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
Jesus Christ cannot be in the Sacrament as dead but Typically and Mystically because he really dies no more But because our Saviour said after having distributed the Cup to the Disciples I will drink no more of this Fruit of the Vine until the Day that I shall drink it new with you in my Father's Kingdom I find the holy Fathers have taken notice of this Circumstance seâ—ing they have been pleased to declare unto us that Jesus Christ did call that the Fruit of the Vine that is Wine which he drank or gave unto his Disciples to drink in the Celebration of this divine Mystery This is as I conceive what Clement of Alexandria would intimate in these Words Clem. Alex. Paedag. l 2. c. 2. That what the Lord had blessed was Wine he would declare himself in saying to his Disciples I will drink no more of this Fruit of the Vine until I drink it with you in the Kingdom of my Father Origen in all likelihood had no other meaning when he observed Origen Hom. 7. in â—evit that Jesus Christ gave unto his Disciples Wine which he called the Production of the Vine and in as much as that he would not drink himself at the Celebration of the Sacrament it was that being ready to offer the Sacrifice of his Body he thought fit to shew in his Person the accomplishment of the Type and Figure which had gone before in Aaron and the High-Priest under the Law who were forbidden drinking Wine when they were to draw near the Altar to sacrifice The Poet Juvencus may also be here admitted if the Passage which might be alledged of his were in its purity and had received no alteration but because in all appearance it hath been altered I 'll pass it over in silence that no body may have cause of Exception and instead of Juvencus I 'll produce St. Athanasius which saith Athan. in Synops That when the Lord gave the Mystery or the Sacrament he said I will drink no more of this Vine And St. Hilary Hilar. in Mat. cap. 30. That having taken the Cup and broke the Bread they drank the Fruit of this Vine And this is the reason wherefore St. Basil to prove Basil lib. 2. contr Eâ—nem that we call the Product of the Earth Fruit and not Children thus alledges the Words of our Lord I will no more drink of the Fruit of the Vine that is to say of the Production of the Vine St. Epiphanius disputing against the Encratian Hereticks or the Hydroparastarians who used only Water in the celebration of the Eucharist and for that reason were called Hydroparastites or Aquarians refutes them by the Words of our Saviour saying Epiphan haeres 47. Their Sacraments are no Sacraments but they counterfeit them in imitation of the true therefore they shall therein be condemned by the Words of our Saviour which said I will not drink of the Fruit of the Vine St. Chrysostom observes something of the same Nature when he assures That Jesus Christ Chrysost hom 83. in Math. to pluck up by the Roots this pernicious Heresy and to shew us that when he distributed the Mysteries he gave Wine he said expresly of the Fruit of the Vine for the Vine saith he doth not produce Water but Wine Gennad lib. 1. Dogm Eccles cap 75. And Gennadius Priest of Marsellis blaming those which under a pretext of Sobriety used Water instead of Wine in the celebration of the Sacrament refutes them by this reason That there was Wine in the Mystery of our Redemption and he proves it by these Words of Jesus Christ From henceforth I will not drink of the Fruit of the Vine Amalarius Florus and Christian Druthmer spake no otherwise in the IXth Century but because we will not change the method prescribed we will at this time wave their Testimonies and the proof of this antient Tradition by the Testimony of several Witnesses which have been famous in the Church as St. Justin Martyr St. Irenaeus Tertullian and many others altho Chiliasts and Millenarians For St. Jerome informs us that to prove that our Lord should drink Wine during the Reign of a 1000 years which they believed he was to reign upon the Earth they made use of these Words of our Saviour Apud Hieron Ep. ad Hedib q. 2. I say unto you I will no more drink of the Fruit of the Vine until I drink it new with you in my Fathers Kingdom from this place saith St. Jerome some dream of the Fable of a 1000 years during which they argue Jesus Christ shall reign corporally and that he will drink Wine whereof he drank not from that time until the end of the World What St. Jerome dislikes in them is the reign of a 1000 years during which they imagined that Christ should drink Wine upon Earth whereof he had not tasted any from the moment which he drank in the celebration of the Sacrament and whereof he was not to drink until this pretended Reign of a 1000 years The first thing to be considered in a Discourse is the Scope and Design of him that speaks because 't is the Mind that sets the Tongue a going and that 't is with regard to his Intention when he hath discoursed of a Matter the Expressions made use of must be considered for representing his Thoughts without this we must needs stray or at least fall into one of these Inconveniencies either not to comprehend the Sense of what is read or to impute unto him that speaks things which are strange or even sometimes unjust and unreasonable For Example Jesus Christ commands us in the Gospel to imitate the Wisdom of the unjust Steward which had wickedly wasted the Goods committed by his Lord unto his Trust this Precept to consider it barely and litterally is very wide of the Mark which our Saviour intends contains a wicked Practice and quite different from that which he teacheth us in his Gospel which being pure and holy infinitely surpasseth what is best and most commendable in the Heathen Morals But if we consider his Scope and Intention there is nothing in this Precept which is not worthy the School of Christ What he requires of us is not to imitate the ill-dealing of this unjust Steward which wasted his Master's Goods he only would have us imitate his Wisdom in making Friends when he saw his Stewardship was like to be taken from him that is to say that we also should make good use of those Goods which he is pleased to bestow on us and whereof he makes us Stewards that we should employ them to the relief of the Poor that by means of our Alms-deeds and Charity we should make our selves Friends which may contribute unto the saving our Souls by the Prayers which they make unto God for us Nothing can be more reasonable than this Rule which St. Chrysostom lays down Chrysost Hom. in haec verba Pater si fieri
Adversary without at the same time giving mortal blows to the Eucharist of Orthodox Christians of his time if it had been the same with that of the Latins But because those which know the rare Genius of Tertullian will never accuse him of so great Imprudence it must of necessity be concluded that the belief of the Church of his time upon the point of the Sacrament was quite contrary unto that of the Latin Church they think one cannot chuse but make this conclusion which I leave unto the Reader 's Liberty And from this Dispute of Tertullian against Marcion I proceed unto that which the ancient Church had against the Encratites which detesting Wine as a Diabolical thing and sinful to be used did celebrate the Mysteries with bare Water What have the Holy Fathers said unto them how have they refuted this Heresy have they said unto them that our Saviour having employed Wine to the matter of this Sacrament bare Water cannot be converted into the Blood of Jesus Christ have they further said to them that the aversion they had against Wine should not hinder them from using it in the celebration of the Eucharist because though it were Wine before Consecration yet it was not after the substance of it being changed by the vertue of Consecration into the substance of the real Blood of Jesus Christ and that so 't is no longer Wine which we drink but the real Blood of the Saviour of the World they have said nothing of all this unto them but then what have they said unto them they have constantly represented that Jesus Christ Offered Wine which be gave and drank thereof Which they prove by these Words I will no more drink of this Fruit of the Vine until the day I drink it new in my Fathers Kingdom It is in this manner that Clemens of Alexandria St. Epiphanius and St. Chrysostom argued against these Hereticks as hath been shewn in the second Chapter of the first part But it is enough spoken to this matter it is time to conclude this Chapter and by the same means I will conclude the Proofs drawn from the Disputes of the. Holy Fathers against Hereticks by the consideration of what passed betwixt them and the Eutychians The Heresy of the Eutychians following the same Track of the most part of others sought out Artifices and Invention the easier to insinuate it self into the Minds of Men thereby to make the greater Progress For although for the most part they declared there was two Natures in Jesus Christ but that at the instant of his being received up into the Heavenly Glory the Human Nature was changed into the Nature or Substance of the Divine Nature yet nevertheless I conceive to speak truly their Heresy was not much different in this point from the Heresy of Marcion and his Companions which formerly denied the Truth of Christ's Human Nature and only attributed unto him a Shew and Appearance And what makes me think so is that the ancient Doctors of the Church do testify that Eutyches did teach that Jesus Christ took nothing of the substance of the Holy Virgin but having brought I know not what Body of his own from his Heavenly Father he only passed through the Womb of the Blessed Virgin as through a Channel I will not insist upon alledging all the Passages of the Fathers which mention this it shall suffice to instance in some few Feriand Diacon ad Anato He would not confess saith the Deacon Ferrand that the Son was consubstantial with his Mother for he denied that the Holy Virgin had communicated unto the only Son of God which was to be born of her by the vertue of the Holy Ghost the substance of his Flesh And Vigilius an African saith Diac. Vigil adv Eutych l. 3. c. 3. alibi that he assured the Word was so made Flesh that it only passed through the Womb of the Virgin as Water passeth through a Conduit but that he did not believe that he took any thing of her which was of the Nature of our Flesh And Theodoret treating historically of this Heresy which he so learnedly hath refuted in his Writings Theod. haeret Fabul l. 4. 13. p. 246. t. 4. Eutyches saith he taught that God the Word took nothing of the Human Nature of the Virgin Mary but that he was steadily changed and made Flesh I use his ridiculous Expressions that he only passed through the Body of the Virgin and that it was the incomprehensible Divinity of the only Son of God which had been crucified buried and raised from the Dead Therefore the Count Marcellin said in his History Ma cell Cem. in Chronol Theodoret Bishop of Cyr wrote of the Incarnation of Christ against the Priest Eutyches and against Dioscorus Bishop of Alexandria which asserted that Jesus Christ had not Human Flesh St. Prosper also observes in his Prosp in Chronol ad Consul Astur Protog that this Arch Heretick said That Jesus Christ our Lord Son of the Blessed Virgin partaked not of the substance of his Mother but that in the likeness of Man he had only the Nature of the Son of God This as I conceive is the exact Opinion of the Eutychians conformable in this point with Marcion therefore I find that the Holy Fathers which disputed against them have employed the Sacrament against them in the same sence and the same manner as those which preceded them had done against the Marcionites I mean that they proved by this Sacrament the truth of the Body of Jesus Christ as commonly the truth of a thing is proved by its Image Theod. dial 2. p. 84. t. 4. and by its Picture An Image say they must of necessity have its Original for Painters do imitate Nature and delineate things which they do see if then the Divine Mysteries are the Figures or Anti-types of a true Body it follows that our Saviour hath now a Body not changed into the Nature of the Divinity but filled with the Divine Glory It is the reasoning of Theodoret in his second Dialogue which he repeats again in two other places I cannot comprehend saith the Protestant the meaning of this ancient Doctor if the Doctrine of the real Conversion at that time was an Article of Faith in the Church wherefore to alledg the Sacrament as an Image and a Figure to prove the verity of the Body of Christ if it were really and truly the very Body it self I cannot understand this Difficulty but in freely confessing that Christians at that time did not know nor believe this real Conversion whence it was that Theodoret did argue against the Eutychians just as Tertullian had done before against the Marcionites The Evidence of this Truth will yet better appear if it be considered that there was an universal Peace amongst the Orthodox and the Eutychians touching the Sacrament of the Eucharist which Peace had been incompatible with the belief of the substantial Conversion which the
he plainly shewed his own self in saying unto his Disciples I will no more drink of this Fruit of the Vine until I drink it with you in my Father's Kingdom St. Cyprian said the same for having repeated these same Words of our Saviour he saith s Cypr. ep 63. That we find that what our Saviour offered was a Cup mingled with Water and that what he said to be his Blood was Wine Nothing can be seen more formal to this purpose than what is read in t Aug. ad Infan apud Fulg. de Bapt. Aet c. ult Theod. Dial. 1. Prosp de promis praed part 1. c. 2. Facund l. 9. c. ult St. Austin's Sermon unto the new Baptized related intirely by St. Fulgentius where speaking unto them of the Sacrament which they saw upon the holy Table What you have seen saith he is Bread and a Cup as your Eyes do testify Theodoret who was present at the Council of Calcedon The Lord saith he in distributing the Mysteries did call the Bread his Body and the Wine his Blood We may also say the same thing of the counterfeit Prosper which saith That the Lord did declare at his Table that the consecrated Bread was his sacred Body Of Facundus which saith The Lord himself called the Bread which he had blessed and the Cup which he gave his Disciples his Body and his Blood And in fine of Maxentius a Religious Person and afterwards Priest of the Church of Antioch in whose Dialogues we read That the Bread whereof the Universal Church doth participate Maxent cont Nest dial 2. in remembrance of the Death of our Lord is his Body But this is not yet all they have to say unto us there is found in their excellent Works several other things which lead us as it were by the hand unto the Knowledg of what we search for In the first place they declare our Bodies are nourished with what we receive at the Lord's Table as Justin Martyr who speaks of the Eucharist Just Mart. Apol. 2. Iren. l. 4 c. 34. l. 5. c. 2. Aug. serm 9. de divers Isid Hispal apud Bertram de Corp. Sang. Dom. Ibid. as of a Food wherewith our Flesh and Blood are nourished by Transmutation St. Irenaeus doth depose that our Flesh is fed with it that our Blood our Body and Flesh are nourished increased and do subsist by it St. Austin saith that it is Bread which fills the Belly St. Isidore Arch-bishop of Sevill that the Substance of this visible Bread doth nourish the outward Man and satisfies it Or as Ratran who hath transferr'd to us his Words not any more to be found in Isidore's Works now printed that all that is outwardly received in the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Lord is fit to feed the Body The Fathers of the sixteenth Council of Toledo in the Year 693 Conc. Tolet. 16. c. 6. speak of the Remainders of the Sacrament as of a thing that a quantity of it may incommode the Stomach That was also the Belief of Raban Arch bishop of Mayence in the ninth Century and of the Taborites in Bohemia in the fifteenth as shall be demonstrated in time and place convenient Secondly there are some of them that positively affirm that what is distributed at the holy Table is Bread the Matter whereof after we have taken and eat it doth pass by the common way of our ordinary Food Origen teacheth so in plain terms when expounding these Words of the 15th Chap. of St. Mathew Origen in Math. 15. That it is not what entreth into the Mouth defileth the Man he saith If what enters in the Mouth goes into the Belly and is cast into the Draft the Meat which is sanctified by the Word of God and Prayer goeth also into the Belly according to the gross part of it and afterwards into the Draft but by reason of Prayer made over it it is profitable according to the proportion of Faith and is the cause that the Understanding is enlightned and attentive unto what is profitable and 't is not the Substance of Bread but the Word pronounced upon it which is profitable unto him that eateth it not in a way unworthy of the Lord. This Doctrine was also taught in the ninth Century by Raban Arch-bishop of Mayence and by Heribold Arch-bishop of Auxerre and I think I lately hinted that Amalarius Fortunatus who liv'd in the same Century was of this Judgment which shall be examined when we come to inquire into the Belief of the ninth Century Father Cellot the Jesuit attributes the same Doctrine unto the Greeks Append. Miscel op 7. p. 564 It is true this Doctrine was not the Opinion of all the antient Fathers of the Church therefore I said at the beginning of this Observation that there were some of them that did believe so in effect St. Cyril of Jerusalem saith Cyril Hieros Mystag 5. That the Bread of the Sacrament doth not go into the Belly and is not cast out into the Draft but that it is disperst throughout the Substance of the Communicant for the good of his Body and Soul The Author of the Homily of the Eucharist for the Dedication in St. Chrysostom's Works saith almost the same with St. Cyril Serm. de Euchar in Encoen apud Chrysost t. 5. pa. 596. Take no heed that it is Bread think not that it is Wine for they are not cast out as other Meat God forbid you should once think so for as when Wax is cast into the Fire nothing of its Substance doth remain or there remains no superfluity or it leaves not behind it neither soot nor cinders in like manner here imagine that the Mysteries are consumed with the Substance of the Body We may add John Damascen unto these two Authors Damasc l. 4. Orthodox fid cap. 14. who speaks thus The Shew-bread did represent this Bread and it is this pure Oblation and without Blood which the Lord fore-told by the Prophet which should be offer'd unto him from the East unto the West to wit the Body and Blood of Christ which should pass into the Substance of our Soul and Body without being consumed without being corrupted or passing into the Draft O God forbid but passing into our Substance for our Preservation These three Testimonies as every one doth see differ from Origen which indeed was also the Opinion of Raban Heribold and Amalarius but if they were not of the Opinion of Origen they were of that of St. Justin Martyr Irenaeus St. Austin St. Isidore of Sevil of the sixteenth Council of Toledo Ratran and others I mean that if they believed not with Origen that the Bread of the Eucharist as to its material Substance was subject unto the shameful necessity of other common Food they believed with the others that it turned it self into our Substance that our Bodies were nourished by it and that they were increased and strengthned by it and so
Ibid. p. 362. A. And upon this also I will no more drink of this fruit af the Vine until the day I drink it new with you in my Father's Kingdom After that time of Supper saith he he drank no Wine until he became immortal and incorruptible after his Resurrection This is the Explication Protestants give unto the words of Druthmar Hitherto we have spoken of Writers of the IX Century out of whom it is accustomed to produce Testimonies to prove that they opposed the Doctrine of Paschas Radbert excepting Heribold unto whom we reserve a Chapter apart But besides these Witnesses which have deposed there be some others whose Testimonies may conduce to the clearing the Subject we treat of therefore we will make no difficulty to receive their Depositions beginning with Ahyto Ahyto Bishop of Basle was so famous for his Holiness of Life for the Light of his Doctrine and for his Wisdom in managing great and important Affairs that Charlemain had a very particular kindness and esteem for him whereupon in the Year 811. he sent him Ambassador unto Constantinople to treat of Peace with the Eastern Emperor as the Annals of France Eginhard Author of the Life of Charlemain the Annals of Fulda Herman Contract and others do testifie This Ahyto who departed this Life Anno 836. left a Capitulary for the Instruction of the Priests of his Diocess which Dom Luke d'Achery caused to be printed three or four years since the Copy of it being sent him from Rome and taken from a Manuscript of the Library of Cardinal Francis Barbarini The same d'Achery observing also that it is to be found in the Manuscript Copies of the Vatican Library Now amongst many other Instructions which he gives unto his Priests in this Capitulary this is to be read Anyco apud Dom. Luc. d'Acher Spicileg t. 6. p. 692. In the fifth place the Priests ought to know what the Sacrament of Baptism and of Confirmation is and what the Mystery of the Body and Blood of our Lord is how a visible Creature is seen in the same Mysteries and nevertheless invisible Salvation is there communicated for the Salvation of the Soul the which is contained in Faith only Ahito speaketh of Baptism and of the Eucharist He distinguisheth in the one and the other the Sign and the thing signified and lays it down for certain that in both of them alike there is a visible Creature without making any distinction betwixt the Creature that is seen in the Eucharist and that which is seen in Baptism it must needs be then of necessity That as by the Creature which is seen in Baptism he understands the substance of Water and Chrism so also by that which is seen in the Eucharist he understands the substance of Bread and Wine and because Baptism and the Eucharist are two Sacraments of the New Testaments Instituted by one Lord Jesus Christ and appointed to render us partakers of his Grace Ahyto attributes unto them both the same effect viz. the Communication of Eternal and Invisible Salvation unto those which receive both the one and the other of these Sacraments with Faith No other sense can be given unto the words of this Bishop neither can it be avoided by consequence to conclude but that his Doctrine was directly contrary unto that of Paschas Unto this Bishop of Basil I will joyn another of Orleans Theodulphu-Aurelian ad Magn. Senon de ordine Baptis c. 18. I mean Theodolph who in the year 817. was of the Conspiration of Bernard King of Italy against the Emperor Lewis the Debonair and who speaks thus in his Treatise of the Order of Baptism There is a saving sacrifice which Melchisedek King of Salem offered under the Old Testament in Figure of the Body and Blood of our Lord and which the Mediator of God and Man hath accomplished under the New before he was delivered up when he took the Bread and the Wine blessing them and distributing then unto his Disciples he commanded them to do those things in remembrance of him it is then this mystical sacrifice which the Church celebrates having left and put an end unto the Ancient Sacrifices offering Bread because of the Bread of Life that came down from Heaven and Wine because of him that said I am the true Vine to the end that by the Priest's visible offering and by the invisible Consecration of the Holy Ghost the Bread and Wine should pass into the dignity of the Body and Blood of our Lord in which Blood Water is mingled either because Water flowed out of the side of Christ with the Blood or that because according to the interpretation of the Ancients as Jesus Christ is figured by the Wine so the People is figured by the Water This Prelate intimates that Jesus Christ accomplished under the Gospel the Sacrifice of Melchisedek which was a Sacrifice of Bread and Wine which he demonstrates by the act of our Saviour who instituting the Sacrament of the Eucharist took Bread and Wine and having blessed them gave them them unto his Disciples with order to commemorate him in the Celebration of this Mystery He declares it is the Sacrifice which the Church celebrates offering Bread and Wine That the Wine in the Cup signifies Jesus Christ as the Water doth the People And that in fine all that befalls the Bread and Wine by Consecration is that they pass he doth not say into the substance of the Body and Blood of our Saviour which he must needs have said if he had believed the real Presence but he saith they pass into the Dignity of his Body and Blood because indeed we should consider them as his Body and Blood for they be in the room and are invested with the Dignity of his Person and accompanied in their lawful use with the vertue and efficacy of his Body broken and of his Blood poured forth According to which he orders in his Capitulary Every Lords day to receive during Lent time the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Id. in capitulari c. 41.44 and prescribes the dispositions with which one should approach unto so great a Sacrament Thus it is that several do understand this passage of Theodolph After the testimony of two Bishops we are obliged to mention an Archbishop of Lyons who lived in the same Century and who in the year 834. was of the number of the Prelates which joyning with the Children against the Father deprived Lewis the Debonair of Crown and Scepter it is easie to perceive that I mean Agobard who undoubtedly was one of the most Learned Bishops of his time and whose Writings as I conceive have more of light and vigour and although he hath not said very much of the Eucharist yet we will nevertheless judge of his belief upon this Article both by his words and by his silence The better to understand of what import his silence is 't is to be observed that Amalarius of whom we