is so inconsiderable and of little moment that it deserves not our pains to examine It will be necessary to consider that in that which bears the name of St. James although it cannot be his the Priest makes this Prayer at the time the Elements are set upon the Altar or the Holy Table Liturg. St. Jacob. to be blessed and consecrated O Lord our God which hast sent the Bread from Heaven the food of all the World Jesus our Lord Saviour Redeemer and Benefactor to bless and sanctifie us bless we beseech thee this Oblation and receive it upon thy Heavenly Altar remember O Lord thou which art full of love towards mankind those who offer and for whom they have offered and keep us pure and immaculate in this Holy Celebration of thy divine Mysteries because thy great and glorious name O Father Son and Holy Ghost is glorified and praised now and for ever Amen And in that attributed unto St. Mark but not his the Priest praying in the same time but in terms something different Liturg. St. Marc. O Lord Holy Almighty and terrible which dwellest in the Holy Places sanctifie us and make us worthy of this Holy Priesthood and grant that we may minister at thy holy Altar with a good conscience cleanse our hearts from all impurity drive out of us all reprobate sense sanctifie our Souls and Spirit and give us grace with fear to practise the Worship of our Fathers to give us the light of thy countenance at all times for 't is thou which sanctifiest and blessest all things and we offer unto thee Praise and Thanksgiving As for the Greeks they carried the Elements that is to say the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament from the Table of Proposition as they call it unto the Altar or unto the Communion Table where they are to be consecrated with so great Pomp Solemnity and Ceremony that the ignorant people dazled with the Ceremonies forbear not to give unto these Elements before they are consecrated such an honour as doth not belong unto them Cabasil in Liturg. expos c. 24. Cabasilas Archbishop of Thessalonica who wrote in the XIV Century complains of it in the Explication which he makes of their Liturgy and saith those which unadvisedly do so do confound the Elements which are sanctified with those which are not and that from this confusion proceeds the honour which they give unto the Bread and Wine before Consecration which this Archbishop doth condemn But in fine the Elements being so brought and laid upon the Holy Table to be consecrated these same Liturgies inform us that he that officiates after having recited all the History of the Institution of the Sacrament desires of God that he would send upon this Bread and Wine which were offered unto him his Holy Spirit to make them the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and because the Author of the Apostolical Constitutions which were not written until the end of the third Century or the beginning of the fourth doth very clearly represent the manner of this Consecration we will begin with him to shew how this consecrating Liturgy was couched for after having ended the recital of the History of the Eucharist by these words Constitut Apostol l. 8. cap. 12. Do this in remembrance of me for as often as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup ye shew the Lords death till he come He goes on Therefore setting before us his Passion his Death and Resurrection his ascension into Heaven and his second coming which will be when he comes with power and glory to judge the quick and the dead and to reward everyone after their works We effer unto thee O our King and our God according so thy Commandment this Bread and this Cup in giving thee thanks by him because thou hast made us worthy to stand in thy presence to execute this Ministry and we beseech thee O God who standest in need of nothing that thou wouldest favourably behold these gifts which are presented before thee and that thou wouldest therein do thy good pleasure for the honour of thy Christ and that thou wouldest send thy Holy Spirit upon this Sacrifice the witness of the passion of the Lord Jesus to make this Bread the Body of thy Christ and this Cup his Blood to the end that those which partake of them may be confirmed in piety obtain remission of sins may be delivered from the temptations of the Devil filled with the Holy Ghost made worthy of thy Christ and of everlasting life when thou O Lord most mighty shalt be reconciled unto them In the Liturgy of St. James it is said O Lord send thine Holy Spirit upon us Liturg Jacob and upon these sacred Elements which are offered to the end that coming upon them he may sanctifie this Bread and this Cup by his Holy good and glorious presence and that he would make the Bread the sacred Body of thy Christ and the Cup his precious Blood In that of S. Mark We beseech thee O God lover of mankind Liturg. Marc. to send down thy Holy Spirit upon us and upon these Loaves and these Chalices to sanctifie and to consecrate them and to make this Bread the Body of Christ and this Cup the Blood of the New Testament of Jesus Christ our Lord our God our Saviour and our Sovereign King And so in those of St. Basil St. Chrysostome and generally in all excepting the Latin Liturgy at this time used I say in that of the present time for I cannot deny but that it was otherwise antiently and that in all appearance they cut off from this Liturgy I mean from the Canon of the Mass the Prayers which followed as in the other Liturgies the words of Institution by the which Prayers Christians were wont to consecrate the Divine Symbols even in the West during the space of a thousand years And to the end this truth should be made manifest this question must be throughly examined to wit whether the Antients did consecrate by Prayers and Invocations and by thanksgivings or otherwise Jesus Christ the absolute Master of the Christian Religion did consecrate his Sacrament by Prayers Blessing and Thanksgiving as the Divine Writers do testifie making use of two expressions the one of which signifying giving of Thanks and the other to Bless as to their Etymology but as to their sence and meaning they signifie one and the same thing The reason whereof may be that it was the manner of the Jews to conceive their Prayers in terms of Praise and Blessing the first Christians which made the example of Christ their Law and Rule intended not to consecrate any otherwise than he himself had done therefore Justin Martyr speaks of Prayers which the Pastour made after having received the Bread and Wine mingled with Water which was presented unto him Just Martyr Apolog. 2. he calls the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist in the Act of Communion The Bread
O God upon us and upon this reasonable service which we offer unto thee and receive them as thou didst the Oblations of Abel the Sacrifices of Noah the Priesthoods of Moses and Aaron the peaceable offerings of Samuel the repentance of David the Incense of Zacharias to the end that as thou receivedst from the hand of thine Apostles this true worship thou also of thy goodness wouldest receive of us who are sinners these gifts which we offer unto thee Grant that our Oblation may be agreeable being sanctified by the Holy Ghost for the propitiation of our Sins and of those which the People have committed through ignorance This action of the faithful people offering the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist for the Divine Service is called not only Oblation but also Sacrifice as we have shewn in examining whence the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist were taken Cypr. de oper Eleemos And in fine St. Cyprian doth positively call this Action a Sacrifice in that place of his formerly alledged When the Oblations are set upon the Altar or upon the Holy Table to be blessed they are again offered unto God by Prayer as hath been shewed in the foregoing Chapter but because that in some sort relates unto this first Oblation whereof we speak I would seek for the second in the Oblation made unto God of these same Oblations at the very instant of time that they are consecrated for we have seen that the Author of the Apostolical Constitutions Constit Apost l. 8. c. 12. at that instant addresses this Prayer unto God We offer unto thee O our God and our King this Bread and this Cup giving thee thanks by Jesus Christ because thou hast counted us worthy to appear in thy sight and to execute the Priesthood and we beseech thee O God who hast need of nothing to behold these Oblations with a favourable eye which are set before thee that thou wouldest accept them for the honour of thy Son and that thou wouldest send the Holy Ghost upon this Sacrifice c. It is very likely they did after this manner thinking that Jesus Christ who began the Celebration of his Eucharist with Prayer made a kind of Oblation unto God of the Bread and Wine and shewed at the same time his willingness of sacrificing himself soon after for the expiation of the Sins of the World therefore it is as I conceive that they grounded the Oblation whereof we treat wherein they desired of God that he would sanctifie unto them the use of these two things and that he would by his blessing make them the efficacious and Divine Sacraments of the Body broken and the Blood shed of his Christ for the Salvation and consolation of their Souls From hence it is that St. Cyprian in one of his Epistles saith in sundry places that Jesus Christ offered Bread and Wine in the Sacrament that we offer Wine and that Wine ought to be offered in the Cup of the Lord and not only so but that the Lord therein offered himself having in all likelihood regard unto the disposition wherein he shewed himself to be of exposing himself unto death for us when he instituted the Sacrament and memorial of it Cyprian Ep. 63. Our Lord saith he offered himself first unto his Father and commanded it should be so done in remembrance of him so that the Sacrificer which imitates what Jesus Christ hath done doth truly supply the place of Jesus Christ As for the third and last of the Oblations which I mentioned to be practised by Christians it was done after the Consecration of the Symbols after which they offered them unto God whereunto relates the warning made unto the People in the Apostolical Constitutions Const Apost l. 8. c. 13. To pray unto God by Jesus Christ for the gift offered unto our Lord to the end that he would receive it as an odour of a sweet savour upon his Heavenly Altar through the intercession of Jesus Christ In the Liturgy of St. James also Liturg. S. Jacob. They pray for the gifts which have been offered and sanctified to the end God would accept them and receiving them upon his Heavenly Altar as a sweet and spiritual savour he would in their stead send his Heavenly grace and the gift of his Holy Spirit and a little after they also pray That because he hath received as an odour of sweet savour Ibid. the Oblations and Presents which have been offered and hath been pleased to sanctifie and consecrate them by the grace of his Christ and the coming of the Holy Ghost he would also sanctifie their Souls their Spirits and Bodies c. in that of St. Chrysostom We offer unto thee of thy goods Liturg. Chrys Germ. Theor. p 403. or as Germain Patriarch of Constantinople explains it We offer unto thee the Antitypes It is true that considering the manner of the Greeks consecrating this Oblation should immediately precede the Prayer whereby they pretend to consecrate but if the Latins are considered this Oblation is not made unto God until after the Consecration be ended But there is seen in this Liturgy for the Oblation whereof we treat the same as in that of St. James In fine in all the Liturgies which we have although they be not all made by the Authors in whose names they pass the Oblation which is made unto God after the consecrating Liturgy of the Latins is an Oblation as is expresly said of Bread and Wine of Gifts and Fruits of the Earth But of all the Liturgies there is none that better informs us of the nature of this Oblation than that which is used by the Latin Church which thus speaks unto God Missa Can. We offer unto thy glorious Majesty of thy Gifts and of thy Presents a holy and immaculate Host the Holy Bread of Life and the Cup of Eternal health upon which things we beseech thee to look with a favourable and propitious Eye and to accept them as thou wert pleased to accept the Presents of thy righteous Son Abel and the Sacrifice of our Patriarch Abraham and the Holy Sacrifice the immaculate Host which thy Sovereign high Priest Melchisedeck offered unto thee we humbly beseech thee O Almighty Lord God to command that these things might be carried by thy Holy Angel upon thy high Altar into the presence of thy Divine Majesty And a little after continuing the like discourse they say unto God By the which Jesus Christ O Lord thou hast made all these things for us thou sanctifiest blessest and bestowest them upon us From whence it is that the Holy Fathers meditating upon this latter Oblation and considering that the Bread and Wine was the matter of it they spake as near as I can guess of the Sacrifice of the Christian Church as of a Sacrifice of Bread and Wine and although they have not all expressed themselves after one manner yet nevertheless their expressions however they seem to
if it be true that the Priesthood according to the Law was abrogated and that the High Priest after the order of Melchisedeck offered a Sacrifice and that for this reason he did it that we may have no more need of another Sacrifice see here how he resolves this difficulty It is manifest unto those that are instructed in Divine matters that we do not offer another Sacrifice but that we do or celebrate the remembrance of that only saving Sacrifice he means that of the Cross for the Lord himself hath commanded us Do this in remembrance of me to the end that by contemplating the Figure we may bring to our minds what he suffered for us thereby to inflame our love unto our Benefactor and to expect the injoyment of good things to come Eulogius Patriarch of Alexandria contemporary and friend unto Gregory the First followed the others steps when he said Eulog apud Phot. Cod. ult That the Sacrament which we celebrate is not an oblation of divers Sacrifices but the commemoration of the Sacrifice which was once offered The same language was used in the Ninth Century seeing that Bertram or Ratramn said That the Oblation which Jesus Christ once offered Bertram de corp Sang. Domini is every day celebrated by the faithful but mystically and in remembrance of his Passion and that nevertheless it is not falsely said that the Lord is sacrificed or that he suffers in these Mysteries because they have a resemblance of this death and passion whereof they are the representations Id. Ibid. c. That the Bread and the Cup do represent the memorial of the death of our Lord and that they are set upon the Altar in type and memory of his death to represent unto our memory what was formerly done and that to the end we thinking of this death he who hath delivered us from death might make us to partake of the Divine Oblation And the Deacon Florus said he not at the same time Flor. in Exposit Miss That the Oblation of this Bread and this Cup is the commemoration and annunciation of the death of Jesus Christ and that the commemoration of the death of Christ is the shewing forth of his love because he so loved us as to die for us If we descend lower Peter Lombard Master of the Sentences will tell us in the Twelfth Century Lombard l. 4. sentent dist 12. litt g. That is called a Sacrifice and Oblation which is offered and consecrated by the Priest because it is the memorial and representation of the true Sacrifice and of the holy immolation which was made upon the Altar of the Cross And Thomas Aquinas in the Thirteenth Century That the Celebration of the Eucharist Thom. sunn part 3. q. 83. part 1. is called the immolation of Jesus Christ because as S. Austin saith unto Simplicius the Images are wont to take their name from those things whereof they be Images and that the Celebration of this Sacrament is a certain representative type of the death of Jesus Christ which is his true immolation therefore the Celebration of this Sacrament is called Immolation Secondly the Eucharist being an act of our duty towards God and towards his Son for the admirable and ineffable benefit of his Death the antient Doctors might also in this regard call it by the name of Eucharistical Sacrifice of Thanksgiving of Prayer and of Acknowledgement This in appearance was the meaning of St. Chrysostom when he said Chrysost in Matth. Hom. 26. That the venerable Mysteries are called Eucharist because they are a commemoration of sundry benefits and because they dispose us always to render thanks unto God And because God is honoured with two very different qualities one of Creator the other of Redeemer we give him thanks that as Creator he gives unto us the Fruits of the Earth and we then consecrate unto him the Bread and Wine as the First-fruits of his Creatures and that in quality of Redeemer he hath given unto us the Body and Blood of his Son and in this regard we consecrate unto him the Bread and Wine as Memorials of the bloody death of our Saviour St. Ireneus observes this use as to the first regard Iren. l. 4. cap. 34. We are obliged saith he to make our offerings unto God and that in all things we should be thankful unto the Creator but that must be done with pure affections and with a sincere Faith a firm hope and ardent Charity in offering unto him the First fruits of his Creatures which are his but it is only the Church which offers unto God this pure Oblation presenting unto him with Prayers of the Creatures which he hath made St. Austin if I be not deceived intended to touch the latter regard when speaking of the Sacrifice of the Cross August l. 20. contr Faust cap. 21. he said That the flesh and blood of this Sacrifice had been promised before the coming of Christ by typical Sacrifices of resemblance that in the passion of Jesus Christ they were accomplished by the truth it self and that after his Ascension they are celebrated by a Sacrament of Commemoration But Justin Martyr hath joyned both together in his Excellent Dialogue against Tryphon Jesus Christ saith he hath commanded us to make the Bread of the Sacrament in Commemoration of the Death which he suffered for those whose Souls have been purified from all malice Just Mart. dialog contr Tryph. p. 259 260. to the end we should neturm thanks unto God for the Creation of the World and the things which are therein for the use of Man And for that he hath delivered us from the wickedness wherein we lay having triumphed over Principalities and Powers by him who in executing the good pleasure of his will was pleased to take upon him a frail Nature In the third place the Holy Fathers considering that the Eucharist serves us now in the room of Mosaical Sacrifices being our outward worship under the dispensation of the Gospel as the Sacrifices were the Jewish Service under the Oeconomy of the Law they have freely called it Sacrifice and rightly to understand in what sense they have given it this Title in the consideration that 't is our Worship and exteriour Service we must consider that they often take this word Sacrifice in a very large extended and improper sence therefore 't is that they apply it unto all the acts of Piety and Devotion and generally unto all things that pertain unto the worship of our Saviour in which they have followed the stile of the Holy Scriptures that so speak in many places David calls the contrite heart Psal 51. a Sacrifice well pleasing unto Almighty God The Prophet calls it Hosea c. 14. Heb. 13. Philip. 4. rendring Calves of our lips which the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews explains The fruit of the Lips which confest the name of God The Apostle gives the name of Sacrifices
to take it when they pleas'd for besides that it was an abuse which indeed was tolerated along time in the Church but could be no prejudice unto the practice generally received it may be observed that those very persons which carried home with them the Bread of the Sacrament did it not in all likelihood until after they had eaten part of it in the Assembly and participated of the Cup of the Lord. Nor that there was given unto sick Folks at the point of Death the Eucharist steeped because it was a thing extraordinary and that beside it was shewn by this practice that both Symbols were believed to be necessary nor that the XI Council of Toledo permits the Cup only to be given unto those who are so weak that they are not able to swallow down the consecrated Bread unto whom Pope Paschal II. joins young Children because this sufferance is grounded upon invincible necessity as well as that which is practised by some Protestant Churches towards those who have naturally such an aversion for Wine that 't is not in their power to surmount in which cases she dispenseth with the participation of the Cup and is content to administer the Bread only After what hath been hitherto spoken of the Communion under both kinds I think it will be needless to add any more unto this History which if I mistake not I have written large enough to satisfie the curiosity of those who desire to be informed of what passed in the ancient Church in the practice of so important a matter as is that of the Communion of the holy Cup not but that a great number of other testimonies may be alledged for the establishment of this Tradition but when I consider that if the great number of passages doth not prejudice the matter which is examined yet it proves tedious unto the Reader when too large I shall forbear alledging any more to avoid tiring those who shall give themselves the trouble of reading this Treatise and I forbear the rather that if they are persons who have any knowledge of Ecclesiastical Antiquity they will know of themselves without my help that there be many others in the Works of Tertullian of S. Ambrose Gaudentius S. Jerome S. Austin besides those related by Gratian in his Decree of Gregory the First in the Roman Order in the Books of Images under the name of Charlemaine in the Writings of Rabanus of Paschase of Oecumenius Theophylact Fulbert of Chartres Humbert of Blanch-Selva of Lanfranc Guilmond Rupert de Duitz Alger S. Bernard Odo Bishop of Cambray of Lombard Master of the Sentences and elsewhere as for such as have not applied themselves to the reading the Holy Fathers they may sufficiently inform themselves of what I have written how Christians have from time to time governed themselves in the matter of communicating under both kinds Therefore I shall content my self in touching a circumstance which I had almost forgotten and which in all likelihood will not be displeasing unto any it concerns a Chalice of Saint Remy Archbishop of Rheims this Prelate who was so famous in our France especially after he had Baptized Clovis the first of our Kings who imbraced the Christian Religion this Prelate I say did Consecrate unto God a Cup to distribute the Communion unto the people upon which he caused three Latin Verses to be ingraved which are preserved unto our daies although the Chalice is not in being the Church of Rheims having been constrained to melt it and to pay it for their Ransom unto the Normans above 700. years ago and these Verses plainly shew that in S. Remy's time that is towards the end of the V. Century the people did not participate of the Bread of the Sacrament only but also of the Cup of Benediction Flodoard cites them in his History of the Church of Rheims and I 'll make no difficulty of representing them in this History in the same stile in which they were written Hauriat hinc populus vitam de sanguine sacro Flodoard Histor Remens l. 1. c. 10. Injecto aeternus quem fudit vulnere Christus Remigius reddit Domino sua vota Sacerdos Now I say to conclude this Chapter it appears plainly by all that hath been said that the Christian Church universally practised the Communion under both kinds separately the space of 1000. years that since that time they began in some places in the Latin Church to administer the Sacrament mixt or steeped from the Eucharist steeped they came in process of time to distribute the consecrated Bread only not in all places but in some Churches until that the Council of Constance in the Year 1415. commanded by a publick Decree the Communion to be given under one kind only which yet was not so generally obeyed but that we have produced since that time examples and instances of a contrary practice But in fine the Council of Trent made its last Essay in the manner as hath been above declared as for all the other Christian Churches which hold no commerce with the Latin they administer the Sacrament under both Symbols although it be with some little difference CHAP. XIII The Eucharist received with the hand BUT because it is not sufficient to know the things which were distributed unto Communicants if we do not at the same time know the manner they were received by Believers I think fit to imploy this Chapter in the inquiry of this Custom and Practice When Jesus Christ celebrated and instituted his first Sacrament he said unto his Disciples Take the Greek word used by him in this place imports to take with the hand or receive with the hand what is given accordingly the ancient Christians which succeeded the Age of Jesus Christ and his Apostles did in the very same manner and it is certain that all the Communicants generally received with the hand in the Church the Sacrament of the Eucharist so Tertullian teacheth us in his Treatise of Idolatry where shewing that it is not lawful for a Christian Workman to make Idols that is to say Images of false Gods he expresseth his anger against any amongst the Christians Tertul. de Idol c. 7. Who come saith he from making Idols to Church who lifteth up unto God the Father the hands which are the makers of Idols Id. de Coron c. 3. And in fine which stretcheth forth those hands to receive the Body of the Lord who gave Bodies unto Devils And elsewhere We receive the Eucharist from no other hand but from his who doth preside Id. de Orat. c. 14. And in his Book of Prayer Having saith he received the Body of the Lord and kept it Clement of Alexandria at the end of the Second Century wherein he lived teacheth us that there were certain Priests who did not distribute the Sacrament unto Communicants but permitted each one that approached unto the holy Table to take it Clem. Alex. Strom. l. 1. p. 271. Apud Cassand in Liturg
potest t. 5. p. 125 6. We must not saith he look only upon the Terms but the Scope of him that speaks the cause and occasion of his Discourse and comparing all together find out the sense and meaning of what is therein contained Nevertheless it must be noted this Rule hath its particular use when the Expressions are doubtful and difficult and when by staying at the Terms and following the rigour of the Letter a convenient Sense cannot be given unto what is said or heard except in such a case nothing hinders but looking unto the scope of him that speaks stress may be laid on his Words and much light taken from his Expressions Thus have the Holy Fathers proceeded in examining the Words used by our Saviour in instituting the Sacrament because all they have told us hitherto are only so many Reflections which they have made upon the Words and Expressions of this Merciful Saviour but because they were verily persuaded that Jesus Christ which is Wisdom it self had an end in instituting this Divine Mystery they would know the end and design which he proposed in leaving this precious earnest of his Love unto his Church Do this saith our Lord in remembrance of me for as often as ye eat this Bread and drink of this Cup saith St. Paul you shew the Lord's Death till he come From whence they concluded that the Intention of Jesus Christ in instituting the Sacrament and that of the Church in celebrating it by his Command was by this means to preserve amongst Christians the remembrance of his Death and Sufferings but because his Death doth suppose his Incarnation and Birth and that moreover his blessed Resurrection and Exaltation into Glory ensued thereupon I find they have included in this Commemoration commanded us by Christ the consideration of his Incarnation bitter Death of his Resurrection and of his Ascension into Heaven According to which some of them join unto the consideration of his Death that of his Incarnation as St. Justin Martyr which saith Just Martyr contra Tryph. p. 296. That the Lord commanded us to make the Bread of the Eucharist in remembrance that he made himself Man for those which believe in him and for whom he made himself Mortal and the Cup in remembrance of his Blood But sometimes also considering the Death of Christ as the end of his Conception and of his Birth because he took not our Nature and was born of a Virgin but to die they are content to consider the Sacrament as a Memorial of his Death only Id. ibid. p. 259. In this regard the same St. Justin said That Jesus Christ commanded us to make the Bread of the Sacrament in remembrance of the Death which he suffered for the Souls of those which have been cleansed from all Malice This was also the meaning of Tatian his Disciple Tat. Diates t. 7. Bibl. Pat. when he said The Lord commanded his Disciples to eat the Bread and drink the Cup of the Sacrament because it was the memorial of his approaching Affliction and of his Death There were others who making this Reflection in themselves that the Death of Christ would be of no benefit unto us without his Resurrection which assures us of his Victory over the Enemies of our Salvation and of the Eternal Father's accepting of the Satisfaction he made unto his Justice in our stead and in consideration whereof he delivers us from the Slavery of Sin and the Devil have considered the celebration of the Sacrament as the commemoration of his Death and Resurrection Such was the Reflection of St. Basil Basil de Bapt. c. 2. p. 581. when he observed that What we eat and drink to wit of the Bread and Wine it is to the end we should always remember him who died and is risen again for us Others in fine considering that Jesus Christ was ascended into Heaven and that he had left us the Sacrament as a pledg of his Presence to comfort us in expectation of his glorious Return they thought the consideration of his Death ought not to be separated from that of his Ascension and that as they should think of his Humiliation and Sufferings they should also think of his Exaltation and Glory This was in all likelihood the meaning of St. Gaudent tr 2. l. 2. Bibl. Patr. Gaudentius when he taught That the Sacrament is our Viaticum or Provision for our Journey whereby we are strengthned in the Way until by departing out of this Life we go to him that it is an earnest of his Presence and the portract of his Passion until he come again from Heaven but an earnest and a resemblance which he will have us take in our Hands and receive with the Mouth and Heart to the end we may have engraven in our Memories the great Benefit of our Redemption To thus much also amounts what is said by the Author of the Commentaries In Cap. 11.1 ad Cor. attributed unto St. Jerome That Jesus Christ hath left us the last Commemoration or the last Remembrance as if one taking a Voyage into a far Country would leave a Token with his Friend to the end that when-ever he look'd on it he should be mindful of his Love and Kindness which he cannot do without shedding Tears if he perfectly loved him and that he gave us this Sacrament to the end that by this means we should always remember the Death which he suffered for us Sedulius hath only transcribed this Testimony in his Commentaries upon the same Epistle and upon the same Chapter Primatius an African Bishop declares in the VIth Century that it was his Judgment and he explained himself almost as the other two had done and Christian Druthmer will say the same in the IXth Century as for the Author of the Apostolical Constitutions Constit Apost l. 8. c. 12. he hath joined all these considerations together For he will have us to remember his Passion his Death Resurrection Ascension into Heaven and his second Coming which will be when he comes with Power and Glory to judge the quick and the dead and to reward every one according to his Works The same thing is to be read in the Liturgy of St. Mark and what is found in that which the Latins use at present comes very near it But the Fathers rest not there for I have observ'd that when they speak of the Eucharist as of a Pledge and Memorial they set it in opposition not only of the Truth but even also of the Truth absent so it hath been understood by Gaudentius Sedulius Primasius the Author of the Commentaries attributed unto St. Jerome in the Passages we have alledged whereunto may be joined these Words of the latter In 1 ad Cor. Cap. 11. That we have need of this Memorial all the time which shall continue until he be pleased to come again It is in the same sense Theodoret said Theodoret in 1 ad Cor. c.
he plainly shewed his own self in saying unto his Disciples I will no more drink of this Fruit of the Vine until I drink it with you in my Father's Kingdom St. Cyprian said the same for having repeated these same Words of our Saviour he saith s Cypr. ep 63. That we find that what our Saviour offered was a Cup mingled with Water and that what he said to be his Blood was Wine Nothing can be seen more formal to this purpose than what is read in t Aug. ad Infan apud Fulg. de Bapt. Aet c. ult Theod. Dial. 1. Prosp de promis praed part 1. c. 2. Facund l. 9. c. ult St. Austin's Sermon unto the new Baptized related intirely by St. Fulgentius where speaking unto them of the Sacrament which they saw upon the holy Table What you have seen saith he is Bread and a Cup as your Eyes do testify Theodoret who was present at the Council of Calcedon The Lord saith he in distributing the Mysteries did call the Bread his Body and the Wine his Blood We may also say the same thing of the counterfeit Prosper which saith That the Lord did declare at his Table that the consecrated Bread was his sacred Body Of Facundus which saith The Lord himself called the Bread which he had blessed and the Cup which he gave his Disciples his Body and his Blood And in fine of Maxentius a Religious Person and afterwards Priest of the Church of Antioch in whose Dialogues we read That the Bread whereof the Universal Church doth participate Maxent cont Nest dial 2. in remembrance of the Death of our Lord is his Body But this is not yet all they have to say unto us there is found in their excellent Works several other things which lead us as it were by the hand unto the Knowledg of what we search for In the first place they declare our Bodies are nourished with what we receive at the Lord's Table as Justin Martyr who speaks of the Eucharist Just Mart. Apol. 2. Iren. l. 4 c. 34. l. 5. c. 2. Aug. serm 9. de divers Isid Hispal apud Bertram de Corp. Sang. Dom. Ibid. as of a Food wherewith our Flesh and Blood are nourished by Transmutation St. Irenaeus doth depose that our Flesh is fed with it that our Blood our Body and Flesh are nourished increased and do subsist by it St. Austin saith that it is Bread which fills the Belly St. Isidore Arch-bishop of Sevill that the Substance of this visible Bread doth nourish the outward Man and satisfies it Or as Ratran who hath transferr'd to us his Words not any more to be found in Isidore's Works now printed that all that is outwardly received in the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Lord is fit to feed the Body The Fathers of the sixteenth Council of Toledo in the Year 693 Conc. Tolet. 16. c. 6. speak of the Remainders of the Sacrament as of a thing that a quantity of it may incommode the Stomach That was also the Belief of Raban Arch bishop of Mayence in the ninth Century and of the Taborites in Bohemia in the fifteenth as shall be demonstrated in time and place convenient Secondly there are some of them that positively affirm that what is distributed at the holy Table is Bread the Matter whereof after we have taken and eat it doth pass by the common way of our ordinary Food Origen teacheth so in plain terms when expounding these Words of the 15th Chap. of St. Mathew Origen in Math. 15. That it is not what entreth into the Mouth defileth the Man he saith If what enters in the Mouth goes into the Belly and is cast into the Draft the Meat which is sanctified by the Word of God and Prayer goeth also into the Belly according to the gross part of it and afterwards into the Draft but by reason of Prayer made over it it is profitable according to the proportion of Faith and is the cause that the Understanding is enlightned and attentive unto what is profitable and 't is not the Substance of Bread but the Word pronounced upon it which is profitable unto him that eateth it not in a way unworthy of the Lord. This Doctrine was also taught in the ninth Century by Raban Arch-bishop of Mayence and by Heribold Arch-bishop of Auxerre and I think I lately hinted that Amalarius Fortunatus who liv'd in the same Century was of this Judgment which shall be examined when we come to inquire into the Belief of the ninth Century Father Cellot the Jesuit attributes the same Doctrine unto the Greeks Append. Miscel op 7. p. 564 It is true this Doctrine was not the Opinion of all the antient Fathers of the Church therefore I said at the beginning of this Observation that there were some of them that did believe so in effect St. Cyril of Jerusalem saith Cyril Hieros Mystag 5. That the Bread of the Sacrament doth not go into the Belly and is not cast out into the Draft but that it is disperst throughout the Substance of the Communicant for the good of his Body and Soul The Author of the Homily of the Eucharist for the Dedication in St. Chrysostom's Works saith almost the same with St. Cyril Serm. de Euchar in Encoen apud Chrysost t. 5. pa. 596. Take no heed that it is Bread think not that it is Wine for they are not cast out as other Meat God forbid you should once think so for as when Wax is cast into the Fire nothing of its Substance doth remain or there remains no superfluity or it leaves not behind it neither soot nor cinders in like manner here imagine that the Mysteries are consumed with the Substance of the Body We may add John Damascen unto these two Authors Damasc l. 4. Orthodox fid cap. 14. who speaks thus The Shew-bread did represent this Bread and it is this pure Oblation and without Blood which the Lord fore-told by the Prophet which should be offer'd unto him from the East unto the West to wit the Body and Blood of Christ which should pass into the Substance of our Soul and Body without being consumed without being corrupted or passing into the Draft O God forbid but passing into our Substance for our Preservation These three Testimonies as every one doth see differ from Origen which indeed was also the Opinion of Raban Heribold and Amalarius but if they were not of the Opinion of Origen they were of that of St. Justin Martyr Irenaeus St. Austin St. Isidore of Sevil of the sixteenth Council of Toledo Ratran and others I mean that if they believed not with Origen that the Bread of the Eucharist as to its material Substance was subject unto the shameful necessity of other common Food they believed with the others that it turned it self into our Substance that our Bodies were nourished by it and that they were increased and strengthned by it and so
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
that the Bread which is called the Body of Jesus Christ and the Cup which is called his Blood are Figures because a Sacrament and that there is a great difference betwixt the Body which is by Mystery and the Body which suffered which was buried and rose again This here is the real Body of our Saviour where there is neither Figure nor Signification but the evidence of the thing it self is present The Faithful desire to behold him because he is our Head and because that in his sight consists the joy of our Souls for the Father and him are but one which is to be understood not in regard of the Body which our Lord hath assumed but in regard of the fulness of the Divinity which inhabits in Jesus Christ God-man but the mystical Body is a Figure not only of the true Body of Jesus Christ but also of the believing People for it bears the Figure both of the one and the other Body of Jesus Christ that is to say of Jesus Christ himself which was crucified and is risen again and of the People which are born again in Jesus Christ by Baptism and was raised from the Dead Unto which may be added that this Bread and this Cup which are called the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are a Memorial of the Death and Sufferings of our Saviour as himself hath declared in the Gospel saying Do this in remembrance of me which St. Paul expounds after this manner As often as ye shall eat this bread and drink of this cup you shew forth the death of the Lord until he come It is then our Saviour and St. Paul which teach us that this Bread and Cup that are set upon the Altar are there laid as a Figure or Memorial of the death of our Saviour And as Ratramn opposed himself directly against the Opinion of Paschas so he also refuted the Consequence of this Belief by opposing in his Book of the Birth of Jesus Christ what Paschas had written of the Delivery of the blessed Virgin For in this little Treatise he positively affirms the Locality or the Inclusion of the Body of Jesus Christ within the bounds of the place which it occupieth whereas the Hypothesis of his Adversary imported that it could be in several places at the same time In Spicil d'Acher t. 1. p. 333 In holding these things saith he you wickedly utter a kind of Novelty to cry that there was nothing could hinder our Saviour that he should not be born because no Creature could resist the Creator but that all things that do subsist are open and penetrable unto him Whilst you judge so you judge very prudently but when by this rule you go about to subject the beginnings of the Birth of Jesus Christ you plainly dogmatize as to what regards his Power but as to what regards the property of the Body which he hath taken and his Humane Birth you stray very far from the way of Truth for there is nothing firm nothing that is not penetrable unto the Power of the Will of Jesus Christ But as for the Humanity which he hath taken it was inclosed and shut up in the Virgins Womb that during the time it remained there it was not elsewhere but in a short time it left the Abode of the Virgins Womb and went forth and returned no more thither What is it that he hath shewed by this change of place if it be not that though he be omnipresent by the propriety of his Divinity he was but in one place according to the circumscription of his Body That that which is local as it is not always every where but it goes unto one place when it leaves the other so also also when he goeth from one place to another he at the same time is not at the right hand and at the left neither walketh he before and behind nor above and below So also the Saviour as he was at one time in the Womb of the Virgin according to the Flesh and at another time he was out of it so in going out though nothing could stop him when he would come out nevertheless he made use only of one way for his coming forth and he issued not out by all the parts of the body wherein he had been formed I will not here say any thing of certain Sterconaristes which some pretend to have been opposed by Ratramn and not by Paschas Others say he was one of this Sect himself and others in fine That in disputing against it he varied from the true Sentiments of the Church because we will treat of it in examining the Testimony of Heribold To continue the Course of my History I come to John Erigenius the other Doctor which the Emperor Charles the Bald consulted and whom he commanded to write upon the same Subject He had a singular esteem for him and lived so familiarly with him that some Historians have assured that he made him eat with him at his own Table and lie in his own Bed-chamber I am not ignorant how unworthily he was treated by Remy Archbishop of Lyons and by the Deacon Florus and that Prudens Bishop of Troys and the Council of Valentia did censure some Errors that appeared in some of his Books upon the Subject of Predestination Neither would I undertake to defend all his Expressions and Phylosophical Notions about the state of the Blessed and of the Damned neither can I but confess that the Pen of his Adversaries have been steeped in too smart Liquor to tear the Reputation of this Man unto whom Historians give great Commendations Gulicl Malms de gestis Reg. Angl. l. 2. c. 5. Apud Usser in Sylloge Ep. Hibernic Ep. 24. de Christian Ecclesiar success c. 2. dignifying him with these two glorious Titles of most Learned and most holy William of Malmesbury assures us That he was a very wise Man and very eloquent that he translated out of Greek into Latin at the desire of Charles the Bald the Hierarchy of Dennis the Arcopagite A Translation so acceptable to Anastatius Library-keeper unto the Popes that he wrote a Letter unto King Charles which was inserted in the Preface of this Translation wherein after having admired that a Man born in one of the remotest parts of the World that is in Ireland should be capable of comprehending and of rendring this Hierarchy into Latin he adds That he had heard he was a Saint concluding that it was the work of the Spirit of God which had made him as zealous as he was eloquent Also the fame of his Learning made him be sent for by Alfred King of England where he died Anno 883. or 84. in the Monastery of Malmesbury having received several Wounds by Penknives from young Men that he instructed The Writers also of England observe that having been buried without much honour in the Church where he had been slain there shined a miraculous Light several nights upon his Grave which made the
say they that the Consecration being ended the Body of Jesus Christ is not really under the species of Bread and Wine but only in resemblance and in figure and that Jesus Christ did not transubstantiate really the Bread and Wine into his Body and Blood but only in type and in figure One may lay what stress they please upon the testimonies of these two men which may be looked upon but as of one seeing the one transcribed it from the other As for my part I shall only say that I take the present Armenians to be so grosly ignorant that they scarce know what they do believe of this Mystery Prateolus doth positively teach the same thing De haeres l. 1. haer 67. which is also confirmed by the testimony of Thomas Herbert an English man which had been so informed upon the place as he declares in the relation of his Voyage of the Translation of Mr. Wick fort What I say of the Armenians I may almost say of all the Greeks in general for it cannot be denied but they be fallen into very great ignorance of the Mysteries of Christian Religion and have corrupted their primitive Faith by many Alterations Nevertheless Learning having flourished a long time amongst them their ignorance is not so very great as that of other Christian Communions of the East They have had but very few that have written since the Ages which we have examined in the precedent Chapter yet have they had some few as Nicholas de Methona Nicholas Cabasilas Mark of Ephesus and Jeremy Patriarch of Constantinople As for Bessarion I do not put him into the number because he turned unto the party of the Latins who to requite him honoured him with a Cardinals Cap whereas the others died in the Communion of the Greek Church If you would know of them what they believed of the Eucharist they will answer That the Bread and Wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and that after Consecration they are his Body Blood And so far the Roman Catholicks have cause to believe they be of their side But it must be confessed also that they say things which do not agree well with the Hypothesis of the Latins and which make the Protestants conclude that the change whereof they speak is not a change of substance but of vertue and efficacy for not here to repeat what is said by Euthymius in the foregoing Chapter In Matth. 26. That the nature of the things offered is not to be considered In exposit liturg c. 32. 43 t. 2. Bibl. Pat. Graeco-Lat but their vertue And without insisting upon Cabasilas his regarding the Body of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament as dead and crucified for us which by the confession of all Christians cannot be true in the reality of the thing but only in the signification of the Mystery nor in that he saith that all those unto whom the Priest gives the Communion do not receive the Body of our Lord. De Corpore sanguin Christi ibid. Nicholas de Methona doth formally affirm the Union of the Symbols unto the Divinity which is exactly the Opinion of Damascen an Opinion which as hath been shewed doth presuppose the Existence of the Bread and Wine Jesus Christ saith he doth this that is to say communicates unto us his Flesh and Blood by things which are familiar unto Nature in joyning unto them his Divinity and saying This is my Body This is my Blood Jeremy Patriarch of Constantinople saith as the others That the Bread is changed into the Body of Jesus Christ But he adds Respon 1. c. 10 That Jesus Christ for all that did not give the flesh which he carried unto his Disciples to eat And elsewhere Ibid. c. 7. That the Grace of the Holy Ghost doth spiritually sanctifie our Souls and our Bodies are sanctified by the sensible things to wit the Water the Oyl the Bread the Wine and the other things sanctified by the Holy Ghost Which language agrees better with Damascen whom he cites in his second Answer than with the Latins because the first preserves the substance of Bread and Wine but the latter quite destroys it The Cardinal of Guise being at Venice had a Conference with the Greeks and amongst several Questions that he asked them he demanded of them what they believed of the Sacrament Cum Sigismundo Libero de rebus Moscovit Basileae 1571. See here the Answer they made him We believe and confess that the Bread is so changed into the Body of Jesus Christ and the Wine into his Blood that neither the Bread nor the accidents of its substance do remain but are changed into a divine substance Were there no more but this in the Answer of the Greeks it might be said either that they did not well understand themselves or that through complaisance unto the Latins amongst whom they lived they allowed the change of the substance of the Bread in such a manner nevertheless that to shew that they followed not the Opinion of the Roman Catholicks they say That the very accidents do not remain which is inconsistent with the Doctrine of Transubstantiation But because in this Answer they alledge as well the words of Theophelact upon Mar. 14. by which he declares That the Bread and Wine is changed into the vertue of the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ as also several passages of Damascen some of which have already been examined in the 12th Chapter to strengthen their Belief and Opinion we are obliged to believe that the change whereof they speak is quite different from that of the Latin Church It is true that scarce any of them explained themselves as fully as Cyril of Lucar Patriarch of Constantinople who a little above thirty years ago said Cyrillus Constantinop Patriarch confession fidei c. 17. We believe that the other Sacrament which our Lord did institute is that which we call Eucharist for the night wherein he was betrayed taking Bread and blessing it he said unto the Disciples Take eat this is my Body And taking the Cup he gave thanks and said Drink ye all of this it is my Blood which is shed for you Do this in remembrance of me And St. Paul adds As often as ye eat of this Bread and drink of this Cup ye shew the Lord's death This is the plain the true and lawful Tradition of this admirable Mystery in the administration and knowledge whereof we confess and believe the true and certain presence of our Saviour Jesus Christ to wit that which Faith teacheth and giveth unto us and not that which Transubstantiation rashly and unadvisedly invented doth teach If I would write the History of this Patriarch I should be obliged to speak of his Country I mean of the Isle of Crete now Candia of the great affection he had unto Learning the marvellous progress he made therein during his stay in Italy of the Voyage which he made â—â—to
that our Saviour having finished the solemnity of the antient Passover and intending to proceed unto the institution of the New I mean of the Eucharist to leave unto the Church an Illustrious Monument of his great Love and Charity he took Bread and having given thanks unto his Father over the Bread that is to say having blessed and consecrated it he brake it into morsels and gave it unto his Disciples saying Take eat also he took the Cup wherein was Wine and having blessed it as he had done the Bread he gave it unto them saying these words Drink ye all of it that in distributing the Bread he said unto them That it was his Body giveâ— or broken for them and giving them the Cup he said That iâ— waâ— his Blood or the New Testament in his Blood shed for many for the remission of Sins and that he would drink no more of that fruit of the Vine until he drank it new in the Kingdom of his Father commanding them expresly to celebrate this Divine Sacrament until his coming from Heaven to shew in the Celebration of it the remembrance of his Person and sufferings whereunto St. Paul doth add the preparations which Communicants ought to bring unto the Holy Table for fear lest this mystery which is intended unto the Salvation and consolation of Men should turn unto their judgment and condemnation if they partake thereof unworthily But because the actions of Jesus Christ do prescribe unto us if I may so speak the manner how we should celebrate this holy Mystery that his words instruct us what we ought to believe and that the preparations which St. Paul requires of us contain in effect all the motions of a faithful Soul that disposes it self to partake thereof motions which as I conceive are again contained either in whole or in part in the commemoration which our Saviour hath recommended to us we have thought fit to follow this Divine pattern and thereupon to erect the platform and Oeconomy of our work For besides that in so doing we shall imitate as much as possible may be the Example of our Saviour Jesus Christ which ought to be our Law and guide we shall also ease the memory of the Readers we shall facilitate the understanding of those things we have to say and we shall lead them safely by the way which in all likelihood is best and plainest unto the clear and distinct knowledge of the constant and universal tradition of the Christian Church upon this Article of our Faith To this purpose we will divide our Treatise into three Parts the first shall treat of the exteriour Worship of the Sacrament and generally of what concerns it and of what is founded as well on the actions of Jesus Christ celebrating as of the blessed Apostles communicating The second shall contain the Doctrine of the holy Fathers the true tradition of the Church which derives its Original and Authority of what our Saviour said unto his Disciples that the Bread which he gave them was his Body broken and the Cup his Blood shed and in that he commanded them to celebrate this Sacrament in remembrance of him and of his death And lastly the third shall examine the Worship I mean the dispositions which ought to precede the Communion the motions of the Soul of the Communicant whether it be in regard of God and of Jesus Christ or in regard of the Sacrament in a word all things which do relate unto it And in each of these three Parts we will observe with the help of our blessed Saviour all the exactness and sincerity that can be in shewing the Innovations and changes that have thereupon ensued THE LIFE OF Monsieur L'ARROQUE IT is with very great displeasure that I insert in my first Essay of this nature an Elogie which nevertheless will render it very acceptable I had much rather have wanted so good a Subject of Recommendation to my first undertaking than to have obtain'd it by suffering so great a loss But seeing Death will not be subject unto our desires let us acquit our selves according to the various conjunctures whether they be pleasing or not Monsieur L'ARROQVE departed this Life at Roven the 31 of January 1684 Aged 65 years born at Lairac a Town not far from Agen in Guien his Father and Mother dying almost at the same time left him very young under the Conduct of his Relations and which is the common Fate of Scholars without much Wealth but his great love for Learning comforted him in the midst of all his Troubles Having made some progress therein under several Masters he advanced the same considerably in the Academy of Montauban and having applyed himself unto the study of Divinity under Messieurs Charles and Garrisoles eminent Professors who also had at the same time the famous Monsieur Claud to be their Pupil in a short time he there made so great a progress in his studies that he was judged worthy of the Ministry He was accordingly admitted betimes and by the Synod of Guyen sent unto a little Church called Poujols He had scarce been there one year but the Gentlemen of the Church of Rome opposed his Ministry which obliged him to make a Journey to Paris He there became accquainted with Messieurs Le Faucheur and Mestrezat who from that very time prophesi'd very advantagiously of him He preached at Charanton with great Success and was so well approved by the late lady Dutchess of Tremouile that she desired he might be setl'd at the Church of Vitry in Britany where she commonly made her residence For several reasons he consented unto the demands of this Princess and went to Vitry where he liv'd 26 years so confin'd unto his Closet that he therein spent 14 or 15 hours each day The world soon became sensible of his great industry by a Treatise which Monsieur L'ARROQVE published against a Minister who having chang'd his Religion caused to be Printed the motives which induced him thereunto By this Answer it was seen the Author had already attained great knowledge in Antiquity joyned with a very solid and clear way of reasoning which was ever the character of the late Monsieur L'ARROQVES Genius Some years after scil in the year 1665 he made a very learned Answer unto the Book of the Office of the holy Sacrament written by the Gentlmen of Port Royal wherein he shewed unto those Illustrious Friars that they had alledged and translated the passages of Antient Fathers either very negligently or very falsly His History of the EVCHARIST which may well be term'd his Master-piece appeared four years after and did fully manifest the merits of this Excellent Person Having compos'd so many Learn'd Volums the Protestants of Paris looked upon him as a Subject very worthy of their choice and resolved to establish him in the midst of them this honest design had been accomplish'd had not his credit and adhering unto the Interests of two Illustrious Persons whose names are
unto Abraham Bread and Wine And therefore it is that the Author of the imperfect work upon S. Matthew Hom. 19. amongst his works defines the Christian man by him which offers the Sacrifice of Bread and Wine Hieron Ep. 126. S. Jerome in one of his Letters touching Melchisedeck follows the Opinion of several ancient Doctors who preceded him and who had said That Melchisedeck did not offer Sacrifices of flesh and blood but that he consecrated the Sacrament of Jesus Christ with Bread and Wine Id. advers Jovin l. 2. which is a pure and spotless Sacrifice And elsewhere he saith That our Saviour offered in type of his Blood not Water but Wine S. Austin was of no other mind when he taught in divers parts of his Writings August Ep. 95. Id. l. de 83. q. q. 61. t. 4. Id de Civit. Dei l. 16. c 22. for example when he said That Melchisedeck foreshewed the Sacrament of our Lord to represent his eternal Priesthood that we now see offered throughout the whole World in the Church of Jesus Christ that which Mechisedeck offered unto God That when Abraham was blessed by Melchisedeck the Sacrifice now offered unto God by Christians throughout the whole World was first of all shewn that to eat Bread in the New Testament is the Sacrifice of Christians and that in all places is offered the Priesthood of Jesus Christ which Melchisedeck brought when he blessed Abraham let those who read Ib. l. 17 c. 5. Ib. c. 17. Id contr advers leg l. 1. c. 20. Isid Pelus l. 1. Ep. 431. Arnob. in Psal 109. know what Melchisedeck brought when he blessed Abraham and that if they be already partakers of it they may see that such a Sacrifice is now offered unto God throughout the World It is in substance what is said by S. Isidore of Damietta That Melchisedeck executing the Priesthood with Bread and Wine by them signified the type of Divine Mysteries And Arnobius the younger That our Saviour by the Mystery of Bread and Wine was made a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedeck who alone amongst the Priests offered Bread and Wine Hesyc in Levit l. 6. c. 23. Cassiod in Psal 109. And Hesychius Priest of Jerusalem That the oblation of the Mystical Melchisedeck is accomplished in Bread and Wine And Cassiodorus That the Institution of Melchisedeck who offered Bread and Wine is celebrated throughout the World in the distribution of the Sacraments And the supposed Eusebius of Emissa in one of his Easter Sermons That Melchisedeck did foreshew by the oblation of Bread and Wine the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ It is also the opinion of the Author of the Commentary of the Epistle to the Hebrews in the Works of S. Ambrose In cap. 5. ad Hebr. and which some have imagined to be of Remy of Auxerr but which indeed are of Anselm Archbishop of Canterbury who lived at the end of the Eleventh and beginning of the Twelfth Century of Theophylact in the Eleventh Century of Oecumenius about the same time both of them upon the fifth Chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews and in fine of Nicetas who said in the Twelfth Century in the Confession of Faith made for those which were converted from Mahometism unto the Religion of Jesus Christ T. 12. Bibl. Patr. p. 532. That it is Bread and Wine which is spiritually sacrified by Christians and which they do receive in the Divine Sacraments See then three several Oblations practised by several of the ancient Christians in the Celebration of their Sacrament and which have all three given unto this Sacrament the name of Sacrifice and which the Holy Fathers have called a Sacrifice of Bread and Wine considering particularly that Oblation which is made unto God of the Symbols after their Consecration and after the change which may thereunto happen after the sanctification and this Tradition hath been so constant so uniform and so universal that it may be said That it hath been believed by all at all times and in all places which be the three signs that Vincentius Lerinensis desired may be admitted in receiving all Catholick and Orthodox Doctrine But besides the reasons which moved the holy Fathers to call the Sacrament a Sacrifice there be several others which it is necessary to examine that it might evidently appear what was the nature and form of this Sacrifice amongst them And first I find that they considered the Eucharist as a memorial of the Sacrifice of the Cross and because for the most part memorials do take their name from the thing whereof they be memorials they have made no difficulty to call it a Sacrifice as indeed this name may very fitly be given unto it and not only the name of a Sacrifice but even of a true Propitiatory Sacrifice because it is the memorial of one that is truly such It is in this prospect they have called it the Passion Cyprian Ep. 63. the Sacrifice which we offer saith S. Cyprian is the passion of our Lord But this is to be observed that we make mention of the Passion of our Lord in all the Sacrifices Thereby in a manner confounding the death of our Lord with the commemoration which we make of it in the Sacrament by reason of the near relation which there is betwixt the Memorial and the thing whereof the remembrance is renewed Accordingly Eusebius said speaking of the Institution of the Sacrament Euseb l. 1. Dem. c. 10. That Jesus Christ commanded us to offer unto God instead of the Sacrifice the memorial of his Sacrifice And S. Chrysostome having said in speaking of the Oblation of the Sacrament Chrys Hom. 17. ad Heb. We alwayes make the same Sacrifice adds presently by way of correction But rather we make the commemoration of the Sacrifice August l. 83. quaest q. 61. which S. Austin saith is to celebrate the type of his Sacrifice in remembrance of his passion * Id. contr Faust l. 20. c. 21. To celebrate the Sacrifice of our Lord by a Sacrament of commemoration †L. 3. de Trin. c. 4. And to receive the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist in remembrance of the death which he suffered for us Therefore he observes elsewhere that although Jesus Christ was but once offered up yet nevertheless it may be said that he is every day offered when in the Sacrament there is made a commemoration of this Sacrifice Id. Ep. 23. Jesus Christ saith he was once offered in his body and yet he is offered unto the people in the Sacrament not only in the solemnities of Easter but also on other daies and he lied not who being asked answers that he is sacrificed Theodoret was of the same mind as the others Theodor. in Ep ad Heb. c. 8.4 for making himself this Objection Wherefore was it that the Priests of the New Testament make the Mystical Liturgy that is to say the Eucharist
from Holiness to Holiness But if the holy Fathers considered the Eucharist as an Image of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ they have also more especially considered it as the Memorial of his Death and Sufferings That was it which was designed by St. Justin Martyr when he said That Jesus Christ commanded us to make the Bread of the Eucharist in remembrance of the death which he suffered for those Contr. Tryph. p. 259. whose Souls are cleansed from all sin And Tatian who had been at the School of this excellent Master Diatess t. 7. Bibl. Pat. observes That the Lord commanded his Apostles to eat the Bread and drink the Eucharist because it was the Memorial of his approaching Suffering and Death It was also in the same Contemplation that St. Austin spake 1 L. 83. quaest q. 61. Of celebrating the Image of his Sacrifice in remembrance of his Passion 2 Id. contr Faust l. 20. c. 21. of celebrating the Sacrifice of our Saviour by a Sacrament of remembrance and 3 Id. l. 3. de Trinit c. 4. De fide ad Petr. c. 19. to receive the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist in remembrance of the death which he suffered for us It is the constant Doctrine of the ancient Doctors of the Church of Eusebius St. Chrysostom Theodoret of Eulogius Patriarch of Alexandria and others particularly of St. Fulgentius who speaking of the Eucharist said That it is the Commemoration of the Flesh which Jesus Christ offered and of the Blood which he shed for us This Remembrance brings into our minds divers Ideas which do all contribute unto the sanctifying of the Communicant In the first place an Idea of the strict Justice of God who not being able to pardon us without first receiving a satisfaction chose rather to abandon his own Son unto the most bitter and sharpest of all torments and unto the most shameful death than to see us perish eternally Therefore the Apostle saith That God appointed him from all Eternity Rom. 3. to be a Propitiation by Faith in his Blood thereby to declare his Righteousness that is to say according to the Interpretation of Origen That God in the fulness of time In Rom. 3. and in these last Ages hath shewed his Justice and hath given for a Saviour him which he had appointed to make a Pripitiation for our Offences for God saith he is just and being just he could not justifie Sinners therefore he would have the Redeemer to interpose to the end that those which could not be justified by their own Works might be saved by believing in his Name Secondly The Idea of our sins which had rendred us Slaves unto the Devil and unto Death In Ps 95. for Mankind saith St. Austin was held Captive under Satan and were subject unto Devils And that of the goodness of God and of his great love towards men John 3. For he so loved the World that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believed in him should not perish but should have eternal Life Whence it is that St. Bernard said That he gave him unto us Serm. 1. de advent Domin because his compassion is great his mercies are many in number and his love is abundant It was the Humiliation of Jesus Christ and the exceeding greatness of his Love which moved him to die for us It was the thought of St. Austin when he said Con. duas Epist Pelag. l. 4. c. 4. Jesus Christ was pleased to undergo death for us that is to say the punishment of sin without sin for as he only was made the Son of Man to the end that we should become the Children of God so also he alone suffered the punishment for us not having deserved it to the end that by him we should obtain forgiveness without having deserved it because that as we deserved no good so also he on his part merited no evil he bare our punishment not being guilty thereby to cancil our Obligation and to put an end unto our punishment In fine the Remembrance whereof we speak represents unto us the infinite price of his Blood for our Redemption Euseb demonstrat l. 1. For it is this great and inestimable price saith an ancient Bishop which according to the testimony of the Prophets was to redeem the Jews and the Gentiles this Sacrifice for the whole World this Offering for the Souls of all Mankind this pure Hostage for all Sins this Lamb of God of whom the Prophets have said so many things and by whose divine and mystical Doctrine we all which were Gentiles have found forgiveness of sins and all those amongst the Jews which have hoped in his Name deliverance from the Malediction of the Law All these Considerations create in our Souls a holy and religious dread of offending a God whose Justice is so severe and whose tender mercies also are so great a God who being of right our Judge chose rather to become our Father and to save us by his Grace when he might justly have punished us in his Anger a mortal and irreconcilable hatred against all sin and wickedness a firm resolution of warring against it and never to lay down Arms until we have overcome it a true and hearty reliance of flying unto the merciful Throne of our Saviour an ardent Zeal for his Glory an absolute renouncing of the World and of our own selves to the end not to live but unto him only seeing he hath so lovingly shed his Blood for our Salvation and for a fulness of felicity so ardent a love for this blessed Redeemer that each faithful Communicant may say in that blessed moment with the Spouse I am my Beloveds and my Beloved is mine Moreover the same holy Doctors of the Church have contemplated the Sacrament as a Memorial of the blessed Resurrection Basil de Bapt. cap. 3. p. 581. saying that we participate thereof To put us always in remembrance of him which is risen again for us This Remembrance assures us that the object of our hope of our confidence and of our faith Rom. 1. is not Man only but that he is God also for he was declared to be the Son of God by the Resurrection from the Dead He assureth us that his Satisfaction was accepted of his Father for our discharge and that it had the vertue and power to appease his wrath and to reconcile us unto him From thence it is that the Apostle saith not only Rom. 4. That he was delivered for our sins but also That he rose again for our Justification And in fine he assures us that this Resurrection which justifies us before God should shew its efficacy in the death of our Old Man and in the crucifying the Flesh and the Lusts thereof Rom. 6. For we are buried together with him in his death by Baptism that as Jesus Christ is raised from the dead by the glory of the Father so also we should walk
designed to ordain Reader Dominico interim legit nobis id est auspicatus est pacem dicit dedicat lectionem which Mr Rigaut did not understand no more than Mr Lombert who followed the Sentiment of Mr Rigaut in the fair and exact Translation which he hath given us of this Father 5. Upon the Letter of the Council of Antioch which condemned Paul of Samosatia 6. Upon the Tenth persecution which shall be found more exactly describ'd than in all the former Histories because Monsieur L'ARROQVE hath borrow'd great helps from Lactantius his Treatise de Mortibus Persecutorum published of late by Mr Baluze 7. De Sacerdotibus secundi Ordinis Archidiaconis 8. De Ordinibus ex quibus Episcopi sumebantur 9. De Epistolis Tractoriis 10. De Natura veteris Ecclesiae 11. De Energumenis c. 12. De Paenitentibus eorumque gradibus 13. De Antiquo ritu dimittendi ab Ecclesia Catechumenos Energumenos paenitentes 14. De dupliti Catechumenorum genere 15. De tempore quo obtinere caepit in Ecclesia orientali haec loquendi formula EPISCOPVS DEI GRATIA ET SEDES APOSTOLICAE 16. De pluralitate beneficiorum ut vulgo loquuntur 17. De Nudipedalibus As he from whom we expect these pieces of Ecclesiastical History is endow'd with much wit and learning it needs not be fear'd that they will in his hands lose any thing of their luster and beauty All we have hitherto said refers unto the Wisdom of Monsieur L'ARROQVE which indeed is a very vast and spacious Field but should we speak of the qualities of his Soul we should have much more matter to insist on He had a Soul so sincere as is scarcely to be found in this Age he without envy beheld the merits of other learned persons and esteemed their good qualities he was a great and strict observer of Discipline and contented not himself to declaim in the Pulpit against Vice in general but persecuted it in all places running the hazard of creating himself Enemies by the security of his life he preached by example and discover'd a true Christian Constancy in all the troubles of his life he discharged his Duty with so much exactness that he would never discontinue performing his Function during an Ague which held him ten Months after his being call'd to Saumur I say he would neither discontinue the Duties of his Ministry nor those of his studies although the Physitians told him that a distemper which often had fits of 36 hours would not be removed if he did not give himself some repose The Troubles of the Churches of France these last years were incomparably more grievous unto him than any particular Afflictions unto his own Family could have been and should these Misfortunes continue what Cicero said of another may be said of him Ii rempublicam casus sequuti sunt ut mihi non erepta L. Crasso a Diis immortalibus vita sed donata mors esse videatur THE HISTORY OF THE EUCHARIST PART I. Containing the exteriour Form of Celebration CHAP. I. Wherein is treated of the Matter of the Sacrament THE first thing that presents it self in the Celebration of the Eucharist is the matter of the Sacrament that is to say the Bread and Wine for three of the Evangelists and St. Paul testifie that Jesus Christ took Bread and a Cup wherein there was Wine and that he called the Wine the fruit of the Vine All the Holy Fathers unanimously avouch the same all the Liturgies which are come to our hands depose the same seeing we find these two Elements imployed in this mystery and the form of Celebration proposed unto us by St. Justin Martyr the Author of the Apostolical Constitutions St. Cyril of Jerusalem in his Mystagogicks the pretended Denis the Arcopagite in his Hierarchy and generally all those which have writ on this subject suffer us not to doubt of it as neither doth the defence which the Fathers and Councils have made of offering any thing else but Bread and Wine in celebrating the Sacrament Also all Christians generally agree herein therefore it would be superfluous to stand to prove it seeing the thing is clear and it is granted by all the World and all Christian Societies are agreed on this Subject It will only be necessary to consider that Jesus Christ which is the Wisdom of the Eternal Father and who never did any thing but with a Wisdom and Conduct worthy of himself did not chuse Bread and Wine to make them Symbols of his body and blood but that he was thereunto induced for considerable Reasons Nevertheless I will not now stand to examine the Reasons which obliged him to make this choice I refer that unto Divines whose drift it is to inquire into this matter it will serve our turn to say that our Saviour having a design by means of his Sacraments to raise up the minds of Christians unto the consideration of the comforts they find in his blessed Communion he made choice of Elements which had some likeness and relation unto those things which they were to signifie and represent as for Instance When he instituted the Sacrament of Baptism which is the Sacrament whereby we are born into his Church he made choice of water to be the sign and symbol of it because it is proper to represent the vertue of his Blood and of his Spirit for the purifying of our souls for as water hath the quality of cleansing our bodies from all uncleanness so also the Blood and Spirit of Jesus Christ have the vertue the force and efficacy of washing and purifying our souls from all filthiness and impurities therefore it is that the Apostle calls Baptism the washing of Regeneration â—it 3. that is of our New Birth and for that reason it is that he saith elsewhere Eph. 5. that Christ hath cleansed the Church by the washing of water by the Word in like manner when he instituted the Eucharist which is another Sacrament of his Covenant whereby he gives unto us life after having given us our being he chose Bread and Wine to represent unto us the vertue of his Sacrifice and of his Death and which is the food of our souls For as Bread Wine are food very proper for nourishing the body and for preserving this mortal and perishing life even so his Body broken and his Blood poured out do divinely feed and nourish our souls and do admirably preserve this heavenly and Spiritual life whereof we enjoy even here below some fore-tastes and first-fruits the accomplishment whereof we shall one day receive to our comfort in Heaven And it is in regard of this wonderful effect John 6. that his Flesh is meat indeed and his Blood is drink indeed and that those who eat this Flesh and drink this Blood have life everlasting and that they shall be raised unto glory and immortality in the last day Nevertheless it must be granted that the relation and resemblance which the
Continuator of Sigebert doth inform us Supplem Chron. Sigeb ad an 1124. We shall not now say any more because that upon another Subject we shall be forc'd to inlarge upon this History which plainly shews that the Devil doth not cease from time to time to make his Attempts against this great mystery of Christian Religion knowing very well that 't is one of the most precious pledges of our blessed Jesus a Divine and efficacious seal of his gracious Covenant and an illustrious Memorial of his Sacrifice and Death wherein we find immortality and life Wherefore having armed Hereticks to combate this Divine Sacrament some after one manner some after another he stirred up the Jews and others to take occasion from the Sacrament to reproach Christians some to say that they had reduced all the Service of their Religion unto an Oblation of Bread or at least that they had invented a new Oblation others that they were worshippers of Ceres and Bacchus and that they religiously adored those imaginary Deities In fine Rabbi Benjamin in S. Isidore of Damieta Isid Pelus l. 1. Ep. 401. urgeth this accusation against Christians That they had invented a new and strange Oblation in consecrating Bread unto God whereas the Law established Sacrifices in the Blood which S. Isidore doth not deny but only saith unto this Jew That he ought not to be ignorant That the Law it self consecrated the Shew-bread And others reproach the Orthodox in S. Austin That they served Ceres and Bacchus August contra Faust l. 20. c. 13. under pretence of the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist whereunto this holy Father only replies That although this be Bread and Wine yet they do nothing refer unto those Heathen Idols It may be collected from a certain place in Tertullian that the Pagans did calumniate Christians for that they celebrated their Mysteries with Bread steept in the Blood of a young Child a calumny occasioned in all likelihood by the abominations of the Gnosticks for I am not certain whether in Tertullian's time there were of those Pepusians which as S. Austin doth report made the Bread of their Eucharist with the Blood of a Child of a year old which they drew from the body of the innocent Infant by pricking it all over with a Needle or some such sharp Instrument Tertul. l. 2. ad Uxor c. 5. But see here what Tertullian writes unto his Wife touching one that had an unbelieving Husband The Husband shall not know what you eat in secret before all other meat and if he knows 't is Bread will not he conclude that 't is that there is so much stir about Upon which words the late Mr. Rigaut makes this observation in his Notes upon Tertullian When you take the Eucharist which you keep in your house shall he not know of it Will not he diligently inform himself what it is you eat in private before all other meat and if he knows it is Bread will not he presently say in himself That 't is that Bread which was said to be steept in the Blood of a little Child which Calumny at that time much troubled the Christians I said expresly that it seemeth it might be thus gathered from the words of this learned African for I would not positively affirm this Induction to be absolutely necessary especially when I consider that Tertâ—llian himself represents unto us the unbelieving Husband suspecting the Christian Wife to go about to poyson him Id. ibid. Will he saith he suffer these things without sighing and without being in doubt whether it be Bread or Poyson Therefore I leave the Reader at his liberty to incline unto which side he please But because a Kingdom divided against it self cannot stand as our Saviour saith in the Gospel and that nothing is more pernicious unto a State than civil and intestine Wars there 's no question to be made but the Devil thought considerably to advance his design when he as it were armed and stirred up the Greek Church against the Latin Church touching the nature and quality of the Bread of the Eucharist the Greeks affirming That it was Leavened and the Latins on the contrary contending for the use of Unleavened Bread It must be granted the Greeks were mistaken in affirming that Jesus Christ celebrated the Eucharist with Leavened Bread for it is certain that when he did celebrate it there was no Leaven at all suffered to be kept amongst the people of Israel Thence it is that the holy Scripture calls those days The days of unleavened Bread What likelihood was there then that our Saviour should use Leavened Bread in his Sacrament seeing there was none in all Judea and that the Jews were not permitted to have any But it also must be confessed that the Latins were not wholly without Blame to be so self-will'd or obstinate in employing unleavened Bread in their Eucharist under a pretence that Jesus Christ used it in his making a general Rule of a particular Occasion which ought not in reason to be insisted upon For inasmuch as our Saviour used unleavened Bread it was through the custom of the time which suffered him not to have any other seeing there was no other in the whole Country But in the main the design of the Son of God being to give us in the Symboles of his Sacrament a Figure of the vertue and efficacy of his Body broken and of his Blood shed for the nourishment of our Souls by the relation they have unto the vertue of these two Elements for the nourishing our Bodies it is very evident that he would have the same Bread used to make his Eucharist and the same Wine which were commonly used for the preserving of life so that if there were any Christian Nation found which used Bread without Leven for their ordinary Food there is no question to be made but they may be permitted to use it for the celebration of the Sacrament and that they ought to make use of it But in all Countreys where Leavened Bread is used for the feeding of Men no other should be sought after for the Sacrament If the Bread be the Sacrament of the Body of Christ it is not so as leavened or unleavened but only as it is Bread fit to nourish us and as broken to represent unto us the painful Death of our Saviour upon the Cross therefore it is that it ought to be used according to the diversity of the places where one resides I say that no other Bread should be used in the Celebration of the Eucharist but the same Bread which is eaten for our common Food and when I say that the Latins are not wholly without blame in so scrupuloully observing the use of unleavened Bread I do not regard it simply but in respect of what hath been practised some Ages past for they used leavened Bread in their Sacrament a great while as other Christian Communions did the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist
term The mother and root of all Riches the death of Sin the life of Virtue and the way which leads unto Paradise they chearfully with their Goods relieved the necessities of the Church whereof they were Members and in the Communion of which the Lord was pleased by his grace to settle them to make them partakers of his great Salvation S. Luke gives us so clear and full a representation in the second Chapter of the Acts of the Apostles that it cannot be thought of without admiration and at the same time without lamenting and deploring the dulness and coldness of these last times wherein is too plainly seen the accomplishment of the words of our Saviour who foretold That iniquity should abound and the love of many should wax cold But at the beginning of Christian Religion as this charity was in its greatest beauty the whole Church offered unto God upon the Table every Lords day or on the days when they Assembled to participate of this Sacrament of their Salvation and of there Union their Oblations for the support of their Spiritual Guides or Ministers for the relief of their Poor and for the other Necessities of the whole Church and out of these Offerings there was taken as much Bread and Wine as was needful for the holy Communion a custom which if I mistake not began to be practised in the days of the Apostles for S. Clement one of their Disciples Clement Epist ad Cor. p. 53. speaks of it as of a matter already established in that excellent Letter which he wrote unto the Church of Corinth in the name of that of Rome whereof he was one of the Pastours Those saith he which make their oblations at the time appointed are agreeable and blessed for obeying the command of God they do not sin Just Mart. Apolog. 1. p. 60. And Justin Martyr in his first Apology for the Christians it is commonly called the second sheweth that in his time the Food which was offered unto God by Believers with Prayers and Thanksgiving to be eaten and to relieve the Poor were called Oblations and towards the conclusion of that excellent work he saith That after Prayers and the kiss of Charity there was presented unto the Pastour Bread and a Cup mingled with Wine and Water and that he having received these things rendred praise and thanks unto God the Father of all in the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost And there also he distinguisheth the Prayers of the Minister for the Consecration of the Eucharist from the action of the people presenting him the Bread and Wine which action he calls Oblation which he repeats again afterwards Cypr de operib Eleemos S. Cyprian also mentions these Oblations but under the name of Sacrifices when he reproacheth a rich and covetous Widow That she came into the Assembly or unto the Sacrament of the Lord without an Oblation and that she took part of the Sacrifice which the Poor had offered Hieron in â—erem c. 11. in Ezech. c. 18. Innoc. ad Dâ—cent c. 3. Ambros in Pâ—al 118. In like manner S. Jerom and Pope Innocent the first inform us that in their time the Deacon did publickly repeat in the Church the names of those which offered S. Ambrose Bishop of Milain in the argument upon the 118. Psalm and according to the Hebrews the 119. teacheth us that he that would communicate after having received holy Baptism was obliged to offer his present or gift at the Altar in the Constitutions which commonly go under the Apostles names Conslit Apost l. 8. s. 10. Prayers are made for them which offered Sacrifices and the first-fruits to the end God would render them an hundred fold and there is to be seen in the same piece several rules touching those Oblations Sozom. hist Eccles l. 6. c. 15. Hist Eccles l. 5. c. 17. Aug. Ep. 122. Sozomen observes in his Church-History that the Emperour Valens came to Church offered the gift upon the Table Theodoret reports the same of the Emperour Theodosius And S. Austin speaking of two Christian Women Captives who deploring their misery said amongst other things that in the place where they were They could neither carry their Oblations unto the Altar of God nor find any Priest unto whom to present it Id. Serm. 215. de temp if it were his And elsewhere recommending unto his flock the use and practice of these Oblations Offer saith he the Oblations which are consecrated at the Altar that man that is able to offer and doth not ought to blush for shame if he communicates of the offering of another And because the charity of Christians decayed by little and little and their zeal insensibly failing and loosing daily some of its ardour and strength these Oblations were not so numerous as they were wont to be every one easily dispensing with himself in not offering at the Table of the Lord as they were accustomed to do the Councils were obliged by their Canons and decrees to kindle the fire of this zeal which was almost extinguished whereunto tended that of the second Council of Mascon Assembled Anno 585 Concil Matisc 2. can 4. which ordains that all the people should offer every Lords day the Oblation of Bread and Wine and that of the Council of Mayence Anno 813. Which requires that Christian people should continually be put in mind to make the Oblations Con. Mogunt an 813. can 44. Capitul 858. c. 53. t. 3. Concil Gall. which is also repeated in the fifth Book of the Capitularies of Charlemain Chap. 94. It was also one of the instructions which Herard Archbishop of Tours gave unto his Priests Anno 858. that they should exhort the people to offer their Oblations to God and also in many other parts of the writings of the Antients I know not whether that Woman mentioned by John the Deacon in the life of Gregory the first needed those exhortations of presenting her offering unto God or whether she did it of her own free will and by that ardent zeal which inspired the primitive Christians with such commendable sentiments of pity and charity Vita Gregor 1. l. 2. c. 41. but in fine he writes That a certain Woman did offer unto Gregory as he celebrated the solemnity of the Mass the usual Oblations and that afterwards Gregory said in giving her the Sacrament The body of our Lord preserve your Soul she smiled in that he called the loaf of Bread which she made her self the body of Christ And forasmuch as for the most part none were admitted unto the participation of the Eucharist but those which presented their Oblations there is a very great number of Canons in the Councils which prescribe to whom the Oblations were to be distributed and to whom not but it is not necessary to alledge more proofs of this Antient custome seeing the matter admits of no difficulty Nevertheless this is not all that we intend
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.
this holy Religion of the Son of God for in all their Apologies they spake not one word of the external Sacrifices of Christians though they were not ignorant that it had been the fittest and most effectual way to have invited the Pagans and Jews unto the Profession of the Gospel on the contrary they explain themselves so clearly on this matter that it is not to be wondered at that their Enemies should shun a Religion wherein by the confession and owning of those very persons who defended it by the purity and innocency of their writings there were no such Sacrifices as those whom they desired to convert did look for and expect for instance St Justin Martry retorting the calumny of Atheism and Impiety wherewith the Jews and Pagans endeavoured to slander our holy Religion by reason thereof is content to say Just Marr. Apol. 2. vel 1. p. 58 60. That there are no other Sacrifices to be made but Prayers and giving Thanks which sweeten all the other Oblations which we make unto God to honour him as we are bound and according to his Merit Id. Ep. ad Diogn p. 495 496. And in another part of his Works he rejects the Sacrifices of Jews and Pagans but without assigning unto Christians any which to speak properly may be so called He also doth almost the very same in disputing against Tryphon the Jew Id. contr Tryph. p. 238 239 240. wherein he sheweth that the Service of God doth not consist in their Sacrifices and that therefore is the reason Christians do not offer any without saying they have others different from theirs he indeed confesseth in the same Dialogue That the Christians offer unto God an Oblation well pleasing in his sight according to the Prophecy of Malachy when they do celebrate their Eucharist of Bread and Wine And when his Adversary explains these Oblations and Sacrifices of Malachy of Prayers and Invocations which those of the Jewish Nation who were in Captivity addressed unto our Lord for removing their Calamity and Misery St. Justin makes this Answer Ibid. p. 344 345. I fay also That the Prayers and Thanksgivings of Saints and Believers are the only Sacrifices perfect and well pleasing unto God and that they be the only Sacrifices which Christians have learned to make even then it self when they celebrate the Sacrament It is what he designs by the wet and dry Food and it is therein he saith that they shew forth a commemoration of the Death of the Lord. Afterwards this holy Doctor observes That in the days of Malachy there were no Jews scattered abroad over the World whereas amongst all Nations and all Countries of the World at the time our glorious Martyr wrote there were offered unto God the Creator of all things Prayers and Thanksgivings in the Name of Christ Jesus whence it is that he saith of Christians in general Ibid. p. 314. C. That they are a Royal Priesthood offering unto God holy and agreeable Sacrifices God not accepting any but of his own Priests Athenagoras in his Apology for the Christians making himself the same objection that Justin Martyr did on the behalf of the Enemies of the Gospel of Jesus Christ answereth no otherwise than he had done he represents That God who made all things hath no need of Blood of Odors Flowers nor Perfumes That the great Sacrifice which he desires is That we should know him That we should be instructed in the greatness of his power whereby he hath stretched out the Heavens gathered the Waters together in the Sea divided betwixt Light and Darkness beautified the Sky with Stars caused the Earth to encrease created Beasts and made Man That it sufficeth to lift up pure hands to him who standeth not in need of any other Oblation or more splendid Sacrifice Athenag pro Christ p. 13. Minut. in Octav. Whereunto he adds But what need have I to be troubled for Offerings and Sacrifices seeing God careth not for them he requires an unbloody Sacrifice a reasonable Service and when the Pagan asks this Question of the Christian in Minutius Felix Wherefore the Christians have no Temples nor Altars the Christian answers Do you think that we do conceal what we worship under a shew that we have no Temples nor Altars and thereupon he makes this excellent reflection worthy of the School of Jesus Christ That the Sacrifice which ought to be offered unto God is a good Soul a pure Conscience and Faith unfeigned That to live uprightly do Justice abstain from Evil and hinder his Neighbour from hurt is to offer a fat Sacrifice These are our Sacrifices Orig. contr Cels l. 8. p. 389. ult Edit saith he this is our Service The Philosopher Celsus in Origen reproaching Christians that they have no Altars this learned Man agrees with the Pagan and confesseth that by consequence they also had no Sacrifice because there is a strict relation betwixt a a true Altar and a Sacrifice properly so called And in the same Book Ibid. p. 487. he opposeth unto the Sacrifices offered by the Pagans for the Emperours the Prayers which Christians made for the conservation of their persons the prosperity of their souls and the establishing of their Empire and saith That by them they fought like Priests of God which made Tertullian say as was before mentioned Tertul. Apol. C. 30. That the fairest and fattest Sacrifice which God requires is prayer from a pure heart an innocent soul and a holy mind and that 't is that also which they offer for the preservation of the Emperours It is of prayer also that he explains in the same work Ibid. c. 39. this excellent Oblation and that he saith elsewhere That that is done by prayer only which God hath commanded Ibid. ad Scap. c. 2. Clem. Alex. Strom. l. 7. p. 707. because the Creator of the Vniverse hath no need of Blood and of Incense And Clement of Alexandria doth not he make this Declaration That we do not sacrifice unto God who standeth in need of nothing but that we do glorifie him that was sacrificed for us in sacrificing of our own selves that we honour him by prayers Ibid. p. 717. that we do justly offer unto him this most excellent and most holy Sacrifice Ibid. that the Altar which we have upon Earth is the Assembly of those which are dedicated unto prayer as if they had but one heart and one mind Ibid. p. 719. That the Sacrifice of the Church is the Word which like sweet Incense proceeds from devout souls That the truly sound Altar is the just upright soul That not sumptuous Sacrifices should be offered unto God but such as may be acceptable unto him That the Sacrifices of Christians are prayers praises Ibid. p. 728. the reading the holy Scriptures Hymns and Psalms the instructing the ignorant and liberality to the Poor But nothing can be seen clearer and more positive than what is
it that is either to oblige the people to adore it or for some other reason The first that I can find who explained the cause and reason of this Elevation was German Patriarch of Constantinople in his Theory of Ecclesiastical things where he very curiously inquires the mystical reasons of what was practised in the Church and particularly in the celebration of Divine Mysteries a Treatise which most Authors attribute unto German who lived in the VIII Century and some unto another of the same name who was Patriarch in the XII After all the Author of this Theory being come unto the Inquiry of this Elevation crept into the Church about the VI. Century doth sufficiently give to understand that it intended not the adoration of the Sacrament but only to represent the Elevation of our Saviour upon the Cross Germ. Constantinop in Theor. t. 12. Bibl. Patr. p. 407. and that was its lawful and genuine use and end The Elevation of the pretious body saith he represents unto us the Elevation on the Cross the Death of our Lord upon the Cross and his Resurrection also As for the Latins the first that I remember who bethought himself of finding out a Mystery in the same Elevation was Ives of Chartres at the end of the XI Century but all the Mystery that he therein found was no more than had been found by this Patriarch of Constantinople near 300. years before him When the Bread and the Cup saith he are lifted up by the Ministry of the Deacon Ivo Carnens Ep. de Sacrif Miss t. 2. Bibl. Patr. p. 602. there is Commemoration made of the lifting up of the Body of Christ upon the Cross And as this is the first among the Latins who in the Elevation of the Sacrament hath discovered the Mystery of the Elevation of our Lord upon the Cross so also is he the first of the Latin Church if I mistake not who hath writ of this Elevation for there is no mention of it neither in S. Gregory nor in S. Isidore of Sevil who both flourished in the beginning of the VII Century nor in Amalarius Fortunatus nor in Rabunus Archbishop of Mayence nor in Walafridus Strabo nor in the pretended Alcuin Authors partly of the IX and partly of the X. Century although they all of them wrote of Divine Offices and indeavoured to discover the Mystical significations of all things practised in Religion in their times and especially in the Sacrament unless it were Gregrory the first who only left a Liturgy for the Celebration of the Sacrament It s true that at the end of Rabanus his first Book of the Institution of Clerks there is seen a Fragment by way of supplement wherein mention is made of the Elevation whereof we treat but against the truth of the Manuscripts wherein this Fragment is not to be found besides what the thing it self evidently declares that this Famous Prelate was not the Author of it Moreover the Author whosoever he was with German and Ives of Chartres refers the Elevation he mentions unto the Elevation of the Body of Jesus Christ upon the Cross The Elevation of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ by the Priest Adject ad Raban l. 1. de offic Bibl. patr t. 10. p. 586. Hug. de St. Victor l. 2. c. 28. de Miss observat Bibl. Patr. t. 10. p. 1408. and by the Deacon imports saith he his Elevation on the Cross for the salvation of the World Hugh of St. Victor an Author of the XII Century discourseth no other wise of this Mystery The Priest saith he after the sign of the Cross lifts with both hands the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and a little after lays it down which signifies the Elevation of Jesus Christ on the Cross and his laying down into the Grave The Learned of the Communion of Rome agree in all this with the Protestants and James Goar of the Order of preaching Fryers in his Notes upon the Ritual of the Greek Church observes Goar in Eucholog p. 146. n. 158. That it is not certainly known when the lifting up the Host was joyned unto the Consecration in the Latin Church and rejects the Opinion of Durandus who maintained it had never been separated from it and he proves his by the silence of the Writers above mentioned unto whom he joyns the Author of the Micrologue who lived by every bodies confession in the XI Century and the Roman Order which some suppose was writ at the same time And he saith that both these speak of the Elevation of the Oblation Ord. Rom. t. 10. Bibl. patr p. 15. which is true as to the Micrologue but as for the Roman Order it indeed makes mention of the Elevation of the Cup by the Deacon for as for the Elevation of the Host that is to say the consecrated Bread by the Bishop Goar ubi supra I find no mention thereof in the whole Book howsoever Goar gives to be understood that the Elevation spoken of by these two Authors tended not unto Adoration when he observes that it was not joyned unto Consecration but that it was made at the end of the Canon very near the Lords Prayer Hugh Maynard Hug. Menard in Sacram. Greg. p. 373 374 375. a Benedictine Fryer explains himself so fully in his Notes upon Gregory the first in his Book of Sacraments that nothing more can be said than what he hath written Now saith he in the Latin Church as soon as the Bread and Wine is consecrated they are lifted up that the people there present might adore them which practice I do not judge to be antient seeing there is no mention thereof to be found in our Books of the Sacraments Printed nor Written nor in Pamelius nor in the Roman Order nor in Alcuin Amalarius Walafridus Rabanus who have fully explained the Order of the Mass nor in the Micrologue who hath also very exactly laboured in the same Subject Afterwards this learned Fryer observes that it is clearer than the Sun at Noon day if the XV. Chapter of the Author of the Micrologue be considered who would not have failed to have writ of this Ceremony had it been used in his time that is in the XI Century because he makes mention of lifting up the Bread and the Cup together before the Lords Prayer which also appears more at large in the twenty third Chapter of the same Treatise Nevertheless he excepts the Mozarabick Office wherein mention is made of two Elevations of the Host one of which is made presently after Consecration and the other after these words Let us declare with the Mouth what we believe with the Heart but at the same time he saith by Parenthesis if nothing hath been added and to say the truth there is great likelyhood that it is an addition made since the introducing into the Latin Church the custom of lifting up the Host immediately after Consecration that it might be
of the Saints they might be expell'd by the Priestly Authority In the Tenth Action of the Council of Chalcedon Assembled An. 451. there is a request of the Priests of the Church of Edessa against Ibas their Bishop wherein they complain of many things T 3. Concil p. 382. F. ult edit but more especially That when the Commemoration of Martyrs was made there was no Wine given to offer at the Altar to be Sanctified and distributed unto the people except it were a very little and that bad and muddy just newly prest and made Pope Gelasius at the end of the V. Century De consecr dist 2. Ep. ad Major Joan. in Gratians Decree We have been informed saith he that some persons having only taken part of the holy Body do refrain the Cup of the holy Blood which persons doubtless it being said they are hindred by I know not what Superstition ought to receive the whole Sacraments or be quite excluded from them because that the dividing of one and the same Mysterie cannot be done without Sacriledge Fragm 28. contr Fabian L. 2. de vita sua c 15. p. 216. S. Fulgentius said That we participate of the Body and Blood of Christ when we eat of his Bread and drink of his Cup. S. Eloy Bishop of Noyon in the VII Century requires That the sick should with Faith and Devotion receive the Eucharist of the Body and Blood of Christ T. 4. Concil p. 503. The Third Council of Toledo Assembled Anno 589. in the second Canon Ordains That the peoples heart being purified by Faith they should draw near to eat the Body and Blood of Christ Which the Fourth held in the year of our Lord 633. in the 7. and 8. Canons called Ibid. p. 584 587. To receive the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ And in the Eighteenth Canon it makes this Rule for reforming a certain abuse crept into the Church in the celebration of this Sacrament Some Priests communicate presently after saying the Lords Prayer and then give the Blessing unto the people which we forbid for the future but that after the Lords Prayer and the conjunction of the Bread and the Cup the blessing be given the people and that then the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Lord be received in this manner that the Priest and Deacon communicate before the Altar the Clergy in the Quire and the people without the Quire From which words it appears That in Spain in the VII Century the Communion of the Laity did nothing differ from that of the Priest who Officiated as to the manner but in respect of the place only Also the XI Council of Toledo Ib. p. 825. Assembled Anno 675. in the Eleventh Canon plainly speaks also of the Communion under both the Symbols of Bread and Wine when it forgiveth such as being very sick through weakness refuse the Eucharist not through infidelity But because they cannot swallow it down except it be what they drink of the Lords Cup. Thus far it was the practice of the Church to administer unto Communicants both Symbols severally apart It is true that at the same time of this XI Council of Toledo some going about to change this wholsom custom and to administer the Bread steept in the Consecrated Wine the Council of Braga in Gallicia made a Decree to stop the current of this practice but before we alledge this new Decree it must be observed That the Church by a charitable condescension suffered the Eucharist steeped to be given unto very weak and sick persons and to young Children who were of a long time admitted to the participation of the Sacrament as hath been shewn We have an instance of the first in the old Man Serapion a Penitent and Bed-ridden for as I perceive in the Third Century the Eucharist was administred to no sick folks but such as were of the number of the Penitents and in danger of Death And we read in Eusebius that a Priest of Alexandria following the example of Denys his Bishop sent by a young Boy a bit or little parcel of the Eucharist Euseb Hist Eccles l. 6. c. 44. commanding that it should be steept and put into the old Mans mouth that he might swallow it As for young Children it appears that it may be collected both from S. Cyprian in his Treatise of those that were fallen and yielded during the time of Persecution Dimid temp c. 6. and of the counterfeit Prosper in what he hath written of Promises and Predictions that it was so done to such as were very weak I say it may seem to be gathered for the thing is very dubious in S. Cyprian who teacheth us that the Communion was given unto little Children but he doth not positively say that the Bread was steept in the Wine the pretended Prosper speaks more formally In a word it is evident that this kind of Communion was not practised but in great necessity De commun sub utraque spec p. 1027. and also as Cassander hath judiciously observed Those persons who steeped the Bread in the Wine did plainly shew and declare how necessary they believed both Symbols were to make a lawful Communion I say this sort of Communion was not practised I mean that the Bread was not steeped in Wine but upon great necessity In fine Hugh Maynard a learned Benedictine speaking of the Council of Clermont under Pope Vrban the second as 't is reported by Cardinal Baronius he collects that according to the intent of the Council may be given in a Spoon unto sick Persons ready to dye the Body of our Lord steeped in the Blood that they might swallow it the easier And to shew that the Eucharist was not so administred but unto such as were very weak he makes mention of a Manuscript of St. Remy of Rheims Of the anointing the sick written towards the end of the X. Century upon which he observes that when the Sacrament was administred unto such as were not extream ill it was said unto them separately The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ keep you to life everlasting the Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ ransom you unto life everlasting which words saith he make a separate and distinct reception But as for those who were as 't were at the point of death these two expressions were joined together saying The Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve thy Soul unto everlasting life because saith he there was given unto the sick Person in a Spoon the Body of the Lord steeped in the holy Blood Now to return to the Council of Braga in Gallicia it was assembled in the year of our Lord 675. and in the second Canon which Gratian Ives of Chartres Cassander and several others mis-alledge as a Fragment of an Epistle of Pope Julius to the Egyptians I say in the second Canon it reproves divers abuses and amongst others that of administring the Sacrament
Christ where the Reader may observe if he please that the case is by way of permission and farther of a permission grounded not upon the authority of a Council but upon the necessity that is alledged of the fear or danger of effusion something of like nature is to be found in the antient customs of the Monastery of Cluny which were written after the death of the Abbot Odilon who dyed about the middle of the XI Century but in such a manner as appears that this custom was peculiar to the Congregation of Cluny the other Churches distributing both Symbols severally L. 2. c. 30. p. 146. t. 4. spicil Vuto all those unto whom he gives the holy Body say these antient customs he first wets or steeps it in the Blood but in the Margent they make this observation Another Manuscript adds Although this be contrary to the practice of other Churches because some of our Novices are such slovens that should they receive the Blood by it self they would not fail of being guilty of some great neglect Non remaneret Which words Cassander alledged in his Treatise of the Communion under both kinds for he saw the Manuscripts before the customs were Printed as they have been within this six or seven years past but it appears by the words above alledged that in most Churches the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament were given apart and distinct from one another In the year 1095. Vrban the Second held a Council at Clermont in Auvergna that made a Decree which is variously reported Cardinal Baronius in his Ecclesiastical Annals gives it us in these terms T. 11. ad an 1095. That no Body presume to Communicate at the Altar without receiving the Body apart and also the Blood by it self unless it be by necessity and with precaution This necessity regards the sick above-mentioned and this care or precaution refers in all likelihood to the danger of spilling which might happen more especially at great and festival Communions by reason of the great number of people that comunicates and doubtless it was upon such occasions that John Bishop of Auranch intended it should be permitted to give the Sacrament steeped unto the people if it were not better to refer unto the same subject that is to say unto sick bed-rid Persons both the necessity and precaution of the Canon in Baronius In a word Oderic Vital in his ninth Book of his Ecclesiastical History upon the year 1095. upon the relation of Maynard in his Notes upon the same Book of Sacraments of Gregory thus represents unto us the Canon Page 379. That the Body of the Lord be received separately and also the Blood of the Lord he speaks neither of necessity nor precaution and without that the Canon is clear and intelligible and without any difficulty it is no easiy matter to judge in what manner the Council exprest it self it only can be said that it seems to express it self as Oderic Vital saith if it be considered in the first place that 't was in this Council of Clermont the Croysade was granted for recovering the Holy Land Secondly that it appears by a Letter written from Antioch by the Adventurers four years after the Council that is to say in the year 1099. and directed unto Manasses Archbishop of Rheims that the Christians resolving to make a sally upon those which held them closely besieged in Antioch did first Communicate but under both Symbols distinctly These things being heard T. 7. Spicil p. 195. the Christians being purified by cenfessing their sins and strongly armed by receiving the Body and Blood of the Lord and being prepared for the combat they marched out of the gate Unto which may be added that a little before the Council of Clermont most Churches did Communicate as we have been informed by the antient customs of Cluny under both kinds distinctly But Paschal the Second who succeeded unto Vrban Anno 1099. commands both Symbols to be distributed separately Pascal 2. Ep. 32. t. 7. part 1. p. 130. except it be unto young Children and such as are at the point of death for unto such he gives liberty they should be communicated with the holy Wine only because they cannot swallow down the Bread And about the same time the Micrologue observes that the Communion with the steeped Sacrament Cardinal Humbert against the Greeks t. 4. Bibl. patr part 2. p. 217. A. Microlog c. 18. is no lawful Communion and proves it by the authority of the Roman Order It appears also that about fifty years before this Council of Clermont the steeped Sacrament was not always given unto Persons ready to depart this life but the holy Bread and the sanctified Cup apart at least nothing hinders but it may so be gathered from the Chronicle of Fontanella otherwise St. Wandrill in Normandy for speaking of Gradulph one of its Abbots who dyed in the year 1047. C. 8. t. 3. Spicil p. 268. it saith That being at the point of death and having received the Communion of the Body and Blood of the Lord he dyed Nevertheless the best and most holy things absolutely degenerate from their institution let us see the manner that the Communion with the steeped Eucharist was introduced and established in several places but not universally We have a Letter of Ernulph or Arnulph or if you please of Arnold at first a Monk at S. Lueiens of Beauvais then at Canterbury in Lanfranck's time afterwards made a Prior by Anselm a little after Abbot of Burk and at last by Radulph Bishop of Rose now Rochester in England he died Anno 1124. T. 2. Spicil p. 432. in this Letter which he writes unto one Lambert who demanded wherefore the Sacrament was then given steept seeing our Saviour gave the Bread and Wine distinctly he approves this new manner of giving the Sacrament although he owns that Jesus Christ distributed it otherwise and he likes it for the danger of shedding especially upon Festival daies because of the great numbers of persons that then use to communicate also he touches the inconvenience might happen by reason of men that have long and great Beards representing that if at their Meals they wet their Whiskars in the Liquor before they receive it in their mouth it may be feared they do the same in the Consecrated Wine if they are admitted unto the Sacramental Cup which he accounts a great crime which he chargeth upon the Communicant and also him that celebrates besides to strengthen what he saith of the danger of effusion upon solemn Festival daies when great numbers of Men and Women must be communicated of all sorts and conditions he observes that he that officiates will be still in danger of spilling something out of the Sacred Cup let him take never so much care and caution in distributing it because he often runs the hazard of this effusion when he is about to drink of it himself which cannot be done as he
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
the reading of Ecclesiastical Antiquity have doubtless found by Experience that sometimes one must travel very far and search many large Volumes before one finds what he looks for and I look upon these dry and barren Places to be like Wildernesses and sad unpleasant Deserts which Travellers are sometimes forc'd to pass over with much difficulty and trouble but they have also observed that sometimes are found without difficulty in the Works of the Ancient Fathers places so rich and abundant that I use to liken them unto those fat and fertile Soils which always answer the Husbandman's expectation and which with Interest restore the pains he with some little cost bestowed upon them We may in the number of these latter sort place those Passages where they have pleased themselves in meditating of the Mystery of the holy Sacrament for not content to have told us that its divine Author called the Bread and Wine his Body and Blood I find them ready to tell us that they were his Body broken and his Blood poured out and that as for them they always considered him at that moment not as sitting upon his Throne in Heaven but as hanging upon the Cross on Mount Calvary expiating the Sins of Mankind and for the Redemption of the World This was in all likelihood what St. Cyprian intended when he said Cypr. ep 63. That the Sacrifice which we offer is the Death of our Lord. And what St. Gregory of Nyss when he testifies That the Body of the Sacrifice is not fit to be eat if it be animated Greg Nys in Resur Dom. Orat. 1. August Psal 11. Hom. 2. Id. Quaest super Evang. l. 2. § 38. pag. 152. tom 4. Id. in Psal 110. that i◠if it be living Thence it is that St. Austin speaking of the Disciples of Jesus Christ saith That they suffered the same which those things did which they eat and he gives this Reason that the Lord gave them his Supper he gave them his Passion And again That now the Gentiles all the World over do very religiously receive the sweetness of the Sufferings of our Lord in the Sacraments of his Body and Blood and that we are fed with the Cross of our Lord because we eat his Body Id. de Doctr. Christ l 3 c. 16 He also makes the eating of the Lord's Body consist in communicating of his Death and in profitably representing unto our Memories that his Flesh was broken and crucified for us St. Chrysostom always represents Christ as dead in the Sacrament * Chrysost◠Hom. 51. in Math. Jesus Christ represented himself sacrificed †Homil. 83. The Mystery that is to say the Sacrament is the Passion and the Cross And upon the Acts of the holy Apostles ‖ Hom. 2. Whilst saith he this Death is celebrated c. then is declared a tremendous Sacrament which is that God hath given himself for the World And upon the Epistle to the Romans Hom. 8. Adore upon this Table whereof we are all Partakers Jesus Christ which was crucified for us And upon the Epistle to the Ephesians Hom. 3. Whilest the Sacrifice is carnied out and that the Lamb Christ Jesus our Lord is slain Hom. 14. And upon the Epistle to the Hebrews Our Lord Jesus Christ is stretched out stain And unto the People of Antioch What do you O Man Tom. 1. Hom. 15. you swear by the holy Table where Jesus Christ lieth slain And in the third Book of Priesthood When you see our Lord sacrificed and dead Tom. 4. l. 3. de Sacerdot the Priest sacrificing and praying and all those which are present died red with this precious Blood And in the Homily of the Treason of Judas Tom. 5. p. 464. Have respect for the matter or subject of the Oblation to Jesus Christ who is held forth slain And upon the Name of Church-yard Ida. 5. p 486. C We shall towards Evening see him which like a Lamb was crucified kill'd slain And again You forsake him seeing him put to death And in fine in the Homily touching the Eucharist Id t. 5 pag. 569 A B. in the Dedication or of Penance O wonderful you are not afraid the Mystical Table being made ready the Lamb of God being slain for you c. and the pure Blood being powred out of the Side into the Cup for your Sanctification We will add unto all this Hesychius Priest of Jerusalem who speak after this manner Hes ch in Le l. 1 c. 2. God made the Flesh of Jesus Christ which was not fit to be eaten before his Death I say he made it fit to be our Food after his Death for who is it that desired to eat the Flesh of God if he had not been crucified we should not eat the Sacrifice of his Body but now we eat the Flesh in taking the Memorial of his Passion Id l. 2. c. 6. And again The Cross hath made eatable by Men the Flesh of our Lord which was nailed upon it for if it had not been set upon the Cross we should not have communicated of the Body of Christ This was also Theodor. t. 3. ep 130. I suppose Theodoret's Meaning when he said Our Lord himself promised to give for the Ransom of the World not an invisible Nature but his Body The Bread saith he which I will give is my Flesh which I will give for the Life of the World And in the Distribution of the divine Mysteries in taking the Symbol he said This is my Body which is given for you or as the Apostle saith which is broken And also in giving the divine Mysteries after he had broken the Symbol and that he had divided it he adds This is my Body which is broken for you in Remission of Sins And again This is my Blood which is shed for many for the Remission of Sins Id. ep 145. p. 1026. A Tom 4. Dial. 1. Cyril Hierof Myslag 5. And elsewhere he calls the Eucharist The Type of the Passion of our Saviour St. Cyril of Jerusalem considering before him what was done in his Time in the Celebration of the Sacrament saith among other Things that we therein offer unto God Jesus Christ dead for our Sins that is to say in as much as we pray him to accept in our discharge the Death which he suffered for us and in our room and stead And St. Fulgentius some time after Theodoret in one of the Fragments of the ten Books he wrote against Fabian the Arrian having repeated the Words of Institution of the Sacrament as St. Paul relates them he adds That the Sacrifice is offered to shew the Lord's Death ex lib 8. Fragm 28 and to make a Commemoration of him which laid down his Life for us Amalarius Fortunatus spake the same Language in the IX Century as shall be shew'd in its place In the mean while it is necessary to observe that all Christians confess that
of this likeness that they often take the Names of the things themselves as then the Sacrament of the Body of Jesus Christ and the Sacrament of his Blood are after some sort his Body and Blood so the Sacrament of Faith is Faith He means that the Eucharist should be the Body and Blood of Christ by reason of the resemblance which there is betwixt them as the Sacrament of Faith that is to say Baptism is called Faith and as the Fridays before Easter are called the Passion of our Lord and the representation of his Death which is made in the celebration of the Sacrament his Death it self He instanced these two Examples of this kind of Speech in what preceded that which hath been cited I will not here stand to shew that the Fathers ground this resemblance some in the composition of Bread and Wine and others in their Effects because we have done it in the first Chapter of the first part Secondly they say that they are so called because They are the Sacraments the Signs and the Figures which do contain the Mystery I find it was formerly the reason of the Learned Tertullian Tertul. contr Marc. l. 3. c. 19. God saith he hath called the Bread his Body that you might know that he whom the Prophet had anciently represented by the Bread hath now given unto Bread the Figure of his Body And I cannot see that any other meaning can be given unto these Words of St. Austin Our Saviour made no difficulty to say this is my Body August contr Adim c. 12. when he gave the Figure of his Body It is necessary to observe that this Holy Doctor having alledged the Words of Jesus Christ This is my Body at the end of the Chapter he cites these Words of the Apostle The Rock was Christ to shew that what is said in the Old Testament that the Blood is the Life of Beasts ought to be understood significatively to signify that it is the Sign as the Bread is called the Body of Christ because it is the Figure and the Rock Christ because it was the Symbol of Christ The same St. Austin speaks thus elsewhere How is the Bread his Body and the Cup Id. ad Infant apud Fulgent Bed or that which is in the Cup his Blood Brethren these things are called Sacraments because one thing is seen and another thing is understood that which is seen is of a bodily Substance that which is understood hath a spiritual Fruit. I judge it was also the sense of Theodoret when he wrote Theod. dial 1. that our Lord who called his natural Body Wheat and Bread and who also called himself a Vine hath also called the visible Symbols by the Name of his Body and Blood not by changing their Nature but adding Grace unto their Nature Fac. l. 9. â— ult It is in the same sense Facundus said The Bread is not really his Body nor the Cup his Blood but they be so called because they contain the Mystery and for this reason our Lord called them his Body and Blood This is the Explication which St. Ireneus gives unto the Names of Body and Blood wherewith Jesus Christ honoured the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament Iren. l. 5 adver haeres c. 4. It is saith he the Eucharist of the Body and Blood And I know not but St. Eloy Bishop of Noyon Eligii vit l. 2. c. 15. t. 5. Spicileg borrowed this kind of Expression from St. Iraeneus for he makes use of it in the VIIth Century Let him saith he that is sick trust in the sole Mercy of God and let him receive with Faith and Devotion the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Orig. in Matth. c. 15. Chrysost t. 5. Homil. 33. It is also in this sense that Origen calls the Bread the symbolical and typical Body Also St. Chrysostom the mystical Body and Blood Eusebius Bishop of Caesaria doth positively make a difference betwixt the Mystical Body of our Lord be it what it will and his true Body when going to explain what Jesus Christ saith in the 6th Chapter of St. John â—useb de Eccles Theol. l. 3. c. 12. Hiâ—ron in Ezech. c. 41. Bed in c. 14. Mar. 2â— Luc. of the eating his Flesh and Blood he observes That he spake not of the Flesh which he had taken but of his Mystical Body and Blood St. Jerom calls it the Mystery of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ And Venerable Bede thus explains himself The Bread and Wine do Mystically relate unto the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ In the third place they give us for a Reason of this Denomination that the Sacrament is a memorial of Jesus Christ and of his Death but for this third Reason we refer the Reader unto what we have said in the first Chapter of this second Part where we have examined the Reflection which the Holy Fathers have made upon these Words of the Institution Do this in remembrance of me We must then pass unto their fourth Reason which consists as they tell us in that the Bread and Wine are in the place and stead of the Body and Blood of Christ It is very likely Tertullian thought so when he said The Body of Jesus Christ is reputed to be in the Bread Tertul. de Orat. c. 6. This is my Body Corpus ejus in pane câ—nsetur hot est corpus meum Mr. Rigaut is not far from this Opinion when he makes this Observation upon the Words of Tertullian It appears that they may be thus explained by the Sacrament of Bread he recommends his Body as St. Austin lib. 1. quaest Evang. 43. hath said by the Sacrament of Wine he recommends his Blood But whatever Mr. Aug. in Joan. Tract 45. Rigaut's Explication may be St. Austin speaks as I think cleanly enough in one of his Treatises upon St. John where he makes this difference Id. de Civit. Dei l. 18. c. 45. betwixt the ancient People which lived under the Law and those now who live under the Gospel See how the Faith continuing the same Faith the Signs have been changed the Rock was Christ unto us what is put upon God's Table is Jesus Christ He also elsewhere establisheth this Maxim That all those things which do signify seem in some sort to hold the place of the things signified as when the Apostle saith that the Rock was Christ because without doubt it signified Jesus Christ It is in the same sense St. Cyril Hierosol Mystag 4. Cyril of Jerusalem said Let us receive these things with full assurance as the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ for in the Type of Bread the Body is given unto you and the Blood in the Type of Wine Bullinger writing against Casaubon alledges a Greek Text out of a Passage of Victor of Antioch taken out of his Commentary upon St. Mark wherein we find the same Doctrine Victor
Devils by the eating of Meats consecrated unto Idols The Author of the Commentaries of St. Paul's Epistles in St. Jerom's Works interpreting these Words The Bread which we break c. makes this Observation Apud Hieron in c. 10.1 Cor. In like manner it appears that the Idolatrous Bread is the participation of Devils and upon these you cannot drink the Cup of the Lord and the Cup of Devils c. You cannot saith he be partakers of God and of Devils Theodoret said something of this kind upon these Words Theod in c. 10.1 Cor. t. 3. You cannot be partakers of the Lord's Table c. How saith he can it be that we should communicate of the Lord by his precious Body and Blood and that we should also communicate of Devils in eating what hath been offered unto Idols It was also the Language of Primasius an African Bishop Primas in c. 10. 1 Cor. t. 1 Bib. Patr. who makes these Reflections upon the same Words Even so the Bread of Idols is the participation of Devils you cannot have Fellowship with God and Devils Ibid. because you would participate of both Tables Sedulius speaks almost the same The second Doctrine which results from the Hypothesis of the Fathers is That considering that the Death of Christ is the cause of our Life which Life consists in the Sanctification of our Souls by means whereof we have Communion with God which is the lively Fountain of Life and therefore before Conversion we are said to be dead they have attributed unto the Sacrament the vertue of sanctifying and quickning us This is the sense of Theophilue of Alexandria Theoph. Ep. Pasch 2. saying That we break the Bread of the Lord for our Sanctification Hilary Deacon of Rome or the Author of the Commentaries upon St. Paul's Epistles under the Name of St. Ambrose be he whom it will assures us Apud Ambros in c. 11.1 Cor That altho this Mystery was celebrated at Supper yet it is not a Supper but a Spiritual Medicine which purifieth those which draw near with Devotion and which receive it with respect Gelas de duab nat Christ Pope Gelasius testifies That the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Christ render us partakers of the Divine Nature Aug. tract 27. in Joan. In Anaceph Therefore St. Austin will have us to eat and drink of it for the participation of the Holy Ghost Therefore it is St. Epiphanius saith That there is in the Bread a vertue to vivify us which is that influence of Life mentioned by St. Cyril CHAP. IV. A Continuance of the Doctrine of the Holy Fathers ALthough the Holy Fathers have hitherto sufficiently explained themselves and that they have fully declared what was their Belief touching the Nature of the Eucharist in saying That it is true Bread and true Wine and that this Bread and Wine are the Signs the Images and the Figures of the Body and Blood of our Lord but Signs accompanied if it may be so said with the Majesty of his own Person and filled with the quickning Vertue of his Divine Body broken for us called his Body and Blood by reason of the Resemblance because they are the Symbols and Sacraments the Memorials of his Person and of his Death because they are unto us instead of his Body and Blood and pass into a Sacrament of this holy Body and precious Blood and are changed into their Efficacy and Vertue nevertheless if we can discover what were the Consequences of this Doctrine I doubt not but it will yet receive greater Illustration For as it is impossisible that they should have believed the Conversion of the Substance of Bread and Wine into the Substance of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ without admitting the three following Doctrines to wit the eating of the Flesh of Christ with the Mouth of the Body the eating of this same Flesh by the Wicked as well as the Just and the Human Presence of Christ upon Earth So it is also impossible they should deny these three Positions without rejecting this substantial Conversion Therefore I suppose it is necessary to enquire exactly what they herein believed for if they have received them as Articles of their Belief it will be a great Conjecture in Favour of the substantial Conversion notwithstanding what they have already declared But if on the other hand they have rejected them or been far from admitting of them it will be a very great Conjecture to the contrary and at the same Time a strong Confirmation of what they have deposed in the precedent Chapters To begin then our Enquiry by the first of these three Points I mean by the eating of the Flesh of Jesus Christ I say if we consult Clement of Alexandria we shall find he makes a long Discourse in the first Book of his Pedagoge and that in all that Discourse he considers Jesus Christ either as the Milk of Children that is to say those which are Children in Knowledge or as the Meat of firm grown Men that is more advanced in Knowledge but always as a Spiritual Food and mystical Nourishment which requires to be eaten after the same manner as appears by what he saith of the Birth and Regeneration of the new People of the Swadling-cloths wherein he wraps them of the Growth for which he appoints them this Food and in that he makes our Hearts to be the Palace and Temple of the Son of God Hereunto particularly relates what he saith that the Lord in these Words of the Gospel of St. John Clem. Alex. Paedag. 1. c 6. Id. ibid. Eat my Flesh and drink my Blood speaks of Faith and of the Promise by an illustrious Allegory as by Meats whereby the Church which is composed of many Members is nourished and getteth growth and what he adds afterwards the Milk fit and necessary for this Child is the Body of Jesus Christ Id. ibid. which by the Word doth feed the new People whom our Lord himself hath begotten with bodily Pangs and wrapped as young Infants in his precious Blood and in fine this pious and excellent Exclamation O wonderful Mistery Id. ibid. it commands us to put off the old and carnal Corruption as also the old Nourishment to the end that leading a new Life which is that of Jesus Christ and that receiving him into us if it were possible we should lay him up in us and lodge the Saviour in our Hearts And elsewhere he saith That 't is to drink the Blood of Christ to be Partaker of the Incorruption of our Lord which he attributes to the entring of the Holy Ghost into our Hearts Tertul. de Resurrect Tertullian also speaketh yet more clearly explaining figuratively and metaphorically all that excellent Discourse which we read in the sixth of St. John where our Saviour speaks of eating his Flesh and drinking his Blood Although saith he our Saviour saith that the Flesh profiteth nothing the Meaning
that continues wicked to eat the Word made Flesh which is the living Word and Bread it would not have been written whosoever eateth of this Bread shall live for ever Id. Homil. 3. in Matth. And again The Good eat the Bread which came down from Heaven but the Wicked eat a dead Bread which is Death Ratherus Bishop of Verona hath transmitted unto us a Passage of Zeno Bishop of the same Place and one of his Predecessors which some make Contemporary with Origen and Martyr of Jesus Christ Zeno Veronens apud Rath t. 2. Spiciâ—eg Dach p. 181. under the Emperor Gallienus he cites it out of Zeno's Sermon touching the Patriarch Juda and his Daughter-in-law Thamar The Sermon is indeed Printed but the Passage whereof wespeak is not now to be seen in it it shall be here inserted and the Reader may see that he was of Origen's Opinion The Devil saith he is the Father of all wicked Livers and 't is much to be feared that he in whom the Devil inhabits by these three Sins Pride Hypocrisie and Luxury doth not eat the Body of Jesus Christ nor drink his Blood although he seems to communicate with Believers Our Saviour saying He that eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood dwelleth in me and I in him which may be thus construed he that dwelleth in me and I in him eateth my Flesh and drinks my Blood for I cannot see how the Devil can reside in him in whom God liveth Hier in cap. 66. Esa and which liveth in God but he dwelleth in him that is empty and darkned by Hypocrisie or Pride and defiled by Luxury St. Jerom also speaks the same Language All those saith he which love their Pleasures more than God sanctified outwardly in Gardens and Doors but not in Body nor Mind do not eat the Body of Jesus Christ nor drink his Blood of which himself saith Whosoever eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood hath Life eternal because they cannot enter into the Mysteries of Truth and at the same time eat the Meats of Impiety It is the constant Doctrine of St. August de Civit. Dei l. 21. c. 25. Id. ibid. Augustin which he establisheth in several Places It must not be imagined saith he that a Man which doth not belong to the Body of Jesus Christ should eat the Body of Christ And again Let it not be said that those do eat the Body of Jesus Christ because they are not numbred amongst the Members of Christ For not to say any thing else they cannot at once be the Members of Jesus Christ and the Members of an Harlot And in fine himself saying Whosoever eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood dwelleth in me and I in him doth shew what it is to eat the Body of Christ and to drink his Blood not in Sacrament only but in Truth for it is to dwell in Christ and to have Christ dwell in him It is as if he had said Let not him which dwelleth not in me and in whom I do not dwell think or imagine that he eateth my Flesh or drinketh my Blood Id. Tract 26. in Joan. p. 94. 6. And elsewhere speaking of the Sacrament of the Eucharist It is received saith he at the Lord's Table by some unto Life and by some others unto Death but the thing it self whereof it is a Sacrament is Life unto all Men and is not unto Destruction unto any which participate of him Id. ibid. And a little after He that dwelleth not in Jesus Christ and in whom Christ dwelleth not eateth not spiritually his Flesh and drinketh not his Blood although he grindeth visibly with his Teeth the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ but rather he eateth and drinketh unto his Damnation the Sacrament of so great a Thing Prosper sent 339. August de verb. Apost serm 2. c. 1. by presuming to come to the Sacraments of Jesus Christ being unclean St. Prosper allegeth this Passage in stronger Terms and such that in his Time it was read without the Word spiritually for he saith only of the Wicked That he eateth not the Flesh of Jesus Christ But let us again hear the same St. Austin faying Id. Tract 27. in Joan. That the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ shall be Life unto every one if what be received visibly in Sacrament is eaten and drank spiritually in the Truth it self therefore he exhorteth Believers not to eat the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in Sacrament only as the Wicked do Philo Carp t. â—1 Bibl. Pat. p. 228. in Cant. Let us then conclude the Examination of this second Tradition by the Words of Philo of Carpace That it is only unto those which are pure of Heart that this pleasant Food this heavenly Bread that this supersubstantial Drink is given until we arrive at the Place where it shall be shewn that it was also the Belief of the Greek Church in the XIth Century What remains to be treated of in this Chapter is the Question of Jesus Christs Presence upon Earth to wit if besides the Presence of his Divinity whereby he is always present with the Church Militant he is also really and effectually present by his Humanity Having applied my self with some diligence in inquiring into the Belief of the Holy Fathers upon this Article of our Faith I have found that when they explain how our Saviour is present and absent unto his Church they always touch the presence of his Divinity but they never say any thing of the Presence of his Humanity or if they do it is but absolutely to exclude it when at the same Time they establish the other for the Comfort of Believers Origen in Mat. tract 33. according to which Origen endeavouring to reconcile the Passages of Scripture which say That Jesus Christ shall be alway with us with others which say that he will go and depart he teacheth us that he is with us and will not depart as to the Nature of his Divinity but that he will depart and retire himself from us Id. ibid. according to the Oeconomy and Dispensation of the Body which he had taken that he departeth from us as Man but that he is every where present according to the Nature of his Divinity And a little under It is not the Man that is to say the human Nature which is every where where two or three are gathered together in his Name neither is it the Man that is to say the human Nature neither which is with us until the end of the World nor it is not the human Nature that is present with Believers wheresoever they are assembled but it is the Divine Vertue which was in Jesus Christ And St. Cyril Hierosol catech illum 14. extr Cyril of Jerusalem he saith he who is sitting there above is also here present with us he beholdeth the Strength and Order of the Faith of each one for because he is now
Sacraments of his Body and Blood in the Species of Bread and Wine that is to say Gaud. ubi supra p. 16. in the Substance of Bread and Wine For by the Species the Ancients did not understand Accidents without their Subject because they have declared that could not be but they understood the Substance it self of things so that in their manner of Speech the Species of any thing is the thing it self As when St. Aug tract 11. in Joan. Ib. p. 14 Austin speaks of the Species of Baptism to signifie Baptism St. Gaudentius thus continues his Instruction The Creator of Natures himself and the Lord which bringeth forth Bread out of the Earth doth again make his Body of Bread because he can do it and hath promised it and he that made Wine of Water makes his Blood of Wine There was two things which hindred these Neophytes from staggering at these Words the one was That they knew as well as all other Christians that the true Body of Jesus Christ was made a great while ago which made them refer these Words unto the Sacrament The other was That their Catechiser himself obliged them to understand them so when he calls the Eucharist Ibid. 14 16. the Mystery of Bread and Wine and that he saith That the Blood of Jesus Christ is expressed or shewn by the Species of Wine that all Wine that is offered in Figure of his Death is his Blood and that in the Bread is received the Figure of the Body of Jesus Christ Ib p. 14. Ibid. Ib. p. 15 26. And to the end they should not imagine that for being the Figure of the Body of Jesus Christ it ceased to be his Body he declares positively unto them That the Figure is not the Verity but the Imitation or Symbol of the Verity From thence it is that he exhorts them to receive the Sacrament of the Body of our Lord with a Heart full of Zeal and a Mouth that is not languishing and to offer the Sacraments of his Body and Blood in the Species of Bread and Wine Ibid. p. 15. So that when he told them afterwards That Jesus Christ passeth into it that is to say the Bread and Wine they easily conceive that it is in regard of his Efficacy and Vertue wherewith he accompanies the lawful Use of his Sacrament or as he saith himself by the Fire of his Divine Spirit And when he bids them Ibid. p. 15. not to hold that for terrestial which is made celestial it is as if he had said That they should not look at what the Symbols had of earthly and common but to lift up their Souls unto what they have of Heavenly and Divine Ibid. I mean unto the Quality wherewith the Sacrament is accompanied for the Consolation of our Souls Do not boil saith he the Sacrament in the Vessel of a carnal Heart which is naturally subject unto its Passions Ibid. 15 16 this were to account it a common and earthly thing whereas you should believe that it is made by the Fire of the Divine Spirit what it is declared to be For he adds what you receive is the Body of this heavenly Bread and the Blood of this holy Wine because in giving unto his Disciples the consecrated Bread and Wine he said This is my Body this is my Blood Let us believe I beseech you in him in whom we have believed the Truth cannot lye And indeed it would be a criminal Unbelief not to believe what Jesus Christ hath said who is the Truth it self viz. That the Bread is his Body and the Wine his Blood which by the Confession of all cannot be true but in a Figurative and Metaphorical Sense and not properly according to the Letter But St. Gaudentius will not yet have done with his Neophytes he thinks there yet wants something for their Instruction because he hath not yet told them that the Eucharist is a Pledg of the Presence of our Saviour an Earnest which he hath given us to supply his Absence and to comfort us during the Time we are absent from him in setting before our Eyes the Image of the Death which he suffered for us Ibid. p. 16. It is truly saith he this Hereditary Present of the New Testament which he hath left unto you as a Pledg of his Presence in the Night wherein he was betrayed to be crucified it is that Viaticum of our Journey whereby we are nourished by the Way until we go unto him in departing this World for he would that his Benefits should remain with us he would have our Souls to be always sanctified in his precious Blood by the Image of his Passion therefore he commanded his faithful Disciples which whom he established the first Ministers of his Church conticontinually to practise these Mysteries of eternal Life which it is necessary all Priests should celebrate in all Churches throughout the World until Jesus Christ comes again from Heaven to the end that the Priests themselves and all the faithful People should always have before their Eyes the Protraiture of the Passion of Jesus Christ and that carrying him in their Hands and receiving him with the Mouth and the Heart we may have deeply engraven in our Memory the Grace of our Redemption and that we should possess against the Poison of Devils the sweet Antidote of a continual Preservative These Words are sweet and full of Light as well as of Piety but here are others of the same Catechism which made no less Impression upon the Minds of the new Converts and which no less assisted them in understanding of this Mystery In that he commanded saith he to offer the Sacraments of his Body and Blood in the Species of Bread and Wine Ibid. p. 16. it is for a two-fold Reason in the first place to the end the Lamb of God without Spot might give unto the faithful People to be celebrated a pure Sacrifice without Fire or Blood or Boiling the Flesh and that all the World might offer easily and safely then as it is necessary Bread should be made of several Grains of Wheat reduced into Flour by the help of Water and that it be baked by Fire there should reasonably be received in it the Figure of the Body of Jesus Christ who we know made one sole Body of the Multitude of all Mankind Unto these two Catechists I will add a third which was incomparably more famous August Serm. ad Infant ap Fulg. de Bapt. Aethiop it is the great St. Austin who gave this Lesson unto his Neophytes What you see is Bread and it is also what your Eyes do testifie but the Instruction which your Faith desires is That the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ and the Cup his Blood This is said in a few Words and it may be these few may suffice for your Faith but Faith requires to be instructed for the Prophet saith If you believe not
Eutychians could not have admitted without pulling down with one Hand what they built with the other that is to say without destroying what they taught that Jesus Christ had not a true Body But to the end no scruple may rest hereupon in the Mind of the Reader let us hear this Dialogue of Theodoret with an Eutychian Heret Theod. dial 2. p. 84 85. t. 4. It is very well that you have begun the Discourse of Divine Mysteries for thereby I will shew you that the Body of Jesus Christ is changed into another Nature answer then to the Question which I shall propose Orthod I will answer Heret What do you call before the Priestly Invocation the thing which is offered Orthod We must not speak openly fearing we may be heard by Persons not initiated Heret Answer obscurely Orthod I call it a Food made of certain Grains Heret And how is the other Symbol called Orthod It is commonly called by a Name that designs a certain sort of Liquor Heret But after Consecration what call you them Orthod The Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Heret And do you believe you receive the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Orthod I do believe it Heret As then the Symbols of the Body and Blood of Christ are one thing before the Priestly Invocation but after Consecration are changed and made another thing so in like manner the Body of Christ was changed into a Divine Substance after his Ascension Orthod You are taken in your own Net which you laid for the Mystical Symbols do not change their Nature after Consecration but they remain in their first Substance in their first Figure and in their first Form they are visible and palpable such as they were before but they are apprehended to be what they are made and they are believed and are worshipped to be what they are believed to be Compare now this Image with its Original and you shall see the resemblance which is betwixt them for the Figure ought to resemble the Original The Body of Jesus Christ keepeth his first Form his first Figure and his first Circumscription and in a word it hath the substance of a Body but after the Resurrection it was made immortal and incorruptible it is sitting on the right Hand of God and all Creatures do adore it because it is called the Lord of Nature Heret But the Mystical Symbol doth change its former Name for it is no longer called what it was before but it is called the Body of Jesus Christ whence it follows that the Truth which answers the Sign should be called God and not Body Orthod It seems to me you are in Darkness for the Symbol is not only called Body but Bread of Life the Lord himself calleth it so and as for the Body it self we call it a Divine Body a quickning Body the Body of our Lord meaning thereby that it is not the Body of an Ordinary Person but the Body of Jesus Christ our Lord which is God and Man This Discourse being written as it were with a Sun-Beam to use Tertullian's Expression hath no need of Explication Therefore we will here put an end to the proofs of the belief of the Holy Fathers to proceed to the Inquiry into the Changes arrived first in the Expressions and then afterwards in the Doctrine it self CHAP. XI Of the change which came to pass in the Expressions or the History of the Seventh Century ALthough Custom in Speech be a very capricious Master and exerciseth over the words which are subject unto its Tyrannical Government an absolute Authority rejecting or using them at pleasure or rather after its wild Fancy Nevertheless there are certain expressions so confirmed by long use and so particularly adapted to signifie certain things that they cannot be Abolished without disturbing the Commerce and Society of Men and without forgetting by degrees and insensibly the Nature of those things for the representation whereof they were designed If this may befall in things of Civil Society much more is it to be feared in things of a Religious Nature because for the most part the consequences and effects are more fatal and dangerous therefore it was the Ancient Christians were so careful of exactly retaining certain terms and manner of Expressions which had been as 't were consecrated in the Church and which could not be changed without opening the Door unto some alteration in the Doctrine so certain it is that we must not remove the bounds which our Fore-fathers have set It is upon this ground and motive that it was said throughout the whole extent of Ecclesiastical Antiquity for above the space of six hundred years That the Eucharist was the Sacrament the Sign the Symbole the Image the Figure the Type the Antitype the Similitude and the Representation of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ it never being seen in so considerable a space of time in that vast and spacious Empire that there was any body that offered to question Expressions that were so well Established and moreover so constantly and universally received as they were Nevertheless in the Seventh Century there was sprung up in Mount Sinai a certain Friar called Anastatius which rashly passing over the Bounds that in this regard had been observed rejected the term of Sign or Figure which was commonly used until his time But not to confound this Anastatius with others of the same name which had been Patriarchs of Antioch and also to discover the Age wherein he lived it must be noted that himself observes that being at Alexandria he was told Annestat Sin in c. 10. that a good while after the Death of the Patriarch Eulogius there was in that City an Augustal Prefect which favoured the party of the Severian Hereticks and who to this effect had contributed in corrupting the Writings of the Ancients Now Eulogius dyed by every bodies confession in the year of our Lord 608. This was not told unto Anastatius until a considerable time had past after the death of Eulogius let us say it may be about 20 or 22 years which is the least can be allowed Anastatius then could not be informed of this matter till the year 630. and he could be neither of the two Anastatiuses that were Patriarchs of Antioch Ibid. seeing the last was murdered by the Jews in the year 608. Besides he writes that being at Alexandria there arose a question touching some words of St. Chrysostom which had been Bishop of the same place after his Uncle Theophilus which had been corrupted and altered and that then one Isidor Library Keeper and truly Orthodox produc'd a Copy an Exemplification of the Writings of St. Cyril which had not been adulterated which sheweth that in all likelihood the Patriarch was Orthodox for if he had been an Eutychian he would not have tolerated a Library Keeper that had been Orthodox and an Enemy to his Belief therefore it may be concluded if I be not
c. 31. in Exod cap. 22. That the Bread and Wine is the undoubted Sacrament of the Body and Blood of the Lord Id. in Sentent l. 1. c. 16. Vide lib. 1. Offic cap. 37. And that it is this Sacrament which Believers offer and which they call an Oblation of Bread and Wine Agreeable unto this Doctrine he speaks elsewhere of the Flesh of Jesus Christ as of the Nourishment of Saints which preserves from Eternal Death and which maketh those that eat it to live Spiritually Id. in lib. 2. Reg. ca. 3. p. 49. and he saith That Jesus Christ ascending into Heaven is gone in regard of his Body but is present according to his Majesty Concil Hispal 2. Concil Eracar t. 4. p. 832. as he said Behold I am with you even to the end of the World And he borrows these words from St. Austin That our Saviour gave unto his Disciples the Figure of his Body and Blood The second Council of Sevil assembled Anno 619. forbids Priests to make the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ in presence of the Bishop The Council of Braga Anno 675. testifies That Jesus Christ gave the Bread apart and the Wine apart He calls that which our Lord gave his Disciples bread And the 16th of Tolledo Assembled Anno 693. Concil Tollet 16. to 5. Concil p. 430. cap. 6. Eligius Noveom in vita ejus l. 2. cap. 15. p. 216. t. 5. Spicil Dacher Ib. p. 217. declares two several times That Jesus Christ having taken a whole Loaf distributed it by parcels unto his Apostles It speaks also of what remains after the Communion as of that whereof too great a quantity may burden the Stomach of him that Eats it The true St. Eloy Bishop of Noyon gave this Precept unto those whom he instructed Let him that is Sick confide wholly in the Mercy of God and receive with Faith and Devotion the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ And forbidding them to Sing the Songs of Pagan he alledges for a reason of this Defence That it is not fit to hear Diabolical Songs proceed out of a Christian Mouth wherein enters the Sacrament of Jesus Christ He retains as may be seen the Ancient Expressions and Doctrine According to which St. Ouen Archbishop of Roan his intimate Friend and Author of his Life which he wrote at large doth observe that as he drew near his Death he said That he would be no longer absent from Jesus Christ Ibid. l. 2. c. 32. p. 264. It was thus the true St. Eloy spake and in so speaking he rejects as false and forged some Homilies that have been published in his name especially the 8th and the 15th the former of these being only a Rapsody composed by several Authors some of which are of the 8th and 9th Centuries whereas St. Eloy died towards the end of the 7th Century Neither doth he that wrote his Life make any mention of these pretended Homilies Thus several do reason CHAP. XII Wherein is examined what passed in the Eighth Century AS Anastatius a Frier of Mount Sinai had rejected the name of Sign or Figure not allowing to say that the Sacrament is only the Sign of the Body of Jesus Christ words which might receive a good Construction as hath been declared in the precedent Chapter so John Damascen surnamed Mansur another Frier of the East extraordinarily given to the worshiping of Images and therefore Anathematized by 338 Bishops Anno 754. bethought himself in the Eighth Century of condemning the terms of Image of Type and Figure but because he stopped not at Expressions but proceeded to the Doctrine it is requisite to see if he therein made any Alteration and if his Innovation favoured the Belief of the Latin Church See here then what he saith Damasc de Fide Orthod l. 4. c. 14. The Bread offered the Wine and the Water are supernaturally changed by the Invocation and coming of the Holy Ghost into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and are not two but one and the same thing Ibid. And a little after The Bread and Wine are not the Type or the Figure of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Ah God forbid but the Body it self of our Lord Deified our Lord himself saying Ibid. This is not the Figure of my Body but my Body not the Figure of my Blood but my Blood And again If some have called the Bread and Wine Figures or Signs of the Body and Blood as St. Basil they spake not after Consecration but they called them so before the Oblation was consecrated As there are two things in these words of Damascen the one regarding the Terms the other the Doctrine we are obliged to examine both to give the Reader all the Information he may expect of us in this matter I will begin with the Doctrine to see if it agreeth with that of the Latin Church If Damascen said that the substance of the Symbols were quite destroyed and that if passed into the substance it self of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ so that there remained no part of the Bread and Wine but the bare Accidents only which subsisted miraculously without their Subject it must be granted that he was of the same Opinion that Roman Catholicks are of at this time and it were very unjust to deny it But if on the other hand he so plainly expressed himself that it cannot be doubted but he believed that the substance of the Symbols remained whatever Change it was that intervened by Consecration it must of necessity be concluded that his Belief upon this Point was not the Belief of the Latin Church The better to succeed in this Enquiry it must be noted that he lays this down for a certain Maxim Id. Dialect c. 1. That the Accident cannot subsist in it self but hath its Being in another Subject Ibid. that the Soul is a Substance and Wisdom an Accident that the Soul being taken away Wisdom also perisheth Ibid. c. 28. That which subsisteth not of it self but hath its Existence in another Id. de Fide Orthod l. 1. c. 17. is an Accident He affirms again That nothing but the Divinity is infinite that Bodies have beginning and ending and a bodily place Ibid. c. 4. and that they may be held that what is invisible and impassible is not a Body All which things do not well accord with the Real Presence Ibid. no more than his restraining the Invisible Presence whereby our Saviour is with us unto the Presence of his Divinity Moreover he affirms positively that the substance of Bread remains and that it nourisheth our Body by turning into our substance Id. l. 4. c. 14. The Shew-bread saith he did represent this Bread and it is the pure and unbloody Sacrifice which our Lord foretold by the Prophet which should be offered unto him throughout the whole World to wit the Body and Blood
were written the Books of Images which bear the name of this Emperor because in all likelihood they were written by his order rather than by his Pen. In one of these Books is censured the word Image or likeness as those of Nice had censured it in those of Constantinople I will not now examine if there was any thing of surprise in this Censure that is if it was done with an intent of directing it against Nice and not against those of Constantinople for although it is most certain that the principal design of the Council of Francfort was to oppose that of Nice against whom those of the West were no less incensed than those of Nice had been against them of Constantinople I will make no censure upon the matter not to give occasion unto any uncharitable Reader of censuring me It shall suffice to cite the words of the Book Carol. Magnus de imag l. 4. c. 14. that all the World may see what was the thoughts of the Author in censuring the word Image The Mystery saith he of the Body and Blood of Christ ought not now to be called Image but Verity not Shadow but Substance not the Type of things to come but what had been figured by Types the Day-light is already come and Shadows are gone away now Jesus Christ the end of the Law in righteousness unto all believers is come he hath already fulfilled the Law He that was in the valley of the shadow of Death hath seen a great Light already the Vail is fallen from the Face of Moses and the vail of the Temple which is rent hath discovered unto us all things that were hid and unknown now the true Melchisedek to wit Jesus Christ the righteous King the King of Peace hath bestowed upon us not the Sacrifices of Beasts but the Sacrament of his Body and Blood It is no hard matter to guess at the scope of these words and to see that they do not tend to the condemning the word Image taking it for a holy Sign instituted of God not only to signifie and represent but also effectually to communicate Jesus Christ unto our Souls dead for our sins their intent is only to reprove this term as it was taken for a legal Shadow or for a prefiguration of Christ to come therefore to shew that the Sacrament was not of the Nature of Types and Figures of the Law which did only represent without communicating the thing represented it is spoken in opposition unto the Sacrifices of Beasts that our Saviour hath left us not his Body but the Sacrament of his Body and of his Blood but a Sacrament so efficacious and Divine that the faithful Soul never participates of it but that it really and truly communicates of the thing it self whereas the Types of the Law did only prefigure it therefore it is that the Author said a little before Ibid. speaking of the Mystery of the Body and Blood of the Lord That believers do receive it every day in the Sacrament And in another Book he declares Lib. 2. c. 25. That it is the Mediator of God and Men which by the Ministry of the Priest and the Innovation of the name of God doth make the Sacrament of his Body and Blood which he hath left us for a Commemoration of his Death and of our Salvation And again The Apostle St. Paul Ibid. that chosen Vessel considering that the Body and Blood of our Lord should not only be equal unto all other Sacraments but also preferable unto any he saith Let every one examine himself and so let him eat of this Bread and drink of this Cup. He testifies That what is eaten at the Holy Table is Bread and in saying that the Sacrament of the Eucharist ought to be preferred almost before all others he shews plainly that he did not believe it was the very Body of our Saviour for these words would have been unworthy a Christian if they had been spoken of the proper Flesh of the Son of God But what need there any other explanation than that which is given us by Charlemain himself when writing unto Alcuin his Tutor De ration Septuages ad Alcuin he saith That our Saviour Supping with his Disciples broke Bread and also gave them the Cup for a Figure of his Body and Blood and gave them a great Sacrament for our profit Thus it is that several explain it But as to Alcuin let us see what he will furnish us for the better understanding the History of this Age and if the Tutor will accord with his Schollar I will not insist upon the Treatise of Divine Offices which go in his name because the Learned do confess that 't is not his it shall suffice to relate what is written by the late Andrew du Chesne the last of which hath set his hand unto the Edition of his works We do not saith he want sufficient conjectures to shew that this Treatise is not Alcuin's Gallia Braccata Andr. Quercetan praefat ad Alcuin c. 17. for the Author whoever it was doth testifie that he is of Gall Narboness and an ancient Copy by the help whereof we have recovered twelve whole Chapters Attributes the question of the Feasts of Saints tacked unto the 18th Chapter unto the Friar Elpris who according to Trythemius flourished in the year 1040. And in fine in this Treatise there is mention of the Institution of the Feast of All-Saints the first of November Nevertheless it is easily found by Sigebert and others that it was not begun to be celebrated that day in France and Germany till a good while after the Decease of Alcuin that is Anno 835. and Alcuin died Anno 804. Neither will I infist upon a Confession of Faith which Father Chifflet hath published in the name of the famous Alcuin because it is no less Fathered upon this excellent Master of Charlemain than the Book of Divine Offices And that it is most certain it was taken out of the Books of Anselm's Meditations and unadvisedly crowded into the Works of St. Austin Now Anselm lived towards the end of the XI Century and the beginning of the XII And I could easily here insert all the evident proofs of Forgery which the piece it self doth furnish but because it is so apparent a truth and that moreover I find it hath already been done I will proceed to the consideration of what is found in the genuine works of Alcuin touching the subject in hand In one of his Letters he saith of the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament that they be consecrated in Corpus Sanguinem Christi into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ But let us hear the Explication he gives unto us of these words in the same place Alcuin Ep. 59. The Sanctification saith he of this Mystery doth presage the effect of our Salvation The faithful people is understood by the Water and by the Grains of Wheat whereof the Flower is taken to
on Paschas his side I know not precisely the time that he lived although it is very probable it was either at the latter end of the IX Century or it may be in the X. but I know he was not a stout Champion and that his Courage was not able to restore Paschas his Party if they had the fortune to be worsted Unto this day the name and quality of this Proselite is not known as also it is not known who or what Frudegard was if it be not inferred by Paschas calling him Brother and Fellow-Soldier that he was either a Friar or Abbot of some Monastery As for Hinâ—mar Arch-Bishop of Rheims incomparably better known than our Anonymous and more famous than Frudegard by his Dignity and Writings I find my self a little at a loss for when I consider that he saith with St. Cyprian and St. Austin 1 Hinem. de proedest c. 3. epilogi c. 1. That our Saviour recommended his Body and Blood in things that are reduced into one 2 Id. ibid. de cavend viriis c. 12. ad Hincm Laud. c. 48. That he reserves with St. Austin and St. Prosper the eating of the Flesh of Christ for Believers only 3 Id de non trina deitate c. 17. That he declares with the former that the Mystery of Bread passeth into a Sacrament 4 Id. de caven vit c. 11. And that he acknowledgeth with others That our Saviour hath left us the Sacrament as a Pledge of his Love and as a Memorial of his Person and of his Death as a Man travelling into a far Country should leave a Pledge unto his Friend I cannot tell if I should make him a Friend of Paschas whose Doctrine doth not agree well with what we have now mentioned But when on the other hand I find in his Writings some things which seem to favour the same Paschas I cannot tell how to make him his Adversary Id. de cavend vit c. 12. For example what he saith That Jesus Christ is every day consecrated upon his Table that he sanctifies his Sacrament and that he makes himself Id. de pradest â— 31. And that he observes that Prudens Bishop of Trois and John Scot or of Scotland or rather of Ireland said That the Sacraments of the Altar are not the real body and blood of our Lord but only the memorial of his true body and blood Let the Reader then place Hincmar either amongst the Enemies of Paschas or amongst his Friends for my part I am very apt to believe that he was of his favourers I mean that he followed his Opinion in the point of the Eucharist which yet I do not affirm as a thing indubitable and which may not be questioned I will only say that I do not find that he was of any extraordinary esteem for if we believe Father Sirmond who otherwise was no Enemy unto him Archbishop Hincmar was wont to be deceived himself Sirm. de duob Dionys c. 4. Mauguin Hist Chron. p. 442. Apolog. pour les Saints Peres l. 5. p. 3. c. 5. and to deceive others If we believe Monsieur the President Mauguin he calls him a Deceiver and a Dissembler And if we will give Credit unto the description that is made of him in the Apologies of the holy Fathers Defenders of Free Will we shall find him to be both violent and ignorant a Deceiver scandalous and malicious a Calumniator and a Man full of Vanity These are the Colours wherein he is displayed in that excellent Work besides several others which I pass over in silence So that if Hincmar was such a person as these Gentlemen describe him to be I do not think he would render the Party very considerable in which side soever he is placed yet he cannot be denied the Knowledge of the ancient Canons if I mistake not wherein he was better skill'd than in that which is dogmatical and relating unto Divinity In the main see here two Followers of Paschas one of which to wit the Anonymous declares himself directly for him and the other I mean Hincmar though he makes not so formal a Declaration doth nevertheless in all probability follow his steps But in fine they are the only two which I can find to be of the Belief of Paschas in the IX Century if it were true that the Anonimous wrote in that Century whereas if he wrote after as Father Cellot inclines to think he did all the strength of this Friar and afterwards Abbot of Corby will consist in himself and Hincmar in the uncertainty we are in whether St. Austin or Paschas prevailed over Frudegard As for the Author of the Commentaries upon St. Paul's Epistles which some attribute unto Haymon Bishop of Alberstadt others unto Remy Arch-bishop of Lyons and others in fine with greater probability unto Remy Friar of Auxerr I do not think he ought to be reckoned amongst the Friends nor Enemies of Paschas He did like those that seeing a Kingdom divided into two Factions take part with neither but think of making a third Party for he would neither follow the Party of Paschas nor the Belief of those which argued against him but would establish in the West as far as I can find the Opinion that Damascen had broached in the East of the Union of the Bread of the Sacrament with the Divinity to make by means of this Union one sole Body with the true Body of our Saviour as we have shewed in speaking of Damascen And this is the reason that we here place Remy of Auxerr although he lived not according to all Circumstances but at the end of the IX Century and to say the truth because he had a middle Opinion betwixt that of Paschas and that of his Adversaries we cannot appoint him a fitter place than this to the end that as he disturbed not the Depositions of Paschas his Friends neither should he trouble the Testimony of his Adversaries That the Opinion of Remy is such as we say I hope the Candid Reader will believe it to be so when he shall see what we here produce of his Commentaries upon the 10th and 11th Chapters of the First to the Corinthians and of his Exposition of the Cannon of the Mass ' The Flesh saith he which the Word took in the Womb of the Virgin into the Unity of his Person Remig. Altiss comment in â— ad Corin. c. 10. and the Bread which is Consecrated in the Church are one Body of Jesus Christ for as this Flesh is the Body of Jesus Christ so also this Bread passeth into the Body of Jesus Christ and they be not two Bodies but one Body for the fulness of the Godhead which was in that Body filleth also this Bread and the same Godhead of the Son which is in them filleth the Body of Jesus Christ which is Consecrated by the Ministry of several Priests throughout the World and causeth that it is one sole Body of
time of Charles the Bald by whose Command he wrote it Father Cellot the Jesuit never made any difficulty of this matter freely attributing unto Ratramn the little Treatise whereof we speak and proving by a long Dispute that he was the Fore-runner of Berengarius and of Calvin and that he openly taught that the Eucharist is not the real Body of Jesus Christ which he confirms by the Authority of persons most learned in the Communion of the Latins Allain Despans de Saints du Perron Clement the Eighth which all have had this same Opinion of Bertram and of his Book He observes that Cardinal Bellarmin doth rank him amongst those which have disputed whether the Eucharist is the real Body of Jesus Christ and that it was justly put in the Index of prohibited Books according to the intention of the Council of Trent As for Sixtus de Sienna he found it so contrary unto the Belief of the Latin Church that he took it to be some of the Works of Oecolompadius which the Protestants published in the name of Ratramn It is commonly said that second thoughts are better than the first but Monsieur de Marca seems to go about to give the Lie unto this Maxim by his Conduct for in this French Treatise of the Eucharist a little before mentioned and which he had composed before what we but now examined of his he very judiciously attributes unto Bertram this little Treatise of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and saith That he was consulted on this matter by Charles the Bald This is that whereto he should have held and not to change his Opinion without any solid Ground And it ought not to be said with some that Bertram who was a Friar in an Abby whereof Paschas was Abbot durst not therefore write against him for in the first place who told those persons that Bertram was yet a Friar in the Monastery of Gorby when he wrote against Paschas when probably he was Abbot of Orbais and no way depending upon Paschas And for my part I find much more likelihood of the last than of the former In the second place Wherefore is it that Ratramn should not dare to write against what Paschas writ touching the Sacrament of the Eucharist seeing he feared not in other things directly to oppose one of the necessary Consequences of Paschas his Opinion and plainly to call it Heresie as we have fully made it appear in the 13th Chapter of the second Part of this History It may then boldly and without danger be affirmed after the testimony of so many Learned Men of the Communion of Rome that Ratramn was an Adversary unto Paschas But to make this truth appear in its full lustre it is requisite to alledge some passages of this small Treatise after having shewed that all therein amounted to prove two things one is That the Mystery of the Eucharist is a Figure and not the thing it self and the other That 't is not the same Body which is born of the Virgin Mary as Paschas did teach it was In fine having first of all said unto Charles the Bald Bertram de corp sanguin Dom. That there being nothing better becoming his Royal Wisdom then to have a Catholick Opinion of the sacred Mysteries and not to suffer that his Subjects should be of different Judgments touching the Body of Jesus Christ wherein we know is the Abridgment of Christian Religion he proposed two questions wherein the King desired to be resolved 1. Whether the body and blood of Jesus Christ which Christians do receive with the mouth be made in mystery or in reality And 2. Whether it be the same Body which was born of the Virgin that suffered dyed rose again ascended into Heaven and is set down at the right hand of God the Father Paschas taught That it was the same Flesh as was born of the holy Virgin and his Adversaries on the contrary That it was the Figure and the Sacrament and not the real Flesh If then Ratramn taught That the Eucharist is the Figure and the Sacrament of the Body of Jesus Christ and not the very Flesh it self of necessity it must be concluded that he directly opposed the Opinion of Paschas according to the Declaration made us by the Anonymous Author Id. Ibid. As to what regards the first question see here how it is resolved I demand saith he of those that will not here admit of a Figure and that will have all to be taken simply and in reality I say I would ask of them to what purpose was the change made that it should no longer be Bread and Wine as it was before but the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ for according to the bodily appearance and the visible form of things the Bread and Wine have no change in them and if they have suffered no change then they be nothing else but what they were before And a little after Ibid. there offers here a question which is made by several saying That these things are made in Figure and not in reality and so saying they shew themselves contrary to the Writings of the Holy Fathers And after having alledged two passages of St. Austin one of the third Book of Christian Doctrine and the other of the Epistle unto Boniface he concludes We find that St. Austin saith Ibid. That the Sacraments are other things than that whereof they be Sacraments the Body wherein Jesus Christ suffered and the Blood which flowed out of his Side are the things but the Mysteries of these things are the Sacraments of this Body and of this Blood which are celebrated in remembrance of the Death of our Saviour not only once a year at the Solemnity of Easter but also every day And although there is but one Body wherein our Saviour suffered and one Blood which he shed for the sins of the World nevertheless the Sacraments take the name of the things whereof they be Sacraments and are called the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ by reason of the resemblance they have with the things which they represent as the Death and Resurrection of our Lord which are celebrated yearly on certain days although he suffered and rose but once in himself Those days cannot be brought back again seeing they are past but the days whereon the Commemoration of the Passion and Resurrection of our Saviour is made are called by their names because of the resemblance they have with those whereon our Saviour suffered and rose again In like manner we say our Saviour is sacrificed when the Sacraments of his Passion is celebrated although he suffered but once in himself for the Salvation of the World He saith moreover Ibid. that those which believe the reality make a true confession when they say That it is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ but that they deny what they seem to affirm and that they themselves destroy what they believe for when they
printed the first time at Mayans An. 1559. with the Emperor's permission And thereupon the Protestants say That it would be very unjust to accuse them with these kind of Depravations they which have so much complained of Expurgatory Indexes to do themselves what they so highly condemned in other Men. The other Accusation consists in that he charged them with the printing a pernicious Book of Oecolompadius under the Title of Bertram De Corpore Sanguine Domini Ibid. in praesar against the truth of History which informs us as hath been proved that Bertram or Ratramn was the true Author of it Besides say they Wherefore was not this Manuscript of Lyons publickly made known to convince us without reply of this eminent Depravation for it must be confessed that should we be guilty of so great a piece of Malice and so horrible an Infidelity as that wherewith Sixtus Sinensis doth accuse us we should be unworthy the name of honest Men and on the contrary deserve all Mens hatred and scorn But besides Sixtus his Accusation falls upon Sererius a Lutheran Printer had it fallen upon any Calvinist Printer it would have had a little more shew of truth But that a Lutheran that believes the Real Presence should have taken these words out of the passage of Druthmar Subsisting truly in the Sacrament which entirely favours it makes it appear very strange seeing the Interest of them of his Communion require that they should exactly be retained Add unto all these things that whereunto there can be no Reply which is That in the Year 1514. before Luther appeared James Wimfelling of Schelstad caused Druthmar to be printed at Strasbourg sixteen years before Sererius his Edition with License of Maximilian the Emperor and the Arms of Leo the Tenth in the same manner Sererius had printed it though it was by other Manuscripts which as 't is said makes void Sixtus his Accusation against the Lutheran Printer who acted like an honest Man and sheweth that the passage should be read as the Protestants read it and as the latter Collectors of the Library of the holy Fathers have given it unto us In fine say they It only is requisite to read over the whole passage with some caution to know that the Correction of Sixtus cannot subfist and that by consequence his Accusation is groundless And to the end the Reader might do it conveniently I will relate it at large as he hath transmitted it unto us Christian Druthmar comment in Matth. Bibl. Patr. t. 16. p. 361. Jesus Christ took Bread because bread strengthens the heart of Man and preserves life better than any other food he therein establisheth the Sacrament of his Love but this property ought much rather to be attributed unto this spiritual Bread which perfectly strengthens all Men and all Creatures because it is by him that we do subsist and that we have both Life and Being He blessed it He blessed it in the first place because as Man he blessed in his own Person all Mankind and then he gave to understand that the Benediction and Power of the Divine and Immortal Nature was truly in that Nature which he had taken of the blessed Virgin He broke it He broke the Bread which is himself because exposing himself freely unto Death he broke and shatter'd the habitation of his Soul thereby to satiate us according to what he said himself I have power to lay down my Life and I have power to take it up again And he gave it unto his Disciples saying unto them Take and eat this is my Body He gave to his Disciples the Sacrament of his Body for remission of sins and preservation of charity to the end that being mindful of this action they should always do this in Figure and that they should not forget what he was going to do for them This is my Body That is to say in Sacrament And having taken the Cup he gave Thanks and gave it unto his Disciples As amongst all things which are useful to preserve life Bread and Wine are those which do most strengthen and repair the weakness of our Nature it is with great reason that our Saviour would in these two things establish the Mystery of his Sacrament for Wine rejoyceth the heart and increaseth blood therefore it is very fit to represent the Blood of Jesus Christ because all that cometh from him rejoyceth with perfect joy and increaseth all that is good in us In fine like a person undertaking a great Voyage he leaves unto them he loves a particular mark of his Love upon condition that they shall take care to keep it always thereby to remember him so also God spiritually changing the Bread into his Body and the Wine into his Blood hath commanded us to celebrate this mystery to the end these two things may eternally make us remember what he hath done for us with his Body and Blood and that it might hinder us from being ungrateful and unmindful of so great and tender Love Now because we are wont to mix Water with the Wine in the Sacrament of his Blood this Water represents the faithful People for whom Jesus Christ would lay down his Life and the Water is not without the Wine neither is the Wine without the Water because that as he died for us so also we should be ready to die for him and for our brethren that is to say for the Church therefore there came out of his side Water and Blood This passage is taken out of a Commentary where the Author explains these words of the Institution This is my Body by these others That is to say in the Sacrament to signifie that the Bread of the Eucharist is not really the Body of Jesus Christ but only the Sacrament of it Therefore he sheweth that our Saviour gave unto his Disciples the Sacrament of his Body that he commanded them to celebrate the Eucharist in Figure of what he was going to do for them that his Blood is figured by the Wine and that in going up to Heaven he left them this Pledge of his Love to the end that during his absence they should always make Commemoration of his Person and of his Sufferings All which things clearly shew that the spiritual Change whereof he speaks is a Change of Use and of Vertue to import that the Bread and Wine are changed by the Grace of Consecration into the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ as St. Isidore of Sevil Bede and Rabanus hath taught and also changed into its Efficacy and Vertue after the language of Theodotus and of Cyril of Alexandria Whence it is that the same Druthmar explaining these words Ibid. p. 360. C. The Poor ye shall have always with you but me ye shall not have always saith He speaks of the presence of his Body because he was to depart from them for as for the presence of his Divinity it is always present with all the Elect.
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
Century heartily desired Lib. 3. de divin office in praefat It would suffice saith he without Singers without Readers and without all the other things practised in the celebration of the Sacrament that the Bishop or Priest should pronounce the blessing to consecrate the Bread and Wine to the end the People should be nourished for the salvation of their Souls as the Apostles did at the first beginning of Christianity By which words he sheweth that he found the celebration of this Mystery too much clogg'd with Ceremonies as also St. Austin found that all the Christian Religion was 500 years before Amalarius for he complains That Religion is burdened with heavy yokes Ep. 119. c. 19. so that the state of the Jews is more supportable But now it is time to consider the preparations of the Communicant having examined those of him which Celebrates CHAP. II. Of the Dispositions necessary for the Communion And first Of the Inclinations of the devout Soul in regard of God and of Jesus Christ WHen our blessed Saviour did distribute the Bread and Wine of his Eucharist to his Apostles he said unto them Do this in remembrance of me which his Apostle doth extend to the Commemoration of his Death and of his Sufferings a Remembrance which draweth after it all the good and holy dispositions which the Communicant should have towards God and Jesus Christ And these Inclinations proceed from several Idea's which this saving remembrance doth stir up in our Souls at the time in which we do prepare our selves for the participation of this adorable Mystery of our Salvation For although the Sacrament was instituted principally for remembring the death of our Saviour nevertheless because his Death is inseparable from his Incarnation Resurrection and Ascension so it is that we approach unto the holy Communion after having meditated on all these great and sublime Mysteries every one of which produceth in our Souls dispositions somewhat different as having divers objects and several encouragements the which nevertheless are all heavenly and all divine and all which do tend unto one mark and unto one end which is the Glory of God and of Jesus Christ and the eternal Salvation of our Souls And to say the truth this Sacrament cannot represent unto our eyes all these great and wonderful objects but that it opens unto us at the same time a wide Field for our Meditation to enlarge upon from the Incarnation of the eternal Word even unto his second coming to Judgment and we cannot finish this glorious course without having all the dispositions which God requires and all the preparations which he desires of us This will plainly appear if we do severally reflect upon all the Idea's which the remembrance of our Saviour and of his Sufferings do present unto our Souls and what the Fathers have said upon each of them and if we also feel the divine motions which will necessarily flow from the Christian Soul For example The holy Fathers have considered the Eucharist as a Memorial a Symbol an Image and a Sacrament of the Incarnation or as the Doctors of the Greek Church speak of the Oeconomy of Jesus Christ that is to say of that free and merciful dispensation which inclined him to take our Nature in the Womb of the blessed Virgin Mary by the miraculous operation of the Holy Ghost which is what St. Justin Martyr would say when he observed Contr. Try phon p. 296. That the Lord commanded us to make the Bread of the Eucharist in remembrance in that he was made Man for those which should believe in him It was also the thoughts of Eusebius Demonstr l. 8. a Genesi That Jesus Christ gave unto his Apostles the Symbols of his divine Oeconomy commanding them to make the Image of his true Body And it cannot be any way doubted but it was on this same consideration that Pope Gelasius said De duabus in Christo natur That we do celebrate in the Action of the Mysteries the Image and resemblance of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and that we must believe of our Lord Jesus Christ that it self which we profess in his Image which we there celebrate and there receive that is to say that we should be persuaded of the truth of his Flesh and Blood the Symbols and Sacraments whereof we do receive at the holy Table It is just what St. Leo intended to express by these words which were addressed unto the Eutychians You should communicate at the holy Table in such a manner Serm. 6. de jejun 7. mensis pag. 86. that you may not in the least doubt of the truth of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ It is whereunto also attendeth all the passages of the Fathers which prove either against the Eutychians or against the Docetes and the Putatifs the truth of the Flesh of Jesus Christ by the Eucharist as the existence of a thing is proved by the Image and by the Figure which represents it Dialog 2. p. 84. because according to Theoderet's saying There must be an Arch-type of the Image because the Painers which imitate Nature do represent the Images of things which are seen From whence he draws this Conclusion If the divine Mysteries are the Figure of a true Body then the Body of our Lord is now also a true Body not changed into the nature of the Divinity but filled with the divine Glory A Reasoning for the most part like unto that of Tertullian against Marcian for having expounded these words This is my Body by these others That is to say Lib. 4. advers Marcion c. 40. the Figure of my Body he adds That it would not have been a Figure if there had not been the truth of a Body or a true Body And indeed this Idea of the Incarnation of our Lord was in such a manner imprinted in the minds of Communicants that the last Prayer of St. Basil's Liturgy begins thus O Jesus Christ our God Bibl. Patr. t. 2. Graeco-Lat we have accomplished and finished according to our power the Sacrament of thine Oeconomy and Dispensation This Meditation which representeth unto us the horrour of sin the sad condition we were in the fearful Gulph wherein we have precipitated our selves the Love of the Father the tender Charity of the Son the admirable work of our Redemption the great Mystery of Godliness God manifest in the Flesh fills us full of Gratitude unto God And if unto the Idea of his Conception and Birth we joyn that of his Life therein to contemplate the purity of his Innocence the glory of his Miracles the splendor of his Vertues the efficacy of his Doctrine and the shame of his Sufferings we shall therein find so great joy so great comfort and so great pleasure in the contemplation of this divine Scene that we shall be insensibly transformed into the same Image from Glory unto Glory to speak with St. Paul that is to say
may be found who for fear of punishment would comply with this practice Ibid. but laying aside the fear of danger there was not one that did not reject the use of wearing Crowns on the head All Christians saith he did practise so that is to say did wear no Crowns of Flowers upon their heads from the Catechumeny unto the Confessors and Martyrs Ibid. c. 5. and even unto those also which bowed in times of Persâ—cution He sheweth That Flowers are for the sight or smell that it is no less contrary to Nature to take the smell of Flowers by the head than to receive the sound of an Instrument by the nose and that all that is contrary to Nature is amongst men counted monstrous Ibid. c. 9. but that amongst Christians it also deserves the Title of Sacrilege against God the Author and Governor of Nature And a little after What Patriarch saith he what Prophet hath been ever heard to be crowned Ibid. He concludes precisely That the Servants of God should not be crowned and that Christians are not permitted to wear any other Crown but a Crown of Thorns after the example of Jesus Christ And because saith he you may object unto me Ibid. that Jesus Christ was crowned you may be answered in a few words that you are permitted to be crowned also after the same manner In fine having confessed that Idols and the Dead Ibid. c. 10. were crowned amongst the Pagans he declareth That it is a very unseemly thing to make of the Image of the living God the Image of an Idol and of a dead person There be those which infer from this discourse of Tertullian's as well as from the passages of Athenagoras Minutius Foelix and of Clement of Alexandria in the first place that the Clergy of their times did not wear nor use Crowns as those of the Roman Church do at this time Secondly That Garlands and Crowns of Flowers made in honour of the Sacrament was not in use and that there were no Priests seen crowned with Flowers when they celebrated this Mystery as is to be seen amongst the Latins on the day of the Feast of God when the Host is carried in solemn Procession Orat. 2. in Julian quae est 4. I know not how Gregory Nazianzen could absolutely have forbidden Christians of strewing the Street with Flowers at the Celebration of their Holy Days had the use of Flowers already been introduced into the Worship of their Religion without telling them that it was sufficient to employ them in the Assemblies unto the honour of the Eucharist Serm. 2. de Pentecost and whether St. Chrysostom would have addressed this Exhortation unto his Auditors on a day of Pentecost I conjure you by the consideration of all the benefits so liberally bestowed upon us this day that we also celebrate the Feast not in crowning our doors but in preparing our Souls and in rendring them beautiful with the Ornaments of vertue But besides all that we have hitherto observed on the Subject of the Adoration of the Sacrament there be others which deserve a particular Consideration As the Elevation to excite the people unto the Adoration of the consecrated Host the Sound of the Bell to give warning to the people of it As also the Holy Day and Procession of the Sacrament As touching the Elevation we have treated amply thereof in the ninth Chapter of the first Part where we have shewed that the Elevation whose scope is the Adoration of the Sacrament was never at all practised in the Latin Church before the XIII Century So that the Reader may look back upon what hath been said in that Chapter without being at the trouble of repeating it over again in this place It shall suffice to relate the Constitutions which the Popes made about that time to incline the people unto the Adoration of the Host The first is that of Honorius the Third who was Pope in the Year of our Lord 1216. which is conceived in these terms That Priests should often teach their people that at the Celebration of Mass when the Host is lifted up they should kneel with respect and that they should also do the like when the Priest carries it unto any sick person Gregory the Ninth which succeeded him Anno 1227. invented the ringing a Bell to warn the people to fall down on their knees to adore the consecrated Host Decret Greg. IX l. 3. tit 41. de Celebr Miss c. 10. sane Nauclerus ad Anno 1240. Crantzius Saxon l. 8. c. 10. Decret Clem. l. 5. tit 3. de haer c. 3. ad nostrum ordering That when the Flesh and Blood of Christ is made and at the Elevation of the Host there should a Bell ring to the end that all which hear it should kneel down and joyn their hands in adoring the Host From thence it was that Pope Clement the Fifth at the beginning of the XIV Century did condemn those which taught 3 That when the Body of Jesus Christ was lifted up men need not stir nor give unto it any homage He speaks of the Sacrament the Adoration whereof was not approved by those persons From thence it is also that in the Breviary the Priest who says Mass is so precisely warned to kneel down and worship the Host after pronouncing these words This is my Body and to shew it unto the people that they also might worship it In Missali Orat ante Miss signat f. 1111. and also doth reiterate the same Warning as touching the Cup. From thence in fine proceeds the Prayers which be addressed unto the Sacrament I devoutly adore thee O hidden Divinity who art truly vailed under these Types I wholly submit my heart unto thee because it faileth in my meditating of thee My Sight Touch and Taste are deceived in regard of thee and it is in the hearing only that any confidence can be laid I believe all that the Son of God hath said and there is nothing truer than this Word of Truth The Divinity only was hid upon the Cross but here the Humanity is also vailed Nevertheless in believing and confessing both the one and the other I beg of thee what the penitent Thief desired I do not see thy Wounds as did St. Thomas however I confess thou art my God Enable me to believe always in thee to put all my trust and confidence in thee and to love thee O Memorial of the death of our Saviour Bread of Life which givest Life unto Mankind grant that my Soul may live on thee and that it may always find delight and sweetness in thee O divine Pellican Jesus my Lord I am unclean wash me and cleanse me with thy Blood one drop whereof is sufficient to save the whole World from all Impiety O Jesus whom I now behold vailed I beseech thee that thou wilt be pleased to grant what I so earnestly beg that is to say that beholding thee with open face
being taken from the Offerings which Christians offered upon the Table in the Church at the usual times that they assembled unto the Communion as we shall make appear in the Fourth Chapter which will plainly evidence That these Offerings were of the very same kind of Bread as that which was used in the ordinary actions of Life and if in process of time there ensued any alteration it was not in respect of the nature or quality of Bread as if that of common use was leavened and that of the Eucharist unleavened seeing it was but one and the same sort of Bread all the difference consisted first in that the Bread of the Eucharist was to be of a round form secondly about the seventh Century they began to prepare it expresly and on purpose for the celebrating of the Sacrament as appears by the sixth Canon of the sixteenth Council of Toledo assembled Anno 693. which we will cite at large in the following Chapter by some words of Cardinal Humbert T. 4. Bibl. paâ— part 2. p. 212. l. 3 c. 33. t. 4. Spicil which wrote in the Eleventh Century and of the ancient customs of the Monastry of Cluny written in the same Century whereto there were many Ceremonies multiplied for the preparing the Bread of the Sacrament whereas there was none at all at first because it was not made of set purpose but with the common Bread and even when it was begun to be made of purpose we do not find there was any great Ceremony used about it In fine it was thought good in process of time to make upon the Bread the sign of the Cross unto which Custom Father Sirmond doth apply the third Canon of the second Council of Tours Sirmond de Azymo c. 4 assembled Anno 567. and the first of the fifth Council of Arles held in the year 554. although to my seeming there is nothing very clear in these two Canons for authorising this Custom Also the same Sirmond doth confess in the same place That the Interpretation which he giveth unto the Council of Tours which is the plainest of the two alledged by him is not allowed by all and indeed it is not very likely that the Christians of the West which began not to prepare the Bread of the Sacrament separately from ordinary Bread until about the seventh or eighth Century should have marked it before that time with the sign of the Cross But so it is for certain that the use of leavened Bread in the Eucharist continued still in the Latin Church in the time of Gregory the first Vit. Greg. l. 2. c. 41. as the History of that Woman doth import who admired that this Pope should call the Body of the Lord a Loaf which she knew very well she had made with her own hands And this custom continued not only in Gregory's time but also a good part of the Ninth Century at which time a great difference having broke out betwixt the Greek and Latin Churches we do not find that amongst sundry reproaches and some of them either very light or it may be unjust made by the Greeks against the Latins that they have in any manner touched the question of leavened or unleavened Bread which they would not have omitted if the Latins had used unleavened Bread in their Eucharist as they failed not to condemn this practice in the Eleventh Century at which time this contention was managed with greater heat on both sides a manifest sign that the Latin Church did not begin to use unleavened Bread in the celebration of her Sacrament but in that space of time which passed betwixt the Ninth and the Eleventh Century Sirmond de Azymo Father Sirmond hath at large justified this truth and after his manner confirmed it with such clear and strong reasons and particularly those above-mentioned that nothing can be added unto what he hath said having very solidly refuted what Cardinal Baronius alledged against it and shewn that Hugo Tuscus and Rupert de Duitz were deceived when they imagined as well as Baronius that the Latin Church had always used unleavened Bread in the Eucharist Hist Concil Florent Sguropuli Sect. 10. c. 1. p. 278. In the Council of Florance held under Pope Eugenius the Fourth where was made by Interest of State and Policy a seeming accord betwixt the Greek and Latin Churches it was concluded as to what concerned leavened or unleavened Bread That each Church should retain its own custom viz. That the Eastern Church should make their Eucharist with leavened Bread and the Western with unleavened Bread so that the one should not be obliged to follow the use and custom of the other Raban de instit Cleric l. 1. c. 14. Nevertheless I cannot pass by what Rabanus Archbishop of Mayence wrote in the Ninth Century That unleavened Bread should be sanctified and Wine mingled with Water to make the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ which he proves by the authority of the Book of Leviticus and by the Example of Jesus Christ which used unleavened Bread in the Institution of his Sacrament But it must either be said That this Opinion was a particular Opinion of his own or that he intended only it should be so used the Thursday before Easter exactly to imitate the practice of our Saviour or in fine what I believe to be more probable That this custom began to be introduced into the Diocese of that Prelate if it were not safer to say That this long Observation of unleavened Bread was added unto Rabanus his works which I dare not affirm not being on the place to compare the Printed Copies with the Manuscripts CHAP. IV. Wherein is shewed from whence were taken the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist and what was the form of the Bread with the innovations and changes which ensued thereupon IT is not sufficient to shew that Bread and Wine have always been the matter of the Sacrament of the Eucharist amongst Christians excepting some few Hereticks which had changed it others that had miserably altered and corrupted the Celebration and in fine others which had wholly rejected it though upon several motives and different Principles Neither is it sufficient to have hinted at the reproaches which were made against Christians upon account of the Bread and Wine in this Divine Sacrament and to have examined the great controversy which armed if it may be so said the Greek Church against the Latin Church in the XI Century touching the Nature and quality of the Bread of the Sacrament to know whether it should be Leavened or Unleavened To the end nothing should be wanting unto this consideration we must endeavour to find out from whence was taken the Bread and Wine imployed by Christians in the celebration of their Sacrament I make no question but they proceeded from the liberality of Believers who being inflamed in those happy times with the divine fire of Charity which the Antients
have insisted already had found something amiss in the Service of the Church of Lyons which so offended Agobard that he wrote a Book on purpose against the four Books of Amalarius touching Ecclesiastical things And he writes it with so high a resentment that Father Chifflet could have wished he had wrote with more moderation And that he had dipt his pen Ep. ad Baluzium Agobardo praefixa after the example of his Predecessors in the Blood of Jesus Christ the Lamb without spot truly meek and humble in Spirit It is then very probable that in the humour Agobard was against Amalarius he suffer'd nothing to pass unreproved except what he thought not fit to be censured and which he approved of himself And indeed by reading his Book it will plainly appear with what exactness he examines all that dropt from the Pen of his Adversary Now 't is most certain he censured not any of the passages which we alledged for proving that Amalarius was contrary to the Opinion of Paschas can it be believed this Man so full of anger and revenge and who wrote not his Book but to censure those of Amalarius and yet touched not any of the testimonies whereof we speak if the belief of Amalarius had not been the belief of the Church or if Agobard had not been of the same Opinion he was on the subject of the Eucharist how could it possible be but that he would have censur'd what Amalarius said How could he have slipt so fair an occasion to have discredited his Adversary as a Man that prevaricated from the belief of the Church upon one of the Capital Articles of our Religion but further he alledges these words of Amalarius which we before cited The Bread set upon the Altar represents the Body of our Saviour spread upon the Cross the Wine and Water in the Cup do shew the Sacraments which did flow from the side of our Saviour upon the Cross Agobard advers Annal. cap. 21. p. 119. but he doth not there apply one word of censure What can be inferr'd from this conduct but that they were both agreed upon this point Now if from the consideration of his silence we proceed to that of his words it is said we shall be confirmed in the belief of what hath been said for he testifies Ibid. c. 13. p. 115. That as there is but one Altar of the Church so also there is one bread of the Body of Jesus Christ and one sole Cup of his Blood He distinguisheth the Bread from the Body of Jesus Christ and the Cup from his Blood as he distinguisheth the Altar from the Church where it is Moreover he declares Ibid. That the Church consecrating by these words he speaks of all the words of Institution according to the Tradition of the Apostles the Mystery of the Body and Blood of our Lord he saith expresly that our Saviour said unto his Disciples Take and Eat you all of this Words which the Deacon Florus borrowed of him with those that follow as we observed not long ago to prove that what our Saviour commanded his Disciples to take and eat was Bread This is what was said of Agobard We have already mentioned in the 7th Chapter of this second Part an Assembly of Bishops of the Diocesses of Roan and of Rhemis at Cressy which furnished us with a Declaration of their belief but because they wrote in this same Century the History whereof we examine it is just that we should here insert their testimony David Blundel in his Exposition of the Eucharist said in Chap. 18. That he separated not from Ratramn and John surnamed Erigenius the greatest part of the Bishops assembled at Cressy anno 858. with out signifying the place where they had given marks of their belief therefore some have thought he had read it in some Manuscripts Nevertheless it is certain that he had a regard unto what we have alledged and unto what we will produce a second time yet in referring the Reader unto the 7th Chapter to ponder the occasion and the words which be these Concil Carisiac t. 3. Concil Gall. p. 129. Extr. It would be an abominable thing if the hand which makes by prayer and the sign of the Cross Bread and Wine mingled with Water the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ that it should after promotion unto Episcopacy meddle in any secular Oath whatever it did before Ordination The Chronicle of Mouson which is in one of the Tomes of the Collection of Dom Luke d'Achery makes mention of one Arnulph and represents him unto us as a Martyr He died as near as can be judged about the end of the IX Century And as he was at the point of death he said unto those that were present Favour me by your compassionate piety and help Chron. Mosomens t. 7. Spicil pag. 627. that I may receive from the hands of the Priests the Eucharist of the Communion of our Saviour He desires to receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist which truly communicates unto the faithful and penitent Soul Jesus Christ our Lord which he plainly distinguisheth from his Sacrament as the thing whereof we communicate from the Instrument by means whereby we do thereof participate He did not then believe with Paschas that the Eucharist was the real Flesh of Jesus Christ It is the Inference that many do make In the last Chapter of the first part we treated of the Custom of mingling the consecrated Wine with Ink and at the end of the 8th Chapter of the Second Part we shew'd the Inferences which is said are lawfully made from it But because of the Examples of this practice which we have alledged there is one of the Year 844. we will make no difficulty of joyning this Testimony unto the former yet it shall be only in the nature of a Historian which relates what passed at Tholouse betwixt King Charles the Bald and Bernard Count of Barcelonia whom this Prince had sent for under pretence of being reconciled unto him but indeed with design to kill him See here what the Historian saith Odo Ariâ—ertus inedit in notis Baluz ad Agobard pag. 129. The Peace having been concluded and interchangeably signed by the King and the Count with the Blood of the Eucharist Count Bernard came from Barcelonia unto Tholouse and cast himself at the King's feet in the Monastery of St. Saturnine near Tholouse The King taking him with the left hand as it were to lift him up he stabb'd his Dagger into his side with the other hand and cruelly murthered him not without being blamed for having violated Faith and Religion nor without suspition of Parricide because it was generally thought Charles was Son to Bernard also he resembled him very much about the mouth Nature publishing thereby the Mothers Adultery After so cruel a death the King descending from his Throne reeking in blood kicking the body with his foot said thus
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