Church That it was a Leaden Age an Iron and unhappy Age an Age of Darkness Ignorance Superstition and Obscurity whereas his Adversary esteems it to be an Age of Light an Age of Grace and Benediction For my particular although I know that he which esteems it an Age of Darkness is supported by the Authority of all or at least the greatest number of Historians which have written of it especially of Baronius Gennebrard and Bellarmine and that so far he hath not said any thing of his own And that the reasons of his Adversary which represents it as an Age of Learning and Benediction do not appear unto me of sufficient force to invalidate what he hath established upon the report of Historians I will however make a third party in this rencounter and hold the mean betwixt these two extreams I say that I will not absolutely follow the Historians which represent it wholly dark and ignorant nor the Author of the Perpetuity which represents it all light and glorious For if I do not make it an Age wholly Light neither will I esteem it to be wholly Darkness If I judge it not to be an Age of Grace neither do I conceive it to be one altogether unfortunate If it appear not unto me to be wholly an Age of Benediction neither doth it appear to be only an Age of Malediction In a word if I look not upon it to be an Age of Hillary's of Athanasius's of Basills of Gregory's and of Ambroses or as an Age of Chrisostoms of Jeromes and of Austins yet I do not regard it as an Age of Bareletes of Maillards and of Menots I do not liken it unto a fair Summers day when the Heavens being free from Clouds the Sun shineth in its full force and communicates unto us without any Obstruction his Light and Heat but unto a Winters day which being dark and the Air full of thick Clouds deprives us of the sight of the Sun yet not totally of its Light so that we have still left us sufficient to direct us although it may not be always enough to hinder us from stumbling In like manner say some during the X. Century the Sins of Men having made a thick Cloud betwixt the Sun of Righteousness and them he communicated not unto them fully the Light of his healthful Beams although he imparted unto them sufficient to avoid the Errors which cannot be believed without Ruin and to embrace the Truth the knowledge whereof is necessary to Salvation What likelihood say some is there that having shed forth so much Light upon the IX Century for the defence of the Truth that Men should on a suddain be plunged into Darkness But what likelihood is there also that the same Craces with the same freedom should be continued to be dispensed unto Men when it was seen that they began to abuse them and that the Flesh gaining by little and little the Victory over the Spirit they degenerated insensibly from the truth of their Belief and the purity of their Devotion Nevertheless as God is infinitely good and that he never leaves himself without witness of doing good unto Men however unthankful and ungrateful they be so if he dispensed not sufficient Knowledge unto the Men of the X. Century to oppose the Opinion of Paschas with the same vigour as it was opposed in the IX yet he dispensed them so much as to hinder it from being established all that Age as shall be shewed in the progress of this History But in the first place it will be necessary to relate what is said by William of Malmesbury De gestis Pontific Anglor 〈◊〉 of Odo Arch-bishop of Canterbury who lived in this Age He so confirmed saith he several persons which doubted of the truth of the Body of our Lord that he shewed them the Bread of the Altar changed into Flesh and the Wine of the Cup changed into Blood and afterwards he made them return unto their natural form and rendred them proper for the life of Men. This is the only Author of the X. Century that is come to our knowledge which publickly declared himself for the Opinion of Paschas whereas the Historian's Relation sheweth that there were several that were of a contrary Judgment and who had no small inclination to profess it openly besides the method of this Prelate to make them receive his Opinion seems unto many to be but a story made at random either by Odo himself or by the Friar which wrote the History of it and they heartily wish that Christians would not use these kind of Prodigies to prove the truth of the Doctrines of their Religion saying that Unbelievers are dis-satisfied and those which believe and are enlightned and that are pious can receive no Edification thereby And they make no question but that Paschas rendred his Doctrine suspicious unto most persons by the pretended Miracles that he made use of to establish it because this kind of proceeding shewed plainly that he found neither in the Scriptures nor Traditions Reasons strong enough to defend it seeing he had recourse unto these prodigious Apparitions But whatever this Arch-Bishop of Canterbury could do for the promoting the Doctrine of Paschas in England his endeavours had not all the success he could have wished the contrary Doctrine which had been so well planted in this Kingdom until the Year 883. by John Erigenius one of the greatest Adversaries of Paschas there continuing still and being publickly preached In fine Alfric which some also esteem to be Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and others Bishop of Cride after having been Abbot of Malmesbury a Man learned according to those times in a Sermon under the name of Wulfin Bishop of Salisbury thus spake of the Sacrament In notis Vheloci in histor Bedae Anglo-Sax l. 4. c. 24. about the Year 940. The Eucharist is not the Body of Jesus Christ corporally but spiritually not the Body wherein he suffered but the Body whereof he spake when consecrating the Bread and Wine he said This is my Body This is my Blood He adds That the Bread is his Body as the Manna and the Wine his Blood as the Water of the Desert was If this Sermon was one of Wulfin's according to the Title the Year 840. as we have computed it doth not ill agree with it But if it be Alfric's we must descend lower towards the end of the X. Century Apud Usser de dhristian Eccles success statu c. 2. p. 54. There is another which some cite under the name of Wulfin Bishop of Salisbury and others attribute unto Alfric wherein the Author useth the same Language This Sacrifice saith he is not the Body wherein Jesus Christ suffered for us nor his Blood which he shed but it is made spiritually his Body and Blood as the Manna which fell from Heaven and the Water which flowed from the Rock If these two Sermons are of two several Authors we have already two Witnesses directly
to take notice that if in this History I have spoken of the Country of the Abassins as of the Kingdom of Prester John it was to accomnodate my self with the vulgar Opinion without making exact inquiry what it is and without troubling my self at this time to reconcile Historians and Travellers that have written diversly of it THE TABLE OF CHAPTERS PART I. Containing the outward form of Celebration CHAP. I. WHerein is treated of the Matter of the Sacrament Page 1 CHAP. II. Wherein is mention made of divers sorts of Hereticks as far only as may suffice to clear the Point in Question p. 7 CHAP. III. Progress of Considerations of the Matter of the Sacrament wherein is examined what is said by S. Ignatius of certain Hereticks that rejected the Sacrament the Heresie of one Tanchelin who also rejected it but by another principle the reproaches of Jews and other Enemies and the difference betwixt the Greek and Latin Churches about leavened and unleavened Bread p. 22 CHAP. IV. Wherein is shewed whence the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament was had and what was the form of the Bread with the innovations and changes which thereupon succeeded p. 30. CHAP. V. Of the Consecration of the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament and first of the place where they were Consecrated and of the Matter of Chalices and Patins p. 39 CHAP. VI. Of the Language wherein Consecration and generally of all the Service p. 54 CHAP. VII Of the Ceremonies and form of Consecration p. 65 CHAP. VIII Of the Oblation or form of the Sacrifice p. 81 CHAP. IX Of the Elevation and breaking the Bread p. 101 CHAP. X. Of the Distribution and of the Communion and first of the Time the Place and Posture of Communicants p. 110 CHAP. XI Of him that distributes the Sacrament and of him that communicates with the words both of the one and the other p. 121 CHAP. XII Of the thing Distributed and Received p. 131 CHAP. XIII The Eucharist received with the Hand p. 150 CHAP. XIV Of the liberty of carrying the Eucharist home after having taken it in the Church and of carrying it in Journeys and Voyages p. 160 CHAP. XV. The Eucharist sâ—nt unto the absent and the Sick unto whom it was sometimes sent by Lay-persons Men Women Children c. p. 164 CHAP. XVI Divers Vses and divers Customs touching the Eucharist p. 169 PART II. Containing the Doctrine of the Holy Fathers CHAP. I. REflections made by the Holy Fathers upon the Institution of the Sacrament p. 187 CHAP. II. What the â—â—thers believed of the things we receive in the Sacrament and whâ—â— they said of them p. 199 CHAP. III. Of the use and office of the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament p. 213 CHAP. IV. Consequences of the Doctrine of the Holy Fathers p. 231 CHAP. V. Continuation of the Consequences of the Doctrine of the Holy Fathers p. 246 CHAP. VI. Other proofs of the Doctrine of the Holy Fathers with the Inferences drawn by Protestants from them p. 265 CHAP. VII Continuation of the Proofs of the Doctrine of the Holy Fathers and of the Inductions of Protestants p. 277 CHAP. VIII Proofs of the Doctrine of the Holy Fathers drawn by Protestants from some practices of the Ancient Church p. 291 CHAP. IX Other Proofs drawn from the silence of Pagans and of certain things objected against them by the Holy Fathers p. 298 CHAP. X. The last Proof drawn from what passed in regard of Hereticks either of their silence or of the Fathers dispute against them p. 308 CHAP. XI Of the change made in the Expressions or the History of the Seventh Century p. 361 CHAP. XII Wherein is Examined what ensued in the Eighth Century p. 365 CHAP. XIII Containing the History of the Ninth Century p. 385 CHAP. XIV Continuation of the Ninth Century wherein is treated of the Dignities and Promotions of Heribold p. 4â—5 CHAP. XV. Continuation of the History of the Ninth Century wherein is examined the silence of Pope Nicholas the First and Adrian the Second with two Observations touching the Greek Church p. 430 CHAP. XVI Of the State of the Tenth Century p. 439 CHAP. XVII Of what passed in the Eleventh Century p. 450 CHAP. XVIII Continuation of the History of the Eucharist or the state of the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries p. 465 CHAP. XIX The History of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries p. 497 PART III. Wherein is treated of the worshipping the Sacrament CHAP. I. OF the Preparations which go before the Celebration p. 521 CHAP. II. Of Dispositions necessary for the Communion and first of the Motions of the believing Soul in regard of God and of Jesus Christ p. 541 CHAP. III. Of the motions and dispositions of the Receiver in regard of the Sacrament p. 548 CHAP. IV. Wherein the Question of Adoration is examined p. 556 THE HISTORY OF THE EUCHARIST VINCENTIUS Lerinensis hath left us for a Maxim above M C. years ago Vincent In common That great heed must be taken to retain in the Catholick Church what hath been believed every where always and by all This Maxim appears so just and reasonable that Christians should make no difficulty to submit unto it however divided they be otherwise in matters of Religion and although the Author was not wholly without blame seeing there are some which think that he fought under the Ensigns of the demy Pelagians that he was very opposite unto St. Austins Doctrine touching Predestination and that it was against him that St. Prosper did write in answering the Objections which go under the name of Vincentius Nevertheless I do not judge that any fault is to be found in his Maxim nor that any difficulty ought to be made in receiving it seeing that St. Austin himself whose name and memory shall ever be in veneration amongst good Men hath written something to the same purpose before Vincentius Lerinensis Aug. l. 4. de bapt c. 24. t. 7. It is very justly supposed saith he that what the Catholick Church believes and hath not been instituted by Councils but hath been always believed is derived only from Apostolical Authority Vndertaking then to treat Historically of the Eucharist and by Gods assistante to shew what hath been believed in all Ages in the Church touching this so important point of our Salvation there is a necessity that we should look back unto Jesus Christ the Author of this august Sacrament and the true beginning of the Antiquity we are to inquire into for as the blessed Martyr St. Cyprian said If Jesus Christ only ought to be heard Cyprian Ep. 63. ad Caecil we should not regard what some before us have thought fit to be done but what Jesus Christ who is before all hath first done for we ought not to follow the customs of Men but the truth of God To know what he hath said and done in the institution of this Mystery the Evangelists and St. Paul must be consulted who tell us
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
Armenians desisted not to persevere in this practice and always to celebrate the Sacrament with pure Wine until the year 1439. that they sent their Deputies unto the Council of Florence under Pope Eugenius the IVth but they arrived not untill after the departure of the Greeks as appears by the History of that Council transmitted unto us by Sylvester Sguropulus a great Prelate of the Church of Constantinople which was present at all that there happened Nevertheless in the direction given unto those Deputies on the behalf of the said Pope Eugenius but in the name of the Council as if it had still been Assembled which might have been so in regard of the Latines but not of the Greeks who were gone home in this Instruction I say The Armenians were enjoyn'd to conform themselves unto all the other Christians To. 8. Concil p. 866. and to mingle a little Water with the Wine in the oblation of the Cup but there is no great likelihood that this Decree was much regarded in this Christian Communion seeing we find by their Liturgies that they continued in the Custom of not mingling Water with the Wine in the holy Cup. Apud Cassand in Lit. C. 12. But besides this Mystical signification which the Holy Fathers have discovered of this mingling Water with the Wine of the Eucharist I find they have used it to represent the Water and Blood which issued out of the pierced side of Jesus Christ at his passion and when he was on the Cross Concil Trull Can. 32. It is the Doctrine of the Eastern Council before mentioned and which was Assembled in the Hall of the Imperial Palace at Constantinople As for St. Athanasius he resembles this mixture unto the Union of the Eternal Word with the human Nature Athan. in Psal 74. apud Combesis auct Bibl. Pat. t. 2. pa. 435. The mystical Cup of the Communion saith he was given mingled with Water because the pure Wine doth signifie the Divine Nature which is unmixed and in that 't is temper'd with Water it intimates the Vnion which is betwixt us And there is no question to be made but these Holy Doctors pleas'd themselves in searching out these Mystical significations not only in one of the Symbols of the Sacrament but also in the other In fine as they discovered Mysteries in mixing Water with the Wine practised by the Antient Church so they also discovered other Mysteries in making the Bread for they believed that the Bread of the Eucharist being a Body compos'd of sundry grains represented very well the Body of the Church composed of sundry believers united into one Society It is also the Doctrine of S. Cyprian Cyprian Ep. 76. vide 63. When saith he the Lord called his Body Bread composed of sundry grains of Wheat he would denote the believing people which he bore in as much as 't is but one people and when he termed his Blood the Wine which is made of several Clusters of Grapes pressed together and reduc'd to one he again signified the same faithful People composed of sundry Persons in one and the same Body It is the frequent Doctrine of * Serm. ad Infant tract 26. in Joan. Serm. 83. de divers S. Augustin and generally of all the Holy Fathers of †Com. in Matth. Theophilus of Antioch of ‖ Hom. 24. in 1 Cor. S. Chrysostom of * De Off Eccles lib. 1. c. 18. Isidore of Sevil of †Com. in 1 Cor. 10. Bede of ‖ De Reb. Eccles c. 16. Walafridus Strabo of ‖‖ De Instit Cler. lib. 1. c. 31. Rabanus Archbishop of Mayence and of many others but alas at the same time that these Holy Doctors pleased themselves in finding out all these Mystical Significations wherein they took so much delight the Devil who is always vigilant to disturb the peace of the Church and who always finds occasions to worry it failed not to raise her up Enemies even from her Infancy and to spew out from his dark Dungeon sundry sorts of Sects and Hereticks totake occasion either to slander the Innocency of her Mysteries by the Gnosticks or to corrupt their purity by the Montanists and Pepusians if what some have written be true or to gainsay their Utility by the Ascodrupites or to make them pass for dreams and delusions by the Marcosians or to render them odious by the Ophites or to change the matter either by adding of some strange things as the Artotyrites or by taking away the Essentials as the Hydroparastates or Aquarians and this is what we intend to examine in the following Chapter CHAP. II. Wherein is discoursed of sundry sorts of Sects and Heresies only so as may be sufficient to give light unto the present Subject THE first Hereticks which the Devil stirred up to trouble the Church upon the matter of the Sacraments were the Gnosticks that is such as assumed to themselves that proud and insolent Title to perswade the ignorant People that they were possest with great Wisdom and that they were able to dive into the knowledge of the most obscure and difficult Mysteries some derive their Original from the Nicolaïtans others say they had for their Leader an eminent Heretick called Carpocrates but from what Original soever they came it cannot be doubted but it was very pernicious seeing it produced so cursed an off-spring certainly this fountain was very corrupt seeing the streams were so infectious and the Root of this cursed Tree was very venemous seeing the Branches produced no less than the bitter Fruit of mortal Poison an infamous brood as ever was whose Mysteries abounded with Abomination and Horrour therefore were they also called Borborites or Borborians to denote their filthiness and vileness these miserable wretches suffered themselves to be swayed by their own corrupt desires and being Slaves unto their passions and disordered Lusts they polluted themselves frequently with Women which were in common amongst them and coveting nothing more than this filthy practice they were blindly led on by their wicked concupiscence and without any restraint wallowed in the most brutish Actions the very thoughts whereof fills me with amazement and horror But what is most dreadful and strange in the conduct of these Organs of the Evil Spirit is that they acted their greatest abominations in their Assemblies and in the Places where they were accustomed to meet to exercise their Diabolical Religion S. Epiphanius who more exactly than any other of the Antients relates unto us all that passed in the abominable mysteries of these Wretches is ashamed to write and were it not in some sort necessary to be published to render them odious unto all the World he would have forborn to have related the Brutalities and Filthinesses which they were not ashamed to commit As for my own particular although I have learned from S. Paul that all things are puâ—e unto the pure yet I will forbear reciting all the Impurities which were acted in
Milevis Optat. l. 6. p. 94. when he reproacheth the Donatists that they broke them and gathering up the pieces they melted them into lumps and sold it but this makes nothing against the simplicity of others who contented themselves with Glass Chalices for instance that of Tholouse in the time of S. Exuperius no body ever condemning this simplicity there were several that much commended it the Antient Christians never having been blamed for consecrating and administring the Sacrament in Glass Chalices CHAP. VI. Of the Language used at Consecration and wherein Service was generally performed HAving considered the place of Consecration and the Vessels used about this Ceremony the order which we proposed to follow requires that in this Chapter we treat of the Language which was used in the Celebration of the Sacrament and generally in the whole Divine Service When Jesus Christ consecrated and blessed the Bread and Wine it was in the Language of the Country which he spake always during his living in the Flesh and during the course of his Ministry otherwise he could not have been understood of the People whom he intended to instruct and bring unto his Knowledge and Communion And this Language was not pure Hebrew after the return of the Babylonish Captivity as it was before at the time of our Saviours coming into the World but was a corrupt Hebrew and altered and mixt with Chaldee and Syriack especially the latter so that the Jewish Language at that time was composed as much of Syriack as of the Hebrew It was then in that Language which was composed of two Languages that our Saviour consecrated and celebrated his Eucharist having even retained some expressions which the Father of the Family was wont to use amongst the Jews at the time of celebrating the Passover The Apostles did religiously follow the example of their Master who bestowed not upon them the gift of Tongues meerly for converting the World but also that they might preach the Gospel administer the Sacraments and in a word exercise all the other functions of their Divine and glorious Ministry in the Language of each Nation and People where his Providence should send them this is so evident a truth that there is no Christian never so little reasonable but will believe it but if any the least doubt rests upon him in this matter I doubt not but he will overcome it easily if he takes the pains to read what the Apostle hath left written of this Doctrine in the 14. Chap. of the 1. Epistle to the Corinthians as all the antient Commentators Greek and Latin St. Chrysostom Theodoret the Greek chain of Oecumenius Theophylact Hilary a Deacon of Rome Pelagius Primasius Sedulius Secondly the Translation of the Holy Bible into all Languages shews very clearly that every People and Nation desired to serve God in their own Language S. Chrysostom in his Homilies upon S. John Homil. 2. in Joan. Graec. The Syrians saith he the Egyptians the Indians the Persians the Ethiopians and a great number of other Nations have translated into their Language the Doctrines by him introduced he speaks of S. John and those Barbarous Men have begun to Philosophise Hom. 3. and upon the 2 Epistle of the Thessalonians These things have been spoken in Hebrew in Latin or in any other Tongue are they not declared in Greek because it was the Vulgar Tongue Theodoret upon the 14 Chap. In. cap 14. 1 ad Cor. of the 1 to the Corinthians saith It hath been given to Preachers by reason of the Diversities of mens Languages that those sent unto the Indians should carry unto them the predication of the word in their own Language and also conversing with Persians the Seythians the Romans the Egyptians they should preach unto them in their own Language the Evangelical Doctrine it would have been in vain for those who preached at Corinth to have used the Language of the Scythians Persians or Egyptians because the Corinthians could not have understood them And in his Therapeutick or manner of healing the affections of the Greeks Serm. 5. t. 4. p. 555. We do plainly and evidently shew unto you the force and vigour of the Prophetical and Evangelical Doctrine for all parts of the World under the Sun are filled with the fame of it See Cassâ—od on Psalm 44. and the Hebrew Tongue was not only translated into Greek but also into that of the Romans the Egyptians the Persians the Indians Armenians Scythians and Sarmatians and in a word into all Languages used throughout the world unto this day And a great while before Chrysostom and Theodoret Cap. 17. Eusebius said in his Oration on the praise of Constantine That the authority of the Books of the holy Scriptures was so great that having been translated throughout the World into the Languages of all Nations as well Greeks as Barbarians all Nations learned them diligently and believed that what they contained were Divine Oracles And in his Evangelical Demonstration Lib. 3. The Gospel saith he was in a very short space preached throughout the whole world and the Barbarians and the Greeks received in their Characters or Letters and in their own Languages the things which are written of Jesus Christ According whereunto we find by the Acts of the Martyr Procopius which Monsieur de Valois hath inserted in his Notes upon Eusebius his Ecclesiastical History that they were so accustomed to read the Holy Scriptures in the Christian Assemblies in the Language of the Country that if they read them in another Tongue they presently expounded them by an Interpreter in the Language understood by the People and the Martyr Procopius performed this office of Interpreter at Scythopolis in Palestine interpreting the holy Scriptures into the Language of the Country which was Syriack if they were read in Greek which the people did not understand And S. Jerom doth he not say in his Preface to the four Evangelists Ad Damas praefat 122. t. 3 p. 698. That the Holy Scriptures were translated into several Languages * Augustâ—in de doctr Christ l. 2. c 5. S. Austin From thence it is that the holy Scriptures which are a remedy of so many troubles in mens minds having begun to be published in a Language which might be so conveniently spread over the face of the Earth were manifested unto all Nations for their Salvation being spread far and wide by means of the divers Tongues of Interpreters As in the Gothick by Vlphilas Bishop of the Goths under the Emperour Constance as Socrates doth testifie in his Ecclesiastical History the Tripartite History Isidore of Sevil in his History of the Goths and sundry others whereunto probably Salvian had regard when he said in his fifth Book of Gods Providence That although those amongst barbarous Nations seem in their Books to have the holy Scriptures less altered and less strange yet they have them not but corrupted by the Tradition of their Antient Masters In
unto Abraham Bread and Wine And therefore it is that the Author of the imperfect work upon S. Matthew Hom. 19. amongst his works defines the Christian man by him which offers the Sacrifice of Bread and Wine Hieron Ep. 126. S. Jerome in one of his Letters touching Melchisedeck follows the Opinion of several ancient Doctors who preceded him and who had said That Melchisedeck did not offer Sacrifices of flesh and blood but that he consecrated the Sacrament of Jesus Christ with Bread and Wine Id. advers Jovin l. 2. which is a pure and spotless Sacrifice And elsewhere he saith That our Saviour offered in type of his Blood not Water but Wine S. Austin was of no other mind when he taught in divers parts of his Writings August Ep. 95. Id. l. de 83. q. q. 61. t. 4. Id de Civit. Dei l. 16. c 22. for example when he said That Melchisedeck foreshewed the Sacrament of our Lord to represent his eternal Priesthood that we now see offered throughout the whole World in the Church of Jesus Christ that which Mechisedeck offered unto God That when Abraham was blessed by Melchisedeck the Sacrifice now offered unto God by Christians throughout the whole World was first of all shewn that to eat Bread in the New Testament is the Sacrifice of Christians and that in all places is offered the Priesthood of Jesus Christ which Melchisedeck brought when he blessed Abraham let those who read Ib. l. 17 c. 5. Ib. c. 17. Id contr advers leg l. 1. c. 20. Isid Pelus l. 1. Ep. 431. Arnob. in Psal 109. know what Melchisedeck brought when he blessed Abraham and that if they be already partakers of it they may see that such a Sacrifice is now offered unto God throughout the World It is in substance what is said by S. Isidore of Damietta That Melchisedeck executing the Priesthood with Bread and Wine by them signified the type of Divine Mysteries And Arnobius the younger That our Saviour by the Mystery of Bread and Wine was made a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedeck who alone amongst the Priests offered Bread and Wine Hesyc in Levit l. 6. c. 23. Cassiod in Psal 109. And Hesychius Priest of Jerusalem That the oblation of the Mystical Melchisedeck is accomplished in Bread and Wine And Cassiodorus That the Institution of Melchisedeck who offered Bread and Wine is celebrated throughout the World in the distribution of the Sacraments And the supposed Eusebius of Emissa in one of his Easter Sermons That Melchisedeck did foreshew by the oblation of Bread and Wine the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ It is also the opinion of the Author of the Commentary of the Epistle to the Hebrews in the Works of S. Ambrose In cap. 5. ad Hebr. and which some have imagined to be of Remy of Auxerr but which indeed are of Anselm Archbishop of Canterbury who lived at the end of the Eleventh and beginning of the Twelfth Century of Theophylact in the Eleventh Century of Oecumenius about the same time both of them upon the fifth Chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews and in fine of Nicetas who said in the Twelfth Century in the Confession of Faith made for those which were converted from Mahometism unto the Religion of Jesus Christ T. 12. Bibl. Patr. p. 532. That it is Bread and Wine which is spiritually sacrified by Christians and which they do receive in the Divine Sacraments See then three several Oblations practised by several of the ancient Christians in the Celebration of their Sacrament and which have all three given unto this Sacrament the name of Sacrifice and which the Holy Fathers have called a Sacrifice of Bread and Wine considering particularly that Oblation which is made unto God of the Symbols after their Consecration and after the change which may thereunto happen after the sanctification and this Tradition hath been so constant so uniform and so universal that it may be said That it hath been believed by all at all times and in all places which be the three signs that Vincentius Lerinensis desired may be admitted in receiving all Catholick and Orthodox Doctrine But besides the reasons which moved the holy Fathers to call the Sacrament a Sacrifice there be several others which it is necessary to examine that it might evidently appear what was the nature and form of this Sacrifice amongst them And first I find that they considered the Eucharist as a memorial of the Sacrifice of the Cross and because for the most part memorials do take their name from the thing whereof they be memorials they have made no difficulty to call it a Sacrifice as indeed this name may very fitly be given unto it and not only the name of a Sacrifice but even of a true Propitiatory Sacrifice because it is the memorial of one that is truly such It is in this prospect they have called it the Passion Cyprian Ep. 63. the Sacrifice which we offer saith S. Cyprian is the passion of our Lord But this is to be observed that we make mention of the Passion of our Lord in all the Sacrifices Thereby in a manner confounding the death of our Lord with the commemoration which we make of it in the Sacrament by reason of the near relation which there is betwixt the Memorial and the thing whereof the remembrance is renewed Accordingly Eusebius said speaking of the Institution of the Sacrament Euseb l. 1. Dem. c. 10. That Jesus Christ commanded us to offer unto God instead of the Sacrifice the memorial of his Sacrifice And S. Chrysostome having said in speaking of the Oblation of the Sacrament Chrys Hom. 17. ad Heb. We alwayes make the same Sacrifice adds presently by way of correction But rather we make the commemoration of the Sacrifice August l. 83. quaest q. 61. which S. Austin saith is to celebrate the type of his Sacrifice in remembrance of his passion * Id. contr Faust l. 20. c. 21. To celebrate the Sacrifice of our Lord by a Sacrament of commemoration †L. 3. de Trin. c. 4. And to receive the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist in remembrance of the death which he suffered for us Therefore he observes elsewhere that although Jesus Christ was but once offered up yet nevertheless it may be said that he is every day offered when in the Sacrament there is made a commemoration of this Sacrifice Id. Ep. 23. Jesus Christ saith he was once offered in his body and yet he is offered unto the people in the Sacrament not only in the solemnities of Easter but also on other daies and he lied not who being asked answers that he is sacrificed Theodoret was of the same mind as the others Theodor. in Ep ad Heb. c. 8.4 for making himself this Objection Wherefore was it that the Priests of the New Testament make the Mystical Liturgy that is to say the Eucharist
every one should and ought with all diligence and fidelity to contribute his Endeavours and improve the Talent which our Lord hath committed unto his trust This is what I have endeavoured to do hitherto and which I intend to do for the time to come if it be not with all the Delight and Ornament the Reader could wish at least it shall be with all the Sincerity which can be expected from one who believes to have well bestow'd his Labour and Pains if his Endeavours would create in the Minds of Christians divided by various Opinions in Religion more tender Inclinations of Love and Charity and greater Desires unto Peace and Concord We have already seen all that relates unto the outward Form of the Celebration of the Sacrament with the Alterations thereunto hapned in succession of time now we must endeavour to discover what hath been believed of this Mystery in this large and spacious Country but to do it the more orderly and to shew with more ease and clearness the History of the Innovations which have happened as well in the Expressions as in the Doctrine we will extend our Proofs as to the Expressions but unto the seventh and eighth Centuries at which time they suffer'd some Attempt and as to the Doctrine unto the ninth supposing it received some Alteration in the beginning of that Age. CHAP. I. The Reflections made by the Fathers upon the Words of the Institution of the Sacrament THE holy Fathers had so great a Love for Jesus Christ and Veneration for all his Institutions that they took a singular pleasure in meditating upon this great Mystery and in making divers Reflections upon this divine Institution Our Lord said of the Bread which he had taken which he blessed and which he broke That it was his Body and of the Wine that it was his Blood The antient Doctors of the Church considering this Expression of the Son of God have declared with a common Consent and as it were united Suffrages that Jesus Christ called the Bread and Wine his Body and his Blood Our Lord said St. Irenaeus Iren. l. 5. c. 2. Tatian tom 7. Bibl. Patr. has assured that the Bread was his Body Tatian in his Harmony upon the Evangelists saith That he testified that the Bread and the Cup of Wine were his Body and Blood Tertullian Tertul. l. 5. contr Jud. c. 11. l. 5. Carm. cont Marc. Origen in Matth. Hom. 35. Cyprian Ep. 75. ad Magn. That he called the Bread his Body and that he said of the Bread and of the Fruit of the Vine This is my Body and my Blood poured out Origen in one of his Homilies upon St. Matthew That he confessed the Bread was his Body And the blessed Martyr St. Cyprian That he called his Body the Bread which was made of the collection of several Grains The Author of the Commentaries upon the Evangelists which go in the Name of Theophilus of Antioch though 't is not certain whether they be his for all they are attributed unto him in the Library of the Fathers this Author I say has expressed his thoughts almost as St. Cyprian had done saying That Jesus Christ called his Body Theophil Antioch in Matth. the Bread which is made of the collection of divers Grains and his Blood the Wine which is pressed out of several Grapes and this he saith in explaining the Words of the Institution of the Sacrament This is my Body this is the Cup of my Blood Eusebius Bishop of Cesarea in Palestin had no other meaning I think when he said Euseb Dem. lib. 8. That the Lord commanded to make use of Bread for the Symbol of his Body Nor St. Cyrill of Jerusalem in these Words Cyrill Hie of Mystag 4. Our Lord spake and said of the Bread This is my Body Nor the Poet Juvencus when he declares Juvenc l. 4. de Evang. Hist That our Saviour giving the Bread unto his Disciples taught them that he gave them his Body Nor in fine an unknown Author in the Works of St. Athanasius which saith De Dict. Interp. Parab 9.72 That our Lord called the Mystical Wine his Blood St. Epiphanius hindered by the Scruple which the Fathers made of calling the Symbols of the Eucharist Bread and Wine contented himself to intimate unto us that Jesus Christ did assimilate his Body unto a Subject round as to its Form Epiphan in Anchor and without sense as to its Power having no manner of resemblance unto the incarnate Image nor with the proportion of Members Gaudent tract 2. in Exod. St. Gaudentius observes that our Lord in giving the consecrated Bread and Wine unto the Disciples said This is my Body this is my Blood It is also the Observation of the Author of the Apostolical Constitutions who makes Christ say of the Bread which he broke Const Apost lib. 8. c. 12. and gave unto his Disciples This is the Mystery of the New Testament Take eat this is my Body St. Chrysostome is no less clear Chrysost in 1 Co. Hom. 24. Hieron cp 4 ad Hidib 92. What is the Bread saith he it is the Body of Jesus Christ. St. Jerome also follows the same way seeing he assures That the Bread which our Lord broke and gave unto his Disciples was his Body and the Cup his Blood and that he proves it by these Words This is my Body St. Austin in the Sermon unto the new baptized August apud Fulgen. de Baptis Aeth cap. vet Cyril l. 12. in Joar 20.26 27. saith expresly That the Bread is the Body of Christ and the Cup is the Blood of Christ St. Cyrill of Alexandria was doubtless of the same mind for in his Commentary upon St. John he makes Christ say Of the Bread which he broke and distributed this is my Body which is given for you in Remission of Sins We may descend lower and carry further the Proof of this first Reflection were we not prevented by the Rule which we prescribed and of the Resolution taken of avoiding as much as possible may be the repeating of the same Testimonies It shall then suffice to inform the Reader that 't is a certain Truth owned by all Men both Protestants and Roman Catholicks that when there is a Dispute of two Subjects of a different Nature it cannot properly be said that the one is the other when therefore these sorts of Propositions meet in Discours of necessity recours must be had unto the Figure or Metaphor What the Fathers have deposed is considerable yet I do not think it sufficient nor that it is all which they have to say unto us If we examine anew these faithful Witnesses I doubt not but they will speak again and that they will inform us of other Truths besides them above-mentioned and that they will not leave us ignorant how they understood the Words of the Institution of this angust Sacrament Those which have diligently applied themselves to
Devils by the eating of Meats consecrated unto Idols The Author of the Commentaries of St. Paul's Epistles in St. Jerom's Works interpreting these Words The Bread which we break c. makes this Observation Apud Hieron in c. 10.1 Cor. In like manner it appears that the Idolatrous Bread is the participation of Devils and upon these you cannot drink the Cup of the Lord and the Cup of Devils c. You cannot saith he be partakers of God and of Devils Theodoret said something of this kind upon these Words Theod in c. 10.1 Cor. t. 3. You cannot be partakers of the Lord's Table c. How saith he can it be that we should communicate of the Lord by his precious Body and Blood and that we should also communicate of Devils in eating what hath been offered unto Idols It was also the Language of Primasius an African Bishop Primas in c. 10. 1 Cor. t. 1 Bib. Patr. who makes these Reflections upon the same Words Even so the Bread of Idols is the participation of Devils you cannot have Fellowship with God and Devils Ibid. because you would participate of both Tables Sedulius speaks almost the same The second Doctrine which results from the Hypothesis of the Fathers is That considering that the Death of Christ is the cause of our Life which Life consists in the Sanctification of our Souls by means whereof we have Communion with God which is the lively Fountain of Life and therefore before Conversion we are said to be dead they have attributed unto the Sacrament the vertue of sanctifying and quickning us This is the sense of Theophilue of Alexandria Theoph. Ep. Pasch 2. saying That we break the Bread of the Lord for our Sanctification Hilary Deacon of Rome or the Author of the Commentaries upon St. Paul's Epistles under the Name of St. Ambrose be he whom it will assures us Apud Ambros in c. 11.1 Cor That altho this Mystery was celebrated at Supper yet it is not a Supper but a Spiritual Medicine which purifieth those which draw near with Devotion and which receive it with respect Gelas de duab nat Christ Pope Gelasius testifies That the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Christ render us partakers of the Divine Nature Aug. tract 27. in Joan. In Anaceph Therefore St. Austin will have us to eat and drink of it for the participation of the Holy Ghost Therefore it is St. Epiphanius saith That there is in the Bread a vertue to vivify us which is that influence of Life mentioned by St. Cyril CHAP. IV. A Continuance of the Doctrine of the Holy Fathers ALthough the Holy Fathers have hitherto sufficiently explained themselves and that they have fully declared what was their Belief touching the Nature of the Eucharist in saying That it is true Bread and true Wine and that this Bread and Wine are the Signs the Images and the Figures of the Body and Blood of our Lord but Signs accompanied if it may be so said with the Majesty of his own Person and filled with the quickning Vertue of his Divine Body broken for us called his Body and Blood by reason of the Resemblance because they are the Symbols and Sacraments the Memorials of his Person and of his Death because they are unto us instead of his Body and Blood and pass into a Sacrament of this holy Body and precious Blood and are changed into their Efficacy and Vertue nevertheless if we can discover what were the Consequences of this Doctrine I doubt not but it will yet receive greater Illustration For as it is impossisible that they should have believed the Conversion of the Substance of Bread and Wine into the Substance of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ without admitting the three following Doctrines to wit the eating of the Flesh of Christ with the Mouth of the Body the eating of this same Flesh by the Wicked as well as the Just and the Human Presence of Christ upon Earth So it is also impossible they should deny these three Positions without rejecting this substantial Conversion Therefore I suppose it is necessary to enquire exactly what they herein believed for if they have received them as Articles of their Belief it will be a great Conjecture in Favour of the substantial Conversion notwithstanding what they have already declared But if on the other hand they have rejected them or been far from admitting of them it will be a very great Conjecture to the contrary and at the same Time a strong Confirmation of what they have deposed in the precedent Chapters To begin then our Enquiry by the first of these three Points I mean by the eating of the Flesh of Jesus Christ I say if we consult Clement of Alexandria we shall find he makes a long Discourse in the first Book of his Pedagoge and that in all that Discourse he considers Jesus Christ either as the Milk of Children that is to say those which are Children in Knowledge or as the Meat of firm grown Men that is more advanced in Knowledge but always as a Spiritual Food and mystical Nourishment which requires to be eaten after the same manner as appears by what he saith of the Birth and Regeneration of the new People of the Swadling-cloths wherein he wraps them of the Growth for which he appoints them this Food and in that he makes our Hearts to be the Palace and Temple of the Son of God Hereunto particularly relates what he saith that the Lord in these Words of the Gospel of St. John Clem. Alex. Paedag. 1. c 6. Id. ibid. Eat my Flesh and drink my Blood speaks of Faith and of the Promise by an illustrious Allegory as by Meats whereby the Church which is composed of many Members is nourished and getteth growth and what he adds afterwards the Milk fit and necessary for this Child is the Body of Jesus Christ Id. ibid. which by the Word doth feed the new People whom our Lord himself hath begotten with bodily Pangs and wrapped as young Infants in his precious Blood and in fine this pious and excellent Exclamation O wonderful Mistery Id. ibid. it commands us to put off the old and carnal Corruption as also the old Nourishment to the end that leading a new Life which is that of Jesus Christ and that receiving him into us if it were possible we should lay him up in us and lodge the Saviour in our Hearts And elsewhere he saith That 't is to drink the Blood of Christ to be Partaker of the Incorruption of our Lord which he attributes to the entring of the Holy Ghost into our Hearts Tertul. de Resurrect Tertullian also speaketh yet more clearly explaining figuratively and metaphorically all that excellent Discourse which we read in the sixth of St. John where our Saviour speaks of eating his Flesh and drinking his Blood Although saith he our Saviour saith that the Flesh profiteth nothing the Meaning
for Jesus Christs coming from Heaven whereas according to the Word Id. contra Arr. c. l. 2. c. 17. we believe that he is present with us on Earth And again explaining these Words of Jesus Christ unto his Apostles I go unto my Father He spake certainly saith he of the human Nature which he had taken in regard whereof he was to go to his Father from whence he was to come to judg the quick and the dead but as for his Divinity which filleth all things and which is comprehended in no space as it leaves no Place so neither goeth it to any Place Bed Hemil. 3. aestiv de temp feria 6. Pasâ—h Id. in Joan. cap. 9 Venerable Bede in the eighth Century is no less positive herein than others for he assures That Jesus Christ was received into Heaven as to his Humanity which he took from the Earth and that he remaineth with the Saints upon Earth by his Divinity which equally filleth Heaven and Earth And upon these Words Behold I am with you always until the End of the World Id. in Marc. c. 13. Hom. 4. de Confes Him saith he that was then in the World by his bodily Presence is now every where present by his Divity And elsewhere he saith That Jesus Christ ascending triumphantly unto his Father after his Resurrection Id. Homil. aestiv de temp Dem. Jubilit hath left the Church in regard of his bodily Presence the which nevertheless he never for sook as to the Protection of his Divine Presence continuing with her unto the End of the World And explaining these Words of Jesus Christ unto his Apostles You shall see me a little while because I go to my Father c. It is saith he as if he had plainly said the Reason that you see me a little while after I am risen from the dead Id. Domin cantate is because I am not to tarry always upon Earth in respect of my Body but I must go into Heaven in regard of the human Nature which I have taken And again When I am ascended into Heaven Id. Dom vocem jucunditatis you shall not see me such as you were wont to see me now invironed with mortal and corruptible Flesh but you shall see me coming with Glory to judge the World and appearing to the Saints after Judgement with greater Majesty Id. Hom. hyem de temp Dom. 3. post Epiphan Id. in Festiv Pentecostes Id. ibid. He himself again testifies That he hath left the World and is gone to the Father because he hath withdrawn from the sight of those which loved the World that which they had seen and had carried by his Ascension unto the invisible things the human Nature which he had assumed He saith farther We amongst the Gentiles which have believed cannot our selves go unto the Lord whom we cannot now see in the Flesh but those amongst us which confess the Frailties of our Servitude we should now draw near by Faith unto him which is sate down on the right Hand of the Father In St. Matth. c. 28. In fine he declares That the Lord ascending into Heaven after his Resurrection hath left the Apostles as to the Presence of his Body but that he never left them as to the Presence of his Divine Majesty that we have for a Comforter Jesus Christ our Lord whom though we cannot see bodily yet we have contained in the Evangelists all that he did and said during the Time that he was in the Flesh This same Language was used in the IXth Century as shall be seen afterwards and we shall also make one of the Prelates of the Gallican Church despose in the XIIth Century to learn from his Mouth that it waâ— not then forgotten in our France but in the mean while it will not be amiss to observe that according to the Belief which we have established the holy Fathers have only taken notice of two comings of Jesus Christ the one attended with Shame and Ignominy the other with Glory and Majesty but both visible without ever telling us that there was a third which holds the middle betwixt both whereby Christ descends daily upon the Earth On the contrary the Protestants affirm That Tertullian declares the Nature of a true Descent in a manner which sheweth as they say That neither him nor the Church in his Time believed that a Body could descend from one Place to another without being seen Phantome Tertull. contra Marc. l. 4. c. 7. For saith he writing against the Ghost of Marcion when 't is made it is seen the Eys perceive it it is done gradually and so it requires to ask in what Posture with what Retinue Is it with Violence or moderately Or also in what Hour of the Day or Night it came down Moreover who see it come down who gave an account of it who affirm'd it And again saith he Is it a thing which is not easily to be believed when it is affirmed I declare saith the Protestant that I could never adjust this Declaration of Tertullian's with the invisible Descent of the Body of Jesus Christ in an infinite number of Places and that I should be obliged unto those which would help me to the means to do it For if what the Latins teach be true that the Body of Christ descends every Day upon the Communion-Table in an invisible manner I must be obliged to accuse Tertullian not only of Negligence but also of Stupidity to have spoken so absolutely and without excepting what happens in the Eucharist although I have otherwise a singular Esteem for his great Wisdom and Learning But on the other Hand seeing Tertullian is agreed with the other Doctors of the Church and that he saith nothing contrary to their Testimonies wherein they constantly oppose the Presence of the Divine Nature of our Lord unto that of his human Nature the Presence whereof they formally deny upon Earth I cannot forbear saith he to conclude that they have owned but one sole Presence of the Body of Jesus Christ I mean one visible Presence and that the Invisible Presence of that holy Body never entred into their Thoughts In fine say they it is whereunto amounts all the Declarations which hitherto have been made and whereunto we may also add these excellent Words of St. Austin Aug. in Joan. tract 50. Iâ— in Ps 46. He is gone and he is present he is returned and he departed not from us for he carried his Body unto Heaven but he withdrew not his Majesty from the Earth and these he took away his Body from our Sight but as God he departed not from your Hearts contemplate him ascending believe in him absent expect him as to come but feel him always present by his secret Mercy From hence doth proceed sundry Doctrines that if I mistake not deserve to be considered In the first place when the holy Fathers make a Difference betwixt the corporal Presence
within Bounds it is necessary that it should naturally be contained in something that may be of another kind for what doth contain is greater than what is contained Which he also repeats in the following Page St. Epiphanius disputing against the Marcionites and combating the multiplicity of imaginary Gods which these Wretches did make Epiphan haeres 47. If each one of the Gods of Marcion saith he is bounded within its proper place these three Principles being circumscribed in certain places which contain them will not be found perfect but that which containeth will be found greater than what is contained and so that which is contained cannot be called a God but rather the place which containeth it It was also the Language of our France in the IXth Century as we shall learn by Bertram or Ratramn who tells us That the things which contain Bertram contr Graec. l. 1. c. 7. t. 2. Spicil Dâ—ch are greater than the things contained All these Testimonies are conceived in general Terms there is not to be seen any restriction or exception whatever and there is not to be discover'd any thing which should oblige us to lay apart the Subject of the Eucharist as if the contrary of what is intended by this Maxim may therein happen which fully justifies as 't is said that the Holy Fathers had no thoughts of it when they taught this Position which is infallibly true for it is believed they were too wise and too wary not to except the Sacrament of the Eucharist if they had believed that there happened in the celebration of this Divine Mystery any thing directly contrary unto the Declarations which they but now made In the fifth place the existing of Accidents without their Subject is another inevitable Consequence of the belief of the Latins it not being possible to admit the one without the other by the natural Consequence of things it is not then to be questioned but if the Fathers were of the same Belief but that they also believed the other Doctrine which follows it inseparably I mean that the Protestants will conclude that the Fathers believed that there might be roundness whiteness redness without having any thing that is round white or red or if they believed with all the Disciples of Nature and the Law with the Pagan Philosophers and Jewish Doctors that naturally that could not be they would not have failed to declare that what cannot be done in the order of Nature is nevertheless miraculously effected in the Sacrament either by a Miracle that imposeth silence unto the testimonies of our natural Senses and the purest light of Reason that there are Savours without any thing savoured Colours without any thing coloured Whiteness without any thing white Redness and nothing red Length and nothing long Figures and nothing figured Appearances and nothing apparent a Liquor and nothing liquid a Weight and nothing weighty and the like but if on the contrary they have not thought of making any such Declaration in the place where they were particularly obliged to do it it may be concluded say they that as they have not admitted this necessary Consequence of the substantial Conversion they have not also believed this Conversion Let us then examin what they have said upon this Subject and report their Testimonies not all for we should be too tedious the number is so great but as many only as may suffice for a full and sufficient Proof and Evidence Eusebius in the Evangelical Preparation and Basil and Gregory Nazianzen in their Philocalie of Origen relate a Passage of Maximius a Man of great Reputation in the second Century Apud Euseb de praepar Evang. l. 7. c. ult in Philoc. Orig. c. 24. Apud Phot. cod 232. p. 927. ult edit where he speaks thus It is impossible that Art should subsist of it self because it is an Accident and one of those things which receives its being when it is in a Substance for a Man may subsist without Architecture but this cannot be if Man be not first Methodius in the Library of Photius saith That the Quality cannot be separated from the Matter in regard of its Substance and that it is only by Imagination that Qualities are separated from the Matter and the Matter from the Qualities Greg. Nyss in Hexam p. 13. Epiphan haer 73. Gregory of Nyss That the Figure is not without a Body St. Epiphanius That by the word Substance is shewed the difference which is betwixt that which subsists of it self and that which doth not subsist of it self Isidore of Damieta Isidor Pelus l. 2. Ep. 7. That the Substance is the Vehicle of the Quality which cannot exist if the Substance doth not exist The Author of the Exposition of Faith in the Works of St. Justin Martyr Just Mart. in expo fid p. 386. Aug. ep 57. Id. ibid. Id. l. 2. Solil c. 13. 19. That the Accident cannot subsist of it self but that it exists in things which were before St. Austin That if the Quality of Bodies be taken from the Bodies themselves they will be nothing and so of necessity they fail and if the Mass it self of the Body whether it be great or little is quite taken away its Qualities will have no Being altho they are not to be equall'd to the whole if what is in a Subject subsists its necessary also that the Subject should subsist and the Subject being destroy'd Cyril Alex. Dial. 2. de Trin. p. 451. Ib. p. 421. that which is in the Subject cannot subsist St. Cyril of Alexandria If whiteness and blackness are not inherent in the Subject whereof they are Accidents they cannot exist of themselves and that the Accidents which are naturally in Substances have not of themselves any proper or determinated Existence Isid Hispal Orig. l. 2. c. 26. Iâ—en l. â— c. 14. Method apud Phot. cod 234. Basil ep 43. Aug. Sol. l. l. 2. c. 12. St. Isidore Arch-bishop of Sevil That the Quantity the Quality and the Scituation cannot be without the Substance In fine to conclude I find that these Holy Doctors denying the existence of Accidents without Subjects do positively declare That it is inconceiveable and impossible that Nature will not suffer it that it is a thing monstrous and quite contrary to Truth that this separation may be made by thought but not really so that the Accident should subsist alone Cyril Alex. in Joan. Ibid. Athan. Orat. 5. contr Arrian p. 520. Bertram contr Graec. l. 2. c. 7. t. 2. Spicil that the Accident and its Subject are in the main but one thing and that if God himself had Accidents they should exist in his Substance And therefore it was that Bertram writing for the Latin Church against the Greek Church said that the Holy Ghost was not in Jesus Christ as in his Subject Because saith he the Holy Ghost is not an Accident that cannot exist without his Subject if there were but one or two
upon a serious and impartial Debate it will not be attributed unto the Difference of Judgment it not being to be imagin'd that Christians so good and zealous and fervent for the Religion of Jesus Christ as those were of whom we speak and have had the same Belief of the Sacrament that the Latin Church at this time hath which for some time past doth not suffer the Use of Glass-Chalices that they had not at least used so much Precaution as she doth to consecrate and distribute the Sacrament I mean they would have made it a Scruple of Conscience of putting the Body of their God and Saviour in so brittle a Thing as Glass those which were so careful that none of the sacred Symbols of their Bread and Wine should fall to the Ground The ancient Christians gave the Eucharist to young sucking Children at the Breast a Custom which continued in the West until the XIIth Century and which is still practised in most Christian Communions excepting the Roman Catholicks and the Protestants How came it to pass this Abuse was so long tolerated in the Church if it had been always believed therein what the Latins do believe at present who cannot justly be blamed by little and little to have abolished this Custom One could not without Horror see exposed what was believed to be the Body and Blood of Christ unto the undecent and sad Accidents which oftentimes of necessity happen in communicating of young Children those little Creatures being uncapable by reason of their tender Age of receiving the Sacrament with Respect which is due unto the Body it self of Jesus Christ our Redeemer But wherefore did the ancient Church for so many Ages suffer such an Abuse or at least having tolerated it some time wherefore had she not bethought her self of abolishing it instead of letting it take root in the midst of it Was it not so wise as the Church at this time is Had she less Zeal less Piety and less Prudence had she less love for Jesus Christ or less Veneration for his sacred Person certainly I suppose not This Difference then of Conduct cannot be grounded upon any other Reason but upon the Difference of Faith whilst Christians believed that what they received in the Eucharist was Bread and Wine in Substance but that at the same time they were also the Divine Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Christ the Reasons which moved them to give the Eucharist unto young Children made them pass by the Indecencies which might be feared on the Behalf of these little Creatures But when the Doctrine changed in the West and that in the Latin Church they began to say that it was the very Body and Blood of Jesus Christ this ancient Custom was abolished it not agreeing well with their Belief And indeed we see this Abolition was made about the time when this notable Change happened in their Doctrine And because that in other Christian Communions there is no Alteration happened by any publick Decree in the Tradition of their Fathers upon the Subject of the Sacrament they have innocently retained the ancient Custom of giving the Sacrament unto little Children I confess this Practise is contrary to what St. Paul desires of Communicants which is to examine themselves before they draw near unto the holy Table of which Proof little Children are uncapable But as we do not here treat but only of what was done by the ancient Christians and of what is still practised by several Christian Churches and not of what ought to be done I 'le say no more of it referring the Induction which the Protestants draw from this Practise unto the Judgment of all reasonable Persons which will take the Pains to read this History The Communion under both Kinds was practis'd in the Church until these last Ages wherein the Latins deprived the People of the Use of the sacred Cup for as for all other Christian Societies which hold not Correspondence with her they retain the Custom of administring the Sacrament under both Symbols altho with some little Difference The great Ground of the Latin Church for so doing being through Fear of shedding it But how comes it to pass that this Fear is so lately crept into their Thoughts Whence is it that she her self practis'd the Communion under both Kinds for above a thousand Years without any body scrupling it On the contrary when she began to forbid the Use of the Cup unto the People by a Decree at the beginning of the XVth Century a great many Persons complained of it and whole Countries earnestly desired it might be restored unto them Wherefore did she so long time grant unto her People the Communion under both Symbols distinctly Was there then less cause of Fear of shedding than when they deprived them of this Advantage particularly at the time when in Rome it self they used Chalices of Glass For it must be owned that Glass being a weak thing there was never greater ground to fear spilling than during the time those Chalices were used yet nevertheless when there was most cause of this Fear they suffered the People to participate of the Cup of our Lord as well as of his Bread and when there is less Danger Glass-Chalices being no longer in Use they are refused it Whence say they proceeds such a notable Change which could have no shew of Reason if the Doctrine had not been altered but because wise and prudent Persons do not incline unto these Sorts of Changes without some powerful Motives it must be freely confessed that no other can be found whatever Scrutiny could be made but the Change of Belief And in truth say they again if this Change be not presupposed it will be a very hard matter to forbear censuring those of Lightness which made it a Change I say of the Nature that is of and in a thing which was grounded upon the Authority of Christ himself and the constant Practice of so many Ages Whereas if the prohibiting the Cup be considered as a Consequence of this Change it will not be hard to conceive that the Fear of shedding the real Blood of the Son of God obliged them to forbid unto the People the Use of the holy Cup rather chusing to deprive them of this Comfort and Consolation than to fall into the Inconvenience of some negligent spilling of the Substance it self of the Blood of their Divine Saviour A Fear which hath not seised the other Christian Communions because they have not practis'd any Innovation in this particular or that at least there hath not any been made by any publick Determination In the ancient Church the Eucharist was delivered into the Communicants Hand who with the Hand put it into their Mouth as hath been proved and we may produce Examples of this Practice in the XIIth Century in Flanders At this time in the Latin Church it is put directly into the Communicants Mouth unto whom it is not permitted to receive it
Eucharist with the Dead did not believe in all likelihood that it was the very Body of our Lord for they would not have done any such thing the very Thoughts of it would have terrified them and they would have esteemed themselves the worst of Men to have put their Saviour which they knew to be in Heaven in the Possession of Soveraign Glory into such a mean and low Estate In this same Church in several Places they caused to be burnt the Overplus of the Sacrament and in other Places they caused it to be eaten by Children which they made come from School on purpose Is it to be thought that if they had believed it was the very Substance of the Body of Jesus Christ that they would have given it so freely unto Children who were sent for to come from School to that effect It is also more unlikely that they would have caused to be burnt the Flesh it self of the Saviour of Mankind and to cast the Son of God into the Fire who had ransomed them from the eternal Fire of Hell The ancient Christians have sometimes taken the consecrated Cup and have mingled it with Ink and then dipt their Pen in these two Liquors mixed the more authentically to sign what they had intended to ratifie not considering what is in the Cup but as a Symbol and Sacrament of the Blood of the Son of God yet one would be struck with some Terror so to see profaned this Sacrament of our Salvation but if one considers it as the Blood it self of Jesus Christ one shall find himself seized with a holy Fear And because it cannot fall within the Compass of a Christian's Thoughts to employ unto this Use the Substance of the Blood of our Lord if he had it in his power it self it must be concluded that those who did it were very far from thinking that it was the real Blood of our Saviour It may be the same Consequence might be drawn from the Practice of the Greek Church which mingles warm Water with the Wine after Consecration and at the instant of communicating But because we shall be obliged to speak elsewhere of the Belief of the Greeks we will not enlarge upon it in this place and we shall only advertise the Reader that all the Customs from whence have been drawn these Inductions contained in this Chapter have been examined in the 5 10 11 12 13 14 15 and 16 Chapters of the first Part of this History and are those which Protestants do make and which the Quality of an Historian which I have assumed in this Work hath obliged me to represent CHAP. IX Other Proofs drawn from the Silence of Heathens and of things objected against them by the Holy Fathers HAving sometimes applied my self to consider how the Enemies of Christians have behaved themselves in reference to the Simplicity of our Mysteries I find they have been displeased with most of them and that they have aspersed them The Jews as we find in the Acts and the Epistles of the holy Apostles could not endure that Christians should believe Jesus Christ the Son of the blessed Virgin was the Messias which had been promised nor that they should believe he was risen from the Dead and ascended into Heaven nor that they should endeavour to free Men from the Yoke of Moses his Law It will suffice only to read the Dialogue or Conference of Tryphon the Jew Just Martyr Dial. cum Tryph. p 290 291 292 293 317. against Justin Martyr therein to see that this Son of the Synagogue did Reproach unto the Children of the Church as things incredible monstrous and grossly forged what we teach That Jesus Christ was before Abraham and Aaron that he assumed our Nature and was born of a Virgin a Mystery which this insolent Jew esteems ridiculous and fabulous insomuch as wickedly to compare it unto the Fables which the Greek Poets relate of their Danae and in that we believe God was born and was made Flesh but he finds nothing more incredible than the Cross of Jesus Christ Tertul. ad Judaeos cap. 10. which Tertullian also reckons amongst the chiefest Objections which the Jews made against Christian Religion according to what the Apostle said That the Cross of Jesus Christ was a Stumbling-block to the Jews and Foolishness to the Gentiles The same Tryphon again reproacheth unto Christians as a great crime that they adored a Man and that they placed their Confidence in him From whence he takes Occasion to charge them of introducing another God besides the Creator As for the Gentiles they were no better disposed than the Jews because they despised the same Belief and counted fabulous all other Articles which seemed to contradict the common Notions and which did not exactly agree with the Principles and Maxims of other Religions For Example Clem. Alex. Strom. l. 6. p. 677. Clement of Alexandria observes that they found it very strange that we said God had a Son that this Son should speak in Man that he suffered and that they esteemed this Doctrine as a Fable and Forgery Tertullian witnesseth the same Teâ—tâ—l Apol. c. 21. Therefore having explained the incomprehensible Mystery of the eternal Generation of the Son and of his Incarnation he speaks according to their Supposition and saith Nevertheless believe this Fable that is to say admit at last this Doctrine which you look upon as a Fable And elsewhere speaking again according to the Opinion the Gentiles had of it he calls the Mysteries of our Faith the Foolishness of Christian Discipline and puts particularly in this Number a God born Id. de Caâ—n Christ c. 4 5. Id. Apolog. c. 47 48. de tesâ—im an c. 4. Just Apol. 2. p. 60 Arnob. l 2. p. 24. and yet born of a Virgin and a God of Flesh crucified and buried Whereunto he adds in another Treatise The last Judgment the Torments of Hell-Fire Heaven and the Resurrection of the Body And he collects from all these Articles of Faith that they condemned them of Vanity of Presumption of Folly and of Stupidity St. Justin Martyr also writes that they called the Incarnation and Passion of the Son an Extravagancy And Arnobius assures us That they made a Jest at the Simplicity of Christians in obliging them to believe the Resurrection from the Dead and the everlasting Torments of Hell-Fire Orig. contrs Câ—ls l. 1. But if we look upon the Books of Origen against the Philosopher Celsus we shall therein find other things which will inform us of the wicked and prodigious Fables which the Gentiles made use of to slander and calumniate the Birth of our Divine Jesus and of making the inviolable Chastity of the blessed Virgin the Subject of their Raileries This Philosopher reproacheth unto Christians the Doctrine of the Incarnation of the Eternal Word as a thing unworthy the Divinity Id. l. 2. p. 79. uit edit The Son of God saith he ought to have appeared like
having the hope of the Resurrection If the Consecration destroys the substance of Bread and Wine it must be granted say the Protestants that this Holy Doctor took wrong Measures when he would that the Bread of the Sacrament should represent the Flesh which is not destroyed under the Grace of the Spirit because if the Bread it self be destroyed it cannot be employed to signify that our Flesh shall not be destroyed Seeing then that St. Ireneus doth use it to this purpose it must be ingeniously confessed that he believed that Consecration did not annihilate the Nature and Substance of the Symbols Tertul. contra Marc. l. 1. c. 14. They say moreover that Tertullian confirms them in this Opinion when he saith The God of Marcion hath not yet rejected the Bread of the Creator to represent his true Body so that in his own Sacraments he hath need of borrowing the Goods of the Creator But Marcion which is a Disciple above his Master and a Servant above his Lord is much wiser than him for he ruines what his Master would have It plainly appears by these Words that Marcion in destroying the Bread that is to say in teaching that it shall be destroyed as being of the Creatures of this World doth the quite contrary unto Jesus Christ who desires it and useth it in his Sacrament and that by Consequence preserves the Substance of it For if Tertullian say they had believed that he destroyed it in consecrating of it he would not have opposed as he doth the act of Marcion or rather his Doctrine which condemns it unto an entire destruction unto the action of Jesus Christ which makes use of it and doth employ it And because there be several other things in the Works of this African Doctor against Hereticks which may contribute unto this History Tertul. advers Prax. c. 26. I will instance some before I shall proceed farther In his Book against Praxeas he sets it down for undoubted That what is of a thing is not the thing it self And it is thereupon he grounds the distinction of the Person of the Holy Ghost from that of the Father either his Maxim is false say some and very indiscreetly propounded or he did not believe that the Eucharist was the real Body of Jesus Christ because it is the Sacrament by the confession of all Christians Elsewhere disputing against the Blasphemy of Marcion Id. adv Marc. l. 3. c 10. who said that Jesus Christ had not a true Body he saith That it was unworthy the Son of God to appear under a strange shape you make us saith he to Marcion a miserable God in that he could not shew his Christ but in Effigie of a thing unworthy of him And presently after Wherefore did he not come in some other Substance more worthy of him but especially why did he not come in his own and not to seem to have had need of another which is unworthy of him Let Christians judg say the Protestants if he could have spoke thus and believe that Jesus Christ doth every day appear under the Effigies and Resemblance of Bread but an appearance destitute of the substance and truth of Bread Ibid. c. 8. It is whereunto amounts also what is said unto this Heretick in the same Book Jesus Christ was not what he seemed to be and disguised what he was being Flesh and not being so being Man and not Man and in like manner Christ God and not God for what hinders but that he also bore the shadow of a God shall I believe it of his interior substance who deceived us by his exterior how shall he be believed to be true in that which doth not appear seeing he hath been found so false in that which did appear See again if what he now saith can be accommodated with a Doctrine which teacheth that Jesus Christ in the Eucharist is not what he seems to be for he seems to be Bread and they will have it to be a bodily Substance As for my particular I am content to guess at what the Protestants infer from these Maxims He again objects this to Marcion Ibid. c. 11. Thou honourest thy God with the title of a Deceiver if he knew that he was any thing else than what he gave cause to Men to believe he was The boldness or rather rashness say they of Tertullian cannot enough be admired so to pursue and force Marcion if the Church of his time had been of the belief the Latin Church is now of And in another Book of the same Treatise he refutes the shadow of this Arch Heretick by the History of the penitent Sinner in the Gospel Id. adv Marc. l. 4. c. 18. In that she kissed saith he the Feet of Jesus in that she washed them with her Tears and wiped them with the Hairs of her Head in that she poured precious Ointment upon him it shews that she handled a true real Body and not an empty shadow All the World as they think may observe that if the Christians of those times had believed what the Latins believe Marcion would undoubtedly have opposed unto the example of the Sinner which Tertullian presseth against him that of the Eucharist which is handled which is received into the Stomack wherewith a living Body may be nourished which is subject to Mouldiness and several other the like Accidents and that it may not for all this be concluded according to the Doctrine of the Roman-Church that it is the true substance of Bread and not barely Accidents and Appearances In another Treatise speaking to the same Heretick Id. de carne Christ c. 5. Wherefore saith he will you that one half of Jesus Christ should be a Fiction he was nothing but Truth wholly and intirely Believe me he chose rather to be born than to lye in any respect whatsoever And there again he adds that according to the Doctrine of Marcion Jesus Christ had Flesh hard without Bones solid without Nerves bloody without Blood covered without Garments a Body that was hungry without Appetite that eat without Teeth and spake without a Tongue so that his Words were but a Shadow which deceived the Ear by the sound of a Voice And in fine he presseth in the same Chapter by the Words of our Saviour to his Disciples after the Resurrection See that it is I for a Spirit hath not Flesh and Bones as you see me have Then he adds that if Jesus Christ according to the fancy of this Heretick had not truly Flesh and Bones it follows that when he so presented the Appearances unto his Disciples he openly deceived them in shewing them that for Bones which were not so in effect See saith he he surpriseth he deceiveth he abuseth the Eyes the Senses the coming near and touching of all his Disciples There needs not say they much subtilty and wit to comprehend that Tertullian could not by these kinds of Arguments destroy the Hypothesis of his
deceived that it hapned about they year 630. Hist Miscel l. 18. And because Anastatius wrote some time after there being yet in Egypt an Augustal Prefect it necessarily follows that he wrote about the year 637. And before the year 639. Hist Sarac in Omar that the Sarrazins entring into Egypt expelled the Augustal Prefect and made themselves Masters of the Country Which being granted the Reader may please to take notice that this Anastatius of whom we speak disputing against the Hereticks which held that the Body of Christ could not suffer from the first moment of his Conception brings in the Orthodox making this question to the Heretick Annasâ—at Sin in cap. 23. Tell me I pray the Communion of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ which you offer and whereof you are partakers is it the true Body and Blood of Jesus Christ or common Bread as that which is sold in Markets or only a Figure of the Body of Jesus Christ as the Sacrifice of the Goat offered by the Jews Whereunto the Heretick having answered God forbid we should say that the Holy Communion is the Figure of the Body of Jesus Christ or bare Bread Anastatius replies We believe it to be so and confess it according to Christ's words to his Disciples when in the Mystical Supper he gave them the Bread of Life saying Take Eat this is my Body He also gave them the Cup saying This is my Blood He said not this is the Figure of my Body and Blood He is the first that deviated from the usual Expressions and that denied what all the holy Fathers before him had affirmed and some also after him as we have shewed in the Third Chapter of this Second Part And have shewn that these holy Fathers testifie That when our Lord gave his Eucharist to his Apostles he gave them the Figure of his Body Anastatius then denying what the others affirmed according to the Maxim of Vincentius Lirinensis his Opinion should be rejected as an Opinion private and peculiar to himself and we are firmly and constantly to hold and embrace the publick and universal Belief but because the words of Authors are favourably to be interpreted at least as much as may be some say it should be so done towards Anastatius and that 't is easie to give a good sense unto what he said He declares the Eucharist is the true Body and Blood of Jesus Christ he saith nothing as they think that being rightly understood but is very reasonable because it is most certain that the Sacrament is unto the faithful Soul instead of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ that he truly communicates unto him this broken Body and this Blood poured out for his Consolation and Salvation and that it is changed as St. Cyril of Alexandria speaks into the Efficacy of his Body If Anastatius say they erred in rejecting the word Sign and Figure the Fathers both before and after him having used it it cannot be believed that he hath changed any thing in the ground of the Doctrine they think so for several reasons in the first place he saith it is not simple Bread as is sold in the Markets for thus speaking is to acknowledge that it is Bread which by Consecration hath acquired the quality of an Efficacious and Divine Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ of whom for that reason it takes the name as it hath the virtue and efficacy in its lawful use as when the Fathers say of the Waters of Baptism and the Oyl of Chrisin Cyril Hieros Catech. 3. illum Mystag 3. that it is not common Water and common Oyl they deny not that it is Water and Oyl they only mean that it is Water and Oyl sanctified to be the Symboles of the washing and purifying our Souls by the Blood of Jesus Christ and by the Vertue of the Holy Ghost Secondly He declares that it is not a Figure as the Sacrifice of the Goat which the Jews offered that is a Type and Figure without efficacy and vertue having taken this name of Type and Figure for a Legal Figure and without Operation in which sense it is true that the Communion is not a Figure and bare Type destitute of the truth like the Types and Figures of the Law whereof he produceth an Example in the Sacrifice of the Goat In the third place he speaks of a Body of the Lord Which being kept in a Vessel corrupts in few days Id. Anast Ibid. c. 23. changeth and quite altereth of a Body and Blood which as he saith in another Chapter of the same Treatise may be broken divided Id. c. 13. Ibid. c. 13. and distrihuted in parcels broken with the Teeth changed poured out and drank And in the same Chapter he saith That the Body and Blood distributed unto the People saying The Body and Blood of our Lord God and Saviour is a Visible Body created and taken from the Earth They conclude then that if there was imprudence in his expressions there was no Error in his Doctrine and they are very much confirmed in this Opinion which I freely remit unto the judgment of others if they consider the Doctrine had received no Opposition in the East nor West Maxim in Nol. Dionys Arcop pag. 68. 75. 69. not in the East because in the time Anastatius wrote in his Desert Maximius Abbot of Constantinople whose Name was more famous and his Doctrine more eminent taught That the holy Bread and Cup of Benediction are Signs and sensible Symbols or Types of true things Symbols and not the truth that the things of the Old Testament were the Types those of the New Testament are the Antitypes but that the truth shall be in the state of the World to come This Author faithfully retains the ancient Expressions and Doctrine of those which went before him and he thus defines the word Symbol Id. in Interp. vocum The Symbol is a sensible thing taken for an intelligible thing as the Bread and Wine are taken for the Divine and immaterial Food Not in the West because in the same Age Anastatius lived Isid Hispal de Offic. Eccl. l. 1. c. 18. St. Isidor of Sevil said That the Bread which we break is the Body of Jesus Christ that the Wine is his Blood that the Bread is called his Body Id. Origin l. 6. c. 19. because it strengthens the Body that the Wine resembles the Blood of Jesus Christ because it creates blood in the body Id. voca c. 26. de alleg in Genes c. 12. And that these two things which be visible pass into a Sacrament of the Divine Body being Sanctified by the Holy Ghost That by the Commandment of the Lord we call the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ that which being made of the fruits of the Earth is sanctified and becomes a Sacrament by the Invisible Operation of the Holy Ghost Id. in Genes
took them out of the Scriptures and the holy Fathers to teach them unto such as desired to be instructed At the beginning of the Letter Id. ibi p. 1619. 1623. You examine me saith he upon a thing whereof several persons doubt Id. in Matt. l. 12. p. 1094. In his Commentary upon the 26th Chapter of St. Matthew I have treated of these things more at large and more expresly because I am informed that some reproved me as if in the Book of Sacraments which I published I had given unto the words of Jesus Christ more than the truth it self doth allow Ib. p. 1100. And again There are many that in these mystical things are of another Opinion and there are many that are blind and cannot see when they think this Bread and this Cup is nothing else but what is seen with the Eyes and which is tasted with the Mouth Wherefore the Anonymous Author before mentioned Aut Anonym uâ—i supra writes that some affirmed That what is received at the Altar is the same that was born of the Virgin and that others on the contrary denied it and said That it is another thing But having been told by Paschas himself that he had several Adversaries and Opposers We must farther learn of him what was the belief of this great number of Opposers for after having cited the words of Institution Take Eat this is my Body Paschas Ep. ad Frudegard Commentar in Matth. l. 12. he adds That those which will extenuate this term of Body saying That it is not the true Flesh of Jesus Christ which is celebrated in the Sacrament nor his true blood let them hear these words they pretend I know not what as if there was only in the Sacrament a certain vertue of the body and blood of Jesus Christ as if our Saviour had told a lye and that it was not his true Flesh and Blood c. When he broke and gave the Bread unto his Disciples he said not This is or there is in this Mystery a certain Vertue or Figure of my Body but he said This is my Body And a little after I admire that some would now say That it is not the reality of the Flesh and blood of Jesus Christ in the thing it self but in Sacrament a certain efficacy of the body and not the body a vertue of the blood and not the blood a figure and not the truth a shadow and not the substance It cannot then reasonably be after such formal and positive Declarations that the world should think any other Opinion can be attributed unto the Adversaries of Paschas but that of the Protestants of France and of all others of their Communion As the Belief of Paschas is that of the Roman Catholicks to say otherwise were to dissemble to renounce the truth and to be unworthy the esteem and credit of honest men Let it then be granted for certain that in this important point which we do examine Paschas was a Roman Catholick as 't is spoken now a days And that his Adversaries on the contrary were Protestant Calvinists from whence it will necessarily follow that if the followers of Paschas in the IX Century were more considerable and of greater numbers than his Adversaries the Opinion of the Latin Church had the victory over the other but if also the number of his Adversaries was greater their Name more famous and their Reputation better established it must be concluded That the Belief of the Protestants had the Victory it appears that so things are to be understood to do right unto both parties The better to succeed in this design I will begin with those that followed Paschas seeing it was him that obliged his Adversaries to contradict him and oppose themselves unto the Establishment of his Opinion which appeared new unto them and different from the ancient Faith of the Church It cannot be denied but Paschas Radbert had good Endowments as appears by his Works and that he was commended by some Writers of that time as a Man of great Learning and above the common sort Nevertheless as to the Subject in hand I have not observed in what I have read that many persons have declared in favour of him It is out of all question that Frudegard fell into his Opinion after having read his Treatise of the Body and Blood of Christ for in the Letter which Paschas writ him Paschas Ep. ad Frudeg pag. 1620. we therein find these words You say that you believed so formerly he speaks of his Opinion and that you read the same in the Book of Sacraments that I composed Since which time Frudegard having read the Advertisement which St. Austin gives in the third Book of Christian Doctrine of understanding figuratively what our Saviour speaks of eating his Flesh he was very much shaken and if he changed not quite it may be said that he continued in suspence without declaring for or against Paschas It is what he informs us Ibid. when he adds unto his first words But you say that you have since read in St. Austin 's third Book of Christian Doctrine that where it is said it is the body and blood of Christ it is a figurative manner of expression and if it is a figurative speech and a figure rather than the truth I cannot tell say you how it should be understood And you say afterwards And if I believe that it is the same body as that which he took from the holy Virgin his Mother this excellent Doctor that is to say St. Austin declares on the contrary that it is a great crime to wit to believe that it is the real body of Jesus Christ Paschas doth what he can to continue him in the Opinion he had been of before he had read this passage of St. Austin and the better to effect it he alledges this unto him under the name of this great Saint and as being taken out of his Sermons unto the Neophites Ibid. Receive in the Bread what was nailed upon the Cross and in the Cup that which came out of the Side of Jesus Christ Words which for certain are not of St. Austin and which are not to be found in any of his Works which we have in great numbers Paschas 't is true cites them as to the best of his remembrance and I cannot tell if in a matter so important as this it will serve turn to say As I remember or If my memory fail not In the main it not appearing that he satisfied Frudegard in his doubts the surest side we can take in this Conjuncture is to make him neither a Friend nor an Adversary of Paschas but to leave him in his doubts if we would not increase the Sect of Scepticks I will not say the same of the Anonymous Author which Father Cellot hath furnished us and whom we have twice mentioned already in this Chapter for it appears plainly he was
Jesus Christ And as this Bread and Wine pass into the Body of Jesus Christ so also all those that eat it worthily in the Church are one sole Body of Jesus Christ as himself hath said Whosoever eateth my Flesh and drinks my Blood dwelleth in me and I in him Nevertheless this Flesh which he hath taken and this Bread Id. ibid. in cap. â—1 and the whole Church are not three Bodies of Jesus Christ but one Body And afterwards Although this Bread is brought from several places and that it is Consecrated throughout the whole World by several Priests nevertheless the Divinity that filleth all things filleth it also and maketh it to be one sole Body of Jesus Christ and all those which receive it â—d in Canone Idiss â— t. 6. Bibl. Pat. p. 441. do make this same Body of Jesus Christ which is one and not two And elsewhere As the Divinity of the Son which filleth all the World is one so also although this Body is Consecrated in sundry places and in an infinite number of different days yet they are not several Bodies of Jesus Christ nor several Cups but one sole Body and one Blood with that which he took from the Virgin and gave unto the Apostles for the Divinity fills it is joyned to it and causeth that as it is one so also it should be joyned unto the Body of Jesus Christ and should be one Body of Jesus Christ in verity This Author whoever he was says two or three things which sufficiently inform us of his intention for he saith that the Divinity joyns the Bread unto the Body of Jesus Christ of necessity then he must needs believe that it subsisted still after Consecration because a thing that is not cannot be joyned unto another thing the uniting and joyning of two different subjects presupposeth the Existence of the one and the other he saith also that the Church as well as the Sacrament is one Body with the natural Body of Jesus Christ he affirms it no more of the Sacrament than of the Church he then meant that they were both so after one and the same manner In fine see here how he argues the Natural Body of Jesus Christ the Sacrament and the Church are filled with one and the same vertue and animated if it may be so said with the same Spirit they are not then three Bodies but one the Unity of one Body depending on the unity of the Principle that acts in him So that because the same Principle that acts in the natural Body of Jesus Christ acts also in the Bread of the Eucharist and in the Church they should not be according to this Author but one and the same Body because that though considering them severally they be three different Bodies yet to consider them in the unity of this Principle and in the Numerical Identity if I may so say of the same vertue they become one sole Body This is as far as I can comprehend the Opinion of Remy which though not favouring the Opinion of Paschas yet is not for all that the Opinion of his Adversaries Therefore we will let him stand alone to receive the Depositions of others which present themselves to be heard The first is Rabanus very illustrious for his Dignity and for his Merit Historians vie with each other to celebrate his Praises as of the greatest Man of that Age and unto whom none was to be compared He was first a Friar in the Abby of Fulda then Abbot of the same Monastery and at last Archbishop of Mayance This illustrious Prelate and the most famous Disciple of the great Alcuin Tutor unto Charlemain being informed of the Opinion of Paschas Radbert touching the Sacrament set himself in a posture of arguing and openly opposing himself against it as against a Doctrine that appeared new and strange unto him and contrary to the ancient Belief of the Church This is the Declaration which the Anonimous Author and favourer of Paschas hath made us saying That Rabanus disputed against him at large Autor Anonym ubi supra in his Letter unto the Abbot Egilon But if we had not the Testimony of this Disciple of Paschas we cannot be ignorant of this matter seeing Rabanus himself hath transmitted the thing unto us for in his Penitential which Peter Stuart Professor in Divinity in the College of Ingolstat hath published he speaks after this sort Raban Maur. in Poenitent c. 33 de Eucharist It is not long since some persons holding erroneous Opinions touching the Eucharist of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ have said That it is the Body it self and the Blood of Jesus Christ which was born of the Virgin Mary and wherein our Saviour suffered upon the Cross and rose again from the Dead which Error we have opposed as much as we could and have signified in writing unto the Abbot Egilon what ought to be believed of the Body it self It cannot then be doubted but Rabanus wrote directly against Paschas seeing that the Opinion which he condemns and which he opposeth as erroneous is just that of Paschas as we have plainly demonstrated This Letter is lost either through the length of time or the malice of Men which have lived since that time But 't is sufficient that we do know that he wrote it and by consequence was a great Enemy of Paschas as unhe plainly testifies by several of his other Works which are come to our hands for he teacheth that the substance of Bread and Wine remain after Consecration and that these divine Symbols being received by Communicants part of it turns into their substance and the rest goes as their other ordinary food doth unto the place where Nature dischargeth it self Autor Anonym ubi supra The Anonymous Author already cited several times saith positively That he held the Sacrament to be subject unto this Accident And William of Malmesbury wrote to his Brother Robert in the Preface of the Epitome of Amalarius of Divine Offices which is to be seen in a Manuscript at Oxford Guillelm Malmesbur in All-Souls College I gave you notice saith he that amongst those which have writ of these things there is one that you are to avoid which is called Rabanus which in the Books of Ecclesiastical Offices saith That the Sacraments of the Altar are profitable to nourishment and for that reason are subject to corruption or malady or age or to be cast into the draft or to death it self See how dangerous a thing it is to say to believe and to write these things of the Body and Blood of our Saviour Tho. Waldens t. 1. doctrin in praesat t. 2. c. 19.52 62. Thomas Waldensis testifies the same in divers parts of his Writings where he reproacheth Wicliff That as he teacheth that the Eucharist is digested and passeth into our substance so he might also teach with Rabanus that it passeth into the draft And he instanceth the
you that is to say if you participate not of my passion and if you believe not that I dyed for your salvation you have no life in you This is the constant Doctrine of St. Austin He also testifies in the following words that he gloried in being one of his followers The Mystery is the Faith Ibid. as St. Austin saith in his Letter unto the Bishop Boniface As then the Sacrament of the Body of Jesus Christ is after some sort the body of Jesus Christ and the Sacrament of his blood his blood so also the Sacrament of Faith is Faith so we may also say This is the Cup of my Blood of the New and Eternal Testament as if he should say This is my Blood which is given for you he could not say more plainly That the Cup that is the Wine which is in the Cup is the Blood of Jesus Christ as the Sacrament is the thing whereof it is the Sacrament And in another Letter unto one Guntard whom he calls his Son and that he was something dissatisfied because Amalarius did spit presently after having received the Sacrament he saith unto him Id. ad Guntard Ep. 6. p. 196. that he denied not but that we should venerate the Body of Jesus Christ above all other Food It is not at all likely he would have spoken after this manner if he had believed that what is received in the Sacrament is the very Body of Jesus Christ because there can be no comparison betwixt this Divine Body and our Ordinary Food but he might well say so of the Sacrament for the which we should have a more peculiar respect and veneration than for our other meats He explains himself and sheweth that he speaks not of the real Body of Jesus Christ but of his Typical Body when he saith That it belongs to our Lord to pour out his Body by the Members and Veins for our Eternal Salvation Ibid. p. 171. That it is the Body of Jesus Christ which may be cast out in spitting after having received it and whereof some part may be cast out of the mouth Unto all which he adds Having so received the Body of Christ with a good intention I don't intend to argue whether it be invisibly lifted up unto Heaven or whether it remains in our bodies until the day of our Death or whether it be exhaled into the Air or whether it departs out of the body with the blood or whether it goes out at the pores our Saviour saying Ibid. p. 172. Whatsoever enters in at the Mouth goes into the Belly and from thence into the draft only care is to be taken not to receive it with a heart of Judas not to misprise it but to distinguish it savingly from ordinary Food Thence it is that he requires That during Lent all Believers Id. de observatione Quadrages p. 174. excepting such as are Excommunicated should receive the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Jesâ— Christ and that the people should be warned not to draw near the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ irreverently I know not saith the Protestant if after all these Declarations it can be doubted that Amalarius was far from the Opinion of Paschas Id. de offic l. 3. c. 24. Ibid. c. 25. and that when he saith We believe that the plain Nature of Bread and Wine mixed is changed into a reasonable Nature of the body and blood of Jesus Christ That the Church believes it is the body and blood of our Saviour and that by this Morsel the Souls of Communicants are filled with a heavenly Benediction which are passages alledged by the Latins to support their Doctrine He meant not that they passed or as Rabanus told us that they are converted into a Sacrament of his Body and Blood And to say the truth adds he I find he hath so fully explained and cleared his intention that it must be concluded that he believed the Sacrament is not the Flesh it self born of the Virgin as Paschas taught but the Sacrament of this holy Flesh the Bread and Wine by sanctification passing into this Divine Sacrament as he said of the Oyl the People offered Ibid. l. 1. c. 12. That by benediction it is converted into a Sacrament Therefore he gives us to understand that this Sacrament which we receive and that he calls the Body of Jesus Christ because of some likeness as he explained himself by the words of St. Austin is subject unto divers accidents whereto the real Body of Jesus Christ cannot be expos'd particularly of going into the place of Excrements like other Meats Let the Reader judge if he please of this Dispute and Controversie Unto Rabanus and Amalarius I will joyn Wallafridus Strabo who in all probability wrote his Book of Ecclesiastical matters betwixt the years 840. and 849. In Poemate which was the time of his Decease In that he calls Rabanus his Father and Master it may give cause to conceive that he was of one Judgment with him but because meer surmises are not sufficient proof nor convincing Arguments Walafri Strabo lib. de Reb. Eccles c. 16. Bibl. p. 7. t. 10. let us learn from his own mouth what he believed of the Mystery which we examine Jesus Christ saith he gave to his Disciples the Sacraments of his body and blood in the substance of Bread and Wine teaching them to celebrate it in Commemoration of his most holy passion because there could nothing be found more fitting then these species to signifie the Unity of the head and his members for as the Bread is made of several Grains and is reduced into one body by means of Water and as the Wine is pressed from several Grapes so also the body of Jesus Christ is made of the Union of a multitude of believers And a little after he declares That Jesus Christ hath chosen for us a reasonable Sacrifice for the Mystery of his body and of his blood in that Melchisedek having offered Bread and Wine he gave unto believers the same kind of sacrifice And again That as for that great number of legal sacrifices Id. cap. 18. Jesus Christ gave us the Word of his Gospel so also for that great diversity of sacrifices believers should rest satisfied with the Oblation of Bread and Wine As all these passages are exceeding clear so it is very just and reasonable they should serve for a Commentary unto others if it had hapned that Wallafridus had spoken less clear any where else for then should that judicious rule of Tertullians be practised That the plainest things should prevail Tertull. de Resurrect carn c. 19. 21. and that the most certaine should prescribe against the uncertain things which are doubtful should be judged by those things which are certain and those which are obscure by those which are clear and manifest Let us apply this unto what Wallafridus saith in another place which the Latins forget
say so saith he they acknowledge that it is not what it was before Ibid. and that the Bread and the Wine have been changed Now we see there is no corporal change passed they must then of necessity confess the change is passed in some other regard than in respect of the Bodies from whence he concludes That they must be constrained to deny Ibid. either that it is the Body or Blood of Jesus Christ which is not to be permitted to say nor even to think or if they confess that it is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ seeing that cannot be without there was a change for the better that this change is passed Corporally Then it follows that it is passed Spiritually that is to say Ibid. Figuratively inasmuch as the Spiritual body and the Spiritual blood of Jesus Christ is under the Vail of bodily Bread and corporal Wine And to inform us clearly of his intention he adds It is not that two several things exist in the Sacrament one whereof is Corporal and the other Spiritual no but it is one and the same thing that in one regard is the Element of Bread and Wine and in another regard is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Ibid. for in regard of what we touch Corporally they be the Elements or bodily Creatures but in regard of what they were made Spiritually they be the Mysteries of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ He also affirms That what we receive outwardly in the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ is proper to nourish the Body And from thence passing to the Examination of the second Question to wit Ibid. whether that which Believers do receive with the mouth daily in the Church by the Mystery of the Sacraments be the same Body that was born of the Virgin Mary that suffered and was buried and which sitteth on the Right Hand of God He thus explains himself These Creatures in regard of their substance Ibid. are after Consecration the same they were before they were Bread and Wine and it is visible that they remain in the same kind although they be consecrated The Change then which passes here by the power of the Holy Ghost is internal what Faith beholds doth nourish the Soul and communicates unto it the substance of Life eternal And again Ibid. The Flesh of Jesus Christ which was crucified was made of the Flesh of the Virgin Mary composed of Bones and Sinews divided by the Lineaments of Members furnished with a reasonable Soul from which it received life and motion But as for the spiritual Flesh which spiritually feedeth the faithful people it is made according to what it is outwardly of Grains of Wheat by the hands of the Baker without Bones and Nerves without diversity of Members without a reasonable Soul or exercising any Life or Motion for all that is in it which communicates Life unto us proceeds from a spiritual Vertue from an invisible Efficacy and from a divine Benediction Therefore it is quite another thing in regard of what appears outwardly from what is believed of the Mystery whereas the Flesh of Jesus Christ which was crucified is not inwardly what it appears to be outwardly because it is the Flesh of a real Man and by consequence a true Body existing in the form of a true Body It must also be considered that the Body of Jesus Christ is not alone represented in this Bread but that the Body of the faithful people is therein figured also Therefore it is that the Bread is made of divers Grains because the Body of the people is composed of many Believers and as the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ mystically the numbers of the people which believe in Jesus Christ are therein also represented mystically and as this Bread is the Body of Believers not corporally but spiritually it is also necessary to understand the Body of Jesus Christ not corporally but spiritually So also it is commanded to mingle Water with the Wine which is called the Blood of Jesus Christ and it is not permitted to offer the one without the other because the People cannot be without Jesus Christ nor Jesus Christ without the People as the Head cannot subsist without the Members nor the Members without the Head and the Water in this Sacrament bears the Image of the People If this Wine sanctified by the Ministry of Priests were corporally changed into the Blood of Christ it would be necessary that the Water which is therein also mingled should be corporally changed into the Blood of faithful Believers for where there is one and the same Sanctification there must be also of necessity one Operation and where this is one and the same reason there will also be one and the same Mystery Now we see there is no Change made in the Water according to the Body therefore by consequence it must follow that there is no bodily Change made in the Wine All that is signified by the Water in regard of the Body of the People is taken spiritually all then that is signified by the Wine in reference to the Blood of Jesus Christ ought necessarily to be understood spiritually Besides the things which do differ in themselves are not one and the same things The Body of Jesus Christ which suffered and is risen again was made immortal and dieth no more Death hath no more Dominion over him he is eternal and cannot die Now this Body which is celebrated in the Church is temporal and not eternal corruptible and not incorruptible it is in the way and not in the Country they do then differ therefore they be not the same then if they be not the same how is it that they call them the real Body of Jesus Christ and his real Blood For if it be the Body of Jesus Christ and that one may truly say so the Body of Jesus Christ being incorruptible impassible and by consequence eternal It must necessarily follow that this Body of Jesus Christ which is made in the Church should be incorruptible and eternal but it cannot be denied but that it is corruptible because being broken in pieces it is divided unto Believers which receive it and being eaten with the Teeth it is swallowed down and goeth into the Belly What we do exteriorly is then another thing from what we believe by Faith what regards the sense of the Body is corruptible but what is believed by Faith is incorruptible What appears outwardly is not the thing it self but the Image of the thing and what the heart feeleth and understandeth is the reality of the thing In fine for the whole Book must be transcribed if all should be alledged that makes directly contrary unto the Doctrine of Paschas Ibid. he thus concludes the whole Treatise Let your Wisdom consider illustrious Prince that we have very clearly proved by the Testimony of the holy Scripture and by Passages of the holy Fathers
and affront his Messengers insomuch as he threatens him with Deposition or of Anathematizing according to the Decree of the Fifth Universal Council There are several other things of the like Nature in the Letter which is not necessary to be mention'd What hath been said sufficeth to shew that Pope Adrian could not wish a fairer occasion to tax Charles the Bald as Protector of the Doctrine of the Adversaries of Paschas against whom Ratramn and John Erigenius wrote by his command not to speak of his Principal Chaplain Heribold which was of the same Opinion Adrian doth no such thing On the contrary he endeavours to appease the spirit of Charles in the Letter which he after wrote to him and to mitigate the anger which the first had provoked him unto wherein he had commanded him with Authority to send Hincmar Bishop of Laon unto Rome It is said that these proceedings do in all likelihood justifie that the belief of Ratramn and of John Erigenius whom the King Protected was the belief of Adrian himself and of the whole Church it not being to be believed the Pope would have been silent unto this Prince who had so touched him to the Quick if the Doctrine which he favoured had not been Catholick and Orthodox I would here conclude the History of the IX Century were I not obliged to say something of the Greek Church for at the beginning of this Age Nicephorus Patriarch of Constantinople and Successor of Tarrasius following the steps of the Second Council of Nice whose Constitutions touching Image Worship he followed Nicephorus I say with the Fathers of the Council declared That the Eucharist is not the Image of Jesus Christ De Cherub c. 6. Bibl. Pat. t. 4. but his Body seeing he spake as the Prelates of Nice the same Explication must be given to his words as were given unto those of the Council and refer the Reader unto what hath been said in the 12th Chapter if it be not better to rank him with John Damascen of whom we have also spoke in the same Chapter and to say the truth he speaks many things which are inconsistent with the Doctrine of the real Presence As for example Ibid. c. 7. That the humane nature of Jesus Christ is not invisible that God only can be at several places at once Id. de imag That every Body is necessarily limited and that it filleth a place which he applies particularly unto the Body of Jesus Christ Id. libel 12. capitulor c. 3. The third sacred Council saith he hath declared that Jesus Christ our God is limited according to the Flesh and hath Anathematized those which believe not this word And elsewhere Id. de imag having treated of the manner of Existing of Bodies Jesus Christ saith he is bounded according to his humane Nature after all the ways which we have shewed for he hath born a true Body like us and not a supposed Body And in a Dispute which the same Nicephorus had with the Emperor Leo the Armenian which Father Combefis hath published he attributes unto the Body of Jesus Christ Origin Const p. 176. visibility touch and circumscription to distinguish it from his Divinity and shewing the reason why Angels cannot be in one place circumscriptively he saith It is because they be simple Ibid. p. 180. and without composition and that they have not Bodies Father Combefis in the same Collection of divers Authors concerning the City of Constantinople alledgeth a great passage of Theodorus Graptus P. 221. 222. touching the Eucharist but because he teacheth the same Opinion with John Damascen as is observed by this same Friar which hath given it unto us and as it is easie to observe inreading of it we will dispence with our selves in relating of it seeing the Reader may find what hath been said of it in the 12th Chapter upon the Belief of Damascen Leaving then this Theodorus Martyr of Image Worship let us speak of another Theodorus no less affectionate than the former unto this same Worship and imprisoned for it It is Theodorus Studite whom Michael Studite that wrote his Life introduceth thus speaking unto his Disciple My Son these Men as I find endeavour Apud Baron ad ann Dom. 816. num 12. besides the other cruelties they exercise against us to starve us to Death because they know it is the cruellest of all sorts of Death but let us put our trust in God which can feed us not with Bread only but with meat incomparably more excellent because alf Spirits subsist by his good pleasure only And because above all other things the participation of the Body of our Saviour is wont to be the nourishment of my Body and of my Soul for the Father always carried along with him some parcels of the quickning Body and Celebrated the Divine Mysteries as often as he had conveniency I will receive only this Food I will taste nothing else whatsoever and what is wont to be allowed for two shall be for thee only He speaks of the Eucharist as of a thing which nourisheth the Body and which may be divided into sundry parts which cannot be meant of the real Body of Jesus Christ but of his Sacrament which is called his Body be-because it hath the vertue of it for the nourishing of the Soul CHAP. XVI Of the State of the X. Century THe Tenth Age hath exercised of late years two good Writers and hath afforded matter and subject unto Authors which with much skill and industry each defending the cause of his party grappled a long time about this poor Age either to advance the credit of it or to shew the morosity ignorance and obscurity of it they both spoke very agreeably what they intended to say and having thereupon reflected sharply upon each other in the view of all France have not as yet decided their Controversie If I mistake not every body may see that I mean the Author of the Perpetuity of the Faith of the Eucharist and him that answered him The former having made a short Discourse which was to serve for a Preface unto the Office of the Holy Sacrament had not some reasons hindred the execution of this first design The latter at the desire of some Godly Friends undertook to make some Considerations upon this little Treatise and having in brief spoken of the X. Century as of an unfortunate ignorant Age overspread with Darkness and Errors according to the testimony of Historians The Author of the Perpetuity hath insisted upon this part of the considerations of his Adversary and hath employed all his endeavours to restore unto this Age all the Reputation and Glory that he thought it had been unjustly deprived of accusing the Ministers of disparaging it for interest sake The other was not silent but having fully vindicated his Brethren from the Accusation laid to their charge he proves by several Historians and of persons the most affectionate to the Latin
is consumed the holy Body of our Lord. Which cannot be applied unto the true Body of Jesus Christ which by the Confession of of all Christians is a Subject which cannot be consumed Of necessity then this Abbot must needs have believed that what was received at the holy Table was not the real Body of Jesus Christ because he speaks of it as of a thing that was to be consumed And I am much deceived if he borrowed not this Expression of St. Austin who testifies that the Sacrament is consumed The Bread August de Trinit l. 3. c. 10. saith he prepared for this purpose is consumed in receiving the holy Sacrament What is laid upon the Table is consumed the Celebration of Devotion being ended The Abbot Folium departed this Life Anno 990. and was succeeded by Herriger so that they be mistaken which place Herriger at the end of the XI Century because he succeeded Folium in the Office of Abbot about the end of the X. De Gest Abbar Lob. t. 6. Spicil p. 591. And of this Herriger it is said That he collected against Paschas Radbert several passages of Catholick Fathers touching the Body and Blood of our Lord. Molanus writeth in his Martyrology of the Saints of Flanders on the 2d of January that a certain Author of the Life of Adelard observes that it appears by a Letter of Herriger's whom he styles the wisest of Men what Paschas was and how much Reputation he was of But that hinders not that in collecting against him the Passages and Testimonies of the holy Fathers upon the Subject of the Sacrament he declared that he did not approve of his Opinion for Justice ought indeed to be done unto the Merit of the person even of our greatest Enemies and it was a great honour unto Herriger to write against a Man unto whom he gave so great Commendations at least if Molanus his Author saith true for he thereby shewed that it was only Love of the Truth which made him take Pen in hand against a Man whose Memory he honoured Ibid. p. 590 591. and whose Learning he esteemed He which continued the History of the Abbots of Lobes doth exceedingly praise Herriger as a Man whose Vertue and Learning was esteemed even by Strangers He makes mention of several Books composed by him and observes that some said that Miracles were made at his Grave The Author of the Customs of the Abbots of Gembloux near Namur speaks also much in his praise in the same Tome of Dom Luke d'Achery Herriger had for his Friend and Companion in Studies Ibid. p. 519. in the searching and Meditation of the holy Scriptures one Hughes who succeeded him in the Dignity of Abbot after Ingobrand And it is observed that Herriger wrote unto him familiarly concerning some Questions This great familiarity Ibid. p. 591.593 joyned with a strict society in reading and the understanding of the holy Scriptures gives if I mistake not a sufficient evidence that they were both of one Opinion upon the point of the Sacrament but an Opinion contrary unto that of Paschas against whom Herriger assembled several Testimonies of the holy Fathers And as what I have now related is but a Conjecture so I leave it unto the Reader 's liberty to think and say what he please whilst I proceed to continue the History of the X. Century In the beginning of this Century the Congregation of Cluny was instituted Anno 910. by the Foundation of William Tom. 3. Concil Gall. p. 569. Count of Auvergne and Duke of Guien who by his Testament bestowed the place of Cluny with all its Dependences there to erect a Monastery of Benedictine Friars to the honour of St. Peter and St. Paul Which Monastery he put under the Protection of the Pope and See Apostolical and he nominated Bernon to be Abbot of it during life but after his death he left it to the liberty of the Monks to chuse what Abbots they should think fit Accordingly they elected Odo after the decease of Bernon Tom. 4. Spicil p. 40.49 unto Odo succeeded as I suppose Haymard Majole unto Haymard and Odilon unto Majole and it was after the death of the Abbot Odilon who died about the middle of the XI Century that the Friar Ulrick digested into a Body the Customs of this Monastery Cassander saw them in a fair Manuscript and drew a passage out of them for the Communion under both Kinds as hath been observed in the first part but six or seven years ago they were printed by the care of Dom Luke d'Achery a Benedictine Friar I find in these Customs several things which make some think that the Opinion of Paschas was not received in this famous Congregation at the beginning of its Institution nor in all the X. Century And I take notice particularly of that time because those persons would not deny but that the Congregation might have changed Opinion after the condemnation of Berengarius not that there is any certain proof thereof but if it be considered that it was under the Protection of the Roman See one may be inclined to believe that as soon as that See declared against the Doctrine of Berengarius which was that of the enemies of Paschas this Society of Cluny did also embrace the Opinion favoured by its Protectors But because it cannot be perceived that there was in these Ancient Customs above mentioned certain passages which agreed not well with the Doctrine of the real Presence or that having perceived it they dared not to take them away it being come to the knowledge of too many People we therefore find them yet therein at this time and it is from hence we intend to draw proofs of what hath been said That this Congregation was not at first nor in all likelihood during all the X. Century of the Opinion of Paschas and as they be the first that have produced an instance in this matter they endeavour to confirm the truth of it in such a manner which as they think will not be displeasing unto all reasonable persons and unto such as as are wont to judge of things according to reason and truth They say then in the first place that at the time when these Customs were written to wit about the end of the XI Century the Bread steeped in Wine for Celebrating the Communion was practised which sheweth that in all likelihood they were not come unto this use until after the Condemnation of Berengarius the fear of shedding not having entred into their thoughts until that time because they believed not that what was in the Cup was the very substance of the Blood of Jesus Christ Unto all those to whom is given the Sacred Body Antiquae consâ—etud Clunica l. 2. c. 30. p. 146. t. 4. Spicileg he first steeps it in the holy Blood because some of our Novices are so heedless that if they should receive the Blood apart they would be sure
parts it was publickly professed And this easily persuades me that Berengarius did not so much infuse this Opinion into them as he encouraged them by his Example to publish it by rousing them up from the stupidness wherein they had layen for some time For had this people believed no more of the Eucharist than just what Berengarius had taught this Doctrine could scarce have made so great a progress in so little a time but as it was instill'd into them from Father to Son Berengarius had no sooner opened his mouth but that they embraced it not regarding the fear that had till then discouraged them seeing the Contradiction it found in the World whilst that of Paschas therein received favour and encouragement But because the Enemies of this Doctrine have looked upon Berengarius to have been the true Author of it they have taxed him of infecting with the Venom of his Heresie all those which by his example had the courage to make Profession of it It is with this prejudice that Matthew of Westminster saith Ad Ann. 1â— 87. That he had almost infected all France Italy and England Matthew Paris and William of Malmesbury say Matt. Paris in Willielm II. Will. Malms 6. in Willielm l. l. 3. That all France was full of his Doctrine So it is that Durandus of Troarn an ancient Monastery in Normandy also saith in a Treatise which he made of the Body and Blood of Christ wherein he opposeth the Doctrine taught by Berengarius It cannot be doubted but that the Doctrine of Berengarius was the same with that taught by several in the IX Century which opposed the Opinions of Paschas as Novelties which until then had not been heard of in the Church If then the Doctrine of the Adversaries of Paschas was the ancient Belief of Christians as we suppose hath been sufficiently proved it must be granted that Berengarius did not depart from it and that those which followed him had been of old instructed therein Therefore as soon as he began to bublish it they knew it and without any difficulty made Profession of it But if Berengarius had Friends he also had Enemies if he had Followers he had also those which opposed him The first that attempted to write against him seems to be Adelman which from Theologal of the Church of Liege became Bishop of Bress He had studied with Berengarius under Fulbert Bishop of Chartres and having heard what Berengarius taught of the Sacrament of the Eucharist he wrote him a Letter wherein having renewed the memory of their old Friendship he shews that it was reported of him that he taught Tom. 3. Bibl. Pat. ult ed. p. 167. That the Eucharist is not the true Body nor the real Blood of Jesus Christ but the Figure and Resemblance Adelman endeavours to refute this Doctrine but by Reasons which appear weak and some also that do not very well agree with his Hypothesis but Berengarius answered him in such a manner as he might see that he did not much value his Reproof and that he was resolved always to defend his Belief calling that which was contrary unto him Apud Lanfran t. 6. bibl Pat. p. 192. The folly of the people of Paschas and of Lanfranc By which words he sheweth that he looked upon Paschas as the Author of this Novelty and Lanfranc as the Promoter of it and that both the one and the other endeavoured to infuse it into the people to the prejudice of their ancient Faith For Berengarius pretended that his Doctrine was the Doctrine of the Primitive Church and that that of his Adversaries was not known but since Paschas his time who having invented it in his Cell brought it forth in the Year of our Lord 818. Berengarius having thus silenced Adelman Tom. 3. Bibl. Pat. p. 319. his ancient Fellow-Student Durandus Bishop of Liege and by consequence Adelman's Bishop sounded an Alarm in a Letter he wrote unto King Henry against Bruno Bishop of Anger 's and against Berengarius his Arch-Deacon as against persons which taught that the Sacrament is not the Body of Christ but the Figure of his Body which this Prelate calls Renewing of ancient Heresies And to shew with what Spirit this Bishop was acted he exhorts the King to deliberate of their punishment rather than to hear them in Councils Moreover I have called this Bishop of Liege Durandus after Baronius and those which have given us the Library of the holy Fathers but according to the truth of the History it cannot be so because Durandus was dead before Bruno was Bishop of Anger 's And indeed Durandus died Anno 1025. according to Segebert and Bruno attained not unto the Episcopacy until 1047. Of necessity then this Bishop of Liege must be some other than Durandus and probably it may be Dietuvin who was made Bishop of Liege in the Year 1048. about which time he and Adelman might have writ the Letters above mentioned Durandus Abbot of Troam in Normandy makes some mention at the end of his Treatise of the Body and Blood of our Saviour of a Council assembled at Paris by the Authority of the King against Berengarius and his Followers where the Doctrine of Berengarius absent and unheard was condemned and it was there concluded that he and those of his Judgment should be prosecuted in all parts and that they should be besieged where they should be found assembled to force them to renounce their Belief or be taken and put to death a Remedy very contrary unto the temper of the Gospel and unto the mildness of the Religion of Jesus Christ But after all this Council of Paris is no other than a fiction of the Author's brain For what likelihood is there that Lanfranc who wrote against Berengarius after this pretended Council would have passed it over in silence having so exactly mentioned all the Councils which were assembled against Berengarius in some of which he was present himself Moreover Anonymus de damnatione Berengarii multiplici Father Chifflet hath printed an Anonymous Author which specifies all the Synods wherein the Belief of Berengarius was condemned at the last of which himself was present at Rome Anno 1079. under Gregory the Seventh without making any mention of that of Paris Whereunto may be added that the Date and Character of the time doth not agree with the truth of History Cardinal Baronius in his Annals Ad ann 1035. thinks King Henry had thoughts of assembling a Synod against Berengarius but that he was hindred by the Bishop of Liege his Letters which I cannot believe after all that hath been said on this matter We are informed by Lanfranc that in the Year 1050. Pope Leo the Ninth assembled two Councils one at Rome where Berengarius Lanfranc de Eucharist Sacram t. 6. Bibl. Pat. p. 193. without being cited or heard was condemned upon Letters which he wrote unto Lanfranc and
Whence they conclude that seeing the Bread of the Sacrament is not by Honorius his saying the natural Body of Jesus Christ but as it is his mystical Body that is to say the Church for he makes no difference betwixt them it cannot be it properly and by an Idendity of substance as it is spoken but only in Mystery and in Sacrament If there were only occasion to shew who they were that admitted not of the Doctrine of the Real Presence we might here instance in Robert de Duitz nere Cologne because it is certain by the confession of both sides that he believed it not but because we also search the Testimonies of those which followed the Opinion of the Adversaries of Paschas which was that of Berengarius of which number we cannot affirm that Robert was we will leave him as a man that was neither a follower of Paschas nor of his Adversaries but a Disciple of John Damascen and of Remy of Auxerr teaching as they did the Assumption of the Bread by the Divinity to make by this Union with the Divinity one sole Body with the Body of Jesus Christ It is not the same with a certain Abbot called Francus of whom the Centuriators of Magdebourg observe Centur. 12. c. 5. That he had no sound thoughts touching the Communion affirming that the real Body of Jesus Christ was not in the Sacrament One would fain know who this Abbot was of whom the Centuriators say nothing else and to say truth it is very hard precisely to determine it but because positive Proofs are wanting Conjectures that have likelihood and probability may the better be admitted therefore I will not fear speaking what I think of him I conceive then that it was Franco Abbot of Lobbes in the Country of Liege There were two of this name in that Monastery one of which lived in the time of Lewis the Son of Charles the Bald and he was reckoned the twelfth Abbot but it cannot be him we seek for because the Centuriators place him towards the middle of the XII Century therefore we must rather insist upon the other who succeeded unto Lambert about the Year 1153. which is just the time designed by the Centuriators for Lambert succeeded unto Leonius Anno 1140. and governed the Monastery thirteen years De gestis Abbatum Lob. t. 6. Spicil p. 621 622 628 629 630 631 633. so that our Franco or Francus was chosen in his place Anno 1153. or 1154. he was Head of the Monastery eleven years And I the rather am induced to believe that the Centuriators speak of this Franco Abbot of Lobbes because that he spake nothing of the Sacrament but what two of his Predecessors Folcuin and Hertiger had taught before in the X. Century as we have declared in writing what passed in that Age upon the Subject of the Sacrament In the time that Franco was Abbot of Lobbes Gautier of Mauritania was Prebend of Anthona and he was chosen to go to Rome to defend the Cause of the Prebends of Anthona against the Abbot Franco for a Prebendary which the Friars of Lobbes laid claim unto as having been time out of mind in the Disposal of their Abbots But so it is that this Gautier is styled in the Continuation of the History of the Abbots of Lobbes Ubi supra p. 631. The most eminent and chiefest of all the Doctors of France Also from Prebend of Anthona he became Bishop of Laon. But that matters not See here how he speaks of the Presence of Jesus Christ whilst he was Bishop in a Letter which he wrote touching the Mystery of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ and wherein expounding these words of the 3d. of St. John Galterus Episcopus Laudun Ep. 2. t. 2. Spicil p. 464. No man ascended up into Heaven but the Son of Man which came down from Heaven he speaks after this manner By the Son of Man we are here to understand the Word made Flesh that is to say the Son of God which was omnipresent and not the Body and Soul that is to say the Humane Nature which he had taken and which was not yet ascended into Heaven for the Flesh which he had assumed was not present in all places but in shifting place it went fom one place unto another which our Saviour sheweth in saying unto his Apostles I am glad for your sakes that I was not there The Angel declares the same unto the Women saying You seek Jesus who was crucified he is risen he is not here From thence it is saith he that St. Gregory saith He is not here by the presence of his Body which nevertheless was never absent in regard of the presence of his Majesty And elsewhere Id. ibid. Ep. 2. p. 468. The Son of God saith he is on Earth by the presence of his Divinity although he is in Heaven at the Right Hand of the Father by the presence of his Body and of his Divinity which he himself declared being ready to ascend up into Heaven in the presence of his Disciples saying I am with you unto the end of the World Which words St. Gregory thus expounds The Word made Flesh remains and he departs he goes in regard of his Body but he remains in regard of his Divinity And in all the rest of the Epistle he proves by Authority of the Scriptures and of the Fathers the Omnipresence of the Divinity of Jesus Christ in opposition unto his Humanity which he hath so represented unto us to be in one place that it could not be at the same time in another We may add unto these Witnesses that which Father Chifflet gives us in the Preface which he hath made unto the Confession of Faith which he attributes unto Alcuin Tutor unto Charlemain where disputing against the Disciples of St. Austin followers of Jansenius he saith that he might apply unto them what Hugh Metellus Prebend of Thoul had said above five hundred years ago unto Gerland Sacramentarian of the Sect of Berengarius You relie upon the words of St. Austin Chiffict Jesuita in praefar ad confess Alcuin do not put your dependance upon them he is not of the same Opinion you are of you are much mistaken You assure us with St. Austin that the words of Jesus Christ unto his Disciples are figurative for they declare one thing literally and they signifie another thing you affirm what he affirmed but you do not believe what he believed It may then be concluded from what hath been said and particularly from the words of this Prebend of Thoul that at the beginning of the XII Century those which were called Berengarians maintained a Doctrine contrary unto that which was established by the Decisions of Councils which several Popes caused to be assembled against Berengarius in the XI Century But all these Testimonies are nothing in comparison of what happened in the persons of those called Albigensis who refusing to submit and acquiess unto the
Reputation who saw it before it was published by Aubertin that it is for certain in the Register I will make no scruple of representing it here in our Language that the Reader might judge of what consequence it is in regard of the matter which we examine See here then what Pope Clement wrote unto this Arch-Bishop In Registr mâ—nuscript Epâ—â—â— Clement â—â— The more sincere our love is unto you the more we have been touched in hearing certain things of you which agree not with the gravity of your Office considering especially that they endanger your Dignity and your Honour I write unto you familiarly and unknown unto any body excepting him that writes the Letter to let you know that I am informed whilst you were in our Court and discoursed with a certain Doctor touching the Sacrament of the Altar you said unto him that the Body of our Lord Jesus Christ was not essentially in the Eucharist no otherwise than the thing signified is in the Sign And that you said moreover that this Opinion is in great esteem at Paris This discourse being secretly whispered amongst some persons and being at last come to our knowledge I was much troubled at it and I could scarce believe that you would have spoken things which contain manifest Heresie and which are contrary to the truth of this Sacrament wherein Faith doth operate with so much the more benefit as it surpasseth Sense captivates the Understanding and subjects Reason under its Laws Therefore I counsel you not to be wiser than you should and not to impute to the Doctors of Paris Opinions which they believe not but that you humbly confess and firmly believe what the Church believeth and what the Saints preach and teach viz. That the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ although he be locally in Heaven is truly really and essentially under the Species of Bread and Wine after the Priest hath pronounced the sacred words according to the usage of the Church And if by hazard you remember him or them unto whom you have said it revoke it either verbally or by writing to the end that those which suppose that you believe what ought not to be believed of this great Mystery might harbour no ill Opinion of you At Viterba the 5th of the Calends of November Anno the 3d. that is of his Popedom which answers unto the Year of our Lord 1268. This Prelate being disheartned at the reading of this Letter and fearing the loss of his Office and Honour denies having spoken what the Pope taxed him with and under obscure and intricate terms made profession of believing what the Church of Rome believed concerning this Mystery yet in such a manner that he saith certain things which agree not very well with this Doctrine In Registro Epist Clemen supra cit Ep. 519. and which seem to testifie that this Archbishop of Narbona dared not freely to declare his thoughts The Body of Jesus Christ saith he is understood four several ways 1. It is so called in regard of the resemblance as the Species of Bread and Wine and that improperly 2. It is taken for the material Flesh of Jesus Christ which was crucified and pierced with a Lance and which was first taken from the blessed Virgin and this signification is proper 3. For the Church or for its mystical Unity 4. For the spiritual Flesh of Jesus Christ which is Meat indeed And it is said of those which eat this Flesh spiritually that they do receive the truth of the Flesh and Blood of our Saviour This Prelate maketh a difference of the spiritual Flesh of Jesus Christ which he proposeth as the Food of Believers from the Flesh of our Lord taken properly and in its true signification I cannot tell if his Opinion and Judgment may not thereby be determined which I leave unto others to do Whereas it is read in the Pope's Letter unto this Arch-Bishop that he said that his Opinion contrary to the Doctrine of the Real Presence was famous and frequent at Paris it is not without great probability if it be considered that two years after that is to say Anno 1270. which was the year of the death of St. Lewis Stephen Bishop of Paris condemned by advice of the Doctors of Divinity those which held 1. That God doth not make the Accident to subsist without its Subject Tom 4. Bibl. Pat. p. 924. because it is of his Essence that it should be actually in its subject 2. That the Accident without a Subject is not an Accident unless it be equivocal 3. That to make the Accident be without the Subject as we believe it is in the Sacrament is a thing impossible and implies a Contradiction 4. That God cannot make the Accident to be without the Subject nor that there should be several dimensions together Maxims which being inconsistent with Transubstantiation declare if I mistake not that those which held them were far from believing it which I refer to the judgment of the Reader contenting my self in warning him Tom. 2. Spicil p. 795. anno 1236. that instead of the Year 1227. which is marked at the beginning of this Anathema it should be the Year 1270. that about thirty years before to wit the Year 1236. there were taken in divers parts of France Flanders Champaigne Burgundy and other Provinces great numbers of Waldensis under the names of Bulgarians and Pifles and that all those which would not renounce their Faith were burnt alive and their Goods confiscated as the Chronicle of St. Medard of Soissons doth testifie where it is observed that before that time it was so practised for three whole years together and that the same course was held the five years following without intermission to wit until the Year 1241. What I have now said of the Letter of Clement the Fourth unto the Arch-bishop of Narban and that of this Prelate unto the Pope and of the Condemnation of certain Maxims which were condemned by Stephen Bishop of Paris will receive much light from the History of what passed in the University of Paris in the Year of our Lord 1304. And see here what it is John of Paris of the Order of Preaching Friars that is of Dominicans taught a manner of existing of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament of the Altar different from that which was commonly received in the Latin Church He does not indeed condemn the manner of existing of the Conversion of Bread into the Body of Jesus Christ which was the Opinion generally received amongst the Latins but he pretends that it is no Article of Faith not having been determined by the Church no more than that which he meant to establish and that therefore it was at every bodies free choice to embrace either the one or the other although he judged his safest and subject unto less inconveniences And he makes it consist in the Assumption of the Bread by the Divinity and in that the substance of
firmiter credimus necessario tenendum ac secundum tanquam veritati fidei etiam Sacramenti dissonum merito reprobandum examinata itaque opinione praedicta dum ea quae dixerat retractare nollet sed magis videretur pertinaciter sustinere a Guillielmo Parisiensi Episcopo de consilio fratris Egidii Bituricensis Archiepiscopi provecti Theologi Magistri Bertrandi de Sancto Dionysio praesellenti doctore Aurelianensis Episcopi ac Guillielmi Albianensis Episcopi necnon doctorum in jure canonico pariter duorum ad hoc specialiter vocatorum perpetuum super hoc silentium dicto fratri sub poena excommunicationis impositum est lecturaque pariter predicatione privatur Verum cum ob hoc ad sedem Apostolicam appellasset auditoribus sibi datis in curia sed infacto negotio de medio sublatus est It appears by what hath been said especially by the Judgment of the Faculty of Divinity that it was not believed at the beginning of the XIV Century that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation was an Article of Faith notwithstanding the Decree of Innocent the Third at the Council of Lateran Anno 1215. and no more but a probable Opinion and that it was in every bodies free liberty to follow it or not Which will not a little confirm the Protestants in the belief they are in that the Doctrine of the Real Presence did not pass into an Article of Faith until the Council of Trent after the Ordinances whereof they esteemed that there was an indispensable necessity of separating from the Communion of the Latins and will make them at the same time say that this sole Consideration which we have made upon the History of John of Paris is sufficient entirely to ruin the foundation of the two famous Books which have appeared of late years wherein they have pretended to shew that Transubstantiation has always been esteemed in the Church to be an Article of Faith And there is no question but they are much confirmed in this Sentiment when they shall see that the Cardinal d'Aylli which assisted at the Council of Constance at the beginning of the XV. Century speaks of Transubstantiation as of an Opinion and also saith that it cannot be clearly inferred from the holy Scriptures nor as he thinks from the determination of the Church that the substance of Bread doth not remain in the Sacrament nevertheless he embraceth the Opinion that holds so as that which is most favoured by the Church and which is most generally received amongst the Doctors Petrus de Aylliaco Cardin. Camerac in 4. sent q. 6. See here his words Quarta opinio communior est quod substantia panis non remanet sed simpliciter desinit esse Ejus possibilitas patet quia non est Deo impossibile quod illa substantia subito desinat esse quamvis non esset possibile creata virtute Et licet ita esse non sequatur evidenter ex Scriptura nec etiam videre meo ex determinatione Ecclesiae quia tamen magis favet ei communi opinioni sanctorum doctorum ideo teneo eam But having reported what passed in the West during the XII and XIII Centuries touching the holy Sacrament according unto our method it will not be amiss to say something touching the Eastern Church Genebrard in his Chronologies makes mention of a certain Friar called Basil of whom he observes That he re-established the Error of Berengarius for although he speaks of the year 1087. nevertheless Ad annum 1087. according to the testimony of Zonarus reported by Cardinal Baronius he dogmatized for the space of 52 years we may put him into the number of the Authors of the XII Century It is true the same Zonarus reports in Baronius that the Emperor Alexius Comeneus caused him to be burnt as an Impostor so that if he was put to death for the Opinions which Genebrard imputes unto him touching the Sacrament it cannot reasonably be doubted but the Greek Church was in the XII Century of the same belief that the Latin Church was of But seeing this man was accused of several Impieties Apud Baron ad annum 1118. N. 27. as of denying the Trinity of rejecting the Books of Moses of teaching that the World was made by wicked Angels that Michael the Archangel was Incarnate of denying the Resurrection and of holding many other things alike wicked and abominable I suppose that as the Protestants can draw no advantage in favour of their Opinion from the belief of this man if it be true that he believed what Genebrard relates of him so in like manner have the Roman Catholicks no cause to boast of his Condemnation which was grounded upon several Impieties which sufficiently declare that he was a Manichean Leo Allatius represents this Basil as Chief of the Sect of the Bogomiles whose Heresie was composed of that of the Manicheans and Messalians and what this Author saith of them may be seen in the second Book De perpetua consensione Orientis Occidentis cap. 10. p. 636. But at the beginning of the XIII Century the mind of the Greeks was extreamly agitated upon the subject of the Sacrament some affirming that the Mysteries were corruptible others justifying the contrary The reason of these latter was because the holy Sacrament is a Commemoration of our Lord 's being risen again for us alledging to this purpose some passages of the Fathers which seemed to favour their Opinion But the others on the contrary denied that the Sacrament was a Confession of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ saying it was only a Sacrifice and by consequence he was therein corruptible as before his Passion and without Life and Soul I said that the Spirits of men was much agitated at the beginning of the XIII Age for the Dispute had already been begun even in the XII Century Therefore Zonarus a Greek Friar who lived at that time I mean in the XII Century speaks of it in one of his Letters and resolves the question in embracing both parties In notis Vulcanii ad Cyril Alexandr t. 6. libr. adversus Antropomorp ex Zonara ep 32. L. 3. de robus gestis Alexii He said That the Bread is the Flesh it self of Jesus Christ mortal and buried and for this reason it is corruptible ground and broken to pieces by the Teeth but that afterwards being chewed eaten and gone down into the Stomach as it were into a Sepulchre it becomes incorruptible because the Body of our Lord remained not long dead and buried but rose again soon after As for Nicetas Choniates who wrote just at the beginning of the XIII Century and that makes mention of this Dispute he sufficiently testifieth that the Patriarch Camaterus embraced the Opinion of those which maintained that the Mysteries were corruptible I shall not examine which of the two parties were most reasonable for to speak my thoughts plainly those people strove in vain and to no
imputed unto them because there is not the least sign of it to be found Cap. 10 11 12 13. â—bi supra neither in the Confessions of Faith made by the Waldensis inserted by Paul Perrin in their History nor in that of the Taborites Which by the testimony of Eneas Sylvius had embraced the impious and wicked Sect of the Waldensis Of necessity then their Belief must be the same with the Protestants because that of the Waldensis did agree with it as may be judged by all that hath been hitherto spoken But in fine the Question is to know the Belief of the Taborites touching the holy Sacrament but what can better inform us than their own Confession of Faith drawn up in the Year 1431. by John Lukavitz wherein they declare Confess Tabor Joan. Lukavits that their Belief touching the Eucharist is That the Bread remains in its nature true Bread and that it is the Body of Jesus Christ not by a material Identity but Sacramentally really and truly Then they reject the Opinion of those which say That the same Body of Jesus Christ which is in Heaven is also in the Sacrament Ibid. with all its essential and accidental Proprieties Because say they this would be a means to presuppose that the substance of Bread should cease to be and that it should be converted substantially into the Body of Jesus Christ Moreover they formally deny the Adoration of the Eucharist If John Hus was of the same Opinion of those which were called Taborites it must be owned after so express a Declaration as they made that he opposed the Doctrine of Transubstantion If we give credit unto what is reported in the Acts of the Council of Constance we cannot question but that he was contrary unto this Doctrine In fine The Council doth condemn thirty Articles of John Hus in the 1 Concil Constant sess 15. twenty fifth whereof they make him say that he doth approve of forty Articles of Wickliff's the 2 Ibid. sess 8. three first whereof are directly contrary unto Transubstantiation Moreover there is to be found in the Proceedings made against him that he had preached and taught 3 Ibid. sess 15. That after consecrating the Host at the Altar the material Bread did remain that the substance of Bread remains after Consecration and that the Opinion which the Church holdeth of the Sacrament of the Body of Jesus Christ is erronious Therefore Pope Martin the Fifth Ad finem Concil Constant in his Bull of Approbation of the Council doth not fail of representing John Hus as approving the Articles of Wickliff before spoken of Ibid. He declares also that Jerom of Prague was of the same Judgment that is to say in an Opinion contrary unto the Church of Rome which the Council doth also observe in the twenty first 1 Ibid. sess 21. Session And Gobellin Persona Official of the Diocess of 2 Cosmodrom a tat 6. c. 95. Peterborough who lived at that time thought that he ought not to say the contrary after the Declaration of the Pope and of the Council But if we consult the Works of John Hus printed at Noremberg Anno 1558. with his Martyrdom and that of Jerom of Prague for so it is that their death is therein styled we shall find that he always believed the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and that of Concomitance and the reading of Wickliff's Works for whom he had an extraordinary kindness calling him always Evangelical Doctor could never make him alter his mind nor work upon his spirit the same effects which it wrought upon the Taborites In fine in his Treatise Of the Blood of Jesus Christ against the false Apparisions of it which at that time was frequently published in all parts he said Tom. 1. fol. 155 That the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ is in the Sacrament truly and really after what manner soever it ought to be here below in the Church that is to say as appears by the scope of the whole Discourse invisibly and not visibly as the Autors of these miraculous Apparations would have it be believed And in the same Treatise Ibid. he accuseth of Incredulity those which believed not what he said of the presence of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament He supposed Ibid. That Accidents do subsist without their subject in the Sacrament confesseth that there is no contradiction in saying That the Body of Jesus Christ is here sacramentally Ibid. p. 156. Ibid. p. 158. Ibid. fol. 161. and at the same time in Heaven locally He affirms for truth that his Blood is truly and really in the Sacramen confesseth That Jesus Christ is hidden in the Sacrament And amongst many Inconveniences which he fears these feigned Apparitions of the Blood of Christ might produce Ibid. fol. 162. he puts this down as the fifth That it may be there are some which question whether the Blood of Jesus Christ be in the venerable Sacrament because it doth not visibly appear unto them And a little after he saith That we adore the Body and Blood of of Jesus Christ which is at the right hand of his Father and in the venerable Sacrament made by the Priests The same man writeth in his Treatise of the Body of Jesus Christ Id. t. 1. fol. 164. That the Doctrine of Berengarius is a great Heresie He receiveth for a true testimony of St. Austin's a passage of Lanfranc a sworn Enemy of Berengarius which the Canonist Gratian cites in his Decree under the name of St. Austin In a word in this little Treatise he embraceth and follows all that the Latins believe of the Sacrament of the Altar And that it should not be imagined that he changed his Opinion it is to be observed that amongst several little Treatises which he composed during his Imprisonment at Constance Cap. 2. p. 32. t. 1 there is one Of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ written Anno 1415. wherein he teacheth the same Doctrine Ibid. declaring moreover That all that the Church of Rome believes of the venerable Sacrament ought to be believed That he had preached this Doctrine from the beginning unto that day And in fine Ibid. fol. 49. Ibid. fol. 40. c. 3 That he believed Transubstantiation And saith he I never taught that the substance of material Bread remained in the Sacrament of the Altar He adds a little after That the Body and Blood of our Saviour remains in the Sacrament as long as the Species of Bread and Wine do subsist In another little Treatise wherein he examines whether Lay-persons should receive under both kinds he lays it down for a truth That the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ is under both species of the Sacrament that is to say that he is entirely under the species of Bread and entirely under that of Wine He that writ the History of John Hus particularly the conflicts he was to suffer at
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