sufficiently known incited some envious * Busy Jesuits Persons to prepossess the King with prejudice against him By this means they obtained an Injunction of not proceeding to this nomination The Marquess de Ruvigny appeared at Court in this affair and ingag'd himself unto the King for Monsiuer L'ARROQVES Zeal and Fidelity in his Majesties Service The King who is naturally inclin'd to goodness thereupon answer'd the Marquess de Ruvigny the Deputy General that some went about to give him other impressions of Monsieur L'ARROQVE but seeing he would be Caution for the party accus'd he would permit this Minister to Exercise his profession in any other place excepting Paris A business of this moment made as great noise as could be imagin'd but did not prejudice Monsieur L'ARROQVE as much as his Enemies could have wished for soon after he was sought unto by several considerable Churches but he accepted of none but the proposal which was made unto him by that of Saumur The Church and the Academy were then vacant both of a Minister and of a Professor in Divinity he was offer'd both but whether it was through modesty or that he desired not to vary from his former kind of Study much different from that to be perform'd by a Professor in Divinity he only accepted the former As he was preparing to enter upon it the Intendant of the Province appear'd against it for what reason is not known The Consistory of the Church of Saumur us'd such Arguments to remove this Opposition that in fine it was removed Nevertheless Monsieur L'ARROQVE thought it not convenient to accept the offer being so advis'd by Monsieur Conrart for whom he had a singular kindness who represented unto him that the Intendant would always bear him a grudge and that therefore it would not be safe to be under his power The Counsel of this incomparable Friend induced Monsieur L'ARROQVE to incline unto other offers made unto him at that time from divers places The Church of Montauban that of Bourdeaux and that of Roven desir'd to have him for their Minister he preferr'd the latter before the two others by the advice of Friends he accordingly went to Roven there to Exercise his Ministry and there 't was that improving the rare Talents that God had endowed him with he labour'd until his Death in the conversion of Souls and in explaining the holy Scriptures with indefatigable diligence and Industry Roven was a place very convenient for such a person for 't is a City abounding with great wits and well furnish'd with good Libraries He there acquired a great reputation amongst the learned Men even of the Contrary party And the Illustrious Monsieur Bigot at whose House they Assemble once a week and entertain curious and learned discourse was very well pleas'd to have Monsieur L'ARROQVE of the number who also went unto their Assembly where his profound Knowledg in Ecclesiastical History was much admired and esteem'd by them all A little after his coming to Roven Monsieur David so well known amongst the learned for his great Literature and by his contests with Messieurs de Marca Justel and de Launay carped at him about one of the two Latin Dissertations which he publish'd in the year 1670. and dedicated unto Monsieur d'Amproux Councellor in the Parliament of Paris whose Wit Probity and Learning are esteem'd by all who know him Monsieur L'ARROQVE had refuted the Opinion of Father Petau touching the time of the Birth and Condemnation of the History of Photin His Reasons appeared very solid unto a great many but Monsieur David who otherways was well satisfi'd Father Petau's Epoch was wrong fanci'd that Monsieur L'ARROQVE had not sufficiently refuted it therefore took occasion to write against him which was the cause of Monsieur L'ARROQVES reply which he dedicated unto Monsieur Conrart an intimate Friend to them both Since which time this learned Minister hath publish'd divers excellent Treatises on several Subjects He wrote one intituled Considerations upon the Nature of the Church Another much larger wherein he shews the conformity of the Discipline of the Protestants of France with that of the Primitive Church Another in Latin in defence of the Sentiments of Monsieur Daille touching St Ignatius his Letters and the Apostolical Constitutions against Messieurs Pearson and Beverige two famous English Doctors They have writ a second time in defence of their Opinion and he had designed a Reply as hath been seen by a Manuscript Copy found near finish'd amongst his Papers but at the request of some persons favouring Episcopacy he did not finish his Answer The last work he publish'd is an Answer unto a Treatise of the Bishop of Meaux of the Communion under both kinds although his name was not to it yet it was judged to be his it was known by the manner in which it was written clear free from digressions and superfluous Ornaments and full of solid remarks drawn from the profoundest Antiquity But how great an Idea soever the printed Works of the late Monsieur L'ARROQVE gives us of the greatness and Exactness of his Wisdom it may be termed but small in comparison of what would have been seen if God had been pleas'd to have spared him to finish what he had begun he being esteemed one of the fittest men of France to compose an Ecclesiastical History all his Friends intreated him to set about it and accordingly he labour'd effectually therein with all diligence He intended to have published one Volume every year and to have joyned thereunto sundry dissertations which would equally have demonstrated his sincerity and his learning He had carry'd on his work but unto the middle of the fourth Century which is the only thing the publick will not lose of so vast and rich a Structure There was also found amongst his Papers a very exact Treatise of the Regale wherein he proves that the Kings of France since Clovis had this Right over all the Cathedral Churches in their Kingdom This with some other small Tracts which this Illustrious person had finish'd before his Death may make a compleat Volume Monsieur L'ARROQVE the worthy Son of such a Father will be careful of communicating them unto the World But he confines not himself only thereunto he promiseth also an Exact Collection of all the Dissertations which he hath found in the History of the first 350 years of the Church and he intends to publish them in Latin for the benefit of Strangers Every body will be glad to hear this News especially if we add somwhat touching the particulars of this Collection Therefore I now give notice that therein will be seen Dissertations 1. Upon the thundering Legion where shall be shewn that what hath been said of it is very uncertain 2. Upon the original of shaving of Priests 3. De Orariis 4. Of the manner that the Clergy saluted the People which shall serve to explain this passage of St. Cyprian in regard of Aurelius whom he
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
Alexandria to visit the Patriarch Miletus his Country-man unto whom he succeeded after his decease having received a thousand marks of his kindness and friendship during his life time of the vigorous resistance which he made by order of this same Miletus in the Year 1592. and the following years against the Latins who used all their endeavours to take off the Russians and Moscovites from the Communion of the Greek Church of his Voyages into Germany where he visited several of the Protestant Universities into Holland where he became acquainted with Grotius and Cornelius Haga Into England from wence he returned unto Alexandria unto his Patriarch Miletus who dying had his dear Cyril for Successor I should also mention the Voyage which he made unto Constantinople whilst he was Patriarch of Alexandria the good success which he had there of meeting his friend Cornelius Haga Ambassador from the States General of the United Provinces the design then in hand of making him Patriarch the difficulties which interposed therein and his Return unto Alexandria from whence he was again called in the Year 1621. to be installed in this Dignity unto the general satisfaction of the Greek Church The great persecutions and troubles which the Latins stirred up against him and how notwithstanding all their Artifices and endeavours he preserved his Dignity of Patriarch of Constantinople although with some difficulty by reason of the malice of his Enemies from the Year 1621. unto the Year 1638. at which time they got some opportunity to strangle him and several other notable circumstances wherewith his life was attended But because in this place I consider him only as a Patriarch of the Greek Church which spake of the Eucharist in the Confession of Faith which he composed and communicated unto a Synodal Assembly convocated at Constantinople in the Year 1629. although several years before he had made several acquainted with it and had also left a Copy of it with the Bishop of Leopolis from whence it was sent to Rome I shall content my self only in observing that this Confession of Faith found different Receptions The Protestants rejoyced in as much as it is exactly agreeable unto their belief The Armenians finding it contrary unto them in the point of Predestination and of Free Will rejected it as being forged by the Protestants and there were some amongst the Latins which did so too But at last all the World was disabused and every body was constrained to own that it was truly made by the Patriarch And how can it be questioned after being refuted by Caryophylus and two Councils where it is said it was condemned the one under Cyril of Beroe who by the violent death of the other Cyril became the peaceable Possor of the Patriarchship and who in the Year 1639. assembled a Synod at Constantinople wherein he caused the Confession now spoke of to be condemned And the other under Parthenius who having driven out Cyril of Beroe in the Year 1641. had it also condemned in 1642. As to the Refutation of Caryophylus it cannot reasonably be thought to contain the Opinions of the Greek Church because that although he was a Greek by Nation yet he was a Latin by Religion Programmate poster having been bred up at Rome from his Infancy as Nihusius doth confess And as for the two Councils if they be received to be Councils of the whole Greek Church for legitimate Councils where all things were done in due form in a word for true Councils it must be granted that the Doctrine of Cyril of Lucar the same with that of the Protestants had not time to be setled amongst the Greeks but the Protestants do not yield at the sight of these two Councils which they suppose to be only forged by the Latins In fine There was lately communicated unto me a Treatise of a learned Man of this Communion which proves by many strong Arguments and Reasons that these two Councils were only fained by the Latins which I intend not to determine but I shall only say that there is one thing in this History which much surpriseth me which is that Parthenius under whom the latter of these Councils was to have been assembled in the Year 1642. was driven out by another Parthenius unto whom Leo Allatius a Greek Latinized and Library-keeper of the Vatican gives this testimony De perpet consens Eccl. Orient Occident l. 3. c. 11. of having been Disciple to Cyril of Lucar and a great favourer of the Calvinists from whence they fail not to infer that the Doctrine of Cyril was not extinguished with his person as neither do they spare to say that if the Greek Church did believe the Doctrine of Transubstantiation there would signs of it appear in the Decrees of their Councils as well as in those of the Latin Church in their Liturgies Catechisms and in the publick and authentical pieces touching their Religion which yet they pretend is not to be seen They add also that the Greeks believe that the Communion breaks the Fast that the Eucharist is digested and goes into the draft with other common meats as hath been shewed in the 17th Chapter They observe that they receive the Sacrament standing that they do not bow unto it when it is carried unto 〈◊〉 folks that they have not dedicated unto it any particular Holy day nor Processions that they do not expose it in publick neither in their rejoycings nor in their sorrows that they have not composed any particular Office and Prayers to celebrate its praises and in a word that they do nothing of all which the Latins do to express the Adoration which they give unto it Therefore Arcudius a Latinized Priest of the Isle of Corfu all in a passion demands of Gabriel of Philadelphia wherefore the the Consecration of the Gifts being ended That the Priest doth not bow his head nor adore nor prostrate himself nor give any shew of honour Wherefore is it that he doth not light Candle nor sing any Songs nor Hymns unto the Sacrament making unto it neither reverences nor bowing of the head nor of the knee not honouring it by bowing down unto the ground and not so much as saying unto it Lord remember me in thy Kingdom Besides I think that the Greeks in general are at this time so ignorant that they are not very capable of giving an account of their Faith touching the holy Sacrament So that if I mistake not it would be no difficult matter for persons any thing ingenious whether Protestants or Roman Catholicks to make them to embrace and believe either of the two Opinions But it is now time to treat of the Worship which is to be the Subject of the latter part of this History THE HISTORY OF THE EUCHARIST Part III. Wherein is Treated of the Worship of it AFter having seen and considered the manner how the Ancient Christians did Celebrate their Eucharist and what they said and believed of this August Sacrament with
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
rejected it but upon another Principle the reproaches of Jews and other Enemies and the difference betwixt the Greek and Latin Churches about Bread leaven'd or unleaven'd SAint Ignatius was a Disciple of the Apostles and particularly of St. John Bishop and Pastor of the Church of Antioch and moreover a glorious Martyr of Jesus Christ for he suffer'd Martyrdom at Rome the first of February Anno 107. or 109. in the Eleventh Year of the Emperor Trajan and if the Epistles which go in his name were truely his it were not to be questioned but that towards the end of the first age of Christianity or at farthest the beginning of the second there were Hereticks which rejected the use of the Sacrament When I mention his Epistles I speak not generally of all those which go in his name but only of the seven most antient seeing 't is above 1300 years since Eusebius saw them and after Eusebius they were cited by some of the Fathers of the Church because it is of these seven that the moderate persons both Roman Catholiks and Protestants seem to make greatest difficulty I mean the Protestants that admit them as legitimate for I find several that question them all and that cannot perswade themselves that they were the genuine Issue of that Illustrious Martyr as Messieurs de Saumaise Blondel Aubertin Daillé this latter having also examined in a particular Treatise all the marks of forgery that he could discover in these Epistles I freely confess my self to be in this Error if it be an Error and that of a long time I have therein observed several things which suffered me not to believe that S. Ignatius had writ them but as this is not the place to shew it and that besides it hath been performed by others it shall suffice to consider what he hath said of these Hereticks Ignat. Ep. ad Smyrn They abstain saith he from the Eucharist and from Prayer because they believe not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ which suffered for our sins and which the Father raised up by his goodness It is a long time since Theodoret cited this passage but instead of these words they abstained from the Eucharist and Prayer he used these they admitted not Sacraments nor Oblations I think the word Oblations is more significant than that of Prayer for there 's nothing more frivolous than to represent unto us those Hereticks as abstaining from Prayer because they owned not the Eucharist to be the flesh of Jesus Christ and I see no connexion betwixt these two things nor that they have any dependance the one upon the other unless some will say that they did not mean generally all manner of Prayer but only that whereby the Symbols of the Sacrament were consecrated and which many think was the Lords Prayer which they suppose the Apostles used for the consecrating this Mystery and therefore it is probable that the Fathers called it the Mystical Prayer and that it was not permitted unto the Catechumeni to repeat it because not having yet received holy Baptism they could not as they supposed call God Father nor participate of the Sacrament whereunto they were admitted immediately after Baptism but in fine these very words make me suspect the truth of the Epistle it might be and I 'll not deny but that towards the end of the third Century there might be Hereticks which did so and that he who forged the Epistle of S. Ignatius living at that time and opposing these Enemies of Christianity hath expresly observed it not considering as it often happens to that sort of men that it was not so in the time of this glorious Martyr under whose name he would cover himself I farther confess that if those Hereticks which I suppose to be the Docetes and Putatives that is those which denyed the Incarnation of Jesus Christ and which only allow'd him an imaginary Body a fantome and shadow of a Body I say I grant that had they acted according to their Hypothesis they would not have allowed of the Eucharist seeing they could not allow it without ruining their abominable Doctrine by an infallible consequence But this is not the place to consider what they ought to have done but what they did now it is most certain that in the time of the true S. Ignatius none of these Hereticks denyed the Eucharist for none of the Antients have observed it which they would not have omitted to do as well those which have treated of Heresies as those which have written particularly against the Hereticks whereof we now treat The first which refused to celebrate the Sacrament were as we have been informed by the Holy Fathers the Ascodrupites which were a Limb of the Impostor Mark and Mark an unhappy Branch of Valentine which Valentine began not to appear till thirty years after the death of S. Ignatius and as for those concerned in the Epistle which we examine how could they abstain from the Eucharist in the time of our glorious Martyr seeing they abstained not from it a hundred years after Tertul. advers Marc. l. 1. c. 14. For Tertullian doth formally tellus that Marcion which was one of the chief of these Hereticks persisted in the use of the Sacrament seeing he declares that the God of Marcion shews his Body by the Bread otherwise the Orthodox could not have drawn from the Sacrament any advantage against them for the truth of his Body and for the incarnation of Jesus Christ for when one disputes with another they must dispute upon common principles and which are acknowled on both sides I should think then and to end the consideration of this matter that these Hereticks which opposed not so much the Sacrament of the Eucharist Lib. 1. de Euchar. c. 1. §. ne auth as the mystery of the incarnation of Christ as Cardinal Bellarmin hath well observed taking notice of the neglect of their Predecessors and seeing they admitted the use of the Sacrament they gave the Catholicks strong Arms to contradict them they abstained from celebrating it as the Ascodrupites had done a long while before them although upon another account but besides these two sorts of Hereticks both which the one after the other rejected the celebrating of the Sacrament of the Eucharist although upon different principles we shall see in the XII Century a new Heretick that towards Flanders and especially in Brabant where he spread abroad his Heresie and the poyson of his pernitious Doctrine it was one called Tanchelin who having a design to ruin the Sacrament of the Eucharist and to forbid the use of it unto all those which he could seduce did so well by his cunning and by the help of the evil Spirit under whom he had enrolled himself that he perswaded the people of Antwerp a great and populous City that the participation of the Eucharist was not necessary unto Salvation wherefore they continued several years without communicating as the
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.
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
it and in saying of the Wine that it is his Blood who will question it and who will say it is not his Blood Ibid. He teacheth him that the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ and the Wine his Blood but to the end that he should not stagger at it Ibid. he conducts him unto the Metaphorical and Figurative Sense when he saith in the same place The Body is given unto you in the Figure of Bread and the Blood in the Type of Wine And if he saith unto him besides That we shall be Bearers of Christ when we have his Body and Blood distributed into our Members See here what he adds to let him see how that is done Jesus Christ said unto the Jews If you eat not my Flesh and drink my Blood you have no Life in you But they not understanding it spiritually were offended and forsook him thinking that he would have them eat human Flesh The old Law also had Shew-bread which are not now used because they appertained unto the ancient Dispensation but under the new the heavenly Bread and the Cup of Salvation sanctifieth both Body and Soul for as the Bread regards the Body so also the Word doth regard the Soul In fine he gives also this other Instruction unto his Neophyte Hold for certain that the Bread which is seen Id. ibid. p. 2â—9 is not Bread although the Relish judgeth it to be Bread but believe that it is the Body of Jesus Christ and that the Wine which is seen is not Wine although the Taste think so but that it is the Blood of Jesus Christ These Words already begin to inform him That there is Bread and Wine in the Sacrament and that the Sight and Taste do both testifie the same the Infallibility and Certainty of which Testimony the Fathers have asserted But because St. Cyril's Design in so speaking unto him was to instruct him that he should not look upon them as bare Bread and bare Wine but as the efficacious Sacraments of the Divine Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Id. P. 237. which they fail not to communicate unto those who worthily participate of them He told him a little before Do not consider them as bare Bread and Wine for by these Words he plainly presupposeth that it is Bread and Wine as he presupposeth elsewhere that it is Water and Oyl when he saith of Baptism Do not look at the bare Water Id. Catech. 3. illum p. 16. Mystag 3. p. 235. consider not this Washing as of common Water beware of thinking that it is common Oyl Thence it is that he likens the Change which happens unto the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist by Consecration unto what befals the Oyl of Chrism by Benediction to the end his Catechumeny may be perswaded that it is a Change of the same Nature Id. Mystag 3. p. 235. As saith he the Bread of the Sacrament after the Invocation of the Holy Ghost is no longer common Bread but the Body of Jesus Christ So also this holy Chrism is not bare Oyl or if it may be so said common after Invocation but it is a Gift and Grace of Jesus Christ And to compleat this Instruction Id. Mystag 5. p. 244. he tells him in the fifth Catechism you hear a Divine Melody which to invite you to the Communion of the holy Mysteries sings these Words Taste and see how good the Lord is Think you that you are commanded to make this Tryal with the Mouth of the Body not at all but rather with an undoubted Faith which changeth not for you are not bid to taste the Bread and Wine but the Antitype or the Figure of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ As St. Cyril ended his Course St. Gaudentius was called to the Bishoprick of Bressia in Italy he also composed a kind of Catechism for his Neophytes Gaudent tract 2. de rat Sacram Bibl. Patr. t. 2. p. 14. wherein he speaks unto them after this manner In the shadow of the Legal Passover there was not one but several Lambs slain there was one slain for every House one alone not being sufficient for all the People because it was the Figure and not the Passion it self of our Lord. The Figure is not the Substance but the Imitation of the Truth In this Truth then whereof we are perswaded one died for all and the same being offered in all the Churches doth nourish in or by the Mystery of Bread and Wine being believed he vivifies and being consecrated he sanctifies those which consecrate it is the Flesh of the Lamb it is his Blood for the Bread which came down from Heaven said the Bread which I will give is my Flesh and I will give it for the Life of the World and his Blood is also well expressed by the Species of Wine because when himself saith in the Gospel I am the true Vine he sufficiently declares that all the Wine offered in the Figure of his Passion is his Blood In this whole Discourse he teacheth them in the Death of Jesus Christ to search the Body and Substance of what had been prefigured by the Lambs of the Jews and if he speaks unto them of offering it again he intended not to understand it of a real Immolation because all Christians have always believed and all do still believe that Jesus Christ was never truly sacrificed but upon the Cross and that he cannot be any more sacrificed because he cannot die again They might then easily understand that St. Gandentius spake unto them of an improper Sacrifice which consists in the Representation of that which was made on the Cross For 't is in this Sense St. Aug. Ep. 23. Gaud. Serm. 19. p. 72. Austin saith That he is every day offered in Sacrament and in Figure And Gaudentius himself That we offer the Sufferings of the Passion of Jesus Christ in Figure of his Body and of his Blood Besides in telling them that he is immolated who was consecrated He plainly shews them that it is done not in the Person of Jesus Christ but in his Sacrament else he should have instilled into these Catechumenes two Doctrines which would directly contradict Christian Piety one is That Jesus Christ is less than him that consecrates him Cyril Alex. de Trin. dial 6. p. 558 t. 5. Heb 7.7 For as St. Cyril of Alexandria saith What is sanctified is sanctified by a greater and more excellent thing than it is by Nature according to what is said by the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews that which is less is blessed by the greater The other is That Jesus Christ should not have been always holy For as the same Cyril again saith Id. ibid. p. 595. Reason will absolutely perswade us to say That that which is said to be sanctified hath not ever been holy Therefore our Gaudentius declares unto them in the same Catechism That Jesus Christ commanded to offer the
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
said is an Evil that flies and increaseth in its Progress It were to be wished that Christians were more cautious in censuring of one another and that they would better consider the Love of Jesus Christ which should not be Censorious In the second place Berengarius had to deal with Adversaries which made no Conscience of corrupting Tradition and the Fathers and to deny the most evident things Lanfranc very confidently tells us that there were formerly two Heresies which proceeded from these words of Jesus Christ Lanfranc de Euch. Sacram. t. 6. Bibl. pat p. â—â—3 If you eat not the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood you have no Life in you They all believed saith he with one common consent that the Bread and Wine was changed into the real Flesh and Blood of the Son of Man but they were not agreed who this Son of Man was Some thought that it might be meant of any Man whatever whether just or sinful and that the earthly substance changed into his Flesh and Blood was received in the Remission of Sins Others conceived that this Son of Man was not any Man of the ordinary sort but a holy just person separated by his excellent living from the common sort of men which was the Temple of God in whom the Divinity resided and they confidently and heretically maintained that the Bread and Wine of the Altar might be changed into his Flesh and Blood But saith he in the time of Pope Celestin and of Cyril Bishop of Alexandria the Council of Ephesus was celebrated where these two mortal Heresies were condemned and the Faith was confirmed whereby we believe that the Bread is changed into the Flesh that was crucified and the Wine into the Blood which flowed out of the side of Jesus Christ hanging on the Cross To see the confidence wherewith this Prelate entertains his Readers with these two Heresies and their Condemnation at the Council of Ephesus one would take his Relation for a true History and yet it is but a meer forged Fable and the people of the XI Century did receive it upon Credit to be as true as Gospel It is the same Lanfranc that relates unto us as a true passage of St. Austin's these words which had been before falsly alledged by Paschas Receive in the Bread what was nailed to the Cross and in the Cup what issued out of the side of Jesus Christ Durandus Abbot of Troarn animated with the same Spirit Durand Troarn de corp Sang Dom. p. 7 doth with an unsupportable Impudence falsifie a passage in St. Austin upon the 98th Psalm which saith You shall not eat this Body which you see You shall not drink the Blood which they shall shed that crucifie me And this Abbot makes no more ado but to make this holy Doctor say For you shall eat this Body which you do see And after this insolent Alteration he cries out overjoyed with his Victory What is there more clear and evident You shall eat this Body which you see It is by the same Principle that Guitmond Bishop of Antwerp Guitmund de veritate Euchar l. 2. initio fere did formally deny that the Sacrament in regard of its visible Species it self was not subject unto Digestion nor to Corruption nor to be eaten by Rats and assured that though our eyes see it yet it was not true See here after what manner the Enemies of Berengarius did act Let it be judged if it was lawful and fit to be done by Christians The third in fine consists in discovering if Berengarius persevered in his Belief until his death and if he continued to teach it William of Malmesbury an English Historian saith Guill Malmsb. hist l. 3. c. 27. That after having dishonoured the vigour of his Youth by the defence of some Heresies he repented in his riper years But because there are found in the History of Berengarius some things which do not very well agree with the Relation of this Historian it will not be amiss to examine them It is granted that Berengarius began to publish his Opinions about the Year 1035. at which time he must be about thirty years old for it is not likely that he made any great stir before that Age. He defended his Cause at Rome in the Year 1079. that is according to our Computation in his 74th Year which is directly contrary unto what William of Malmesbury saith That after the first fire of his Youth he repented in a riper Age. Moreover it appears by a Letter from Lanfranc unto Reginald Abbot of St. Cyprian of Poitiers writ very probably in 1087. or 1088. that is the year of Berengarius his decease or a year before that the Conversion hinted at by the English Historian is but imaginary seeing that in this Letter Lanfranc calls him Schismatick and saith Epist 50. That he believes and teacheth evil things of Jesus Christ Besides the Chronicle of St. Maixant makes this Observation upon the Year 1080. Tom. 2. Eibl. l'Abbe p. 212. There was a Council assembled at Bourdeaux wherein Berengarius gave an account of his Faith According unto this Chronicle for which we are obliged unto the Industry of Father l'Abbe Berengarius did yet defend his Belief and Doctrine a Year after the Council held at Rome under Gregory the Seventh An. 1079. Unto all these Considerations may be added an Anonymous Author who wrote Anno 1088. which was the year of the death of Berengarius a small Treatise whose Title was De Berengarii Haeresiarche Damnatione multiplici Of the several Condemnations of Berengarius the Heretick which sheweth if I mistake not that he retained his Opinion unto his death And Father Chifflet who gave us this Anonymous doth sufficiently shew that he believes so when he saith in the Preface being offended with the Commendations given unto Berengarius by Hildebert that this Anymous made his Obsequies after a more discreet manner Chifflet in pralat Prudentius ei funus duxit to wit in calling him Heretick unto his death I would then conclude after all that hath been said that William of Malmesbury was deceived in placing the Conversion of Berengarius after the first vigour of his Youth Guill Malmsb. lust l. 3. c. 27. in a riper Age and that the History of this Conversion is no more true than what he related unto us of Fulbert Bishop of Chartres that as he was at the point of death his House was throng'd with people that flocked thither from all parts and perceiving Berengarius amongst the Croud he made a sign that he should be driven away protesting that there was by him a prodigious Devil and that he infected a great many by his tongue and by his hand for none of Berengarius his Adversaries who had studied under Fulbert never taxed him with any such thing not so much as Adelman his Fellow-student under this famous Prelate Tom. 2. Spicil d'Ach. p. 741. Moreover
the Friar Clarius that lived much about this time observes in the Chronicle of St. Peter of Sans that Fulbert Bishop of Chartres died Anno 1027. but he saith never a word of what is related by the English Historian although a Circumstance of this nature was too considerable to be passed over in silence And as it is evident that Berengarius did not change his Opinion in the time that William of Malmesbury doth assign it is no less plain as I think that he retained it until the last moment of his life Apud Guillâ—â—m Malmsb. ubi supra which he ended by a natural death Anno 1088. And after his death he was honoured with Epitaphs both by Hildebert Bishop of Mentz who speaks of him as advantagiously as one could do of a man exceedingly recommendable for his Vertue and Learning for the splendour of his Parts and for the purity of his Conversation and by Baldrick Abbot of Bourgueil Tom. 4. hist Franc. Quercetani and afterwards Bishop or rather Arch-Bishop of Doll for he and his Successors also enjoyed the Privileges of Arch-Bishop until Innocent the Third as their Predecessors had done since the middle of the IX Century to the prejudice of the Arch-Bishop of Tours neither the one nor the other speaking one word of his Conversion no more than the Friar Clarius who wrote his Chronicle of St. Peter of Sans about the time of the death of Berengarius of whom he speaketh very honourably upon the Year 1083. as if he died in that year Berengarius saith he Doctor of Tours Tom. 2. Spicil p. 747. an admirable Philosopher and Lover of the Poor flourished He composed the Prayer which begins O Jesus Christ just Judge and afterwards he ended his days faithful and truly Catholick This Epitaph is read on his Tomb it is the Epitaph of Hildebert of Mentz whereof he cites the two first Verses which contain in substance That the World shall always admire him that it admires at present and that Berengarius dies without dying to wit by the great Reputation which he had acquired In the same Century which the name of Berengarius had made so famous the Author of the Chronicle of St. Maixant speaking of De Cormarecensi Caenobio saith Tom. 2. Bibl. l'Abbe p. 212. That he saw a certain Friar of this Monastery called Literius a man of a wonderful Abstinence who for the space of ten years drank neither Wine nor Water but what he received in the Sacrifice that is to say in the Eucharist Judge Reader what was the Belief of this Writer who declares that they drank Wine and Water in the Participation of the Sacrament But having examined what passed in the West during the XI Century touching the Subject of the Sacrament we must endeavour to find what was believed concerning it in the Greek Church we will begin this Enquiry by Theophilact Arch-Bishop of Bulgaria who lived in this Century under the Dukes and under the Commenes Emperors of the East the Roman Catholicks and Protestants do both make pretensions unto him and think that he favours either of them Theophylact. in Matt. c. 26. The former ground themselves upon his declaring That our Saviour saying This is my Body sheweth that the Bread which is sanctified at the Altar is his real Body and not the Anti-type c. and that it is changed by an ineffable Operation although it appear unto us to be Bread for because that we are weak and that we have an aversion unto eating raw flesh and especially Man's flesh it seems to us to be but bread but it is really flesh Whereunto they add another passage of the same Author upon St Id. in Mar. c. 14 Mark where he saith almost the same thing observing That the Bread is changed into the Body of Jesus Christ and that our Lord said not of the Bread This is the Figure of my Body but my Body Id. in Joan. 6. And a third upon the Gospel of St. John which amounts unto the same thing not to mention what he saith again upon St Id. in Mar. c. 14 Mark That the Body of Jesus Christ is properly what is in the Golden Patten and the Blood that which is in the Cup. But the others that is to say the Protestants alledge that Theophilact hath explained himself very well in making this positive Declaration Id. in Mar. c. 14 God condescending unto our infirmities preserves the Species of Bread and Wine and doth change them into the vertue of his Body and Blood Which is exactly the Doctrine of St. Cyril of Alexandria who said 1 Apud Victorem in Marc. 14. manus That the Bread and Wine are changed into the efficacy of his Flesh or as Theodotus said before him 2 Apud Clement Alexan. p. 800. Into a spiritual Vertue So that when Theophilact said That the Sacrament is not the Antitype of the Body of Jesus Christ but his true Body and his Flesh it self they say that he understood that it was not a vain and empty Figure without any efficacy and vertue but not that he had any thoughts of absolutely denying that the Eucharist was an Antitype and Figure of the Body and Blood of our Saviour because then he should deny what his Predecessors had unanimously affirmed and that so indeed the Sacrament is truly the Body of Jesus Christ according to Theophilact not in substance but in vertue and efficacy because he declares that the Bread and Wine are changed into the vertue of the Flesh and Blood of our Lord and that although our Lord said not of the Bread This is the Figure of my Body but my Body nevertheless his meaning was that his words should so be understood according to the Explication of Tertullian St. Austin Facundus and others who declare formally that these words This is my Body do signifie This is the Figure the Sign and the Sacrament of my Body But that the Reader may the better judge of what side to range Theophilact either on the Protestants or the Roman Catholicks it will be necessary to consider what the Belief of the Greek Church was touching the Sacrament in the XI Century for if the Belief of the Greeks was not conformable with that of the Latins in that Age Theophilact cannot reasonably be interpreted to favour the Real Presence unless that he differed absolutely from the Opinion generally received by all those of his Country in which sense his Testimony would not be very considerable Now I observe that at that time the Greeks believed for certain that the Communion broke the Fast and that what is received in the Eucharist goes down into the Belly and passeth into the Draft as to its matter which sheweth plainly that they believed it was true Bread It is what Cardinal Humbert who was sent unto them by Pope Leo the IX chargeth upon Nicetas Pectoratus Humb. tom 4. Bibl Pat. Edit ult pag. 245.
success if we believe the Author 's of his Life having with his Sermons attended with Miracles instructed the Ignorant confirmed those which wavered restored them which had gone astray and scatter'd the Gain-sayers who dared not present themselves before him Nevertheless the consequence of matters did not answer the pretended success of this Voyage for Historians write that the numbers of the Albigensis did mightily increase after this Voyage It is what is precisely observed by Papyrius Masso in his History of France for after having spoken of Henry Successor unto Peter of the Letter of St. Bernard unto the Count of St. Giles and of his Voyage unto Tholouse he adds Moreover Hist Franc. l. 3. in Philip. August neither the death of Peter de Bruis nor the preaching of St. Bernard could hinder the progress of this Sect c. Tholouse Albi Carcassona Beziers Agde Castres Lavaur and almost all the Cities and Villages of Languedock had embraced it In Chronico insomuch that William de Puylaurens wrote in his Chronicle that the Inhabitants of Castelverd made light of the Sermons of St. Bernard and esteemed them erroneous About the same time Arnold of Bress appeared in Italy teaching the same Doctrine which Peter de Bruis and Henry of Tholouse did teach in France Otto Frising in Frideric l. 2. c. 20. which is the reason that Otto de Frisinge amongst many other things he lays to his charge accuseth him to have bad Opinions touching the Sacrament of the Altar but in fine either for that and for the other things he taught or for the liberty he used in speaking against the Court of Rome against the Clergy and the Friars he was burnt at Rome Anno 1155. under Pope Adrian the Fourth and his Ashes cast into the River Tiber fearing saith Otto and Guntherius Gunther de Gest Frid. l. 3. De investig Antich l. 1. lest the people which followed him should honour his body as the body of a Martyr and because Gerhohus Rescherspergensis a Writer of the same Age could not forbear saying That he could have wished the Church had not been guilty of that man's blood who might have been corrected with some milder and easier punishment the Jesuit Gretzer not relishing an expression of so much Humanity and mildness said Prolegom in scriptor cont Valdens c. 4. That Gerhohus spoke of the punishment of Arnold with no little dis-satisfaction Five years after the death of Arnold of Bress according to the testimony of Historians Peter Waldo a Citizen of Lions appeared who having found whole Countries of people separated from the Latin Church he adhered unto them with those which followed him to make but one Body and Society by the unity of the same Faith and Doctrine they were no better used than the others had been for Waldo having declared himself publickly in the Year 1160. I find that in the Year 1167. there was caused to be burnt at Vezelay in Burgundy near unto Lyons of which place Waldo was some of his followers under the name of Donarii or Poplicani which is one of the names given unto the Waldensis which in all likelihood was turned by the Flemings into that of Pifles for so it is they were called in Flanders The History of Vezelay placeth the death of those persons Tom. 3. Spicil p. 644 645. which were seven in number in the Year 1167. I know that all are not agreed of the time wherein Waldo began to appear and that some make it to before the time we have mentioned Nevertheless because the commonest and most received Opinion agrees that he appeared about the Year 1160. we refer it thereunto as to the most probable Epoch and that which is most generally consented unto by Historians But if all agree not of the time neither do they agree of the personal Qualities of Waldo some representing him to be stupid ignorant and unlearned and others on the contrary not denying him to be well learned In this diversity of Opinions it appears very reasonable to prefer the testimony of those which lived near that time before such as wrote a long while after especially seeing there is nothing that should render the former to be suspected Therefore it is that in this occasion I give the preferrence unto Reynerus of the Order of preaching Friars because he flourished in the XIII Century about ninety years after Waldo began to preach So that if he lived but twenty years after then Reynerus wrote seventy years after his death Besides Reynerus was a declared Enemy of the Waldensis against whom he wrote there is no likelihood then that he would flatter Waldo Contra Valdens c. 5. nor attribute unto him what was not his Right Now see what he saith The Sect of the Poor of Lyons which were also called Leonists began thus Some of the chiefest Citizens of Lyons being one day together it happened that one of them died suddenly in presence of the rest which struck such a terror into one of the Company that immediately he distributed great treasures unto the Poor so that very great multitudes of people followed him whom he taught to profess voluntary poverty and to imitate Jesus Christ and his Apostles and having some competent knowledge of Letters he taught them the New Testament in the Vulgar Tongue It is a sign that if he understood not Greek he at least understood Latin enough to expound the Latin Translation into the Language of the Country Of this Waldo they were called Waldensis and of the City of Lyons of which he was Leonists or the Poor of Lyons as before they had been called Petrobrusians from Peter de Bruis and Henritians of Henry and of some other Doctors they had they were called Arnoldists Esperonists Josephists Lollards others at several times in several places and on several occasions have called them Albigensis Tholousians Picards Poplicani or Pifles Bogomiles Bulgarians Patarians Insabatas Gazarians Turlupians and by several other names As for their Doctrine and Belief even those which have an aversion and hatred for their name and memory do testifie that it was conformable unto that of the Albigensis The Waldensis saith Mariana are the same with the Albigensis Mariana prâ—f in Lucam Tud seeing the Doctrine both of the one and the other contains almost the same Articles neither were they much distant in time one from the other and therefore it is that Emery of the Order of preaching Friars and Inquisitor of the Kingdom of Arragon did not reckon the Albigensis amongst the other Hereticks which I observe to have been done by other Authors of that Age for the same reason Gretzer who hated them no less than Mariana speaks also in the same manner Episc praeixa scriptor cont Valdens c. 1. There is a difference betwixt the Albigensis and Waldensis saith he in regard of the name but not of the thing it self And in his Prologomenies upon the the same Writers he testifies
Age And doth moreover observe that most of the English Prelates connived at what they taught so that being besides favoured by several persons of Quality they made open profession of their Faith so far as they affixed publickly upon the Doors of St. Paul's Church in London certain Theses which were no ways favourable to the Doctrine of the Latin Church nor to its Clergy At the same time there were several Waldensis at the Straits of the Alps which divide France and Italy as we are informed by 1 Contr. Vald. fol. 2. Claud de Cecill Arch-Bishop of Turin and of a Bull of Clement the Seventh granted at Avignion against them in the Year 2 His Bull is in the Chamber of Accounts at Grenoble 1380. and put in Execution by one Francis Borelli Inquisitor of the Order of preaching Friars who persecuted them cruelly for several years and put many of them to death I know not whether the University of Paris intended not to speak of the same Waldensis in the Letter which it directed unto Charles the Sixth in the Year 1394. 3 Tom. 6. Spicil p. 97. complaining amongst other things That the Hereticks which have already began to appear finding none to punish them do make great progress and not only scatter abroad ther pernitious Heresies publickly but also in private The XV. Century proved more fatal unto the Waldensis and Lollards in England for from the first year the Persecution was begun against them in pursuance of an Act of Parliament which gave power to put them to death if they recanted not their Religion as 4 In Hypodig Neustr ad an 1401. in Henrico IV. Walsingham doth testifie But notwithstanding all this they lost not their courage nor abandoned the Doctrine they had until then professed On the contrary the 5 In Henr. IV. same Historian observes that the year following they proposed several Thesis's but privately for fear of the punishment which had been appointed Theses which were nothing favourable unto the Doctrine of the Roman Church which renewed the Persecution against them during which several of them were burnt alive which this Friar saith was done in the Years 1410 1414 1417. even insulting after a most unchristian manner at the death of these people as did also Thomas Waldensis who speaking unto King Henry the Fifth doth mightily commend the continual punishments which was inflicted upon them In Prolog t. 2. doct 11. ad initium prologi saying That Prince proceeded according to the Command of Jesus Christ who nevertheless requires not Consciences to be forced but persuaded and whose Gospel is made up of love and of mildness But whilst these things were acting in England there was in Bohemia infinite numbers of people that made open profession of the same Doctrine for which the Lollards were persecuted in Great Britain for besides the Waldensis which had retired themselves thither a great while before by reason of the Persecution stirred up against them in Picardy as Dubravius Bishop of Olmuz informed us in the precedent Chapter At the beginning of this Century there was made in that Country a considerable Separation from the Roman Church according to the Testimony of the same Dubravius and of Eneas Silvius in their Histories of Bohemia 'T is true this Separation was not alike in all for some only desired the Restitution of the Cup unto the people being of accord in all other points with the Latins and those for this reason were called Calixtins but as for the others they disowned the same Doctrine of the Communion of the Latins which the Waldensis and Wickliffites had opposed and did still oppose and because as some alledge these latter joyned themselves unto the Waldensis which had been setled a long time in this Kingdom and used to assemble themselves in the Mountain of Tabor they were called Taborites as Dubravius hath observed But let us hear what this Prelate intends to say touching this Separation when having spoken of the Jubilee celebrated at Prague in the Year 1400. he adds Unto this time the Christian Religion Lib. 23. hist Bohem. which had been once received by the Bohemians with all the Ceremonies of the Apostolick See had continued stedfast in Bohemia in its purity but after that time it began to faulter and decline as soon as John Hus which in the Language of the Country signifies a Goose began to make a noise amongst the Swans and by his sound to conquer the sweetness of their singing by the assistance of a Faction which made it self considerable In fine the progress was so great that he writes That the Taborites so ordered matters Ibid. l. 24. that in the City of Prague there rested no sign of the ancient Catholick Religion Also the Friar Walsingham testifies that the Emperor Sigismond returned from Constance into his own Territories after the Council had elected Pope Martin the Fifth In Henr. IV. To employ all his strength to ruin the Enemies of Religion and the Heresie of the Lollards which were mightily increased in the Kingdom of Bohemia by the lukewarmness and support of his elder Brother Dubravius proceedeth farther for after the Coronation of Sigismond at Prague Ubi supra l. 26 he proposeth the Tenets of the Taborites but after a manner that is not exactly conformable unto their Confession of Faith by which nevertheless their Belief ought to be judged because it is in those publick Acts that for the most part is declared what is believed in matters of Religion And treating of Moravia upon the Year 1421. he observes that Country was not then infected with the Heresie of the Taborites but in that same year they began there to establish themselves Renewing saith he the ancient Error of the Picards that is to say of the Waldensis to wit that none ought to kneel unto the Sacrament of the Altar because the Body of Jesus Christ is not there having ascended up into Heaven both in Body and Soul and that there remains only the Bread and Wine I know very well that the Bishop of Olmuz chargeth them in the same place of teaching that the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist is such Bread and Wine as each particular amongst the people may take with their own hands that the hand of the Priest is no more worthy then that of a private Lay person And to vomit saith he other Blasphemies against the real Body of Jesus Christ But because the quite contrary doth appear by their Confession of Faith I know not whether it would be reasonable to admit of this Accusation coming from the Pen and hand of an Enemy Eneas Sylvius Cap. 35. who was afterwards Pope Pius the Second speaks of those people at large in his History of Bohemia he relates several things of them agreeing with the Doctrine of the Protestants but he also mentions other things which the Protestants do not approve the which in all probability were unjustly
they were cautious in declaring themselves for fear of being troubled It was otherwise in Bohemia the profession of this Doctrine being more free by reason of the great numbers of persons which had embraced it and which had separated themselves from the Communion of the Latin Church If we credit Historians King George Pogebrack who in the Year 1455. succeeded Ladislaus Son of Albert became Protector of the Taborites that he embraced this Party and afterwards drew upon himself the Excommunications of two Popes Pius the Second and Paul the Second I will not here insist upon the Commendations which some of these Historians give him for his Vertue Justice Prudence and Integrity neither do I intend to examine the differences which he had with these two Popes against whose Anathema's he defended himself as well as against the Enemies which he had engaged against him unto his death which happened in the Year 1471. I shall content my self to observe that the Historians which represent him unto us as a Taborite and Protector of the Taborites are grosly mistaken which may warn us not too easily to give credit unto all that they report In fine we have a Letter of this Prince unto Mathias King of Hungary his Son in Law dated in the Year 1468. which Dom Luke d'Achery a Benedictine Friar hath lately published the reading whereof informs us several things In the first place that the Doctrine of the Taborites and Waldensis of Bohemia if it were so that there were any of the ancient Waldensis still remaining Tom 4. Spicil p. 415. was such as we have represented It must be granted saith he if we will say things that are more true than apparent that several Errors have flourished in this Kingdom touching the Sacrament of the Eucharist Circa remanentem panis Sacramentalis sic enim illi nuncupabant upon their teaching that the Bread of the Sacrament remained and that it was converted into the substance of the Communicant In the second place that this Prince was not a Taborite but a Calixtin because he desired to communicate under both kinds as he had always done after the example of his Father his Mother and his Grandmother but that in all other points he was agreed with the Latin Church Thirdly It may be gathered from this Letter that the Taborites whose Doctrine he styles to be erroneous were not kindly used by this King Ibid. p. 415. therefore in the Apology which they made in the Year 1508. under the name of Waldensis against the Doctor Augustin they complained that some of their Brethren suffered great miseries under King George Pogebrack by reason of their Opinion touching the Article of the Sacrament Unto George Pogebrack succeeded Ladislaus Son of Casimir King of Poland whom the Bohemians saith Ritius chose for their King De regno Hungar l. 2. upon condition that he would suffer the Hussites he makes them all one with the Taborites to enjoy their Liberty of Conscience which he did until the latter end of this XV. Century But at length the malicious Accusations of their Enemies having prevailed over the Spirit of Ladislaus In fasciculo rerum expeten fol. 81. Dubrav hist Bohem. l. 32. as appears by the first Letter they wrote unto this Prince to inform him that it was nothing but false calumnies whereby they endeavoured to mis-represent them unto him They were forbidden all sorts of Assemblies both publick and private They were commanded to shut up the places where they were wont to make their Assemblies not to preach nor teach their Doctrine any more neither by word nor by writing and in a certain time to conform themselves either unto the Calixtins or unto the Roman Church This Edict occasioned two Letters which they wrote unto Lagislaus with all the humility and respect as was due unto the Majesty of their Prince and Soveraign wherein they complained of so great severity and of condemning them before they were heard And the more to excite him to have compassion on them they joyned their Confession of Faith unto each of these Letters declaring what was their Belief of the Sacrament In the first written Anno 1504. they say That they believe that the Bread which Jesus Christ took which he blessed broke and the which he said was his Body that it is his Body which they explain more particularly in the second which they wrote the year following We believe and confess that the Bread is the natural Body of Jesus Christ and the Wine his natural Blood sacramentally And because the Doctor Augustin charged them with having confessed Transubstantiation in their Writings they do protest that they did not write so Contr. binas litter Doctor Augustin ann 1508. in fasciculo supra nominato For say they this Confession hath no foundation in the words of our Saviour Jesus Christ which said nothing of the Real Presence neither under these species nor in this nor of this nor with this Besides they reject the Adoration of the Sacrament and there also they declare That Jesus Christ is no longer personally upon Earth and that they expect him not until the day of Judgment giving no credit unto those which shew his person here below And a little after they declare That Jesus Christ promised his Disciples to be with them spiritually by the participation of his Body and Blood and in the Sacrament in vertue with the testimony of his holiness Whereupon they alledge the words of St. Austin Donec seculum finiatur sursum est Dominus sed tamen hic etiam nobiscum est veritas Dominus corpus enim in quo resurrexit in uno loco esse oportet And there also they deny that the Body of Jesus Christ is in several places at once In Prologom de Vald. c. 8. It would be difficult and even impossible to declare what was the effect of these Apologies seeing the Historians are therein silent Only the Jesuit Gretzer makes this Observation The Waldensis preserved themselves a long time in Bohemia Gesner in Bibliothec and to this day they cannot be quite rooted out It was about the same time that one Paulus Scriptoris Professor in Divinityin the University of Tubinge was banished for having in his Lectures spoken against the common Belief of the Eucharist But this is not all yet for the Waldensis of Provens and Piedmont present themselves and oblige us to speak of them As the Persecutions were violent in France against those people in the XII and XIII Centuries and particularly in the latter wherein the Popes published several Croysado's against them they were in fine constrained to disperse themselves and in this dispersion considerable numbers of them retired themselves into Provens and towards Labriers and Merindol where they preserved themselves until the Reign of Lewis the Twelfth at which time they were persecuted by the Friars and Inquisitors who brake in violently upon them by force and Arms saying That they should be
Christ is present with the believing Soul by the Intercourse of Devotion Id. 241 Jesus Christ must be sought in Heaven in Communicating Id. 242 The Body of Jesus Christ which was made 1600 Years ago cannot be made every day B. Ch. 5. 251 In what sense the Books of Charlemain condemn the term of Image in respect of the Sacrament B. Ch. 12. 380 John Scot wrote of the Sacrament by Command of Charles the Bald. B. Ch. 13. 403 Adversaries of John Scot upon the Point of Predestination Id. 415 John Scot never accused by his Adversaries to have erred upon the Point of the Eucharist Id. ibid. John Scot enrolled in the number of Saints after his death Id. 413 The Book composed by John Scot by Command of the Emperor Charles the Bald burnt at the Council of Verceil 200 years after viz. An. 1050. Id. 414 L. A Body cannot be in several places at once no not the glorified Body of our our Lord Jesus Christ B. Ch. 5. p. 247 The glorified Body of Jesus Christ cannot exist invisibly and after the manner of a Spirit in one place nor by consequence in the Eucharist Id. 248 The place which containeth is greater than what is contained Id. 251 Two Bodies cannot be in one and the same place and there cannot be Penetration of Dimensions Id. 261 Every part of a Body should answer unto every part of the place Id. ibid. A Body cannot be whole and entire in one of its parts Id. ibid. The Original of using Lamps and Lights in the Celebration of the Eucharist C. Ch. 1. 531 M. THe Flesh of Jesus Christ is to be eaten spiritually and corporally B. Ch. 4. 234 The Wicked do not eat the Body of Jesus Christ but the Sacrament of it only Idem 237 John Hus and Jerome of Prague put to death as Enemies of Transubstantiation although they ever believed it B. Ch. 19. 508 c. What a Mystery doth mean B. Ch. 5. 259 c. N. THe Nature of Bread remains after Consecration B. Ch. 2. 206 Nicholas the First keeps silent during the Disputes of the IX Century B. Ch. 15. 430 The Silence of Nicholas the First no way favourable unto Paschas Id. 431 O. JOhn Damascen his particular Opinion of the Eucharist B. Ch. 12. 365 Paschas Radbert a Friar of the Monastery of Corby near Amiens his Opinion He was after Abbot of the same Convent B. Ch. 13. 385 Opinion of the Adversaries of Paschas Id. 393 c. The Opinion of Paschas is that of Roman Catholicks and the Opinion of his Adversaries that of Protestants which are called Calvinists Id. 405 The Opinion of his Adversaries followed by the greatest Men in the IX Century Idem 430 The Silence of the Popes Adrian the Second and Nicholas the First prejudicial to the Opinion of Paschas B. Ch. 15. 431 The Opinion of Paschas had no advantage over that of his Adversaries during the X. Century B. Ch. 16. 440 It began to be established in the XI Century B. Ch. 17. 451 Berengarius and his Followers Opposition with his several Condemnations which hindred not but he persevered unto his death Id. 455 Berengarius calls the Opinion contrary to his the Folly of Paschas of the People and of Lanfrank Id. 454 Berengarius his Opinion condemned after his death by Urban the Second in a Council held at Plaisance Anno 1095. B. Ch. 18. 465 Those which held this Belief assembled themselves in the Arch-bishoprick of Treves Anno 1106. Id. 466 P. REflections of the holy Fathers upon the words of Institution of the Eucharist B. Ch. 1. 187 How they understood these words This is my Body Id. 188 No Body can participate of himself B. Ch. 5. 262 How the Fathers instructed their Catechumeny B. Ch. 7. 283 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies not only to adore but venerate and respect therefore it is to be explained according to the nature of the Subject in hand C. Ch. 4. 563 c. Q. THe Question of Communicating under both Kinds discussed at large A. Ch. 12. 141 c. Who opposeth not an Error approves it B. Ch. 15. 431 Whosoever recovereth not a Man from Error sheweth that he erreth himself Id. ibid. Whosoever defends not a Truth suppresseth it Id. ibid. The Question of the Adoration of the Sacrament fully examined C. Ch. 4. 563 c. R. THe Christians reproached for sacrificing Bread to God A. Ch. 3. 25 Christians reproached for serving Ceres and Bacchus Id. ibid. Religious Women called the Blood of Jesus Christ common Wine B. Ch. 6. 273 Remy of Auxerr as well as Damascen believed the Union of the Bread unto the Divinity B. Ch. 13. 391 Rupert de Duitz believed the Assumption of the Bread and followed near hand the Opinion of Damascen and of Remy of Auxerr B. Ch. 18. 468 S. THe Sacraments are simple in the Act and wonderful in effect Preface The Sacrifice of Christians is a Sacrifice of Bread and Wine A. Ch. 8. 82 The reason why the Fathers gave the Eucharist the name of Sacrifice but improperly Id. 83 c. They confess unto the Pagans they have neither Altars nor Sacrifices Id. 94 They never oppose the Eucharist unto the Sacrifices of the Law but the Actions of Piety and Christian Religion and the Sacrifice of the Cross Id. 96 The Elevation of the Sacrament to represent the Elevation of Christ on the Cross when begun to be practised A. Ch. 9. 101 The Elevation converted into the Adoration of the Host in the XIII Century Idem 105 There hath been always People in the West which have celebrated the Sacrament without Elevation or Adoration Id. 103 The breaking of the Bread of the Sacrament always practised in the Church even amongst the Latins until the XII Century A. Ch. 9. 106 The Sacraments have no Miracles in them B. Ch. 2. 212 It is unto the vertue and efficacy of the Sacrament that we must refer the Communion which we have with Jesus Christ and our Vinification B. Ch. 3. 230 The Testimony of the Senses is infallible B. Ch. 5. 257 The Use of Flowers practised by the Latins in honour to the Sacrament unknown unto the primitive Christians C. Ch. 4. 573 T. ALtar or Eucharistical Table one and the same thing in the Writings of the ancient Fathers of the Church A. Ch. 5. 44 45. It was for a long time made of Wood in the same form of Tables to eat upon and not in the form of an Altar Id. ibid. There was but one Table or one Altar in a Church Id. 47 The Greeks Muscovites and Abyssins now retain the same Custom Id. 50 What Fraud and Deceipt is B. Ch. 5. 260 The Taborites of Bohemia and their Belief B. Ch. 19. 505 John Hus and Jerome of Prague ever held Transubstantiation Id. 508 V. THere can no Prescription be alledged against Truth Preface The Truth of God must be followed and not the Traditions of Men. A. Ch. 1. p. 1 A Body should be visible and palbable B. Ch. 5. 247 What may be seen and felt is a Body Id. 264 Waldensis their Doctrine Manners and the Persecutions used against them B. Ch. 18. 472 c. Waldensis in Italy in the XIV Century B. Ch. 19. 502 Wickliff his Doctrine and Followers which were very numerous in England under the name of Lollards in the XIV Century Id. 499 The Waldensis of Provence and Piedmont Id. 512 The Original of holy Vestments used in the Celebration of the Eucharist C. Ch. 1. 539 FINIS