the latter touched what was practised by the conducters of Christian Churches one towards another but not at the very time of the Celebration of the Sacrament But if the Sacrament was sent unto the absent it was also sent unto sick Folks It is true great care must be taken in distinguishing betwixt sick Believers and Penitents by sick Believers is understood Christians Baptized who had preserved the purity of their Baptism or at least who had not commited any of those sins which reduced those which were convict into a state of Penance and by Penitents I mean such as after their Baptism were faln into some great Sin which made them liable unto the orders of the hard and painful Penance which was observed in the first Ages of Christianity As for the former I find not in what remains unto us of the three first Ages of the Christian Religion any proof that the Eucharist was given them at the hour of Death this custom not appearing till afterwards what Justin Martyr said not properly regarding the Sick but those that were absent as is confessed by the learned Mr. In. c. 24. l. 5. de Valois in his Notes upon Eusebius his Ecclesiastical History as for the latter I mean the Penitents as they were excluded out of the Communion of the Church this good and tender Mother feeling her self touched with compassion towards those of her Children which breathed after reconciliation and peace used this charitable condescension for their consolation that she commanded to absolve those of this Order which were in danger of Death and at the same time to give them the Sacrament of the Lords Supper as a seal of this reconciliation that they might depart this life full of joy and comfort So it was practised by Denys Bishop of Alexandria in all the extent of his Diocese as he testifies in Eusebius where he saith Aâ—ud Euseb hinor l. 6. c. 44. That he had commanded to absolve those which were in danger of Death if they desired it and especially if they had already desired it before their sickness There are to be seen in S. Cyprian's Epistles who lived at the same time several the like directions touching those which had fallen during the time of persecution but because many were not mindful of desiring reconciliation with the Church from whose Communion they had fallen by their Apostasy untill they were taken with some sickness which endangered their life the first Council of Arles assembled Anno 314. Concil Arclar 1. c. 22. forbids giving the Sacrament unto such as did so unless they recovered their health and did fruits worthy of repentance But this it self shews that it was not refused unto any of those which being fallen endeavoured to rise again by passing through the degrees of Penance and that without deferring to the end of their life ardently desired to be admitted into the peace of the Church The Councils are full of Canons which direct the time and manner of absolving Penitents which was inseparable from receiving of the Sacrament which was given them as the last Viaticum to assure them that they were reconciled unto God in their being so with the Church which was accustomed to seal
this reconciliation and peace in permitting them to participate of this Divine Mystery But if I am demanded Whether this practice of administring the Sacrament unto bed-rid Penitents and after the third Century unto other sick Folks at the time of death doth not presuppose that the Eucharist was kept to the end it might be apply'd in these hasty necessities to speak sincerely I do not see there was any necessary consequence of one of these things unto the other but that also I find no directions thereupon in the first Ages of Christianity which makes me believe they contented themselves then in preparing I mean in Blessing and Consecrating the Bread and Wine to make them the Body and Blood of the Lord at such time as there was occasion to communicate any Bed-rid dying persons To alledge for refutation of the keeping the Sacrament what is written in the XI Century by Cardinal Humbert of Blanch-Selva against the Greeks who reserved the gifts presanctified in Lent were not in my Opinion to argue but trifle because it is certain that a long time before Humbert wrote against Nicetas the Sacrament was kept in the Latin Church it might with more reason be urged against keeping the acrament that the remainder of the Sacrament was in some Churches burnt and in others it was eaten by little Children but although this last custom continued a long time in our France as shall appear in the following Chapter nevertheless I find from the time of Charelemain that is to say in the VIII Century formal directions for keeping the Sacrament Capitul l. 1. c. 161. That the Priests saith this Prince in his Capitularies have always the Sacrament ready to communicate the Sick whether Old or Young to the end they should not dye without the Sacrament Since which time several Ordinances are seen upon the same Subject but before that time I do not remember to have met with any which nevertheless I do not say to assure positively that there were none before the time which I assign but only to declare that I have not observed nor found any on the contrary in the Second decretal Epistle which is attributed unto St. Clement Disciple of the Apostles about the same time it is expresly forbidden Ep. 2. Pseudo-Clem To keep till the next day any part of the Sacrament But in fine seeing it ought to be confessed that in the three first Centuries the Sacrament was sent unto Bed-rid dying Penitents and afterwards unto Believers in the same condition It is requisite to inquire by whom it was sent there is no doubt but for the most part they were Clergymen that carried it unto these sorts of Persons yet nevertheless in such a manner that they made no difficulty to ease themselves sometimes of this care and to imploy Lay Persons young Boys Men and Women to carry it in fine Denys Bishop of Alexandria relates in Eusebius the History of a certain Old Man called Serapion who having Apostatized in the time of persecution was excluded from the Communion of the Church whereunto he could not be restored notwithstanding his earnest entreaties to that purpose but some time after being seized with a violent sickness whereof he dyed he sent one of his Daughters Sons for a Priest who being sick sent him the Sacrament by the Child He gave unto this Youth saith Denys some Apud Euseb hist Eccles l. 6. c. 44. or a little of the Sacrament commanding that it should be moistned and to put it in the Old Mans mouth that he might the easier swallow it down his grand Child being returned steeped it and poured it into the sick Mans mouth who having by little and little let it down presently gave up the Ghost So the Martyrology of Ado Bishop of Vienna that of Bede and the Roman Ad. d. 15 Aug. Apud Baron ad an 260. §. 5. as also the Acts of the life of Pope Stephen the First testifie that during the Persecution of the Emperors Gallian and Valerian Tharsitius Acolyth of the Church of Rome did carry the Sacraments of the Lords Body and this custom need not seem strange unto us if we consider the liberty which was for a long time given unto Christians to carry the Sacrament home with them unto their houses and keep it In the life of Luke the younger Anchoret Combef auct Bibl Pat t. 2. Grac. l. p 986. cum 1014. who lived in the X. Century and which Father Combefis a Dominican hath published at least some Copies part of it we find this Hermit having demanded of the Bishop of Corinth how such Persons as he was that lived solitarily in the Desarts might participate of the Sacrament having no Priest nor Assemblies made in those places I say we find he suffered him and such as he was to communicate themselves although they were Lay Persons and also prescribed after what manner they should do it And Father Combefis in his Notes observes Ib. p. 1014. that the Bishop of Corinth was then in the Bishop of Rome's Diocese is it to be thought any difficulty would have been made of intrusting the Sacrament unto Women in those places where they were permitted to distribute the Sacraments in the Churches unto the people as hath been before recited There is in the VI. Tome of the Councils a Homily in the name of Pope Leo the Fourth T. 6. Concil p. 431. who lived in the middle of the IX Century where Priests are forbidden to give the Sacrament unto Lay Persons Men or Women to be carried unto the sick It cannot then be questioned but the thing was practised to that time and afterwards also for 't is certain this Sermon is neither Leo the Fourth's nor St. Vlrick's as Gretser imagined it is nothing else but a Synodical Letter of Ratherius Bishop of Verona unto his Priests now this Ratherius died towards the end of the X. Century Mr. de Valois in his Notes upon Eusebius P. 138. saith That he hath lately been so informed and we cannot doubt of it because we have the Book it self by the care and industry of Dom Luke d'Achery wherein we find this Decree That no Body presume to give the Sacrament unto a Lay Person T. 2. Spicileg p. 261. Man or Woman to carry it unto the Sick It must then be necessarily concluded that it was so practised in sundry places even in Italy and near Rome until the end of the X. Century The same Mr. de Valois observes upon the words of Denys Bishop of Alexandria above mentioned P. 138. That it was so practised a long time after And he proves it by the Prohibition which Ratherius was obliged to give unto his Priests who without scruple committed the Eucharist into Lay Persons hands to be carried unto sick Folks but because Ratherius was but a private Bishop and that his power reached not beyond his Diocese nothing hinders but it may be believed it was also
their first Shape and in their first Form and are visible and palpable as they were before Pope Gelasius at the end of the fifth Century Certainly saith he the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ which you receive are something that is divine whence also it is that by them we are made Partakers of the Divine Nature and nevertheless they still retain the Nature and Substance of Bread and Wine It was also the Judgment of Ephraim Patriarch of Antioch in the sixth Age Ephraem Anâ—tâ—och apud Phoc. cod 229. The Body of Jesus Christ saith he which Believers receive doth not forsake the outward Substance and hold inseparably unto the inward Grace And that it may not be question'd that he spake of the Sacrament of his Body he adds the same of Baptism saying that it preserves just as the Eucharist doth the outward Form and the inward and spiritual Grace And Baptism Id. ibid. saith he being wholly spiritual and being but one keeps the propriety of its sensible Form that is to say Water and loseth not what it was made A Council of the East assembled at Constantinople Anno 754 declares Concil Const in Act. Nicaeâ— 2. Act. 6. That Jesus Christ commanded us to offer the Image of his Body a Thing chosen to wit the Substance of Bread Ahyto Bishop of Basil Walafridus Straho Ratran will teach the same Doctrine in the ninth Century Ratherius Bishop of Verona in the tenth and the Taborites of Bohemia in the fifteenth Yet it must be confessed there is to be found in the Writings of the Antients a Passage where the Author be he who he will seems to differ from this Belief universally received by the Church in his Time it is in an Easter Sermon attributed unto Caesarius Bishop of Arles who lived in the sixth Century although it be not certain whether it be his or not but so 't is that in this Sermon amongst other things it is said Cesar Hom. 1. de Pasch That the invisible Priest he means Jesus Christ changeth by the secret Power of his Word the visible Creatures into the Substance of his Body and Blood Some would answer that the private Opinion of Caesarius should not take place against the many Testimonies above alledged not being just that one should be preferred before so many the greater part whereof were nothing inferiour unto Caesarius in Dignity and Learning and some surpassed him both in one and the other as St. Chrysostom and Pope Gelasius others in Dignity at least as St. Ephraim Patriarch of Antioch not to mention his Learning which in all likelihood was nothing short of Caesarius if he were truly the Authour of the Sermon which we examine and others in fine in Learning as Theodoret whose Light and Knowledg was incomparably greater and they would not fail here to apply that Maxime of Vincentius Lyrinensis Vincent Lyrinens common already cited in the beginning of this History If sometimes the different Opinion of one Person or of some few which are deceived rise up in opposition against the Consent of all Id. ibid. or at least of much the greater Number of Catholicks Against the Obstinacy of one or of a few more should first be opposed the Decree of an universal Council if there be any Secondly if there are none let the Opinion of several great Doctors that do agree amongst themselves be followed for saith he whatsoever is believed by one particular Person above or against what is received and allowed by all be he Saint Doctor Bishop Confessor or Martyr let it be reputed a low peculiar and close Thing private and particular to himself and let it not have the Authority of an Opinion commonly publickly and generally received This is what several might answer unto this Difficulty and their Answer would not be contemptible Others think more kindness may be shew'd unto Caesarius in reconciling him with the rest rather than reject him for they conceive this Act of Humanity is due unto an Author to give a favourable Construction to his Words and not to make him clash with the Opinion generally received which ought especially take place in things that regard the essential Parts of Piety and Religion because in those Things without endangering our Salvation we cannot separate from the Belief which hath been always received in the Church of God Let us see then how they would reconcile Caesarius with those other glorious Witnesses above-mentioned It may easily be done say they if you consider that the Fathers often speak as Caesarius did although they only understand a Change of Quality which befals the Substance wherein this change is made Tertul. cont Marc. l. 3. l. 1. ad Uxor though nevertheless it is not changed it self for instance Tertullian said That we shall be changed into an Angelical Substance instead of saying that we shall be changed into an Angelical Quality as he elsewhere explains himself So Eusebius said of the Soul of Helen Mother of Constantin the great Euseb de vita Constant l. 3. cap. 46. that she was transformed into an incorruptible and Angelical Substance to signify that she had acquired Angelical Qualities in respect whereof she might assume the Name of Angelical Substance So St. Austin Aug. in Psal 68. Hom. 1. By Sin Man fell from the Substance wherein he was made nevertheless Man continues to be Man but because he lost the Righteousness and Holiness which beautified and adorned his Nature he made no difficulty of saying so And St. Peter Chrysologus speaking of the change hapned in the human Nature of Christ by the Refurrection Chrysolog Hom. 82. saith that our Lord changed Substance which is not true but in regard of Qualities But to come nearer the Sacraments all Christians generally confess that the Water of Baptism doth not lose its Substance Tertull. de Baptism yet that hinders not but Tertullian calls Baptism a divine Substance because the Waters of Baptism receiving by Consecration the Holiness which they had not they are said in some fort to pass into the divine Substance it being reasonable that the Subject should derive its Name from its best and most noble part What then may hinder but Caesarius might say in a good sense of the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament That Jesus Christ doth change them into the Substance of his Body and Blood although the Bread and Wine keep their Substance because he makes them pass into the efficacy of his own Flesh as St. Cyril of Alexandria speaks Certainly it ought not to be thought strange if they consider that Pope Gelasius who wrote about 50 Years before Caesarius Gelaf de duab nat Christ that the Substance or Nature of Bread and Wine still remains as we but now heard for all that saith that the Bread and Wine pass into a divine Substance because the Consecration gives them a heavenly and divine virtue by reason whereof
to the Persecution of the Heathens It may be saith St. Cyprian that some may fear at the Morning Oblation to make known by the Scent of the Wine that he hath participated of the Blood of Jesus Christ Was ever any Fear so ill grounded or any pannick Fear like this If it had then been believed that what was drank in communicating was the real Blood of Christ where was the Sense of those People to be afraid of a Shadow and to tremble where there was no Cause of Danger Seeing it could not be said that the Blood of Jesus Christ had the same Smell that Wine had and that moreover it is expresly spoken of the Smell of Wine and not of the Odour of the Blood of Christ And what surpriseth them yet more is that those of whom we speak were not private ordinary Persons but Conducters also for St. Cyprian designs such at the Beginning of his Treatise by those which consecrate the Cup of the Lord and distribute it unto the People To say that the Smell of Wine should rest in the Sacrament although there had been no Wine that could not be because the Holy Fathers before declared That Accidents could not exist without their Subjects without ever excepting the Sacrament Moreover when St. Cyprian condemned this Abuse as doubtless he had reason to condemn it wherefore had he not said That those People were the most to blame that could be to take for Wine the proper Blood of Jesus Christ and to think that the Sacrament had the Scent of Wine seeing there was no Wine in it Wherefore had he not alledged against them the Belief of the Universal Church if it held for an Article of Faith that what is contained in the mystical Cup is not Wine after Consecration but the very Substance of the Blood of the Son of God It was say they the only Means that could have been used to have made them ashamed and to have reclaimed them from their Error yet nevertheless St. Cyprian doth not make use of it He contents himself to pity their Ignorance and their Timidity and to blame them that they had not followed the Example of Jesus Christ who had not used Water alone in his Eucharist nor Wine alone but of both The other Christians which celebrated the Sacrament with Water did it by another Motive as Gennadius hath informed us when he told us De dogm Eccles c. 75. That they did so under a Pretext of Sobriety Is it possble that this Thought could ever come into the Mind of a Christian that to drink the Blood of the Lord Jesus was to want Sobriety What were Men made of in those Times say the Protestants Had they common Sense and Reason as we have For we cannot conceive their Proceedings it must be freely confessed if participating of the Holy Cup they believe they drink the pure Blood of the Son of God and not Wine how they could think that under a Pretext of Sobriety that they ought to use only Water therein But wherefore had not the Holy Fathers taken Care better to instruct and inform them herein it had been their Duty and Charity to have cured these Souls from this mistaken Niceness which caused them to err they also did it for they were too zealous and charitable to let themly in Error But how have they done it was it in saying unto them That the holy Liquor in the Sacramental Cup is no longer Wine but the proper Blood of Jesus Christ no at least no such Thing is seen in their Writings to think so On the contrary you would think they take Delight in shewing that it is Wine Id. ibid. For see here all the Answer that Gennadius makes to combate this Abuse There was Wine in the Mystery of our Redemption our Saviour having said I will drink no more of this Fruit of the Vine Prudence is very necessary in the Conduct of Life but I think it is more in matters of Religion especially unto Pastors and Conducters which lead the Way unto others they should take care not to make any wrong Steps I mean not to teach any thing either by Preaching or Writing but what they carefully digest particularly not to urge any Thing against Unbelievers or Hereticks that may reflect upon any of the Mysteries of our holy Religion No body that I know hath accused St. Chrysostom of want of Prudence and to say the Truth for what is known of him great heed ought to be taken of laying any such thing to his Charge Nevertheless it is observed in one Part of his excellent Works one thnig which would certainly be ill relished had he been in the Opinion of the Latins It is a Reproach which he makes unto Laban upon his complaining that he was robbed of his Gods Chrysost Homil 57. in Gen. ad c. 30 31. t 2. O Excess of Folly saith he unto him thy Gods saith he are they capable of being stoln Art thou not ashamed to say Wherefore have ye stolen away my Gods For if this holy Doctor believed that the Bread of the Sacrament after Consecration were no longer Bread but the true Body of Jesus Christ his Saviour and his God it may be said that the Reproach he made unto Laban was neither prudent nor judicious because he might have been answered That the same might befal his God And indeed others before me have observed Alex. Gerald. itiner Romae I dit extr that Alexander Geraldin Bishop of St. Domingo in that Spanish Island complained formerly unto the Emperor Charles the fifth That the Temple of his Bishoprick not being well covered all therein was exposed unto Thieves insomuch saith he that the Body of God it self is not there secure against Robbers against Witches and Sorcerers nor against the Rage of wicked Men. But when we should not have the Complaint of this Bishop all the World knows that what St. Chrysostom saith of the Gods of Laban may befal the consecrated Host One cannot then forbear either to accuse this holy Doctor of want of Wisdom or to say that he did not believe the substantial Conversion of the Latin Church which I will refer to the Readers Judgment whilst I say Theodoret. in Genes Quest 55. that Theodoret a great Admirer of St. Chrysostom should not avoid the same Censure however discreet he was otherwise If he had believed that the proper Body of Jesus Christ which all Christians adore and unto whom they address the Soveraign Worship of their Religion were truly and properly eaten with the Mouth of the Body Id. in Levit. Quest 11. p. 124. For if that were so say they with what Face could he say That it is the highest Folly to adore what we eat And again when he asks this Question Where is there any Man of good Sense that can call that his God which he eateth himself after having offered it unto the true God Had it not been to have exposed himself
Promotion to the Episcopacy with any secular Oath whatever it did before Ordination In the first place I advertise the Reader there is in the Text Conficit corpus Christi sanguinis Sacramentum but it may plainly be seen it should be read Corporis Christi sanguinis Sacramentum and translated as we have done The Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ otherwise it would be Nonsense for what signifies make the Body and the Sacrament of the Blood of Christ From all which they conclude That the Fathers of the Council should have spoken in much stronger Terms if that instead of saying that they made the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ they had said that they made the Body and Blood They think that the Occasion also required it and that their Denial would have been better grounded and they affirm that if an Assembly of Prelates of the Latin Church were in the like Conjuncture they would make no mention and that justly of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ they would speak directly of the Glorious Priviledge of making the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Whence is it then that these Prelates of the Synod of Cressy did not do so it is in all likelihood because they were not of the same Belief Optatus Bishop of Mileva in Numidia aggravating the Crime of the Donatists which had with horrible Impiety thrown down the Sacrament of the Orthodox unto the Dogs speaks of it after a manner which would not be easily pardoned had he believed as the Latins do that it is the very Body of Christ himself What saith he is there more sinful and impious than to throw the Eucharist unto Beasts But what could be weaker than this Expression if this Eucharist were the real Body of the Son of God ought he not to have thundred after another manner against these wicked Wretches Should he not have exaggerated with stronger and more Emphatical Terms the Horror of so fearful an Abomination In a Word ought he not have given it a blacker Term than that of Impious and have painted the enormous Sin of these wicked Wretches with other Colours Can it be thought that a Bishop of the Latin Church should be contented with such a kind of Expression in the like Occasion not at all Wherefore then was Optatus content They can conceive no other Reason but the Difference of their Belief Let the Reader judge if there be any other more probable In the mean while I must tell you that having sometimes meditated of St. Chrysostom's Books touching the Evangelical Priesthood to see how he advanced its Dignity and having applied my self in reading them to endeavour to discover wherein he makes the greatest Priviledge of this Order to consist which with his Eloquence he exalts as much as he thought fit I find that he only attributes unto it the Function of Prayer to obtain by their Prayers the Grace of the Holy Spirit upon the Sacrament Chrysost l. 3. de Sacerdot c. 4 p. 32. vid. p. 31. The Priest saith he is present not bearing Fire but the Holy Ghost he makes long Prayers not to the end that Fire should come down from Heaven to burn the Things offered but to the end that Grace descending upon the Sacrifice should by that means inflame the Spirits of those which are present and make them purer and more bright than Silver tried in the Fire And he saieth this in Opposition to the Sacrifice of the Prophet Elias 1 Reg. 18. when he assembled all the Prophets of Baal to prefer the Evangelical Priesthood 1 Reg. 18. and what is done in the Celebration of the Sacrament much before and above the Priesthood of the Law How is it that this excellent Genius had not bethought himself of saying that though the mystical Sacrificers of the New Testament did not cause to come down from Heaven a material Fire by their Prayers as Elias did to consume the Oblations offered upon the Holy Table but the Heavenly and Divine Fire of the Holy Ghost for the purifying of our Souls They do make moreover the true Body of Jesus Christ by the Force and Vertue of these Words This is my Body Was there ever a more proper and favourable Means and Occasion to advance this Evangelical Dignity and to place what it doth daily do in the Celebration of the Sacrament by converting the Substance of Bread and Wine into the Substance of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ which is infinitely more than what Elias did against Baals false Prophets Every Body knows in what manner the Romish Catholick Doctors do exalt this Dignity and that they never forget when they treat of its Advantages and Priviledges to attribute unto their Priests the Priviledge of making the real Body of the Son of God And I don't wonder any Body should think strange of it if they consider the Doctrine and Belief of the Latin Church how is it possible then that the great St. Chrysostom should have forgotten it that he hath not said a Word of it and that in so presing an Occasion he passed over in silence a Circumstance so remarkable and essential to his Subject Men may say what they please but for my part saith the Protestant I find no other Reason for it but their Difference of Belief St. Austin in his Books against Faustus the Manichean undertaking to advance the Honour and Excellency of our Sacraments above the ancient Sacraments so far as to exhort us to suffer for them with more Vigour and Courage than the three Hebrew Children or Daniel and the Maccabees did for theirs contents himself to say August l. 19. contra Faust c. 14. That it is the Eucharist of Jesus Christ the Signs of things accomplished whereas the ancient Sacraments were promises of things to come Had he believed that our Eucharist is not a Sacrament only but also the Substance of the Body of Jesus Christ and his Flesh also wherefore did he conceal and was silent in this essential Difference from the old Sacraments because his Reputation alone had been sufficiently capable of inflaming our Zeal and of more effectually disposing us unto Martyrdom for its Defence rather than any thing else which he said unto us When we censure we endeavour to represent to the Offender the Greatness of his Fault to make him the more to loath it and all means is used to let him see the Enormity of it especially in raising and advancing the Excellency of the Object which he offended for it is commonly according to the Nature and Quality of the Object offended that the Degree and Greatness of the Offence is proportioned let us then see after what manner the Holy Fathers have demeaned themselves towards them which have offended against the Sacrament of the Eucharist For doubtless considerable Informations may be drawn from these kinds of Censures A Council of Carthage assembled Anno 419.
with the Hand although the Church of Rome her self practised it so formerly for several Ages From whence again could proceed this Change but from the Change of Doctrine whilst it was believed that what was received at the mystical Table was true Bread and Wine but Bread and Wine which the Consecration had separated from the common Use they had in Nature to apply them unto a holy and religious Use in Grace Communicants were permitted to receive the Sacrament in their Hands But when they taught that it was the real Body of Jesus Christ they began to put it into the Mouth of such as presented themselves at the Communion judging their Hands were not worthy to receive the Flesh it self of their Saviour and fearing that some by Neglect should let fall to the Ground this pretious Body an Inconvenience which their Forefathers never thought of or if they did think of it they did not so much fear it though otherwise they were as circumspect in the Celebration of this Divine Sacrament so far as to take Care with incomparable Exactness that none of it should fall to the Ground Let every body judge the Reason of so notable a Difference But if the Sacrament was put into the Hand of Communicants they were wont also for a long time to carry it home along with them to their Houses At present amongst the Latins it would be a criminal Action Father Petau tells us and held for a Prophanation of this Sacrament As for my part I cannot blame this Severity of the Latin Church because she believes that it is the adorable Body of the Son of God whereunto is owing Soveraign Respect What shall we then say unto the ancient Fathers which permitted it and which believed not as St. Basil tells us that this Custom was not worthy of Blame We cannot but know that their Zeal was greater than ours and their Piety more ardent than what appears in us at this time How then have they so long time tolerated this Practice in the Church and even in that of Rome as St. Jerom hath made appear From whence the Protestant concludes That one cannot reasonably forbear attributing the Reason of this Toleration to any thing but the Difference of their Doctrine and to say that their Belief upon this Point being quite contrary they made no Scruple of suffering what the Latins would not suffer at present for all the World And as they suffered Communicants to carry the Sacrament to their Houses to keep and take it when they pleased they also suffered them to carry it in their Travels and Journeys even by Sea where they made no Difficulty of celebrating and participating of it when Occasion required as the Example of Maximinian Bishop of Syracusa and his Companions do testifie for being in Danger of suffering Shipwrack they received it is said the Body and Blood of their Redeemer But in the Latin Church it is practised quite contrary at this time it not being permitted to celebrate the whole Mass neither at the Sea nor upon Rivers but only to read the Epistle and Gospel to say the Lords Prayer and give the Benediction In a Word to say that which was anciently called the Mass of the Catechumeny that is to say unto that Part called the Canon Thom Valdens Guilhelm Duranâ— apud Cassand in Liturg. c. 34. Cassand ib. Whence it is Cassander makes this Observation drawn from a Book of the Order of the Mass according to the Use of the Church of Rome This dry Mass that is to say without Consecration and Communion is also called Naval because it is judged it can only be said after that manner in an unsteady place and where there is motion as at Sea and upon Rivers in which places it is believed that an intire Mass cannot be said Pope Gregory the first nevertheless blamed not what was done by Maximinian and his Companions when he relates the History of it in his Dialogues no more than St. Ambrose doth the Action of his Brother Satyrus All which again gives Ground to believe that in all likelihood they had not then that Opinion of the Sacrament which Roman Catholicks now have for they would not have failed to have taken the same Caution Anciently in the Church the Communion was freely sent unto sick Folks by Lay-persons by Boys Men or Women which continued in the West until the IXth and Xth Centuries What Appearance is there they would so long have tolerated this Custem if the Belief of those times had been the same of that of the Latin Church at present it is thought they would have been more reserved and that they would not have so slightly entrusted the Body of Jesus Christ unto all Sorts of Persons indifferently But besides all these Customs which we have instanced and from whence we have drawn the necessary Inferences there be yet others which we already examined in the first Part the Consequences whereof we are also obliged to shew The ancient Christians made no Difficulty to imploy the Sacrament to make Plaisters as St. Austin hath assured us every body knows that to make a Plaister sometimes Drugs are used that must be bruised and pounded in a Mortar sometimes Roots are used that must be boiled and which by means of certain Liquors are reduced into the consistence of an Oyntment or thick matter and such as may conveniently be spread upon a Linen-cloth or upon Flax afterwards to apply it unto the distemper'd part which wants Ease Was there ever any Christian that believed such a Sort of Medicine could be made of the proper and natural Body of Jesus Christ that it could be beat and pounded in a Mortar or boiled with Liquor or in a Word reduced in the State which they are wont to do those Things which are requisite to make Plaisters or if any were so extravagant to believe it or so wicked and senseless to attempt it had it been possible to be done all others would they not have exclaimed against such a Person would they not have esteemed him monstrous and worthy enduring the greatest of all Punishments Nevertheless there hath been found those which made Plaisters of the Eucharist and which far from being blamed have been praised and commended by pious and devout Persons fearing God witness that Mother mentioned by St. Austin Seeing then that a Plaister cannot be made of the true Body of Jesus Christ it necessarily follows that where there was one made it was of the Substance of the Symbols and that the Christians that did so were perswaded that it was not the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ but a Substance of Bread and Wine In the ancient Church the Sacrament was buried with the Dead as there is no Christian but knows that Christ died that he was buried and rose again the third Day neither is there any but do know that he dieth no more and that he shall no more be buried Those then which heretofore buried the
entire in each portion of the things divided These words can receive no good sense but by understanding them of the Sacrament that is to say of the Bread which is broken in pieces as to its matter and substance but that remains whole and intire as to the vertue of the Sacrament which made the great St. Basil say Basil Ep. 289. t. 3. That to receive one part or several at ae time is the same thing as to its virtue Moreover German will have us consider Jesus Christ as dead in the Sacrament and as pouring forth his precious blood for the Salvation of mankind when he saith Id. Germ. ib. p. 407 409 410. That the Elevation of the precious body represents the Elevation in the Cross the Death of our Lord on the Cross and his Resurrection also That the Priest receiving the Bread alone without the Blood and the Blood also without the Body signifies nothing else but that the Divine Lamb is yet all bloody and that we eat the Bread and drink the Cup as the Flesh and Blood of the Son of God confessing his Death and Resurrection And clearer yet in these words where speaking of the holy Bread which he distinguisheth from Jesus Christ he saith Ibid p. 408. That it is the only Bread wherein is figured and represented the Divine and all-healing Death of him which was Sacrificed for the Lafe of the World because it is the only Divine Bread which is Sacrificed and Offered as the Lamb but as for the other Divine Gifts they be not cut in the form of a Cross with the Knife but they are put in pieces as the members and parts of the body It is the true Commentary of what he saith in the same Treatise That Jesus Christ is always sacrificed because he is so not in himself for that cannot be by the confession of all Christians but in the Sacrament the Celebration whereof doth lively represent unto us the imolation of Jesus Christ upon the Cross Ibid. p. 408. Add unto this that he declares That Jesus Christ drank Wine in his Sacrament as he did after his Resurrection not through necessity but to perswade his Disciples of the truth of his Resurrection And that he desires at the instant of communicating we should lift up our thoughts from Earth unto the King which is in Heaven Now let it be judged after all these declarations what the change can be which he saith is passed upon the Bread and Wine by Consecration if he meant a change of substance or only of use and condition for the former seems unto Protestants to be inconsistent with the Explanations which he hath given us whereas the latter doth not ill accord with it in all appearance German saith That Jesus Christ is seen and felt in the Eucharist but he positively affirms that it is done in his Sacrament that is to say that he is seen and touched inasmuch as the Sacrament is seen and felt which doth represent him Ibid. p. 401. Our Saviour saith he is seen and suffers himself to be touched by means of the ever to be revered and sacred Mysteries I will not insist upon what is said by this Patriarch That the Bread and Wine offered by Believers for the Communion do in some sort become upon the Table of proposition which amongst the Greeks is different from that where the Consecration of the Divine Symbols are made I say they become in some sort the Images and Figures of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ because it is a frivolous conceit and with reason rejected by Roman Catholicks and Protestants But let us lay aside the Patriarch German and prosecute the History of the VIII Century in the same City where German was Patriarch the Metropolis of the Eastern Empire Constantine the 6th commonly surnamed Copronymas Son of the Emperor Leo the third called Isaurus assembled a Council of 338 Bishops Anno 754. The Assembly held full six months during which they quite abolished the Worshipping of Images and by the way Concil Constantinop in Act. Concil Nicaen 2. t. 5. Concil p. 756. clearing up the Doctrine of the Church upon the point of the Sacrament to draw a proof against the same Images they had condemned they left unto us for a Monument of their belief this following testimony Let those rejoyce which with a most pure heart make the true Image of Jesus Christ which desire which venerate and which do offer it for the Salvation of body and soul the which Jesus Christ gave unto his Disciples in Figure and Commemoration And having repeated the words of Institution they add That no other Species under Heaven was made choice of by him nor any other Type that could represent his Incarnation That it is the Image of his quickning body which was honourably and gloriously made That as Jesus Christ took the matter or humane substance in like manner he hath commanded us to offer for his Image a matter chosen that is to say the substance of bread not having any humane Form or Figure fearing lest Idolatry may get in As then say they the Natural Body of Jesus Christ is holy because it is Deified It is also evident that his Body by Institution that is to say his holy Image is rendred Divine by Sanctification of Grace for it is what our Saviour intended to do when by virtue of the Union he Deified the Flesh he had taken by a Sanctification proper unto himself so also he would that the bread of the Sacrament as being the true Figure of his Natural body should be made a Divine Body by the coming of the Holy Ghost the Priest which makes the Oblation intervening to make it holy whereas it was common therefore the Natural body of our Lord endowed with Soul and Understanding was anointed by the Holy Ghost being united unto the Godhead so also his Image to wit the holy bread is filled with the Cup of enlivening Blood which flowed out of his side What renders this testimony the more considerable and worthy to be credited is That these Fathers which represented all the Eastern Church or at least the greatest part of it were assembled about the matter of Images and not about the subject of the Sacrament for had they been assembled upon the point of the Sacrament it may be some uncharitable person might suspect them of pre-occupation or of design but having been assembled upon a very different subject of necessity it must be granted that it is by the by that they inform us of the common and general Opinion and Belief of Christians They would draw from the Eucharist an argument against the use and Worship of Images and to do it the better they were obliged to unfold unto us the Nature of the Sacrament and they explain it in saying That it is the substance of Bread that it is no deceiving Figure of his Natural Body and as they say a little before a Type
esteemed Wicked and Villains there 's no likelihood then they would have spared them if they had departed from the Belief publickly received in the Church seeing they had taken the liberty of censuring them for using the terms and expressions which their Forefathers had been accustomed to use in the like occasions In fine of two things that Constantinople had asserted Nice doth censure one and not the other it condemns the former and not the latter The first doth disgust it the second doth not although the one regards but the terms and the other ingageth directly the ground of the Doctrine it self it will not permit it should be said that the Eucharist is the Image of Jesus Christ but it will have it said That it is the substance of Bread after Consecration Let us for example put instead of that of Nice a Council of the Latin Church and instead of that of Constantinople a Protestant Council who could imagine that the Council of the Latin Church should condemn that of the Protestants for saying That the Eucharist is the Image of the Body of Jesus Christ and that it should not condemn it for affirming That it is the substance of Bread even after Consecration Nevertheless this is just what is done by the Fathers of Nice Is not there then absolute necessity to conclude That Nice was of Accord with Constantinople as to what concerned the Doctrine and that neither the one nor the other departed from the Ancient Belief of the Church this at least is what is inferred But may the Latins say the Prelates of Nice say that the Eucharist is properly called the Body of Christ and that it is so The Protestants answer it cannot be thought strange in the thoughts they had that the Bishops of Constantinople meant that it was an Image that had nothing common with its Original but the Name only an Image that participated not of its vertue and that was destitute of any efficacy and to say the truth say these latter the Sacrament being impregnated if it may be so said with the Grace and Benediction of our Saviour filled with his Vertue and Efficacy cloathed with the Majesty of his own Person accompanied with all the fruits and advantages of his death nothing may hinder from saying That it is his Body because it enjoys the priviledges and that there is seen in the lawful use of this Copy the same Vertue and the same Efficacy as that which resides in its Prototype and in its Original with the which it is by consequence in a manner one and the same for then especially is true what Eusebius said Euseb contr Marcel de Eccl. Theolog. l. 2. c. 23. That no body in his right senses will say that the King and his Image that is carried about are two Kings but one only which is honoured in his Image And St. Athanasius Athanas contr Arian Orat. 4. contr Sabel Gregal That the King and his Image is but one and the same thing The Picture of the King saith St. Basil is called the King yet they are not for that two Kings for as he saith elsewhere He that in an open place contemplates the Kings Picture and that saith it is the King doth not for all that own two Kings to wit Basil de Spirit S. c. 18. The Portraicture and him that it represents Contr. Sabellian vel Homil 27. t. 1. p. 522. But according to the observation of St. Cyril Archbishop of Alexandria The Pourtrait may say unto him that looks upon it and that besides would see the King himself the King and I are all one thing as to the perfect resemblance Cyril Alex. in Thesaur assert 12. t. 5. p. 111. And I make no doubt but it was in this sense that some of the Ancients considered the Bread of the Sacrament and the Body of our Saviour crucified upon the Cross as one Body and not as several Bodies and if I should doubt of it Haymond Bishop of Alberstat or Remy of Auxerr would soon cure me of this doubt in saying The Flesh which Jesus Christ hath taken Haym Halber in 1 ad Cor. c. 10. and the Bread of the Sacrament and the whole Church do not make three Bodies of Christ but one Body that is to say the Bread of the Sacrament and the Church are called the Body of Jesus Christ just as his Natural Body is because they are Mystically so that they have all their relation unto his true Body and that by virtue of this relation they are deemed one and the same Body Theodot apud Bulenger cont Casaub and before Haymond Theodotus of Antioch so expressed himself As the King saith he and his Portrait are not two Kings so also the Personal Body of Jesus Christ which is in Heaven and the Bread which the Priest distributes unto believers in the Church and which is the Antitype and Figure are not two Bodies In fine if it may be said in a good sense of all Images in general that they are one and the same with their Original of greater reason may it be said of the Eucharist which is not an Image depending of the Painters Fancy as the others nor of the skill of his Pencil but of the Institution of Jesus Christ which hath instituted this Divine Sacrament to be the remembrance of his Death the Portraicture and Image of his Person and Sufferings but an Image and Portrait that truly communicates unto us his Body broken and which in the Celebration of the Sacrament is always accompanied with his Virtue and Efficacy therefore St. 1 Chrys Hom. 28. in 1 ad Cor. Chrysostom saith That the Sacramental Table is exuberant with life 2 Homil. 51. in Matt. and full of the holy Spirit 3 Catech. ad illuminand that the Cup is full of much virtue 4 Ibid. Ambro. lib. de initiand c. 4. t. 4. p. 346. and that those which are initiated know the force and virtue of this Cup. Which agrees not ill with what the Fathers of Constantinople said That the Bread of the Eucharist is filled with the Holy Ghost And what they said of the Bread and Cup of the Sacrament the Author of the Book of those which are initiated in St. Ambrose saith the same of the Water of Baptism Believe saith he that the Waters are not alone Just Mart. Dial cum Tryph. pag. 231. Ammon Cat. in Joan. 3.5 and that there descends a Divine Vertue into this Fountain Thence it is St. Justin Martyr calls the Water of Baptism the Water of Life and that Amonius saith It is changed into a Divine Nature Seven years after to wit in the year 794. Charlemain being displeased at what had been done at Nice in favour of Images caused a Council to be assembled at Francfort to prohibit the Worship and stop the progress of an abuse which then seemed intolerable unto the greatest number of Christians in the West And at this time
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
and unto Jonas Bishop of Orleans when he sent them to Rome unto Pope Eugenius upon the Subject of the Images he thus begins Tom. 2. Conc. Gall. p. 461. The Bishops Halitgarius and Amalarius are come unto me c. Let us conclude then from what hath been said that Amalarius was in his time in Esteem and great Consideration in Church and State Amalar. de Offic Eccles l. 1. c. 1. And now let us examine what he said of the Sacrament directly or indirectly After saith he that our Saviour had appeared according to his own pleasure unto his Disciples whom he would have to be Witnesses of his Resurrection he ascended up into Heaven and became invisible unto Men as he himself testifies I came forth from the Father and came into the World and now I leave the World and go unto the Father Which is plainly to say I made my self visible unto men returning unto my Father I shall be invisible Although we do not see his bodily presence yet we daily salute him in adoring of him Id. de Ordine Antiphon c. 9. And elswhere We cannot think of the absence of Jesus Christ without sadness But what he is going to tell us is yet more plain and positive Id. de Offic. l. 3. c. 29. because he testifies that Bread and Wine is consecrated and made the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ We saith he call Institution the Tradition which our Saviour left us when he made the Sacrament of his Body and Blood And to the end it should be known what he meant by the word Sacrament he gives us this Definition of it Sacrament that is a holy Sign Id. l. 1. c. 15. He saith moreover that the Sacrament is in the stead of Jesus Christ The Priest bows and recommends unto God the Father that which was offered in the place of Jesus Christ Id. l. 3. c. 23. He distinguisheth what was sacrificed from Jesus Christ himself and considers what is offered and Jesus Christ as two different Subjects whereof the one serves us instead of the other Id. l. 3. c. 25. for it cannot be conceived that a person or a thing can be instead of it self He yet goes farther and declares expresly that that which is offered instead of Jesus Christ is Bread and Wine Id. de Offic. prafat sâ—cunda and that this Bread and Wine are the Sacraments of his Body and Blood The things saith he which are done in the Celebration of Mass are done in the Sacrament that is to say in representing the Passion of our Saviour as himself commanded us saying As often as ye do this ye do it in remembrance of me Therefore the Priest which sacrificeth the Bread the Wine and Water doth it as a Sacrament of Jesus Christ that is in the place of Jesus Christ and represents him the Bread the Wine and the Water in the Sacrament of the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ The Sacraments should have some resemblance of the things whereof they be Sacraments Let the Priest then be like Jesus Christ as the Bread and the Liquor is like the Body of Jesus Christ These words are easie to be understood and need no Commentary because every body may perceive without help of others that Amalarius considers the Act of the Sacrament as a mysterious Representation where the Priest celebrating is in the place of Jesus Christ the Bread Wine and Water instead of his Body and Blood and will have a Relation of Resemblance to be betwixt these things and those whereof they be Sacraments which according to some is plainly contrary unto the Identity taught by Paschas Id. de Offic. l. 3. c. 26. The Oblation saith he again and the Cup do signifie the Body of our Saviour When Jesus Christ said This is the Cup of my Blood he signified his Blood which Blood was in the Body as the Wine is in the Cup. And in another place Id. l. 4. c. 47. Id. l. 3. c. 25. Id. l. 3. c. 24. Ibid. c. 34. Ibid. c. 31. Ibid. c. 35. The Bread set forth upon the Altar signifies the Body of our Lord upon the Cross the Wine and Water in the Cup do represent the Sacraments which flowed out of our Saviours side upon the Cross He calls the Eucharist the Sacrament of Bread and Wine and saith That Jesus Christ in the Bread recommended his Body and his Blood in the Cup. And with Bede that the Apostle recommends the Unity of the Church in the Sacrament of Bread He observes the Bread is put into the Wine Ibid. l. 1. c. 15. And in the passage which gave occasion of the Censure of Paschas and of Florus he speaks of what is received in Communicating as of a thing broken into several peices In fine he affirms that Jesus Christ did drink Wine in his Sacrament Our Saviour said I will no more drink of this Fruit of the Vine until I drink it new with you which the Lesson read the second Sunday after the Resurrection of our Lord sheweth to have been done Peter saying Unto us who eat and drank with him after he was risen from the dead He will have it that this fruit of the Vine which our Saviour drank when he celebrated his Sacrament was of the same nature with that which he drank with his Apostles after his Resurrection But besides all these Testimonies which are commonly alledged out of the Writings of Amalarius we have others for which we are beholden unto Dom Luke d'Achery a Benedictine Friar Rantgarius Bishop of Noyon demanded of him how he understood these words of the Institution of the Sacrament This is the Cup of my Blood of the New and Eternal Testament with this Addition which is in the Canon of the Mass The Mystery of Faith Amalarius answers him by Letter wherein after having spoken unto him of the Paschal Cup he passeth unto the Sacramental and having alledged what St. Luke saith Amalar. ad Rantgar t. 7. Spicile p. 166. he adds This Cup is in figure of my Body wherein is the Blood which shall flow out of my side to fulfil the old Law and after it is shed it shall be the New Covenant He sheweth that the Cup is the Figure of the Body of Jesus Christ because as the Wine of the Sacrament was contained in his Body not to be poured out until his death that he shed it on the Cross for the Salvation of Men and in the same Letter he makes the eating the Flesh of Christ to consist in the Participation of his Death The same Cup saith he is called the Mystery of Faith Ibid. because he that believes that he was redeemed by this blood and that doth imitate his passion is profited thereby unto Salvation and Eternal Life which made our Saviour himself to say If you eat not the Flesh of the Son of Man nor drink his Blood you have no life in
not that is to say Id. cap. 17. That the Mysteries of our Redemption are truly the body and blood of our Saviour And we shall find say the Protestants that he so explained himself in regard to their Efficacy and their Vertue and of the real and effectual communication of this Body and Blood in the lawful use of this Sacrament and not to say that they are substantially this Body and Blood because that is inconsistent with the Declaration he made just before That the Sacraments of the body and blood of Jesus Christ is the substance of Bread and Wine whereas these things accord very well with saying that although the Sacraments are Bread and Wine in substance yet they are for all that truly the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in Efficacy and in Vertue because they are indeed accompanied with the Vertue and Efficacy of his Divine Body and of his precious Blood the term of truly being opposed not unto figuratively or sacramentally for that would be a contradiction seeing he speaks of Mysteries but it is opposed unto untruth as if the Sacrament were not at all the Body of Jesus Christ unto vainly as if it had only the bare name and nefficaciously as if it had not the virtue And that this is the true sense of the words of Wallafridus it appears by the title of the Chapter entituled Of the vertue of the Sacraments in which Chapter the more to advance the efficacy he with many of the Ancients particularly with Rabanus his Master and with Ratramn his Contemporary interprets the 6th of St. John not of the Flesh and Blood it self of Jesus Christ but of the Sacraments of his Body and Blood or to speak with St. Fulgentius Of the Mysteries of the Truth Fulgent de Bapt. Aethiop and not of the Truth of the Mysteries This is the Reasoning of Protestants At the same time time that Wallafridus wrote his Book Heribald or Heribold Bishop of Auxerr was in great Reputation but because we have that to say of this Prelate as will give a very great weight unto his Testimony we will reserve him for a Chapter unto himself and in the mean while we will say something of Loup Abbot of Ferriers in Gastinais who in that he speaks horably of Heribold as shall be related hereafter may intimate that they were both of one Judgment But these sorts of Inferences are too weak to be insisted upon therefore I will seek for something in his Writings that is more material as in one of his Letters unto Amulus or Amulo Archbishop of Lyons in behalf of Guenilo Archbishop of Sans and of Count Gerrard in speaking of Jesus Christ Lupus Ferratiâ—n Ep. 81. Id. Ep. 40. he said That he raised his Humanity unto Heaven to be always present with him by his Divinity This that he calls Rabanus his Tutor and rendred him thanks for that he took care of instructing him doth no less confirm what he said and gives cause to think that in all likelihood Rabanus had instilled his Opinions into him because most commonly we embrace their Opinions whose Disciples we have been in our Youth especially when they are Opinions received by the Major part of the World Unto which may be added what he saith in the Book of three Questions Id. de tribus quaest p. 208 209. ult edit which Monsieur Baluze proves to be his to wit That God hath subjected spiritual Creatures unto time only but as for bodily things he hath subjected them unto time and unto place and that it cannot be questioned if it be considered that all bodies that have length breadth and depth and which are called solid are never contained but in one place It is evident that he means of being contained circumscriptively otherwise his Opposition would be insignificant being certain that Spirits for instance Angels also fill a place so that whilst they are here they are not there and this is termed to be in a place definitively But to be there circumscriptively appertains only unto Bodies which being made up of several parts are in such manner scituated in the place which they fill that each part of the Body answers unto each part of the place St. Fulgent ad Pet. Diac. c. 3. It not being given unto Bodies to exist after the manner of Spirits to use the terms of St. Fulgentius Seeing then that the Abbot de Ferriers speaks after this manner of the existing of Bodies and that he believes it inseparable from every Corporal Creature without excepting the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist it follows that he believed not this Existence after the manner of a Spirit which is attributed unto him in the Latin Church nor by consequence the real Presence whereupon it depends as one of its necessary Consequences This is what several do infer from this passage The Emperor Charles the Bald being informed that his Subjects were not all of one Opinion touching the Doctrine of the Sacrament thought it necessary to consult some of the most Learned of his Kingdom and such as were of greatest Credit and Esteem Amongst others which he made choice of to write on this Subject he chose two persons whom he esteemed very much the one was Bertram or as he is called by the Writers of that Age Ratramn which is his true name and the other was John Surnamed Erigenius of Scotland that is to say of Ireland according to the Language of our times Their Writings have not had the same fate for those of Ratramn have been preserved unto us but as for those of John they were condemned and burnt two hundred years after at the Council of Verceill And as they were two several Writers so we must also distinguish them in this History and that we speak of each of them severally To begin with Ratramn Priest of the Monastery of Corby and afterwards Abbot of Orbais I say he was a Man so esteemed in his time that all the Bishops of France made choice of him to defend the Latin Church against the Greeks and by the industry of Dom Luke d'Achery a Benedictine Friar we have in our hands the four Books which he composed and are such that when I compare them with that written by Eneas Bishop of Paris in the same Century and in defence of the same Cause I find as great difference betwixt them as betwixt Light and Darkness or at least betwixt the weak Essay of some illiterate person and the accomplished Work of an exquisite Artist because in truth the Work of Eneas is extreamly weak in comparison of that of Ratramn I say of that Ratramn unto whom the Abbot Trithemius ascribes such great Commendations in the XV Century and whom the Disciples of St. Austin Defenders of the free Grace of Jesus Christ so much admired when they made use of what he wrote touching the Doctrine of Predestination Therefore the President Mauguin speaking of him said Mauguin dissertat Hist
Friars transport him into the great Church and to interr him more honourably near the Altar with this Epitaph which is to be seen in the History of William of Malmesbury Guliel Malms l. 2. c. 5. Here lieth John the holy Philosopher who in his life was enriched with marvellous Learning and who at last had the honour to ascend by Martyrdom unto the Kingdom of Jesus Christ where the Saints reign everlastingly The same Historian said in the same place He was esteemed a Martyr which I do not say by way of doubt to do wrong unto this holy Soul And after his death he was put into the Catalogue of Saints for Thomas Fuller in his Ecclesiastical History of England saith that he was accounted a Martyr of Jesus Christ Histor Eccles Angl. l. 2. p. 119. and that his Anniversary Commemoration was celebrated the 4th of the Ides of November in the Martyrology printed at Antwerp Anno 1586. by the Command of Gregory the Thirteenth He adds That it was Baronius that put him out of the Martyrology out of hatred because he had written against the Real Presence alledging upon this Subject Henry Fitz Simond in 2. Edit Catal. S.S. Hibern who defends the Action of Baronius and saith That there was preparing even in his time an Apology for justifying this Proceeding Bishop Usher also testifieth That in the Catalogue of Saints buried in England drawn out of ancient English Monuments Usser de Eccl. Christian success statu c. 20. by a Friar of Canterbury in the time of Anselm that is in the beginning of the XII Century there are these words St. Adelm and John the Wise are recorded to be laid in the place called Adelmisbirig that is to say Malmesbury Molanus Professor of Divinity in the University of Lovain hath left this in Writing in his Appendix in the Martyrology of Ussuard John Erigenius Martyr Molan Appen ad Usuard littera l. translated the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy of Dennis He was afterwards by the Command of the Popes put in the number of the Martyrs of Jesus Christ Hector Deidonat in his History of Scotland Which words have been inserted in the Appendix of the Martyrology of the Gallican Church which was left us by the Bishop of Thoul having recorded in the Supplement at the 4th of the Ides of November the Commemoration which is made of St. John Surnamed Erigenius Martyr kill'd at Malmesbury by some young Debauchees See here exactly what the Man was that wrote of the Sacrament by Command of Charles the Bald as Ratramn also did as we are given to understand by a Letter of Berengarius written unto one Richard who had some Access unto King Philip. In this Letter printed some years past by the care of Dom Luke d'Achery he desires him to speak for him unto this Prince to the end he would be pleased to repair by his Liberality the Losses and Damages which he had unjustly sustained After which he adds Epistola Berengarii ad Richard t. 2. Spicil p. 510. If he doth not do it yet nevertheless I shall be ready to prove by the Scriptures unto his Majesty and those whom he shall appoint and to make appear that John Erigenius was very unjustly condemned by the Council at Verceil and Paschas very unjustly vindicated And afterwards To the end the King should not reject this service of my fidelity he may know that what John Erigenius hath written he wrote it at the desire and by order of Charles the Great he means the Bald one of his Predecessors who was as affectionate unto Religious things as he was valiant in his Expeditions lest the folly of ignorant and carnal men should prevail And he commanded John that learned Man to collect from the Scriptures what might check this folly Whence it follows saith he that the King is obliged to take up the Defence of the Deceased against the Slanders of those alive not to shew himself unworthy of the Succession and Throne of his Illustrious Predecessors that desired this Service of this learned Man not to scatter Darkness over the Light of the Truth but to inform himself carefully in the Knowledge of the holy Scriptures Berengarius complains of the Condemnation of John at the Council of Verceil in the year 1050. because it was there his Book was read and condemned to be burnt about two hundred years after he wrote it as we are informed by Lanfranc who owns him to be an Adversary of Paschas whereof he was himself a great favourer Therefore Berengarius wrote to him Tereng Ep. ad Lanâ—ranc If John whose Judgment we approve touching the Sacrament be esteemed by you to be a Heretick you must also hold for Hereticks St. Jerome St. Ambrose and St. Austin not to mention others That which renders John Erigenius's Testimony the more Authentick in this Debate is for having had four Enemies to wit the learned Church of Lyons Florus its Deacon Prudens Bishop of Troys the Councils of Valencia and of Langres which spared him not upon the matter of Predestination it is very likely they would have less spared him upon the Subject of the Eucharist had he differed from the Belief generally received in the Church upon so important a Point as is that of the holy Sacrament This truth will yet be more evident if we consider that many do believe Prudens Bishop of Troys and Florus Deacon of the Church of Lyons two Enemies which his Opinion of Predestination had stirred up against him were also opposite unto the Opinion of Paschas so that it hapned unto those People much after the same manner as we have seen it hath done in our days unto those called Jansenists and Molinists for however they be divided in the matters of Predestination and free Grace yet nevertheless both the one and the other still retain the great point of the real presence of the Latin Church so although Prudens and Florus did censure what John wrote of Predestination yet for all that they were well agreed as to what concerned the Sacrament Prudens indeed hath writ nothing or at least there is nothing of his come unto our knowledge But the Archbishop Hincmar suffers us not to be ignorant of what Prudens believed when joyning him with John Erigenius against whom nevertheless he observes he wrote upon the Subject of Predestination he saith that they both held Hinemar de praedest cap 31. That the Sacraments of the Altar are not the real Body and the real Blood of our Saviour but only the memorial of his true Body and Blood And when I speak of Prudens I speak of one of the greatest Ornaments of his Age in Piety and Learning and of a Man whose memory is Annually Honoured with great Solemnity I shall content my self with relating the character which the Bishop of Thoul gives of him in the Martyrology of France the 6th day of April Martyrol Gallican Andr du Saussay 5. Id. April
At Troys is solemnized the memory of St. Prudens Bishop and Confessor this Saint was born in Spain endowed with Divine Graces and Illustrious by his Zeal for Religion and his knowledge of the Holy Scriptures having been driven out of Spain by the Saracens and being come into France he drew the Admiration and Love of all men therefore after the Death of Adelbert Bishop of Troys whither he had retired himself and had given proofs of his Vertue and Merit he was Elected and appointed the 37th Bishop of that Church by the common consent of the Clergy and People being so advanced unto the Episcopal Dignity he shined like a Light set in a Candlestick not unto this Church alone but also throughout all France by the example of a most holy Life and by the splendour of Divine Wisdom he was the Ornament and Delight of the Bishops of his time a Defender of the Purity of the Faith and an Oracle of Ecclesiastical Knowledge As for the Deacon Florus he hath transmitted unto us himself evidences of his belief in his Explication of the Mass at least if that be the work of this Florus Deacon of the Church of Lyons who in this Explication is styâ—â—â— Master Florus for Trithemius attributes this little Treatise whereof we speak unto one Florus a Benedictine Friar in the Abby of Trom in the Country of Liege and others make its Author to be the Deacon Florus that wrote against Amalarius and against John Scot upon the Subject of Predestination This latter Opinion seems the most likely and the reason which makes me not to doubt of it is that I observe the Author of this Interpretation of the Mass hath copied ten lines verbatim out of the Book which Agobard Bishop of Lyons under Lewis the Debonair Son of Charles the Bald wrote against Amalarius Vid. Flor. Bibl. Patr. t. 6. edit ult p. 171. unde Eccles c. Et Agobard contr Amalar. c. 13. p. 115. Florus in Exposit Missae Bibl. Patr. t. 6. p. 170. Now there 's much more probability to say that it was written by a Deacon of the same Church then by a Monk of the Country of Liege It being then evident after this remark if I mistake not that this little Treatise is to be attributed unto the Deacon Florus Let us hear what he hath designed to inform us The Oblation saith he although taken from the simple fruits of the Earth is made unto Believers the Body and Blood of the only Son of God by the ineffable virtue of Divine Benediction He seems to make a difference betwixt the Wicked and the Good and saith the Sacrament is made unto the latter the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ but unto the former it is nothing less because they have not Faith a Declaration which as the Protestants say agrees not with the Doctrine of the Real Presence by which the Eucharist is made the Body of Jesus Christ not only unto the Good but unto the Wicked also Florus explains himself very clearly Ibid. when he adds This Body and this Blood is not gather'd in the Ears of Corn and in the Grapes Nature gives it not unto us but it is Consecration that maketh it unto us mystically Jesus Christ is eaten when the Creature of Bread and Wine pass into the the Sacrament of his Flesh and Blood by the ineffable Sanctification of the Holy Ghost he is eaten by parcels in the Sacrament and he remains entire in Heaven and entire in your heart He would say that the Eucharist is naturally Bread and Wine that Consecration makes it the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ which is eaten in Morsels under the Sign which represents him but as to himself he is whole and entire in Heaven as he is whole and entire in the heart of every Believer in quality of a quickning and saving Object embraced by Faith so to find Life and Salvation in partaking of him because it is he that hath merited Salvation for us by his Death and purchased Life for us by his Sufferings And as the Eucharist is the Memorial of this Death and these Sufferings Florus makes no difficulty to say that it is made unto Believers the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ because in participating of this Divine Mystery Faith looks unto him as the only Object of its Contemplation Manducation and Participation Thus much these other words of the same Author import Ibid. p. 171. All that is done in the Oblation of the Body and Blood of our Lord is mystical we see one thing and we understand another what is seen is corporal what is understood hath a spiritual Fruit. Moreover he saith plainly that what our Saviour commanded his Disciples to take and eat was Bread He said unto them of the Bread Take and eat ye all of this Ibid. And speaking of the Cup The Wine said he was the Mystery of our Redemption And he proves it by these words I will no more drink of this Fruit of the Vine In fine expounding these last words of the Mass Whereby O Lord Ibid. thou always createst for us all these good things c. which is a kind of Thanksgiving which in the Latin Liturgy doth follow the Consecration he sufficiently gives to understand that he believed not that the Bread and Wine were changed into the substance of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ seeing he speaks of them as of things which God had created from the beginning of the World which he maketh still every year by Propagation and by Reparation which he sanctifieth and fills with his Grace and Heavenly Blessing which himself interprets to be of Corn and of Wine Thus it is that many do explain the meaning of this Author About the same time that the Deacon Florus wrote at Lyons Christian Druthmar Priest and Friar of Corby and Companion or Ratramn in the same Monastery composed his Commentary upon St. Matthew's Gospel and we should forthwith see what he wrote of the Eucharist if Sixtus Senensis did not stop us a little moment This famous Library-keeper doth accuse Protestants of having corrupted the Text of Druthmar in Reading in the Sacrament whereas he pretends upon the Credit of the Copy of a Manuscript to be seen in the Library of the Franciscans at Lyons that it should be read Subsisting really in the Sacrament The first thing we should do then is to consider the nature of this Accusation for the faith of Sixtus is look'd upon by many as the faith of a Man that approves very well of Expurgatory Indexes and one that hath laid two other Accusations unto the same Protestants Charge which are believed to be false Bibl. Sanct. in Ep. ad Pium V. Id. l. 6. Annot. 72. One is to have corrupted and altered a passage of Ferus a Franciscan Friar concerning the Temporal Power of the Pope although Ferus his Commentary upon St. Matthew wherein the passage in dispute is contained was
Mischief befall thee who didst defile the Bed of my Father and of my Lord. This Testimony is so much the more authentick as that it is grounded upon the mixture which was made of the consecrated Wine with Ink an action which the Christians of those times blamed not yet it is evident that they would not have failed to condemn it as a great Crime if they had believed that it was the real Blood of their Saviour It is after this manner they interpret the thought of this Historian CHAP. XIV A Continuation of the History of the IX Century wherein the Dignities and Promotion of Heribold is discoursed of ALthough the Testimony of good men ought alike to be considered and admitted of nevertheless it must be granted that there be some persons that give greater credit unto that which they affirm their extraordinary Merit or the degree they are in above others rendring it more authentick or more worthy to be believed which is most especially done in matters of Religion in regard whereof there are sometimes persons to be found whose Depositions turn the Balance and do much support the Opinion in whose favour they declare I judge that Heribald or Heribold was of this number and quality therefore we have reserved a whole Chapter for him to examine in the first place the Dignities which he enjoyed in the Church and then his Belief upon the point of the Sacrament As to the first Head Heribald or Heribold for the Writers of that Age give him indifferently that Name was a Bishop a Dignity which every body knows is very considerable and in fine Messieurs de St. Gall. Christ t. 2. p. 269. Martha reckon him to be the 36th Bishop of the Church of Auxerr and do observe that he was a person of good Quality and very much esteemed by King Charles the Bald in whose Reign he flourished There is not any question to be made but his proper Merits were the Foundation of his Credit with this Prince Lupus Ferrar. Ep. 19. 37. Whence it is that Loup Abbot of Ferriers calls him Most Excellent Prelate and speaks of him as of a Man endowed with a sublime and divine Spirit But besides the Dignity of Bishop it may be collected by the 37th Letter which Loup writ unto him that he was also Principal Chaplain unto Charles the Bald. It is the Induction which is made by Monsieur Baluze unto whom we are beholden for the last Edition of the Works of Loup Abbot of Ferriers and certainly he doth it with great reason for by only carefully observing this Letter one may perceive the marks of this Dignity in the person of Heribold In the first place Lupus Ferrar. Ep. 37. Loup represents him unto us as being intrusted with multiplicity of Affairs that employ him continually from which he wishes him some ease that he might have some time to spend in reading St. Jerom's Commentaries upon the Prophets whereof he sent him a Copy before he had read it himself I know that the Charge of Pastor and Bishop is attended with much trouble when it is faithfully and conscientiously discharged Nevertheless that continual attendance and multiplicity of business spoken of by Loup cannot be attributed unto the Office of a Bishop And what puts the thing out of question is that he calls this sort of business Publick Affairs that is to say great and important Business in a word which the chief Chaplains were wont to determine in the Princes Palace as we shall see and as Monsieur Baluze has observed in his Notes upon his Letters Secondly Loup intimates this Dignity by these words Officii clarissimus gradus which imports an illustrious Degree and something that is sublime and eminent In fine he congratulates him with the many Honours conferred upon him Vos convenientibus cumulatos congratulor honoribus All which things tend only to design this eminent Dignity And if we had not this Letter of the Abbot de Ferriers we could not doubt but Heribold was Principal Chaplain because the History of the Bishops of Auxerr which is in the first Tome of the Library of Father Labbe saith so in plain terms and speaks of him as of an eloquent wise and circumspect person abounding in Vertues and full of Probity It was this Heribold which assisted at the Council of Tours Anno 849. But because it is not sufficient to know that Heribold was Principal Chaplain unto Charles the Bald unless we know wherein this high Office consisted I hope the Reader will not be offended if I here make some little Digression to shew what the Dignity of Arch Chaplain was Under the second Race of our Kings there were two Palatine Offices that is to say of the Palace and of the King's Houshold which were the two chiefest Offices of the Crown The one of which took cognizance of all things relating to spiritual matters and the other of all things relating unto temporal matters The first was called Principal Chaplain Arch Palatine Chief Chaplain Prelate of the Sacred Palace and the other was called Count of the Palace very different from those Counts which were sent into the Provinces to administer Justice Unto each of whose Jurisdiction there was commonly assigned the Extent of a Bishop's Diocess I speak on purpose of the second Race of our Kings because I find indeed there were Counts of the Palace under the first Race Hignon in not ad lib. 1. Marculf p. 288. by what the late Monsieur Bignon said in his Notes upon Marculf where he instanceth an Example after what manner the Kings of the first Race did judge affairs wherein mention is made of Andobella Count of the Palace and of Clothair Son of Clovis the Second and Grandson of Dagobert But as for Principal Chaplain I find not any until the second Race Now the better to know what was the power and privileges of these two Dignities we must consider what Adelard near Relation of Charlemains and Abbot of Gorby doth inform us in one of Hincmar Archbishop of Rheims his Letters for he writes that the Office of Principal Chaplain and that of Count of the Palace Hincmar Ep. 3 c. 19. Edi. Mog were the two Principal Offices of the Kings Houshold That the former that is to say the Apocrisary who was called the Chief Chaplain or Governour of the Palace had the charge and took an account of all Ecclesiastical matters and of all Church Officers and the Count of the Palace of all secular causes and things so that neither Ecclesiastical nor secular persons were permitted to trouble the King about their affairs until they had first advised with these Officers to see if their business merited to be mentioned unto the Prince but if it was a business whereof the King should take present cognizance they disposed the King to hear them honourably patiently and favourably according to each persons quality And speaking again of Ecclesiastical judgments which
appertained unto the Jurisdiction of the Principal Chaplain which he designs by the word Apocrisary He had care saith he of all that concerned Ecclesiastical matters Ibid. c. 20. as also of differences betwixt Prebends and Monks and generally of all matters that were reported unto the Princes Palace touching the affairs of the Clergy the King taking Cognizance only of what his chief Chaplain could not fully determine And as the Count of the Palace judged of temporal matters in the Assembly of the Peers of the Realm and of the Bishops as appears by this ancient Formulary in Mr. Bignon's Notes above mentioned so it is very likely that the Arch Chaplain also judged of Ecclesiastical and Sacred things in the same Assembly beside that he assisted and was present at all the Consultations and Councils which were held in the King's Court either touching publick or private matters It s true this Dignity was only temporary and during the King's pleasure that bestowed it therefore Loup Abbot of Ferriers Lupus Ep. 97. writes unto Halduin Abbot of St. Dennis who was chief Chaplain unto Lewis the Debonair We believe you will enjoy this Dignity for some time And from thence he takes occasion to exhort him to use it worthily and to do Justice And because Bishops are determined by their Flock where to live and that the Popes had already acquired great power in France Princes did in some sort desire liberty to withdraw them from their Churches Concil Franc. can 55. t. 2. Concil Gall. to have them near their persons and in their Houses as we are informed by one of the Cannons of the Council of Francford which also sheweth us that the permission of the Synod was as necessary thereunto as that of the Apostolical See In the main This Dignity was so eminent that if an Abbot had it he had the precedency of Bishops Baluz in not is ad Lup. p. 463. ad Agobard p. 73. Lupus Ep. 110 as Monsieur Baluze doth prove by the Capitulary of Charles the Bald but if a Bishop had it he took place of Metropolitans and Archbishops even in Councils because this Employment was the chiefest degree of all the Palatine Dignities that is of the King's Houshold Dignitatis Apex it is the title given it by the Abbot de Ferriers and that the chief Chaplain was established by God over Sacred things as the Church of Sans speaketh unto the Abbot Hilduin T. 2. Concil Gall. p. 650. in the Letter she directs unto him while he was possessed of this Dignity And there is no question but the Bishops which were thereunto appointed by the Kings and Emperors took Precedency of Metropolitans in Synods also because it was in this Quality that Ebrion Bishop of Poitiers Concil Vern in titulo Conci Mogun in praefat Lupus Ep. 110 Tom. 7. Spicil Dacher p. 175. Presided at the Council of Vernon Anno 844. Hildebald in that of Mayans Anno 813. for although he was Archbishop of Cologne yet it was as Prince Chaplain of the Sacred Palace and as the Master of the Churches to speak with Loup de Ferriers that he there precided and that to the prejudice of Richolf an Elder Archbishop and besides Archbishop of the place where the Council was Assembled and Drogo Bishop of Metz in the Assembly held at Ingleshem in the year 840. for the re-establishing of Ebo Archbishop of Rheims not any of the Archbishops or Metropolitans thereunto gainsaying He is there also called Chief Palatine Prelate yet I will not deny but I have observed that Joseph Bishop of Ivry Chief Chaplain of the Emperor Lewis the Second Son of Lothair and Grandchild to Lewis the Debonair subscribed after the Envoy of the Archbishop of Ravenna at the Council at Rome under Pope Leo the 4th for the Deposition of Anastatius not of Anastatius the Library Keeper as the great Vossius Father of Isaac Vossius his worthy Son in his Book of Latin Historians unadvisedly supposed but of Anastatius a Priest of the order of St. Marcell yet I do not believe that this Example doth prejudice the Rights and Privileges of the Principal Chaplains there being some reason for so doing Collect. Rom. Bipart part 2. p. 111.114 because of the presence of the Emperor Lothair Father of Lewis who assisted at this Assembly and thereunto subscribed taking from the Arch Chaplain of his Son part of his splendour and of his priviledge I will add unto all we have said of this Dignity two circumstances which I suppose will not be unwelcome to the Reader One is that it may be Collected from the 7th Chapter of the Letter which the Prelates assembled at Cressy Concil Carisiac c. 7. Anno 858. wrote unto Lewis King of Germany that the Dignity of Principal Chaplains decreased by little and little that of Count of the Palace gaining upon it insensibly which obliged those Bishops to move for the re-establishing of it The other is that the Chronicle of Laurisham Chron. Laurisham ad an 805. gives unto Eginhard Son in Law unto Charlemain the Quality of Principal Chaplain So that it may be said that at that time the Principal Chaplains were married which nevertheless I refer unto the Judgment of others without interposing my own But having proved that Heribold was Principal Chaplain unto Charles the Bald and shewn the importance of this Employment we must say something of his belief touching the matter whereof we treat The Anonymous Author that sided with Paschas whom we have several times alledged saith positively of him and of Rabanus that they taught Anonym apud Cellot Hist Got. Tesc Append Opusc 7. p. 541. Thom. Wald. t. 2. c. 19.52.61 ibid. c. 61. That the Sacrament goeth into the draft Thomas Waldensis saith also the same Heribold saith he Bishop of Auxerr and Rabanus Archbishop of Mayance have taught that the Sacrament of the Eucharist is subject unto the place of Excrements Wickliff saith he again is of Accord with Heribold and Rabanus of Mayance who taught that the venerable Sacrament of the Altar is subject unto the Draft It is not then to be wondred at that Rabanus dedicated his Penitential unto him wherein he hath left marks of this Doctrine Peter Stuart who caused it to be Printed giving notice that Rabanus dedicated it unto Heribold Bishop of Auxerr I know that Cardinal du Perron who had an extraordinary Genius and several other since following his steps would make I know not what Sect of Stercoranists whereof Heribold was chief and whose Opinions were quite different from the Doctrine of those called Calvinists to be adversaries unto Paschas but to speak freely what I think I could wish that great men would act after another manner and that they would not insist upon these sorts of Cavils There is here question made of the Opinion of the Adversaries of Paschas Will Cardinal du Perron and those which follow this Fiction of his
Brain tell us better than Pasehas himself what their Opinion was Paschas told us in the foregoing Chapter that those People did not judge as he did teach That the Eucharist was the Flesh which was born of the holy Virgin but the Figure and the Sacrament of that Flesh a Figure and Sacrament filled with the Vertue and Efficacy of this Divine Flesh so that believing that the Bread remaining Bread after Consecration they also believed that as to its substance and matter part of it turned into our proper substance for the nourishment of our Bodies and the other part passed the way of our common Food which is directly to speak plainly the Opinion of those at this present called Calvinists Now if this Belief was Erronious if this Opinion was Heretical contrary unto that of the Church and different from the Ancient belief of Christians is it probable that King Charles the Bald would have chosen for his Principal Chaplain by consent of the Pope and the Synods of his Kingdom and that the Clergy of France would have suffered to preside over it a man infected with such an Opinion Or that Hinemar after his Death should call him a Bishop of venerable memory And that there should be engraven on his Tomb Here lyeth the Body of St. Heribold I cannot think so but rather that the Opinion of Heribold and the other Adversaries of Paschas which is the same of the Calvinists was the most general Opinion in the IX Century and that that of Paschas which is followed by Roman Catholicks at this time was not approved at that time but was opposed by all the great and learned Men of that Age. This is what the Protestant saith and the inference he makes from the Dignity and Belief of Heribold CHAP. XV. A Continuation of the History of the IX Century wherein is examined the silence of the two Popes Nicholas the First and Adrian the Second with two Observations touching the Greek Church IT is a thing very worthy to be observed and which deserves serious consideration that the Popes Nicholas the First and Adrian the Second having been Spectators of so obstinate a combate without engaging on either side and having been silent in a time when they ought to speak and seen Mens minds divided although unequally upon the subject of the Sacrament yet after all declared not themselves in favour of the one side or the other and it doth not appear that they open'd their mouths either to condemn or approve either of the two Opinions So that if the Roman Catholicks do say that they condemned not their Doctrine in the person of Paschas the Protestants can also affirm That they pronounced no sentence against their Belief in the persons of his Adversaries which were incomparably more famous both in number and quality than the followers of Paschas because that instead of one or two at the most at least that is come to our knowledge which followed him we have heard the testimonies of Sixteen the Principal Chaplain Bishops Archbishops Abbots and others which in that Age opposed themselves directly or indirectly unto his Opinion as being contrary unto the Belief which untill that time had been generally received in the Church But if after what hath been said the Latin Church shall continue to teach that the Belief of Protestants which we have proved to be that of the Adversaries of Paschas was at that time esteemed erroneous then it must necessarily follow say they that she confess that Nicholas the First and Adrian the Second may justly be suspected to be guilty thereof Decret Grat. dist 82. c. Error Leo. I. Ep. 93. c. 15. according to this Maxim of the Law inserted by Gratian in his Decree That one approves the Error whereunto he makes no opposition And according unto what is said by Leo the First That he which recalls not a Man from his Error sheweth that he erreth himself And if on the other hand she affirms that the Doctrine of Paschas which is hers was at that time acknowledged to be Catholick and Orthodox and the publick Doctrine of the Church she would tacitly accuse these two Popes for having suppressed it as Adversaries and Enemies according unto what is contained in the same Maxim of the Law before alledged Decret Grat. ubi supra That the Truth is suppressed when it is not defended For to imagine that Nicholas and Adrian had not knowledge of this great Contest cannot reasonably be said The thing had made too great a noise for them to be ignorant of it Had there been indeed only bare verbal Disputes this pretext might have some colour but there having been Books written on either part and some of them having been composed by Order and Command of a King of France it is nothing probable that the Apostolical See should be wholly ignorant of the matter under Nicholas the First and Adrian the Second Wherefore then may it be said Did they not take part Wherefore did they not declare either for Paschas or for his Adversaries Wherefore had they not condemned the one and protected the others If the Doctrine of Paschas had been the ancient Doctrine of the Church why did they not authorize it by their Approbations And wherefore did they not thunder out their Censures against that of his Adversaries Or if the Belief of his Adversaries were the ancient Belief of Christians wherefore did they not encourage it by their Power And why did they not Anathematize the Novelty of Paschas This difficulty deserves to be carefully enquired into there being not many Demonstrations to resolve it but only several Conjectures and Circumstances which I refer unto the Judgment of those that shall take the pains of reading this Treatise It is said then in the first place that although we have not positively said that Paschas proceeded by way of Explication yet we have made appear that in all likelihood it was the way he took not to irritate Mens Minds in proposing his Opinion Secondly that Paschas his Party had no Followers during the IX Century as hath been already proved So that having but a very few it remained very probably inclosed in the Cloisters of some Friars which he might have gained unto his Party wherein it hid it self from the many oppositions which it found until some more favourable time should present to advance and establish it self in the World And in fine that the Belief of his Adversaries had the Victory and Advantage in this Age being generally received and practised in all the West Nicholas then and after him Adrian considering that the Opinion of Paschas was opposed by the most eminent Men of that Age that it had no Followers nor Adherents and that after all the Opposition it found in its first Establishment it would not do any prejudice unto the other they very judiciously believed that it was the wisest course to let it fall of it self and to refer unto
the Bald to make choice of Heribold for his Principal Chaplain if his Opinion had been an Heretical and Heterodox Opinion an Opinion contrary to the Belief of the Church as well as unto that of Adrian and of Nicholas But besides whilst Nicholas held the See of Rome there are arose a great Contest betwixt the Greek and Latin Churches betwixt Nicholas and Photius Patriarch of Constantinople Nicholas sued for the assistance of the Bishops of France to defend the Latins against the Greeks The French Prelates made choice of Bertram or Ratramn who by their Order undertook the Defence of the Latin Church against the Greek and in the four Books he wrote and which are now extant refuted the Accusations of the Greeks against the Latins This Ratramn I say which by order of King Charles the Bald composed a Treatise of the Body and Blood of Christ wherein he plainly opposeth the Doctrine of Paschas and doth establish that of his Adversaries Is it likely say many that if the Belief of Ratramn had not been the Belief of the Church that the Bishops of France would have made choice of him to have defended the Interest of the Latins against the Insolencies of the Greeks or if the French Prelates persuaded of the same Belief made no difficulty to make choice of Ratramn could it be imagined Nicholas would have approved this Choice if he had been of another Persuasion in this Essential Point of Religion I know that Nicholas wrote unto Charles the Bald desiring he would send him the Latin Translation of the Hierarchy of the pretended Dennis the Arcopagite made by John Erigenius who also wrote of the Sacrament by Order of the same Prince but after the same manner as is written by Protestant Doctors And that this Pope alledges for a reason that though this John was reputed to be very learned nevertheless it was said Nicolaus I. t. 3. Concil Gall. p. 352. ex Ivone That he had not formerly good Opinions of certain things but those things concerned not the Eucharist for it is not probable Nicholas would have spoke so coldly if these ill Opinions of John had been upon the Subject of the Sacrament Besides he would not have failed to have demanded what he had written either to have condemned or approved it as he intended to do of the Translation of the Works of Denis the Arcopagite And he would have demanded it so much the more earnestly as that there was more to be feared by the one than the other I mean by what he had written upon the Subject of the Eucharist than of his Translation of the pretended Denis the Arcopagite Add unto all this that if any ill reports had been published of John touching the Subject of the Sacrament it had been by reason of the Adversaries which his ill choice upon the Point of Predestination had stirred him up yet nevertheless it is certain they never taxed him to have erred in this point It must then be concluded that the ill Opinions mentioned by Nicholas and whereof the Report came unto him concerned the matter of Predestination whereupon John Erigenius suffered himself to be led away unto ungrounded and empty Conceptions which were aggravated with some heat by the learned Church of Lions by Florus its Deacon by Prudens Bishop of Troys and by the Councils of Valentia and of Langres Yet these Adversaries incensed against him never accused him of any ill Opinion touching the Sacrament from whence it is concluded That his Doctrine in this point directly opposite unto that of Paschas was the true Doctrine of the Church Therefore neither Nicholas the first nor any of his Successors did condemn it until Leo the Ninth who condemned his Book to be burnt at the Council of Verseil anno 1050. where Berengarius was also condemned I know also that the same Nicholas speaking of the vertue of Consecration and of what it operates in the things which are Consecrated and Sanctified alledges for examples the Altar the Cross the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist and that he observes that the Altar which naturally is but a common Stone and that differs not from others becomes by the Benediction the Holy Table That the Image of the Cross which is but common Wood before it receives this form becomes holy and terrible unto Devils Nicol. 1. Ep. 2. 〈◊〉 Concil p. 489. after having received it and that therefore Jesus Christ is represented in it That the Bread of the Eucharist is common Bread but when it is Consecrated it becomes the Body of Christ in truth and is said to be so and the Wine his Blood But some say these words do not prejudice the observations we have made because Nicholas considers the Vertue and Efficacy of the Sacrament and that in this regard it is truly the Body of Jesus Christ because in the lawful Celebration it possesseth the full Efficacy and Vertue of it and as he speaks almost as the Prelates of the Second Council of Nice did I desire the Reader would please to see what hath been said in the 12th Chapter because it is supposed after that he will be satisfied no advantage can be drawn from the words of Nicholas against what hath been observed in his proceedings upon this important occasion wherein I do not interpose my Judgment And what is said of the proceedings of Nicholas the First is also affirmed of Adrian the Second whose silence in most of the things spoken of Pope Nicholas and which we pretend not to repeat over again doth evidently prove that he no more then his Predecessor did not condemn the Doctrine of the Adversaries of Paschas I will only add that in the hot contest which Adrian had with the Bishops of France upon account of Hincmar Bishop of Laon he never taxeth them with any thing touching the Sacrament and what makes the thing the more considerable is that Charles the Bald having interposed in the quarrel as protector of the Cannons and of the Authority of the Prelates of his Kingdom Pope Adrian commanded him to send Hincmar Bishop of Laon to Rome condemned by the judgment of the Gallican Church which so highly displeased the King that he made him a very sharp answer wherein he tells him amongst other things that the Kings of France born of Royal Blood Ep. Carol. Calvin ad Hadria Papam 2. in Supplem Concil Gall. p. 269. 271 272. 274. are not Vice-Roys of Bishops but Masters of the Kingdom He demands what Hell had spewed out a Law that should impose upon Princes and out of what dark Cave it proceeded He warns him not to direct any commands unto him for the future nor threats of Excommunication contrary to the holy Scriptures the Doctrine of the Ancients the Imperial Constitutions and Ecclesiastical Canons He desires he would write him no more such Letters nor to the Bishops and great Lords of his Kingdom lest they should be forced to reject them with scorn
and affront his Messengers insomuch as he threatens him with Deposition or of Anathematizing according to the Decree of the Fifth Universal Council There are several other things of the like Nature in the Letter which is not necessary to be mention'd What hath been said sufficeth to shew that Pope Adrian could not wish a fairer occasion to tax Charles the Bald as Protector of the Doctrine of the Adversaries of Paschas against whom Ratramn and John Erigenius wrote by his command not to speak of his Principal Chaplain Heribold which was of the same Opinion Adrian doth no such thing On the contrary he endeavours to appease the spirit of Charles in the Letter which he after wrote to him and to mitigate the anger which the first had provoked him unto wherein he had commanded him with Authority to send Hincmar Bishop of Laon unto Rome It is said that these proceedings do in all likelihood justifie that the belief of Ratramn and of John Erigenius whom the King Protected was the belief of Adrian himself and of the whole Church it not being to be believed the Pope would have been silent unto this Prince who had so touched him to the Quick if the Doctrine which he favoured had not been Catholick and Orthodox I would here conclude the History of the IX Century were I not obliged to say something of the Greek Church for at the beginning of this Age Nicephorus Patriarch of Constantinople and Successor of Tarrasius following the steps of the Second Council of Nice whose Constitutions touching Image Worship he followed Nicephorus I say with the Fathers of the Council declared That the Eucharist is not the Image of Jesus Christ De Cherub c. 6. Bibl. Pat. t. 4. but his Body seeing he spake as the Prelates of Nice the same Explication must be given to his words as were given unto those of the Council and refer the Reader unto what hath been said in the 12th Chapter if it be not better to rank him with John Damascen of whom we have also spoke in the same Chapter and to say the truth he speaks many things which are inconsistent with the Doctrine of the real Presence As for example Ibid. c. 7. That the humane nature of Jesus Christ is not invisible that God only can be at several places at once Id. de imag That every Body is necessarily limited and that it filleth a place which he applies particularly unto the Body of Jesus Christ Id. libel 12. capitulor c. 3. The third sacred Council saith he hath declared that Jesus Christ our God is limited according to the Flesh and hath Anathematized those which believe not this word And elsewhere Id. de imag having treated of the manner of Existing of Bodies Jesus Christ saith he is bounded according to his humane Nature after all the ways which we have shewed for he hath born a true Body like us and not a supposed Body And in a Dispute which the same Nicephorus had with the Emperor Leo the Armenian which Father Combefis hath published he attributes unto the Body of Jesus Christ Origin Const p. 176. visibility touch and circumscription to distinguish it from his Divinity and shewing the reason why Angels cannot be in one place circumscriptively he saith It is because they be simple Ibid. p. 180. and without composition and that they have not Bodies Father Combefis in the same Collection of divers Authors concerning the City of Constantinople alledgeth a great passage of Theodorus Graptus P. 221. 222. touching the Eucharist but because he teacheth the same Opinion with John Damascen as is observed by this same Friar which hath given it unto us and as it is easie to observe inreading of it we will dispence with our selves in relating of it seeing the Reader may find what hath been said of it in the 12th Chapter upon the Belief of Damascen Leaving then this Theodorus Martyr of Image Worship let us speak of another Theodorus no less affectionate than the former unto this same Worship and imprisoned for it It is Theodorus Studite whom Michael Studite that wrote his Life introduceth thus speaking unto his Disciple My Son these Men as I find endeavour Apud Baron ad ann Dom. 816. num 12. besides the other cruelties they exercise against us to starve us to Death because they know it is the cruellest of all sorts of Death but let us put our trust in God which can feed us not with Bread only but with meat incomparably more excellent because alf Spirits subsist by his good pleasure only And because above all other things the participation of the Body of our Saviour is wont to be the nourishment of my Body and of my Soul for the Father always carried along with him some parcels of the quickning Body and Celebrated the Divine Mysteries as often as he had conveniency I will receive only this Food I will taste nothing else whatsoever and what is wont to be allowed for two shall be for thee only He speaks of the Eucharist as of a thing which nourisheth the Body and which may be divided into sundry parts which cannot be meant of the real Body of Jesus Christ but of his Sacrament which is called his Body be-because it hath the vertue of it for the nourishing of the Soul CHAP. XVI Of the State of the X. Century THe Tenth Age hath exercised of late years two good Writers and hath afforded matter and subject unto Authors which with much skill and industry each defending the cause of his party grappled a long time about this poor Age either to advance the credit of it or to shew the morosity ignorance and obscurity of it they both spoke very agreeably what they intended to say and having thereupon reflected sharply upon each other in the view of all France have not as yet decided their Controversie If I mistake not every body may see that I mean the Author of the Perpetuity of the Faith of the Eucharist and him that answered him The former having made a short Discourse which was to serve for a Preface unto the Office of the Holy Sacrament had not some reasons hindred the execution of this first design The latter at the desire of some Godly Friends undertook to make some Considerations upon this little Treatise and having in brief spoken of the X. Century as of an unfortunate ignorant Age overspread with Darkness and Errors according to the testimony of Historians The Author of the Perpetuity hath insisted upon this part of the considerations of his Adversary and hath employed all his endeavours to restore unto this Age all the Reputation and Glory that he thought it had been unjustly deprived of accusing the Ministers of disparaging it for interest sake The other was not silent but having fully vindicated his Brethren from the Accusation laid to their charge he proves by several Historians and of persons the most affectionate to the Latin
contrary unto the Doctrine of Paschas who taught that the Eucharist was no other Flesh but that which was born of the Virgin Mary and which suffered upon the Cross But in these two Sermons the people are taught that it is not the same Flesh nor the same Body which suffered nor the same Blood which was shed for us You cannot but think those that said so were opposite unto Paschas and endeavoured to ruin his Belief and it may be also that of Odo Arch-Bishop of Canterbury if it be true that he did what William of Malmesbury wrote a long while after for there be a great many that think this Relation is very suspicious In the main Bishop Usher observes that the words which were but now alledged in the last Testimony have been stolen away by some perfidious hand from the Manuscript which was transported from the Church of Vigorn into the Library of the Benedictines College at Cambridge But besides these two Witnesses which shew what was believed of the Sacrament in England there is to be seen a Sermon which was read unto the people every Year at Easter to preserve in their minds an Idea of the Belief which their Fathers had left them It is needless to transcribe it here at large some parts of it shall suffice which shewing that it was almost copied out of the Treatise of Ratramn of the Body and Blood of Christ they will by the same means shew that it contains a Doctrine opposite unto that of Paschas Liber Catholic serm Anglice recitandorum ad Bedam l. 5. c. 12. edit Anglo-Sax Latin seeing Ratramn was one of his declared Enemies There is great difference saith this Homily betwixt the Body wherein Jesus Christ suffered and the Body which is consecrated for the Eucharist for the Body wherein Jesus Christ suffered is born of the Flesh of Mary and is furnished with Blood Bones Skin Nerves and Humane Members and with a reasonable Soul but his spiritual Body which we call Eucharist is composed of several Grains without Blood without Bones and Members and without a Soul The Body of Jesus Christ which suffered death and which rose again shall never die any more it is eternal and cannot die but this Eucharist is temporal not eternal it is corruptible and divided into several parts broken by the teeth and goeth into the draft This Sacrament is a Pledge and a Figure the Body of Jesus Christ is the truth it self We hold this Pledge sacramentally until we do attain unto the Truth and then the Pledge shall be accomplished And a little before If we consider the Eucharist in a corporal manner we see that it is a corruptible and fading Creature but if we consider the spiritual vertue which is therein we know very well that there is life in it and that it gives immortality unto those which which receive it with Faith There is great difference between the invisible vertue of this holy Sacrament and the visible form of its proper Nature by Nature it is fading Bread and corruptible Wine but by the vertue of the Word of God it is truly his Body and his Blood not for all that corporally but spiritually that is to say in vertue and in efficacy Whereunto amounts what is said before The Bread and Wine which the Priests do consecrate Ibid. do outwardly offer one thing unto the eyes of the Body and another thing inwardly unto the eyes of the faithful Soul outwardly it is plainly seen it is Bread and Wine and it is judged to be such by its form and by its savour and nevertheless they be truly after Consecration his Body and Blood by a spiritual Sacrament And to the end the Hearers should be well persuaded they were the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ not in substance but in vertue the Change which happens unto the Bread and Wine by Consecration is compared unto that which comes unto Children by Baptism and unto the Water of this Sacrament of our Regeneration Ibid. The Child of a Gentile is baptized yet it doth not change its outward form although it be changed inwardly It is led unto the Font full of sin by the disobedience of Adam and he is cleansed from all inwardly although he is nothing changed outwardly So also the Water of Baptism which is called the Fountain of Life in appearance is like unto other Waters and subject unto Corruption but the vertue of the Holy Ghost intervenes by Prayer unto this corruptible Water and by a spiritual vertue renders it fit to cleanse the Body and Soul from all sin Now we consider two things in this only Creature according to its true nature it is a corruptible Water but according to the spiritual mystery it hath a saving vertue It is well said that Jesus Christ did change by an invisible power the Bread and Wine into his Body and Blood but after the same manner that formerly he changed the Manna and the Water of the Rock into this same Body and and into this same Blood to wit because he made it the Sacrament of his Body and of his Blood And again Ibid. What there is in the Sacrament that gives life proceeds from a spiritual Vertue and an invisible Operation therefore the Eucharist is called a Sacrament because one thing is therein seen and another thing is understood that which is seen is of a bodily Species that which is understood hath a spiritual Vertue And in another part of the Sermon expounding what Jesus Christ said of eating his Flesh in the 6th of St. John He commanded not to eat the Body which he had taken Ibid. nor to drink the Blood which he had shed for us but by this discourse he meant the Sacrament which is spiritually his Body and Blood for whosoever eateth him with a believing heart shall have this Life everlasting Under the Old Law Believers offered Sacrifices which represented the Body which Jesus Christ offered unto his Father for our sins but as for the Sacrament which is consecrated at the Altar of God it is the Commemoration of the Body which he offered and of the Blood which he shed for us as he himself commanded saying Do this in remembrance of me I am not ignorant that in this same Homily there is some miraculous Apparitions made mention of whereunto Christians had given some way since Paschas his time But that serves only to confirm the Observation that was made That although our Saviour had bestowed upon his Servants in the X. Century Light sufficient to avoid the most dangerous Errors yet he communicated not so great a measure unto them as to be safe from all sorts of Surprises in matters of Religion If from England we pass into the Country of Liege we shall there find Folcuin Abbot of the Monastery of Lobes who speaking of the Eucharistical Table Tom. 6. Spicil de Gestis Abbat Lob. p. 573 saith That it is the Table whereupon
Blood which is inseparable from their Vertue and Efficacy But as to him which Communicates unworthily he cannot say nor so much as imagine what it is He knew very well it was the substance of Bread and Wine for he saith That it is seen that the Bread and Wine are the same they were before But because the Consecration makes them to be the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Sacraments which become unto Believers after the manner as we have shewed this Body and this Blood He cannot conceive what they become unto the wicked that is to say How one and the same Sacrament is unto some the Body and Blood of Christ and unto others a bare Sacrament only Nevertheless had it then been believed in Italy as it is now believed he could not have doubted but that it was both unto the one and the others the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ although it produced not in all the same effect by reason of the variety of dispositions Ratherius was settled as it were at the Gates of Rome as it may be said It is not likely then that the Church of Rome had as yet embraced the Opinion of Paschas who taught that the Sacrament was no other Flesh but that which was born of the Virgin Mary for Ratherius could not then be ignorant of it and not being ignorant he would not have put himself the question which he did and had not yielded in answering of it And as to what is said by the same Ratherius in reproving the Excess and Debauchery of some of his Priests Id. Synodica ad Presbyt p. 259. That there are some that spewed before the Altar of our Lord upon the Flesh and Blood it self of the Lamb. It may easily be seen that it is an earnest expression to aggravate the sin of those of whom he speaks and that the Body of our Lord being secured from these indignities by the Confession of all Christians it must necessarily be understood of the Sacrament which takes the name of the thing which it signifies and the violation whereof reflects upon him which instituted it This is what several infer from the words of Ratherius I will not fear to joyn unto Ratherius another Witness which was also a Bishop in Italy and which is lately given unto the publick It is Atto the second of that name Bishop of Verceil Atto in capir c. 7 8 9. t. 8. Spicileg p. 4 5 Anno 945. I will not stand upon his prohibiting his Priests from saying private Masses nor in that he commands to handle decently the Bread the Wine and Water without which Masses cannot be said I will only observe what he requires Ib. c. 86. p. 31. That he which honoureth not by Fasting and Abstinence the day of the Passion of our Lord that is to say Good Friday may be deprived of the Joy of Easter and that he may not receive the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Lord. The occasion say some required That he should not have said the Sacrament but the Body and Blood if he had believed that the Eucharist was the real Body of Jesus Christ for the punishment had been the greater and by consequence the fitter to have retained the others in their Dury And in one of his Letters unto the Priests of his Diocess going about to disswade them from Fornication and to invite them unto Chastity and Continence he represents unto them amongst other things what they do in the Celebration of the Eucharist There 's no body add they but may easily understand but that it was the proper place to alledge the priviledge they had of making and giving unto Communicants the real Body of Jesus Christ and that there is no Bishop in the Latin Church but would have done so in such an occasion But as for Atto he speaks only of the Sacrament because in all likelihood he believed not as the Latins do at this time for then he would not have failed to have spoken as they do Id. Epist ad Presby t. p. 126 What saith he is this wicked presumption that he which knoweth that he is still wallowing in his sins should undertake to make or to give unto others the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Of all that I have hither to spoken of the X. Century it is concluded that the Opinion of Paschas had not obtained a full Victory in that Age. But that of his Adversaries the marks whereof was found in England Apud Usserium de success statu Eccles Christian c. 3. p. 79 80. in France in the Country of Liege and in Italy which was doubtless the meaning of Wickliff when he assured That there was practised in the Church a thousand years together the true Doctrine of the Sacrament and that they began to err in this point in the year 1000. which I refer to the judgment of the Readers CHAP. XVII Of what passed in the XI Century THe Opinion of Paschas not making the progress it desired in the IX and X. Centuries it found more favour in the XI and spread farther therefore it was established by publick Authority but not without difficulty and opposition For I do not believe that the Author of the Life of St. Genulph who lived in all likelihood at the beginning of the XI Century and which was published by John a Bosco a Cellestin Friar was of this Opinion Lib. 1. c. 6. when he wrote of St. Genulph That from the day of his Ordination he passed the rest of his Life without drinking any Wine excepting that which he took in the Celebration of the Divine Sacrament It cannot be so spoke and believe that what is contained in the Challice is the real Blood of Jesus Christ Lutherick Arch-Bishop of Sans who died in the Year 1032. as the Friar Clarius in his Chronicle of St. Peter of Sans Tom. 2. Spicil d'Ach. p. 742. hath observed could not possibly be of Paschas his Opinion because we read this of him in the Life of Pope John the Seventeenth or according unto others the Nineteenth In the time of this Pope Concil t. 7. p. 206. Leutherius Arch-bishop of Sans sowed the Seed and beginning of the Heresies of Berengarius Whence it is that Helgald in the Life of King Robert writes That his Doctrien increased in the World In epitome vitae Roberti regis Crescebat saith he in seculo notwithstanding the Threats this Prince made of deposing him from his Dignity if he should continue to teach it All those which were contrary to the Opinion of Paschas joyning together to defend their Faith Fulbert Bishop of Chartres who had been consecrated by Lutherick had a great kindness for him as he testifies in one of his Letters The Question is to know what his Opinion was touching the Eucharist If what he saith of the eating of the Flesh of Christ be considered which he
represents unto us to be purely spiritual Ep. 23. wherein he alledges the words of St. Austin It is a Figure which commands us to communicate of the Passion of our Lord and to represent unto our minds sweetly and usefully that his Body was crucified and broken for us Ep. 1. ad Adeod t. 3. Bibl. Pat. p. 438. A. B Post poeniten mulierum p. 521. E. for I do not regard the Addition that some unadvised hand hath thereunto annexed will the Heretick say And these others of the same Saint Him that dwelleth not in Jesus Christ and in whom Christ dwelleth not doth not indeed eat his Flesh although he eats and drinks the Sacrament of so great a thing unto his Damnation Ibid. p. 522. B. Unto which words in all appearance Berengarius had regard when he said in his Letter unto Richard If the thing were so how should the Doctrine of the Eucharist come to my knowledge which is in the Writings of Bishop Fulbert of glorious Memory Tom 2. Spicil d'Ach. p. 510. and which some esteem to be of this Bishop but it is of St. Austin If it be farther considered that he declares that Jesus Christ is ascended into Heaven and that he hath left us the Sacrament Ep. 1. ad Adcodat p. 437. C. as a Pledge of his Presence that he speaks of what we receive in the Sacrament as of a thing which is broken into very small bits and whereof a little portion is received and that he distinguisheth as Ratramn did Id. Epist 2. p. 440 441. and in the same words the Sacrament which he calls the body of Christ from his true Body If I say all these things be well considered it must presently be concluded that he was contrary unto Paschas Yet nevertheless I would not affirm that he exactly followed the Opinion of his Adversaries not because he speaks of the Transfusion and Change of the Bread into the substance of the Body of Jesus Christ for besides that Id. Ep. 1. p 437 438. he calls this Change a Change of Dignity that is to say of Quality which the Ancients often design by the name of Substance as hath been shewn he compares the Change which happens in the Eucharist unto that which came unto the Manna in the Wilderness and unto that which comes unto Men in Baptism and that he testifies That there is also a Transfusion of Believers into the Body of Jesus Christ Ibid. But I judge so because he seems to me to have embraced the Opinion of Remy of Auxerr which was the same of John Damascen who taught not that the substance of the Symbols was abolished but that they were united unto the Divinity to make one Body with the Natural Body of Jesus Christ as hath been fully shewed And that these were the thoughts of Fulbert it appears if I mistake not by what he saith That the Pledge which our Saviour hath left us is not the Symbol of an empty Mystery but the true Body of Jesus Christ Compaginante Spiritu Sancto Id. ibid. p. 437. or as Remy speaks Conjungente that is to say that the Holy Spirit unites joyns and knits the Sacrament unto the true Body of Jesus Christ in uniting it unto the Divinity Let the Reader judge if I use any violence unto the words of Fulbert and if I vary from his meaning About the time that Fulbert of Chartres flourished Bernon Abbot of Augy wrote his Treatise of things which concerned the Mass to wit about the Year 1030. and Fulbert died in 1027. In this Treatise he speaks of Making and confecrating the Body and Blood of the Lord Cap. 1. 2. t. 10 Bibl. Pat. but the real Body say some and the proper Blood of our Saviour not being possible to be made because it was made a thousand years before Bernon wrote nor be sanctified because it was always holy it must of necessity be understood of the Sacrament Cap. 1. And he shews it plainly when he said That this Body of Jesus Christ is broken Which cannot be understood of his true Body which is not subject unto this Accident and that moreover he declares Cap. 5. That we are refreshed with the Wine which is in the Cup in Type of the Blood of Jesus Christ Nevertheless the Opinion of Paschas establishing it self by degrees Bruno Bishop of Anger 's and Berengarius born at Tours but Arch-Deacon and Treasurer of the Church of Anger 's a Dignity which in former times was not conferred but upon persons of Worth and Learning Bruno I say and Berengarius not enduring that the Opinion of Paschas which they looked upon as an Innovation of the ancient Faith should get possession of the minds of the people opposed it publickly teaching that the Bread and Wine did not lose their substance by Consecration to become the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ but they only became by the Blessing of Sanctification the Sacrament of this Body and Blood The truth is Bruno suffering himself to be overcome with fear became silent a little after for say some it often happens upon these occasions that Men hearken to the Counsels of the Flesh rather than unto those of the Spirit But as for Berengarius he had more strength and courage and opposed himself with more Resolution and Vigour unto the setling of the Doctrine which Paschas begun to teach in the IX Century but without any great success until the XI wherein it also found a great many Opposers I am not ignorant that some Enemies of Berengarius have endeavoured to slander him to render his Belief the more odious but the truth is he was reputed to be a very learned Man grounded in Philosophy and the knowledge of the Liberal Arts and moreover of a holy and unblameable Life A fragment of the History of France from the time of King Robert Tom 4. Histor Franc. de scripror Eccles Platina in Joan. 15. Sabellic Enead 9. l. 2. Chron. tit 16. c. 1. § 20 unto the death of Philip saith That his name was famous amongst the Professors of Divine Philosophy Sigebert saith That he was illustrious for the Knowledge of the Liberal Arts and of Logick Platina and Sabellicus reckon him amongst those which rendred themselves famous by their Piety and Learning Bergomas in the Suppliment of Chronicles upon the Year 1049. observes That he passed a long time in the Judgment of Men to be eminent in Learning and in Holiness Therefore the Arch-Bishop Antonine declares Tom. 2. Spicil p. 747. That he was very learned And the Friar Clarius in his Chronicle of St. Peter of Sans gives him these two Epithets of Admirable Philosopher and Lover of the Poor But in fine the Belief which he maintained upon the Subject of the Eucharist and which was directly contrary unto that of Paschas found the people so disposed to entertain it or rather to declare openly for it so that in all
purpose after curious questions fit rather to engender strifes and quarrels than to edifie and instruct Christians I shall only desire the Reader seriously to consider if either or both of these Opinions can agree or hold with the Doctrine of the Latins for those which held that the Mysteries were incorruptible alledge for their reason That the Sacrament is a Confession and Commemoration of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ instead of saying that it is the glorified Body it self of our Lord And the others which affirm that it is corruptible say That the Bread of the Sacrament is the dead Flesh of Jesus Christ which cannot be in the reality of the thing because all Christians do confess that our Lord dyeth no more and that his state of Death and Crucifiction hath been past above XVI Ages ago whereby may be judged the disposition of Zonarus which held of both sides and of the strange manner wherein he explains himself I know not if I should make mention of one Samonas Bishop of Gaza who is placed in the XIII Century for all do not receive his testimony which is wholly favourable unto that of the cause of the Latins seeing he saith in a Dispute against Achmet a Sarrazin Tom. 12. Bibl. patr p. 524 525 526. touching the Eucharist That the Bread and Wine are not the Antitypes of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ but that they are by Consecration changed into the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and that the Division which is made to wit by means of breaking it is of sensible Accidents Were there nothing to be objected in the Nature of a Witness it could not be denied but this Greek Bishop was of the Belief of the Latin Church But the Protestants do deny that ever there was any such Dispute affirming That no Author hath made any mention of this Samonas because at that time there was no Greek Bishop at Gaza nor in all Pallastine being possessed by the Sarrazens having expell'd the Latins which had before setled Bishops of their own Language And in fine because the greatest part of this Writing was taken word for word from the Dispute of Anastatius the Sinaite against the Gaianites whereof mention hath been made in the History of the VII Century Whereunto may be added that this pretended Samonas speaketh formally of the Union of the Bread and Wine unto the Divinity which is just the Opinion of John Damascen as also what he saith Ibid. p. 525. that the Bread and Wine is taken that is to say that the Divinity joyns and unites them unto it self All the Protestants do not indeed say that there was not any Greek Bishop in all Pallastine in the XIII Century but they all agree to say That it belongs to the Roman Catholicks to prove that there was at that time at Gaza a Greek Bishop called Samonas seeing they produce him as a Witness and is such a Witness as no Writer makes any mention of In the same Tome of the Library of the Holy Fathers there is a Confession of Faith made by Nicetas in the XIII Century in favour of those which should be converted from Mahumetism unto the Religion of Jesus Christ wherein he saith Tom. 12. Biâ—â— Patr. p. 53â— That Christians do sacrifice Mystically Bread and Wine and that they participate thereof in the Divine Mysteries He adds nevertheless That he believes they are also truly the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ having been changed by his Divine Power in a Spiritual and Invisible manner above and beyond all Natural comprehension only known unto himself And it is so also saith he that I intend to participate thereof for the sanctifying of Body and Soul for Life Eternal and for inheriting the Kingdom of Heaven This Author saith That what Christians sacrifice and receive at the Holy Table is Bread and Wine that this Bread and Wine are in truth the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ having been changed by his Divine Power not unto all Communicants indifferently but only for them which Communicate with a true and sincere Faith Let the belief of this man be guessed at after all this But now I call to mind that I had almost forgot two Witnesses of the Greek Church of the XII Century one of the Ages whose History we examine in this Chapter to wit Euthymius and Zonarus In Matth. 26. The first saith thus Our Lord did not say These are the Signs of my Body and of my Blood but he said This is my Body and Blood And again As our Saviour Deified the Flesh which he assumed supernaturally so also he changeth these things into his quickning Body Words which Roman Catholicks mightily prize and value thinking that they favour their Hypothesis But it must not be concealed also that in another Treatise Euthymius testifies that he follows the Opinion of Damascen touching the Sacrament alledging to this effect a great passage out of his 4th Book of Orthodox Faith Panopl part 2. titul 21. Now the Opinion of Damascen was neither that of the Roman Catholicks nor the Protestants as hath been shewed in the 12th Chapter And Euthemius seems to assure so much in the words but now alledged when he compares the change befallen unto the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist unto that happened unto the Humane Nature of Jesus Christ when it was taken into the Unity of one person by the Eternal Word besides that in the same place whence both the mentioned passages were taken he said That not the nature of the things proposed should be considered but their vertue which shews that he believed with Damascen that the substance of the Symbols do remain As for Zonarus another Greek Friar we have already seen how he embraced as well the side of those which held that the Mysteries were corruptible as those which supposed them to be incorruptible besides he expoundeth elsewhere the 32. Canon of the Council in Trullo In Concil 6. in Trullo can 32. The Divine Mysteries saith he I mean the Bread and the Cup represents unto us the Body and Blood of our Saviour for giving the Bread unto his Disciples he said Take Eat This is my Body and giving them the Cup he said Drink ye all of it This is my Blood CHAP. XIX An Account or Narrative of the XIV and XV. Centuries DUring the Papacy of Boniface the VIII who had so great a contest with Philip the Fair one of our Kings there was in Italy great numbers of Waldensis who were called Fratelli because they stiled themselves Brethren as the Primitive Christians who frequently so denominated themselves where it was that the whole Body of the Church was called the Brotherhood and what induces me to believe that these Fratellis were Waldensis and Albigensis many of whom retired themselves into the Vallies of Piedmont at the time that Waldo and his Adherents were driven away from Lyons is that an uncertain Author which wrote against
Age And doth moreover observe that most of the English Prelates connived at what they taught so that being besides favoured by several persons of Quality they made open profession of their Faith so far as they affixed publickly upon the Doors of St. Paul's Church in London certain Theses which were no ways favourable to the Doctrine of the Latin Church nor to its Clergy At the same time there were several Waldensis at the Straits of the Alps which divide France and Italy as we are informed by 1 Contr. Vald. fol. 2. Claud de Cecill Arch-Bishop of Turin and of a Bull of Clement the Seventh granted at Avignion against them in the Year 2 His Bull is in the Chamber of Accounts at Grenoble 1380. and put in Execution by one Francis Borelli Inquisitor of the Order of preaching Friars who persecuted them cruelly for several years and put many of them to death I know not whether the University of Paris intended not to speak of the same Waldensis in the Letter which it directed unto Charles the Sixth in the Year 1394. 3 Tom. 6. Spicil p. 97. complaining amongst other things That the Hereticks which have already began to appear finding none to punish them do make great progress and not only scatter abroad ther pernitious Heresies publickly but also in private The XV. Century proved more fatal unto the Waldensis and Lollards in England for from the first year the Persecution was begun against them in pursuance of an Act of Parliament which gave power to put them to death if they recanted not their Religion as 4 In Hypodig Neustr ad an 1401. in Henrico IV. Walsingham doth testifie But notwithstanding all this they lost not their courage nor abandoned the Doctrine they had until then professed On the contrary the 5 In Henr. IV. same Historian observes that the year following they proposed several Thesis's but privately for fear of the punishment which had been appointed Theses which were nothing favourable unto the Doctrine of the Roman Church which renewed the Persecution against them during which several of them were burnt alive which this Friar saith was done in the Years 1410 1414 1417. even insulting after a most unchristian manner at the death of these people as did also Thomas Waldensis who speaking unto King Henry the Fifth doth mightily commend the continual punishments which was inflicted upon them In Prolog t. 2. doct 11. ad initium prologi saying That Prince proceeded according to the Command of Jesus Christ who nevertheless requires not Consciences to be forced but persuaded and whose Gospel is made up of love and of mildness But whilst these things were acting in England there was in Bohemia infinite numbers of people that made open profession of the same Doctrine for which the Lollards were persecuted in Great Britain for besides the Waldensis which had retired themselves thither a great while before by reason of the Persecution stirred up against them in Picardy as Dubravius Bishop of Olmuz informed us in the precedent Chapter At the beginning of this Century there was made in that Country a considerable Separation from the Roman Church according to the Testimony of the same Dubravius and of Eneas Silvius in their Histories of Bohemia 'T is true this Separation was not alike in all for some only desired the Restitution of the Cup unto the people being of accord in all other points with the Latins and those for this reason were called Calixtins but as for the others they disowned the same Doctrine of the Communion of the Latins which the Waldensis and Wickliffites had opposed and did still oppose and because as some alledge these latter joyned themselves unto the Waldensis which had been setled a long time in this Kingdom and used to assemble themselves in the Mountain of Tabor they were called Taborites as Dubravius hath observed But let us hear what this Prelate intends to say touching this Separation when having spoken of the Jubilee celebrated at Prague in the Year 1400. he adds Unto this time the Christian Religion Lib. 23. hist Bohem. which had been once received by the Bohemians with all the Ceremonies of the Apostolick See had continued stedfast in Bohemia in its purity but after that time it began to faulter and decline as soon as John Hus which in the Language of the Country signifies a Goose began to make a noise amongst the Swans and by his sound to conquer the sweetness of their singing by the assistance of a Faction which made it self considerable In fine the progress was so great that he writes That the Taborites so ordered matters Ibid. l. 24. that in the City of Prague there rested no sign of the ancient Catholick Religion Also the Friar Walsingham testifies that the Emperor Sigismond returned from Constance into his own Territories after the Council had elected Pope Martin the Fifth In Henr. IV. To employ all his strength to ruin the Enemies of Religion and the Heresie of the Lollards which were mightily increased in the Kingdom of Bohemia by the lukewarmness and support of his elder Brother Dubravius proceedeth farther for after the Coronation of Sigismond at Prague Ubi supra l. 26 he proposeth the Tenets of the Taborites but after a manner that is not exactly conformable unto their Confession of Faith by which nevertheless their Belief ought to be judged because it is in those publick Acts that for the most part is declared what is believed in matters of Religion And treating of Moravia upon the Year 1421. he observes that Country was not then infected with the Heresie of the Taborites but in that same year they began there to establish themselves Renewing saith he the ancient Error of the Picards that is to say of the Waldensis to wit that none ought to kneel unto the Sacrament of the Altar because the Body of Jesus Christ is not there having ascended up into Heaven both in Body and Soul and that there remains only the Bread and Wine I know very well that the Bishop of Olmuz chargeth them in the same place of teaching that the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist is such Bread and Wine as each particular amongst the people may take with their own hands that the hand of the Priest is no more worthy then that of a private Lay person And to vomit saith he other Blasphemies against the real Body of Jesus Christ But because the quite contrary doth appear by their Confession of Faith I know not whether it would be reasonable to admit of this Accusation coming from the Pen and hand of an Enemy Eneas Sylvius Cap. 35. who was afterwards Pope Pius the Second speaks of those people at large in his History of Bohemia he relates several things of them agreeing with the Doctrine of the Protestants but he also mentions other things which the Protestants do not approve the which in all probability were unjustly
imputed unto them because there is not the least sign of it to be found Cap. 10 11 12 13. â—bi supra neither in the Confessions of Faith made by the Waldensis inserted by Paul Perrin in their History nor in that of the Taborites Which by the testimony of Eneas Sylvius had embraced the impious and wicked Sect of the Waldensis Of necessity then their Belief must be the same with the Protestants because that of the Waldensis did agree with it as may be judged by all that hath been hitherto spoken But in fine the Question is to know the Belief of the Taborites touching the holy Sacrament but what can better inform us than their own Confession of Faith drawn up in the Year 1431. by John Lukavitz wherein they declare Confess Tabor Joan. Lukavits that their Belief touching the Eucharist is That the Bread remains in its nature true Bread and that it is the Body of Jesus Christ not by a material Identity but Sacramentally really and truly Then they reject the Opinion of those which say That the same Body of Jesus Christ which is in Heaven is also in the Sacrament Ibid. with all its essential and accidental Proprieties Because say they this would be a means to presuppose that the substance of Bread should cease to be and that it should be converted substantially into the Body of Jesus Christ Moreover they formally deny the Adoration of the Eucharist If John Hus was of the same Opinion of those which were called Taborites it must be owned after so express a Declaration as they made that he opposed the Doctrine of Transubstantion If we give credit unto what is reported in the Acts of the Council of Constance we cannot question but that he was contrary unto this Doctrine In fine The Council doth condemn thirty Articles of John Hus in the 1 Concil Constant sess 15. twenty fifth whereof they make him say that he doth approve of forty Articles of Wickliff's the 2 Ibid. sess 8. three first whereof are directly contrary unto Transubstantiation Moreover there is to be found in the Proceedings made against him that he had preached and taught 3 Ibid. sess 15. That after consecrating the Host at the Altar the material Bread did remain that the substance of Bread remains after Consecration and that the Opinion which the Church holdeth of the Sacrament of the Body of Jesus Christ is erronious Therefore Pope Martin the Fifth Ad finem Concil Constant in his Bull of Approbation of the Council doth not fail of representing John Hus as approving the Articles of Wickliff before spoken of Ibid. He declares also that Jerom of Prague was of the same Judgment that is to say in an Opinion contrary unto the Church of Rome which the Council doth also observe in the twenty first 1 Ibid. sess 21. Session And Gobellin Persona Official of the Diocess of 2 Cosmodrom a tat 6. c. 95. Peterborough who lived at that time thought that he ought not to say the contrary after the Declaration of the Pope and of the Council But if we consult the Works of John Hus printed at Noremberg Anno 1558. with his Martyrdom and that of Jerom of Prague for so it is that their death is therein styled we shall find that he always believed the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and that of Concomitance and the reading of Wickliff's Works for whom he had an extraordinary kindness calling him always Evangelical Doctor could never make him alter his mind nor work upon his spirit the same effects which it wrought upon the Taborites In fine in his Treatise Of the Blood of Jesus Christ against the false Apparisions of it which at that time was frequently published in all parts he said Tom. 1. fol. 155 That the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ is in the Sacrament truly and really after what manner soever it ought to be here below in the Church that is to say as appears by the scope of the whole Discourse invisibly and not visibly as the Autors of these miraculous Apparations would have it be believed And in the same Treatise Ibid. he accuseth of Incredulity those which believed not what he said of the presence of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament He supposed Ibid. That Accidents do subsist without their subject in the Sacrament confesseth that there is no contradiction in saying That the Body of Jesus Christ is here sacramentally Ibid. p. 156. Ibid. p. 158. Ibid. fol. 161. and at the same time in Heaven locally He affirms for truth that his Blood is truly and really in the Sacramen confesseth That Jesus Christ is hidden in the Sacrament And amongst many Inconveniences which he fears these feigned Apparitions of the Blood of Christ might produce Ibid. fol. 162. he puts this down as the fifth That it may be there are some which question whether the Blood of Jesus Christ be in the venerable Sacrament because it doth not visibly appear unto them And a little after he saith That we adore the Body and Blood of of Jesus Christ which is at the right hand of his Father and in the venerable Sacrament made by the Priests The same man writeth in his Treatise of the Body of Jesus Christ Id. t. 1. fol. 164. That the Doctrine of Berengarius is a great Heresie He receiveth for a true testimony of St. Austin's a passage of Lanfranc a sworn Enemy of Berengarius which the Canonist Gratian cites in his Decree under the name of St. Austin In a word in this little Treatise he embraceth and follows all that the Latins believe of the Sacrament of the Altar And that it should not be imagined that he changed his Opinion it is to be observed that amongst several little Treatises which he composed during his Imprisonment at Constance Cap. 2. p. 32. t. 1 there is one Of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ written Anno 1415. wherein he teacheth the same Doctrine Ibid. declaring moreover That all that the Church of Rome believes of the venerable Sacrament ought to be believed That he had preached this Doctrine from the beginning unto that day And in fine Ibid. fol. 49. Ibid. fol. 40. c. 3 That he believed Transubstantiation And saith he I never taught that the substance of material Bread remained in the Sacrament of the Altar He adds a little after That the Body and Blood of our Saviour remains in the Sacrament as long as the Species of Bread and Wine do subsist In another little Treatise wherein he examines whether Lay-persons should receive under both kinds he lays it down for a truth That the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ is under both species of the Sacrament that is to say that he is entirely under the species of Bread and entirely under that of Wine He that writ the History of John Hus particularly the conflicts he was to suffer at
hath made who is later then him Therefore I make no question but the answer of the Martyrs Fostin and Jovita made unto the Emperor Adrian as Molanus reports it in his Supplements of Ussuard's Martyrology is forged and false for after the railing Speeches which they make against the Emperor and speaking unto his person he makes them say Die Feb. 15. We will cause no Incense to be burnt to the honour of thy Gods but we offer continually Incense and Sprinkling unto God our maker We find in the Library of the Holy Fathers a prayer of St. Hypollitus touching the end of the World and Antichrist Besides the title of Martyr they also give him that of Bishop and at this time they will needs have him to be in the first place Bishop in Arabia and afterwards Bishop of Port in Italy although St. Jerom doth witness in his Treatise of Ecclesiastical Writers That he could not find of what place he was Bishop If that prayer was really of Hypollitus it may seem to intimate that the Greek Church in his time that is to say in the third Century used Perfume and Incense in its Service and Worship for speaking of the harm which Antichrist shall do at the end of the World he saith amongst other things That the Churches shall mourn and lament Bibl. Paâ—â—â— 2. Graeco Lat. because there shall be no more Oblation nor Incense nor Worship pleasing unto God Not but it may very well be said that the Author designed only to represent the Worship of Christians by terms borrowed from the service of the Law without being necessary to infer That they did really employ Incense and Perfumes in the Worship of God But if we should take what he saith in a literal sense I do not suppose there could any great stress be laid upon it And to speak the truth there are so many things in this small Treatise which are so unworthy of the true St. Hypollitus that I should be very loth to attribute them unto him St. Jerom its true reckons amongst his Works a Treatise of Antichrist but it is evident it cannot be the same which is now extant for it is entituled A Prayer of St. Hypolitus Bishop and Martyr of the End of the World of Antichrist and of the second coming of our Lord Jesus Christ Moreover the same S. Jerom in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers observes That he had made a Sermon in the praise of Jesus Christ and that the Author saith in this Sermon That he repeated it in the presence of Origen Now it is most certain that in Origen's time the Greeks knew not what Perfumes and Incense meant in their Worship for Expounding these words of Levit. 24. Thou shalt put pure Incense upon each Row that is to say of the Shew-bread he speaks in such a manner as sufficiently sheweth that Christians had not then admitted the use of Incense into their Worship Hom. 13. in Levit. c. 24. tom 1. p. 106. I. Do not imagine saith he that Almighty God hath commanded nor appointed in his Law to bring him Incense from Arabia but this is the Incense which he requires Men should offer unto him and wherein he findeth a sweet smell and savour to wit Prayers proceeding from a pure heart and from a good Conscience the sweet smell whereof ascends up unto him I allow that Origen here departs a little from the literal sense in respect of the Law but his language doth clearly evidence that Incense and Perfumes were not then received into the Worship of the Eastern Christians Let us then own that this use was introduced into the Greek Church after Origen's days who departed this life towards the latter end of the third Century and by consequence the Canons which falsly bear the Apostles names have been made since that time seeing therein it is ordained to offer Perfumes for the Celebration of the Sacrament And because it appears by the prayer of the Emperor Constantine at the Assembly of the Saints or in the Church of God whose words have been already alledged that even the Eastern Christians did not use Perfume in the Celebration of their Eucharist for the greatest part of the IV. Century at least when they celebrated it at the Tombs of Martyrs I cannot tell but it ought to be granted that the fourth pretended Canon of the Apostles was made since Constantine's time who departed this life in the year of our Lord Canon Apost 4. 337. for see here what it enjoyns That nothing else should be offered at the Altar but of the first Ears of Corn Grapes Oyl for the Lights and Incense for the time of the holy Oblation And as it is the first testimony of the Greek Fathers wherein there is mention made of Perfume in the celebration of the Sacrament that of Hypollitus not being to be credited and being moreover capable of being conveniently interpreted of an Allegorical Perfume it must be granted that the Latins received the use of Perfumes later into their Worship than the Greeks seeing St. Austin doth not make any mention of it in the V. Century for I take little heed of the second Decretal of Soter wherein Women are forbidden to bring any Perfume unto the Altar because this Decretal and all them of the other Popes until Siritius are the Works of an Impostor When I say that the Latins have received the practise of Incense and Perfume later than the Greeks I conclude that these latter followed the Ordinance of the pretended Canon of the Apostles which in all appearance was not made but very forward in the IV. Century And nevertheless it is not certain that the Greek Church put this Ordinance in execution presently after it was made In fine the first true and candid passage of Antiquity after the fourth Canon of Apostles wherein there is mention made of offering Incense or as it is in the Greek good Odours Act. 3. Concil Chalced. is a Request of Ischyrion Deacon of the Church of Alexandria presented unto the Council of Chalcedon assembled Anno 451. against Dioscorus his Bishop Act. 5. t. 4. Con. cil p. 102 103. and afterwards at Constantinople under Agapet and under Menna in the Year 536. there is mention of assembling in the Church with Flambeaus and Perfumes but it is not positively affirmed that it was to celebrate the Eucharist no more than the action of the Friar Zozimus Hist Eccl. l. 4. c. 7. reported by Evagrius in his Ecclesiastical History saying That after having deplored the ruin of Antioch which he had foretold he demanded a Senser and having filled the place where he was with Perfume he bowed himself to the ground to appease the wrath of God by his prayers The same Historian speaking of the Presents which Chosroes King of Persia offered unto the Martyr Sergius Ibid. l. 6. c. 20. he forgets not to speak of a Golden Senser for celebrating of the Sacrament which
happened at the end of the IV. Century where he concludes his History I have expresly spoken of legitimate and not forged Writings because I am not ignorant that in the Liturgies attributed unto St. James and St. Mark there is to be seen the custom of Perfume and of Incense at the time of celebrating the Sacrament and there be also Prayers for dedicating it unto God But for as much as the Learned as well Roman Catholicks as Protestants do confess that either they were not the Works of these Servants of God or if they be that they have received many Alterations and that things have been foisted into them unknown unto the first Christians nothing hinders but we may in this number include the use of Incense there being no likelihood that it would have been so late received into the Church if it had been practised by an Apostle and an Evangelist What I say of the Liturgies of St. James and St. Mark I say also of that attributed unto St. Peter wherein we observe the same thing Which example the Christians would not have failed to have observed had all the Liturgies appeared from the beginning As for the Liturgies of St. Basil and St. Chrysostom I would not so positively affirm that what is therein mentioned of the Oblation of Perfume hath been therein inserted since the death of the Authors for although that several things have been thereunto annexed and many things altered and that there be several which even believe that which goes under St. Chrysostom's name is not his but of a more recent Author Nevertheless the Canon of the Apostles which prescribes the use of Incense in the celebration of the Sacrament having been composed before either of these two Doctors of the Church I shall refer it unto others to decide this difficulty although St. Basil upon Psal 115. rejects the Oblation of Incense and I shall content my self in saying that if these two Liturgies are truly St. Basil's and St. Chrysostom's and if what is therein said of the Oblation of perfume hath not been thereunto added since their death there is great cause to wonder that there is no mention at all made of it any where else in the Works of Authors of the times before the Council of Chalcedon at least I have not observed any even in St. Cyril of Jerusalem Mystag 5. who describing particularly enough the form of the celebration of the Sacrament and the dispositions thereunto requisite speaketh not a word of the Oblation of Incense He saith indeed that a Deacon giveth Water to wash his hands that officiated and unto the Priests that be with him that the people are exhorted to give each other the Kiss of Charity to lift up their hearts on high to give thanks unto the Lord that there is mention made of Heaven and Earth of the Sea the Sun Moon and Stars and generally of all Creatures as well reasonable Creatures as Brutes of visible and invisible of Angels and Arch-Angels of Vertues Dominions Principalities Powers Thrones and Cherubims which cover their faces especially those which were seen by the Prophet Esay and which cried one to another saying Holy holy holy is the Lord God of Hosts And after being so sanctified they pray unto God that he will be pleased to send his Holy Spirit upon the Gifts proposed that is to say the Bread and Wine the Consecration whereof the Greeks make to depend upon this Prayer but as for the Ceremony of Incense which we enquire after the least sign of it is not to be found in the whole Catechism As for the pretended Denis the Arcopagite which gave occasion unto this whole Enquiry he began not to appear at soonest until the end of the V. Century or the beginning of the VI. at which time the Perfumes and Incenses were practised in the Service of the Greek Church Tom. 6. Bibl. Pat. I know very well that in the Liturgy which goes under the name of St. Cyril of Alexandria in the Library of the Fathers there is Prayers made for those which furnished the Oblations and Sacrifices the Bread Wine Oyl and Incense and the Vessels used at the Altar So that if it were truly his the introduction of this practice amongst the Greeks should be before the Council of Chalcedon because Cyril was deceased before the Council was convocated But it being very uncertain whether it were Cyril's or whether he was the Author of it or that it hath retained its purity we have not ill assigned unto the Council of Chalcedon the first restimony of this custom amongst the Greeks after the Ordinance of the Canon of the Apostles 'T is true the Request of Ischyrion Deacon of the Church of Alexandria wherein it is spoken of and which is contained in the third Action of this Council seeming to presuppose the establishment of this use but of no long time it may without any inconvenience be said that it began to be practised about the time of the assembling of this Council and probably at Alexandria rather than elsewhere Concil Chalced Act 3. t. 3. Concil p. 247. ult edit according to the Testament of a certain Lady called Peristerie who at her death bequeathed great treasures unto the Church unto Monasteries Hospitals and unto the Poor of the whole Province and also provision to supply the Oblation of Perfume as may be gathered from this Request as also from the time of the death of this Lady which was whilst Dioscorus was Bishop and after the death of Cyril But in as much as this custom of offering Incense unto God at the time of celebrating the Eucharist began to be introduced into the Eastern Church in the V. Century as near as I can judge the Reader will not be offended that I here represent the Prayer which was made unto God in presenting him the Perfume for although it be expressed in divers terms according to the diversity of Liturgies nevertheless because all these Prayers amount in substance unto the same thing this here will be sufficient It is in the Liturgy of St. James I mean Liturgia S. Jacobi in that which goes under his name O Lord Jesus Christ Word of God who offeredst thy self upon the Cross as a holy Sacrifice unto thy God thy Father and thy King which art that Coal of two natures which didst touch with Tongs the lips of the Prophet and didst cleanse him from his iniquities touch also our Understanding Ours I say who are sinners and purifie us from all uncleanness and grant we may present our selves pure and holy at thine Altar to offer unto thee a Sacrifice of Praise And receive of us who are unprofitable Servants this present Perfume in an Odour of a sweet savour Change the ill savour of our Souls and Bodies into a sweet Odour and sanctifie us by the sanctifying vertue of thy Holy Spirit for thou art the only Saint which sanctifieth and communicatest thy self unto the faithful And
Chrysostom may be understood of the Sign of the Cross only and not of the Cross it self especially if the passages are understood in their full compose and extent Besides these things which have been examined the Original whereof we have endeavoured to discover there be some others which have been hinted at as for instance divers Hymns as well regarding the Clergy as the People the reading the holy Scriptures several prayers the turning out of the Catechumeny the Energumeny and the Penitents whereto we may add in regard of the Greeks the preparing the Oblation that is to say the Symbols of Bread and Wine upon the Table of Proposition the carrying of these gifts unto the Mystical Table to be Consecrated whereof we say nothing now having treated thereof at large in the first Part of this History As also of the time the place and of the Vessels necessary unto Celebration Whereunto may be joyned the Ceremony of Vestments appointed unto this use whereof I find no mention at all made before Pope Sylvester who held the Pontifical See at the beginning of the IV. Century that is from the year 314 until the year 336. For in his Life there is mention made of Dalmaticks for the Deacons Tom. 1. Concil p. 258. and of a certain Cloth wherewith their left hand was to be covered The Author of the questions upon the Old and New Testament in the works of St. Austin but before his time Tom. 4. in append q. 46. p. 436. Tom. 1. Concil p. 729. Hom. 83. in Matth. Liturg. Chrysost speaketh also of the Dalmaticks which Deacons used in his time The 41 Canon of the 4th Council of Carthage doth formally prescribe them the use of the Cope during the reading of the Gospel and at the time of Oblation only St. Chrysostom makes mention of White Vestures in the celebration of the Sacrament and in the Liturgy which goes in his name may be seen the prayers made unto God whilst he that Officiates is putting on the holy Vestments an action which is not omitted by the Author of the Apostolick Constitutions as hath been before shewed According unto which St. Jerom observes Lib. 1. advers Pelag. c. 9. p. 565. Ep. 3. that all the Clergy have White Vestures when the Eucharist is celebrated and in his Letter unto Heliodorus upon the death of Nepotian he saith that Nepotian at his death bequeathed him the Coat which he used in doing the functions of a Priest Since which time in the Life of St. Gregory by John the Deacon and in the Authors which have treated of Divine Offices there is frequent mention made of these Priestly Habits for it cannot reasonably be referred unto this custom what Policrates said of St. John That he bore a Golden Plate upon his forehead as the High Priests of the Jews did But all that is nothing in comparison of what is seen in the Latin Church for there is to be seen six several sorts of Vestments or if you will Ornaments which belong unto the Priests which Officiate and eight or nine unto the Bishop and there is not one of them but they have searched some mysterious signification for it and whereunto they have destined a particular Consecration not to insist of the diversity of colours which are there to be seen nor of the sundry occasions which sometimes require one sometimes others and the practice and use is esteemed so necessary that if it be ever so little neglected the celebration of Mass is in a manner counted imperfect Those which desire particularly to inform themselves of these things now hinted at may but read what Durandus Bishop of Mende and the President Duranti have writ on this subject For it shall suffice me here to observe that Jesus Christ and his Apostles unto whom we may joyn the Christians of the first Ages did not celebrate the Eucharist but in their ordinary Apparel Therefore Wallafridus Strabo wrote in the IX Century that Priestly Vestments were multiplyed in time unto the degree they were then in For in the first Ages saith he Masses was celebrated with ordinary Apparel Lib. de reb Eccles c. 24. as it is said that several in the Eastern Churches do still practice Lib. 1. Gemm amm c. 89. And Honorius of Autun said about 400 years ago That the Apostles and their Successors did celebrate the mysteries in their ordinary Cloaths and with Challices of Wood. As for the bowings of the Body before a Crucifix no more then before an Image and before an Altar which is so frequently practised amongst the Latins by those which say Mass I see no footsteps of it neither in the constitutions which are called the Apostles nor in St. Cyril of Jerusalem no nor in the pretended Dennis the Arcopagite whose Writings could not see light before the end of the V. Century although all of them have very exactly represented that which was observed in their times in the celebration of the Eucharist from whence I infer that what is to be seen in one part of the Liturgy attributed unto St. Chrysostom to wit That he that celebrates turns himself towards the Image of Jesus Christ with bowing of the body is not of this holy Doctor but that in all likelihood it was foisted into the Liturgy since the contests of the Greeks about the subject of Images and what confirms me in this thought is that the favourers of Image Worship have not alledged these words not so much as the Deacon Epiphanius in the second Council of Nice although he answers unto some passages of this Father which the Iconoclasticks had cited against this Worship What might be alledged from a Homily which is in the works of St. Chrysostom and hath for Title That there is one only Law-giver of the Old and New Testament is of no moment because this Homily is none of his as hath been long since remarked by Fronton du Duke a Learned Jesuite who laboured with great success upon the works of this incomparable Writer The Muscovites Apud Euseb Hist l. 5. c. 24. Vide Lit. Cassander although they be of the Religion of the Greeks yet they seem to celebrate the Sacrament with less Ceremony than the Greeks the Armenians much like these latter and the Abyssins although they have no want yet methinks have not so many as the Greeks nor Armenians But to see a very great number you need only have recourse unto what is done by the Latins in the Roman Order in the Mychrology in the Pontifical in the Ceremonial of Bishops and in the Book of the Sacred Ceremonies of the Church of Rome which are more or less in number according to the days and persons which celebrate especially when 't is the Pope himself that says Mass whereas by the testimony of Gregory the first and of several others the Apostles only repeated the words of Institution with the Lord's prayer which simplicity Amalarius Fortunatus a Writer of the IX
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
coming of the Holy Ghost and you are also holy having received the Gift of the Holy Ghost And so holy things agree very well with those that be holy therefore German Patriarch of Constantinople observes in few words in expounding these words of the Liturgy 1 Theoria rerum Eccles t. 2 Bibl. Pat. Grec vel Lat. p. 407. That God takes pleasure in giving holy things unto those which be pure of heart And then the Sacrament doth not a little contribute unto the augmentation of this purity according unto what is spoken by Theophilus Arch-Bishop of Alexandria 2 Ep. Pasch 2. That we break the Bread of our Lord for our Sanctification And Pope Gelasius 3 De duab nat Christ That the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of our Saviour renders us partakers of the divine Nature And to say the truth 4 In Anaceph There is in the Bread a vertue that quickens us as St. Epiphanius doth testifie Moreover the Sacrament effecting in regard of our Souls what a good Medicine doth operate in regard of our bodies there is no question to be made but when the ancient Doctors of the Church have contemplated it under this Idea but that they intended that Communicants should at the least use as much care and caution unto the reception of this divine Medicine as we are wont to take when we intend to purge our Bodies for when we intend to take Physick we live the day before within some bounds and are careful not to surcharge the Stomach that it might operate with more ease and profit for the purging out of peccant humours In like manner when we are to present our selves at the holy Table of the Church we should prepare and dispose our Souls to receive this saving Remedy the vertue and efficacy whereof shews and maketh it self to be felt in healing the spiritual Maladies wherewith we are naturally oppressed This was in all likelihood the thoughts of Hillary Deacon of Rome when he said Apud Ambros in c. 18. 1. ad Cor. That although this Mystery was celebrated at Supper yet it is not a Supper but a spiritual Medicine which purifieth those which come unto it with devotion and which do receive it with respect Besides the Sacrament having been instituted to give unto us the Communion of our Saviour Jesus Christ because that in participating of this visible Bread one eats spiritually the Flesh of Christ to speak with St. Hom. 27. Macarius is it not just that we should purifie and sanctifie our Souls to be the Palace and Temple of this merciful Saviour to the end that there delighting to make his abode and residence he might spread abroad his Graces his Blessings and his favours and that he may incessantly apply unto them the fruits of his death wherein they find their life their joy their comfort and their salvation In fine The Sacrament being to be unto us a Symbol of Unity a Band of Charity and of Peace according to the constant Doctrine of the holy Fathers they desired that Believers should maintain a holy Concord amongst themselves and a perfect Union that they should be careful of preserving the Unity of the Spirit in the Band of Peace and that they should put on unto each other bowels of pity and of Charity as the Apostle speaks Therefore they would not receive Oblations of those which were not reconciled and not accepting them they admitted them not unto the Sacrament for the one necessarily depended upon the other Therefore they warned Believers at the time of the Communion to salute each other and to give each other the holy Kiss mentioned by St. Paul in one of his Epistles Mystag 5. The Deacons cry saith St. Cyril of Jerusalem embrace and mutually kiss each other and then we salute one another But do not think that it is such a kiss as common friends do give unto each other when they meet in the publick place This Kiss doth unite Souls and makes them hope a perfect forgetfulness of what is past it is a sign of the uniting of spirits and not retaining the memory of injuries any longer And therefore also it is that our Saviour Jesus Christ the Son of God said When you bring your Gift unto the Altar and that you there remember that your Brother hath ought against you leave there thy Gift before the Altar and go first be reconciled with thy Brother and then come offer thy Gift This Kiss then is a Reconciliation and by consequence is holy And it is of this Kiss St. Paul speaketh when he said Greet one another with a holy Kiss and St. Peter Salute each other with a Kiss of Charity And they believed this Union so necessary that without it as they thought one could receive no benefit by the Sacrament how much soever other ways one was addicted unto good works Whence it is that St. Chrysostom after having exalted the vertue and efficacy of this holy Kiss which uniteth Souls reconciles Spirits and maketh us all to become one Body he exhorts his Auditors strictly to unite their Souls by the Bands of Charity to the end they might with assurance enjoy the Fruits of the Table which is prepared for them he adds Although we abound in good works Chrysost de praed iud t. 5. p. 465. if we neglect the Reconciliation of Peace we shall reap no advantage for our Salvation All the Liturgies come to our hands make mention of this Kiss of Charity which Believers gave each other before the Sacrament and which St. Paul calls a holy Kiss and St. Peter a Kiss of Charity many of the ancient Fathers do also make mention of it Indeed the time of kissing each other was not alike in all Churches in some it was given before the Consecration of the Symbols and in others just at the time of communicating but however it was the manner to salute each other before approaching unto the holy Table And this custom continued a very great while in the Church but at length it insensibly vanished at least in the West and the Latins have put instead of this mutual Kiss that which they call Kiss the Peace which is a kind of little Silver Plate or of some other matter with the Image of Jesus Christ or the Relicks of some Saint which is offered unto each person to kiss a custom not very ancient seeing it was never heard of until the end of the XV. Century Lect. 81. for then it began to be introduced into some Churches in the West as is observed by Gabriel Biel in some of his Lessons upon the Canon of the Mass Besides it is not said in the Liturgies whether this Kiss was given indifferently amongst Men and Women Lib. 3. c. 32. I only observe in the Books of Ecclesiastical Offices of Amalarius Fortunatus who wrote in the IX Century and in the Rational of Durandus Bishop of Mende L. 4. c. 53. extr who lived
in the XIII that it was not then given in the Latin Church but amongst persons of the same Sex I say that Men kissed each other and also Women the like And because all these dispositions are not the fruits of Nature but Gifts of the Grace and Mercy of God the ancient Christians addressed themselves unto him by devout Prayers to the end he would be pleased to bestow upon them what they wanted that is the preparations necessary to communicate savingly and worthily Cassander hath collected several of these Prayers but they being penned variously according to the motions of the Devotion of the Communicants we forbear inserting them in this place to endeavour to discover in prosecuting our design whether the holy Fathers which have required these dispositions before drawing near unto the holy Table have also required that the Communicants should adore the Sacrament in the Act of communicating CHAP. IV. Wherein the Question of the Adoration of the Sacrament is examined WEll to explain a matter and to give it the full demonstration which it requires the nature of the question must first of all be plainly stated because it is thereupon most commonly that the clearing of it doth chiefly depend Being therefore to treat of so weighty a Subject as that which now offers it self the first thing we should do is carefully to put a difference betwixt Jesus Christ himself and his Sacrament for the question is not whether Jesus Christ ought to be worshipped all Christians are agreed upon this point But whether the Sacrament should be adored that is to say that which the Priest holds in his hands and which is commonly called the Hostie and the Sacrament for it appears to me that the Council of Trent hath agreed this to be the true state of the Question Sess 13. c. 5. when it defined That there is no doubt to be made but all the Servants of Jesus Christ should render unto the holy Sacrament in the act of Veneration the worship of Latry which is due unto the true God It must then in the first place be acknowledged as an unquestionable Truth that Jesus Christ is an Object truly adorable and that his Flesh it self deserves that we should render it the highest Religious Worship by reason of the privilege it hath of being united into one person with his eternal Divinity When therefore the holy Fathers speak of adoring Jesus Christ in the participation of the Sacrament they say nothing whereunto the Protestants do not acquiesce as well as the Roman Catholicks for say they in coming unto the holy Table one cannot meditate of the infinite love he had for us send our thoughts unto Mount Calvary to consider the precious blood which he there shed make reflection upon the Throne of Glory where he is sitting with his Father nor ever so little cast an Eye upon that ineffable goodness which inclines him to communicate himself unto us by means of the Sacrament but that the Soul of the faithful Communicant humbles it self in his presence and doth truly adore him An adoration unto which may be referred what is said by Origen or at least the Author of some Homilies that are in his Works What we read saith he in the Gospel Hom. 5. in divers t. 2. p. 285. ought not to be passed over by us as a thing of small importance That the Genturion said unto Jesus Christ I am not worthy that thou shouldst enter under my Roof for at this time Jesus Christ doth yet enter under the Roof of Believers by two Figures or after two manner of ways viz. When holy men beloved of God which govern the Churches enter under your Roof then our Lord doth enter by them and you should believe that you receive our Saviour When also you receive the holy and incorruptible Food the Bread of Life I say and the Cup you do eat and drink the Body and Blood of our Saviour and then our Lord doth enter under your Roof Humble your selves therefore and in imitation of the Centurion say Lord I am not worthy that thou shouldst enter under my Roof for wheresoever he enters unworthily he there enters for the condemnation of him which receiveth him He saith That our Saviour enters under our Roof by his Sacrament after the same manner as he there enters by his Ministers and that we should humble our selves in receiving as well his Servants as his Sacrament to the end this act of humility may be a mark of the adoration which we give unto him which hath instituted the one and which sendeth unto us the others confessing that we are not worthy of this favour St. Ambrose and St. Austin express themselves so fully that the Reader will find no difficulty to penetrate into their meaning for see here what is said by the first Ambros de Spir. S. l. 3. c. 12 We adore the Flesh of Jesus Christ in the Mysteries He puts a difference betwixt the Mysteries and the Flesh of Jesus Christ which he makes to be the Object of our Worship in the act of communicating I will not now insist upon the manner of Jesus Christs being present in the Sacrament because that hath been treated of at large in the Second Part I only produce the testimonies of Ancient Doctors which speak of adoring our Saviour when we communicate to the end not to divert the Examination we are to make of the Adoration of the Sacrament Therefore we will joyn unto St. Ambrose St. Austin who saith Let no body eat the Flesh of Jesus Christ In Psal 98. until he hath first adored him How say some is it possible St. Austin should teach that the Sacrament should be adored seeing he so formally denies it in one of his Letters for speaking of things sensible and corporeal I mean of Creatures whereof the Scripture makes use to represent things Spiritual and Heavenly he saith That they ought not to be adored although we should draw Images and Resemblances of the Mysteries of our Salvation and he puts in the rank of these signs which we should not adore Ep. 119. ad Januar cap. 6. The Water and Oyle of Baptism the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament without saying any thing more particularly for the one than the other It is unto Jesus Christ that he desires we should address our Adoration without speaking one word of the Sacrament by means whereof he communicates unto us his Flesh I know not whether any other Interpretation can be given unto the words of S. Chrysostom Homil. 24. in 1. ad Corinth You do not only see the same Body which was seen by the Wise man but you also know the vertue and all the dispensation of it and are not ignorant of the things which he did and accomplished Being well informed of all these Mysteries let us then stir up our selves let us be seized with astonishment and let us testifie yet greater respect then was shewed by the Wise men